2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 14, Number 14

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

Power production facility in Gold River

R. Visser

Telephone counselling service for abused youth

S. Orr

Asian Heritage Month

R. Lee

Oral Questions

Privatization of B.C. Rail

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

Committee report on labour relations issues

H. Bloy

Hon. G. Bruce

SARS and safety of blood supply

T. Bhullar

Hon. C. Hansen

Drug costs and Pharmacare program

R. Sultan

Hon. C. Hansen

Transfer of Riverview Hospital resident

J. MacPhail

Hon. C. Hansen

Crown prosecution policy in spousal abuse cases

S. Orr

Hon. L. Stephens

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations

(continued)

L. Mayencourt

Hon. G. Plant

T. Christensen

Second Reading of Bills

Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Bill 31)

Hon. G. Plant

Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (Bill 32)

Hon. G. Plant

[ Page 6427 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 1, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Plant: I am delighted to introduce to this assembly this afternoon two

senior law advisers from the office of the Premier of Eastern Cape province in

South Africa. Mr. Joseph Lukwago-Mugerwa, who is the chief state law adviser,

and Mr. Msingathi Mlisana, who is the principal state law adviser, are here for

a two-week study visit.

[1405]

In 1996

Eastern Cape province and British Columbia signed an agreement on cooperation in

governments. Under the aegis of the Canada–South Africa provincial twinning

project, study and work exchanges are funded by the Canadian International

Development Agency and administered by the Institute of Public Administration of

Canada. This partnership has been an enriching experience for both provinces.

In the next

two weeks our guests will study best practices and share innovative solutions in

the development of legislation. They will observe the roles and structure of

cabinet operations and the legal services branch in the preparation of

legislation and the delivery of legal advisory service to government.

I hope all

members will join me in welcoming to this House and to British Columbia our very

distinguished guests from the Eastern Cape province and wish them a very

productive and enjoyable stay.

Hon. G.

Campbell: I'm pleased to introduce today members of the B.C. and Yukon

Community Newspapers Association. First, we have some representatives from the

association board. Brian McCristall is the board president from the Tri-City

News . Let's hear it for Brian. Peter Kvarnstrom is the past president from

Madison Publishing. Joyce Carlson is here from the Powell River Peak .

Tony Richards is here from the Gulf Islands Driftwood , Derrick

Chamberlain is representing the VanNet members papers, Rick O'Connor is from the

Metro Valley Newspaper Group. David Black is also with us here today in the

Legislature. As well, they brought with them some of their staff members: Elena

Dunn, George Affleck and Trena White.

We all know

how important our community newspapers are in this province in informing the

public and letting them know about what's taking place and providing them with

critical information. I hope the House will make all of these representatives of

the B.C. and Yukon Community Newspapers Association welcome.

S. Orr:

The member for Delta South and I, just about 20 minutes ago, stumbled across an

absolutely wonderful group of people that were visiting here today. There are

about 54 of them. Most of them are high school students, grades 10 to 12, and

they've travelled all the way here from Ardrossan Junior Senior High School in

Ardrossan, Alberta, where they say they've left frigid temperatures. They're

sitting outside playing beautiful music to our flowers. We were very, very

pleased to come across them. They are travelling here with their music director,

Dr. James Montgomery. I think some of them may even be in here, so I would

really like the House to make them very welcome.

R. Masi:

It's my pleasure today to introduce Laurae McNally to the House. Laurae is a

longtime serving school trustee from Surrey and a very good friend of the

students, teachers and school administrators in Surrey. I might add that on the

weekend Laurae was honoured by the B.C. School Trustees Association for 18

years' service as a trustee at their convention in Kamloops. Would the House

please make Laurae welcome.

Hawes: I have a copy of a proclamation signed by the Lieutenant-Governor and

witnessed by the Attorney General that proclaims May as Hepatitis C Awareness

Month, and today, May 1, is Hepatitis C Awareness Day. Hepatitis C is a

preventable disease that causes huge anguish to its victims and a huge expense

to the health care system. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who would work to

both increase awareness and advocate on behalf of its victims.

Today in

the gallery we have Marjorie Harris, president of HepCURE B.C., and her daughter

Heather Harris; Bill Buckels, vice-president of HepCURE B.C.; Joan King,

president of HepCBC; and Dr. David Mazoff, editor of HCV Advocate . Could

the House please make them welcome.

[1410]

H. Long:

Today in the House I have three people I'd like to introduce. The first I'd like

to introduce is the LA to four members here in the Legislature, Spencer Sproule;

secondly, Allison Nassichuk, a young lady from Powell River who now lives in

Victoria and I think is going to university here; and thirdly, Carolyn Butula,

who comes from Powell River. We have a few things in common, Carolyn and I.

First off, she's 18, going to be 19 in the next few days. The common thing is

that we both went through air cadets — at different times in our lives, of

course — both receiving our wings while we were in air cadets. As well,

Carolyn also sits on the committee for the municipal council in Powell River —

one of the youngest in the province at 18 years old to sit on committee for a

municipal government. She has a lot to give to our community and has been a real

leader in the air cadets so far. The only difference between us is 45 years

between our licences. I want you to welcome them all here today.

MacPhail: Thank you, and it would be interesting to know what the height

comparisons are.

It gives me

great pleasure to welcome back to the Legislature one of our previous staff in

the caucus, Sarah Hilbert-West, who was our caucus research director. She left

us to have Hannah Hilbert-West, who is

[ Page 6428 ]

a bouncing three months, and both of them are joining us here today. Would

the House please welcome them.

Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 very energetic grade 5

students visiting from Pacific Academy school in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead.

Joining them is their teacher, Mr. Rick Bath, as well as many parent volunteers

who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany them and help them

here. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Roddick: Just to complement my colleague from Victoria-Hillside, this

wonderful band is now in the House — from half an hour north of Edmonton —

so would the House please make them welcome.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you, and it's nice to see the member for Surrey-Whalley back

with us today.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) POWER PRODUCTION FACILITY

IN GOLD RIVER

Visser: Almost two years ago this government was elected to return a sense

of hope and opportunity to the people of this province, and that, by any

measure, has been no small task. But yesterday another step in brightening our

future has been taken, and while it may seem small in the context of the

province, I can assure you there's one town on northern Vancouver Island that

feels a sense of hope and opportunity in a way they could not have imagined five

months ago.

I do not

need to tell anybody in this House about the difficulties faced by Gold River,

but yesterday the Premier, government members, Mayor Dave Lewis, council, Chief

Maquinna and elders, councillors and other community leaders were invited to

meet the principals of Green Island Energy and be introduced to their project

— a project where they intend to transform the Bowater pulp mill site into a

biomass-fuelled independent power production facility, with the first phase

starting this summer and growing over the next few years to 250 megawatts.

This is a

good-news story about a small, resilient town on the west coast of this nation

whose people have never given up. It's about a government who's created an

investment climate that embraces entrepreneurialism in the energy field and

allows people to build a sustainable future in the heartlands of B.C.

[1415]

It's about

some investors who are global in their scope, in their reach and, most

importantly, in their thinking. They have chosen British Columbia and Gold River

because it's a place where opportunity now exists. I want to thank those folks

— David Kingston Industrials from Idaho Falls, Idaho; Jewel, one of the

world's most popular singer-songwriters; her mother, Lenedra Carroll; and the

other investors from B.C. and the United States. I want to thank them for seeing

the future in Gold River, but most importantly, for seeing that hope and

opportunity are alive and well in British Columbia again.

TELEPHONE COUNSELLING SERVICE

FOR ABUSED YOUTH

S. Orr:

Something very important is happening this Sunday — that's May 9 — and it

starts at 9 in the morning. It's actually starting at the Canadian Forces Base

in Esquimalt. It's the Bell Walk for Kids.

This

pledge-driven event raises money for the Kids' Help Phone. The Kids' Help Phone

is Canada's only national, bilingual, 24-hour toll-free service. It's a

confidential, anonymous phone counselling service for troubled and abused

children and youth.

Some

believe that child abuse only exists in the fringes of our society, and this is

absolutely not true. They come from all walks of life. These poor kids, who are

both emotionally and physically abused, go through hell every day, and their

cycles of abuse are fuelled by silence. Thanks to the Kids' Help Phone, that

silence can be broken. The Kids' Help Phone line answers approximately 1,000

calls and on-line questions every day. Kids call for all the reasons that we, as

responsible adults, worry about for them: physical, sexual and emotional abuse,

loneliness, depression, school-related problems, family pregnancy, health,

sexuality, alcohol and substance abuse, separation, divorce issues and — worst

of all — suicide.

The Kids'

Help Phone service is a great example of a public-private partnership funded

almost entirely by corporate sponsors and corporate individuals. It receives no

core funding from government or the United Way. The Bell Walk for Kids is

happening because of dedicated volunteers like Laura Muise and Rob Dennison. For

all the kids they are helping and our community, I want to thank them for all

their hard work.

ASIAN HERITAGE MONTH

R. Lee:

As we enter the month of May, I rise today to mark an important occasion, the

beginning of Asian Heritage Month. This is the month for us to recognize and

celebrate the long and rich history of Asian Canadians and their contributions

to British Columbia as well as to Canada as a whole.

Since the

inaugural Asian Heritage Month celebration in Toronto in 1993, cities across

Canada, including Vancouver, have been holding annual festivals during the month

of May to recognize Asian heritage in Canada. In December 2001, the month of May

was officially designated Asian Heritage Month after Senator Vivienne Poy

introduced a motion in the Canadian Senate in May 2001.

Asians came

Canadians, from our Chinese railroad workers to our Japanese fishermen to

today's Asian Canadians working in different professions, contributed to

Canada's economic, social

[ Page 6429 ]

and cultural development. I'm extremely pleased to see we have this

opportunity to celebrate the beauty and wisdom of various Asian cultures through

many exciting ExplorASIAN 2003 arts and culture events held during Asian

Heritage Month in Vancouver.

As we

celebrate Asian Heritage Month, let's remind ourselves that we can only benefit

fully from our rich heritage if we can respect one another's culture and learn

from our differences.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF B.C. RAIL

MacPhail: The opposition has come into possession of an internal Ministry of

Transportation memo which discusses the implication of what it calls the BCR

initiative. The memo raises a number of interesting points about the impending

transfer of B.C. Rail to the private sector.

First, the

memo clearly states — in fact, it asserts — that any prospective private

sector operator will be abandoning existing rail lines. Now, nowhere in the

Premier's constantly changing position on B.C. Rail has there been any such

acknowledgment. In fact, British Columbians who actually believe the Premier's

promise to not sell B.C. Rail now deserve to know the government's real plans

about abandoning northern communities.

Rather than

British Columbians depending on further leaked documents, can the Minister of

Transportation tell this House today what lines actually will be abandoned in

her secret plan to sell off B.C. Rail?

[1420]

Hon. J.

Reid: In working through a process we've been very diligent about with

communities, part of that is developing an RFP that will bring confidence to the

process. There is legislation, federal legislation, that governs railways. Part

of that legislation discusses, among many topics, the topic the member raised.

It's our

responsibility to look at all the facets, all the different opportunities, and

make sure that through the consultation process we're engaged in, the

communities have the confidence moving forward that there is going to be an

integrated rail service, that there will be an excellent rail service, that

there will be a long-term rail service for the communities and industries of

British Columbia, because there will be renewed investment into those rail

services.

In that

consultation we have a mayors council meeting this coming Monday, and a shippers

council meeting this coming Tuesday. Just because these are technicalities that

exist in the federal legislation, we have to be aware of them. There is nothing

untoward about this.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: I'm not sure what the minister means about federal technicalities.

This leaked document is a very intensely, densely written document about the

privatization of B.C. Rail and the abandonment of rail lines. Despite the

minister's assurances that tearing up the tracks between North Vancouver and

Squamish is not on the table, her own ministry officials contemplate that the

new owner of B.C. Rail assets will abandon precisely that line.

Here it is.

Can the minister tell the House what British Columbians should believe — the

spin from the Premier's office that says nothing will change or the words of her

own officials, who say the polar opposite of what the Premier and this minister

are saying?

Hon. J.

Reid: We are being very careful, very diligent, in working through a

process. The decisions have not been made, because we are working in

consultation with communities, with shippers, on an RFP process, and this is a

transparent process. There is nothing wrong in having a discussion and making

sure that people have confidence in being able to discuss this.

There is an

example where coal used to be a huge portion of B.C. Rail's business. That is no

longer the case. We have to know how those things would be dealt with in the

future. That is part of a good business case, something I know this member is

not too aware of.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Maybe the minister herself isn't in the loop, because abandoning

rail lines isn't the only revelation of this government's real B.C. Rail policy

contained in this leaked document. The document also reveals that the government

anticipates receiving just $200 million for all of the assets of B.C. Rail. Now,

B.C. Rail made a profit of almost $77 million last fiscal year, confirmed by the

Minister of Finance, and it's projecting profits — projecting it's going to

make profits of $120 million over the next three years alone. So let's see what

the good business practice is. That's almost as much as the government will earn

from the proceeds of this fire sale as well as performing a public asset public

service.

Can the

minister explain why giving away a profitable company that benefits all

taxpayers to Liberal campaign backers is a better idea than maintaining a

profitable Crown corporation in public hands, like the Premier promised he

would?

Hon. J.

Reid: If this member was really looking at B.C. Rail and the challenges

facing the Crown corporation, she would realize and remember, from years

accumulated, that B.C. Rail is carrying half a billion dollars' worth of debt

right now. That puts a tremendous pressure on this railway, particularly for

infrastructure….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

[ Page 6430 ]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, hon. members. We will continue when we can hear the answer

to the question.

[1425]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to put questions to the

minister, let us at least have the courtesy of listening to the reply.

Hon. J.

Reid: When we consider the debt load of B.C. Rail and the necessity for

ongoing investment…. Investment into infrastructure is a huge part of a rail

business and a huge component of a successful railway in the future that will

provide transportation for the industries, which provides the lifeblood for

those communities. When we look at the entire picture, getting an operator that

will take this railway forward to greater investments, greater success and

long-term continuity is what's good for this province.

COMMITTEE REPORT ON

LABOUR RELATIONS ISSUES

H. Bloy:

My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. There were a

number of issues brought forward by stakeholders that were not addressed in last

year's Labour Relations Code Amendment Act. Under

section 3 of the act, the

minister appointed a committee that would provide individuals and groups with

the ability to bring concerns forward.

To the

Minister of Skills Development and Labour: can you tell me the status of this

committee and what the findings are?

Hon. G.

Bruce: The report will be released today. It's the first of the phase that

we're going through in reviewing those 14 issues which had been presented. Just

to remind the House, when we were working on code changes, the B.C. Federation

of Labour had asked that a certain number of these changes be looked at through

the eyes of a

section 3 committee, which is a committee of representatives that

would hear from other participants and the stakeholders and give their views as

to the changes that may or may not be necessary in making sure that there's

balance in our Labour Code.

Today, with

that report that's released…. It's well written, and I would encourage all

members to have a review of it. It gives a cross-view of what's taking place

throughout Canada and other jurisdictions. It provides for some discussion

relative to what the community had to say. From that, I'll be discussing it with

colleagues within the precincts and deciding whether or not further

recommendations or further issues ought to be put back to the

section 3

committee for recommendations.

SARS AND SAFETY OF BLOOD SUPPLY

Bhullar: The question is to the Minister of Health. Given the outbreak of

SARS, can he assure this House that the blood supply does not contain this

pathogen and that we not make the same mistake as we did with hep C and HIV?

Hon. C.

Hansen: There is absolutely no evidence that SARS can be transmitted through

the blood system. The reason for that is that it is an airborne transmission, as

we have seen. The science basically indicates there is virtually no likelihood

that it could adapt or mutate in a way that could put the blood supply at risk.

Just to be

on the safe side, the Canadian Blood Services has introduced new screening

measures so that anybody who has been in a SARS-infected area is actually

encouraged to hold back on their donation of blood until such time as they've

passed a 14-day period. So I am very confident that our blood system in Canada

continues to be one of the safest and the best in the world.

DRUG COSTS AND

PHARMACARE PROGRAM

Sultan: My question is to the Minister of Health Services also. Today the

Fair Pharmacare program comes into effect. It will go a long way to controlling

the escalating costs of the program while keeping it fair for all British

Columbians. Up to now, the Pharmacare costs have been going up about 14 percent

a year, doubling every five or six years. We all know that in the long run, that

rate of increase can't continue. So to the Minister of Health Services: what

other measures is the government taking to control these skyrocketing Pharmacare

costs to keep the program affordable for us and for future generations?

[1430]

Hon. C.

Hansen: In February when I announced the details of the new Fair Pharmacare

program, I indicated at that time that we were pursuing other measures, as well,

that would help us to make sure the Pharmacare system in British Columbia is

first of all fair to all British Columbians based on their ability to pay but,

in addition to that, that we bring in measures to keep costs down not just for

the Pharmacare budget but also for individual British Columbian families through

the portion that they pay for out of their family budgets.

We have

been looking at a range of options. There is one that we are announcing today.

As the member may know, there are three programs under Pharmacare. One is the

reference drug program. The other is the low-cost alternative program, and the

third one is the limited coverage drug program. Under the limited coverage drug

program, the most expensive category we have is called proton pump inhibitors,

where it has been rising at a rate of 25 percent a year in our costs to the

point where we now spend $35 million a year.

There is a

new medication that has come available, which is known as rabeprazole or also

known as Pariet,

[ Page 6431 ]

because that will be the more common name that consumers get used to. We have

agreed to make that particular product the first-line product for proton pump

inhibitors. The good news is that it is equally as effective as the other proton

pump inhibitors on the market, but it is a saving of about 40 percent. Over the

next three years alone, we will save the Pharmacare budget and the taxpayers of

British Columbia $42 million and a significant, if not equal, amount for what

families would be expected to pay out of their own pockets.

TRANSFER OF

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL RESIDENT

MacPhail: I have a question that's very time-sensitive. The Minister of

Health Services, the Minister for Long Term Care and the Minister of State for

Mental Health were informed of a very serious situation that is about to unfold

at Riverview Hospital. Two elderly patients who have lived together at Riverview

for most of their lives are scheduled to be separated very soon. They are

siblings. One of them is being transferred to Kamloops, where they will have no

outside support from family or friends. Their next of kin, Geraldine Mercer, is

desperate to stop this from happening and has written to the ministers to ask

them to take immediate action. This separation of family members is cruel, and

it must be investigated and stopped.

Will the

Minister of State for Long Term Care work with her colleagues today to commit to

investigate this serious matter and report back to this House before action is

taken to move an elderly brother and sister, who have lived together for the

better part of 40 years, to different facilities?

Hon. C.

Hansen: In the absence of the Minister of State for Mental Health, I have

been certainly briefed on this particular matter earlier today. It is my

understanding that the transfer has been delayed and that a review is being

undertaken on this matter.

CROWN PROSECUTION POLICY

IN SPOUSAL ABUSE CASES

S. Orr:

My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I understand that

there is a new policy in place addressing the choices that Crown counsel has

when dealing with spousal assault cases. Prior to this change, Crown counsel had

little flexibility when dealing with spouses that were being abused and could

offer no alternative solutions in the best interests of the victims.

Can the

minister explain how this new policy helps women who face spousal assault

situations?

Hon. L.

Stephens: I'm very pleased to support the Attorney General's new

initiatives. I believe that the new policy will do a much better job of keeping

women safe in situations of domestic violence. It's a change in prosecution

policy that's designed to help prosecutors do a better job. Our priority has

always been — and continues to be — the safety of women, holding abusers

accountable and finding justice responses appropriate to each case. Even though

we have a pro-charge policy, too many were resulting in a stay of proceedings.

Offenders were not being held to account, and women did not see justice being

done or feel they were being protected.

It's always

preferable to obtain a criminal conviction, but these policy changes allow for

alternative remedies that will increase protection for women. For example, Crown

counsel will now be able to consider the use of a

section 810 recognizance or

peace bond, where there is insufficient evidence to begin or continue a

prosecution. Some appropriate low-risk cases may be suitable for alternative

measures, which will provide a formal record of the incident sanction and/or an

opportunity for restorative justice intervention. If the offender does not

substantially complete the alternative measures program, he can be prosecuted

for the original offence.

[1435]

The new

policy places emphasis on victim safety and on finding justice responses

appropriate for each case.

[End

of question period.]

Introductions by Members

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to bring to your attention that starting

today, we have six new tour guides who will be working for the Legislative

Assembly for the summer months. For the first time in many years, the parliament

buildings will be open for the summer

schedule of seven days a week, including

statutory holidays, effective this May long weekend.

The tour

guides are post-secondary students who will welcome and provide tours to

thousands of visitors. In total, the tour office will be offering tours in

would like to introduce in the gallery today Andrew Kwasnica, Jean Lomas, Nicole

Boulet, Lianna Chu, Jennifer Ford and Celine Anderson. Would the House please

welcome them.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members,

we'll be debating the estimates of the Attorney General.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:38 p.m.

[ Page 6432 ]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY

RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

(continued)

On vote 11:

ministry operations, $379,990,000 ( continued ).

Mayencourt: I want to begin by sharing with the House that a few weeks back

I had the opportunity to be with the Attorney General for the opening of the

Human Rights Tribunal in my constituency of Vancouver-Burrard. It was a very

positive and upbeat event in which a lot of people who are committed to the

notion of providing human rights in our province, in an affordable and

accessible way, got together to celebrate the rebirth, if you will, of this new

entity.

[1440]

I want to

ask a few questions of the Attorney General about some of the issues that have

come up in the community. There has been a fair bit of controversy in my

community — which tends to have a lot of individuals from the gay and lesbian

community and multicultural communities — which has concerns about the new

human rights process and how that's going to be delivered in British Columbia

and how we will ensure that people have people advocating on behalf of them,

providing legal services and so on.

I wonder if

the Attorney General could please go through the new model for this House and

touch on the general setup of the Human Rights Tribunal and how they're going to

fulfil their mandate.

Hon. G.

Plant: I think we have put in place not only something that is new and

innovative but something that I think will become a role model for how we can

deal with human rights issues — essentially discrimination issues — in

Canada.

The new

model takes and responds to the evidence that we obtained over the course of a

year and more of work, study and consultation. It was a long process of asking

people what was working and what wasn't with the old model. We realized that we

had reached the point where the problems with the old model were not simply

problems of administration or fine-tuning; they were structural problems.

What we

decided to do was take apart a structure that had three different statutory

agencies. One of the agencies had three distinct statutory officers. It created

kind of a confusing welter of interlocking authorities and responsibilities.

We've essentially streamlined it into one — the Human Rights Tribunal.

The

tribunal has been the agency that adjudicated those complaints that were

referred to it by the old commission. What we've put in place now is a

direct-access model. For the first time in Canada, I think, people who believe

that they have been the victims of discrimination within the meaning of the

Human Rights Code of British Columbia can have direct access to a tribunal that

will be seized of the matter — a lawyer's expression, I guess — will take

the complaint and will deal with it in a way that ensures that it is dealt with

fairly, efficiently and effectively.

The

complaints will be filed with the tribunal. There will be staff in the tribunal

that will have the ability to help people who believe they have a complaint and

determine whether it is, in fact, a matter that belongs with the B.C. Human

Rights Tribunal. With the assistance of a clinic that is also established and

funded under this model, people will have the ability to move their issues

forward while the tribunal attempts to assist the parties to resolve their

disputes in whatever is the best way for an individual case.

For many

cases, I believe the best way to deal with a human rights issue is not through a

traditional litigation model, but rather it is to look for opportunities for

mediation, for other forms of dispute resolution. I think there's a significant

number of complaints that are properly described as human rights complaints,

which fundamentally can be dealt with by an apology, particularly if the apology

were offered sincerely and soon in the process.

What often

happens when traditional processes are used to resolve these kinds of issues is

that the parties get entrenched in their positions over time. The longer the

matter is left there, the harder it is to get them to a table where they can

discuss what the problem is and sort out how to fix it. What I'm hoping is that

the people who have responsibility for administering this new model will seize

the opportunity to achieve early resolution of those cases that can be resolved

in an early way — and ought to be resolved in an early way — that is fair

and effective and that actually helps heal a broken relationship or build a

constructive new relationship to minimize the risk that discrimination will

occur.

[1445]

There are,

of course, some cases that require adjudication, and the model that we've put in

place will ensure that those cases ultimately come before a tribunal officer to

be adjudicated. And there is funding there for legal aid to assist the people

who satisfy a means test to ensure that they get access to legal advice and

representation if they need it.

That's a

pretty high-level overview of something that we've certainly talked about at

some length in this chamber. The new model, I think, was up and running a few

weeks ago, and obviously everybody in British Columbia who is interested in and

committed to the cause of removing the scourge of discrimination from our

society will watch with interest as the tribunal takes up its new

responsibilities.

Mayencourt: I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if the minister

could please describe for this House…. He's mentioned that part of the

challenge he was facing with this particular entity was the structure of the

Human Rights Commission, the tribunal, etc. I wonder if he would please pick a

couple of provinces in Canada that have a similar structure to the one that we

have now adopted and if we could compare it to other jurisdictions. I'm not

exactly sure how they

[ Page 6433 ]

have broken out the three different responsibilities of our former system and

how they've managed that within those provinces. Could he speak to that, please?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, every province has, in some respects, its own system for

dealing with discrimination claims, and our system, before these legislative

changes that were enacted last year, was similar in some respects to some

jurisdictions and different.

The new

system that we have in place is a new model. As I said a minute ago, it is an

innovative model. There is no other model in Canada that is exactly like this.

That's why I think that other jurisdictions in Canada are going to be looking at

what we are doing to see if this actually will do a better job of providing the

victims of discrimination with access to a useful forum and tribunal for

resolving their disputes and also helping to encourage a climate in society that

recognizes that discrimination is wrong.

There has

been some talk about direct access models. I think there was a report done for

Canadian Human Rights Commission that included a recommendation about

implementing a direct access model. But really, we've done all that work. We did

all that work two years ago and a year ago. That work is past us.

extensively debated those issues when the legislation came forward last year,

and I think we also probably debated those issues to some extent in the

estimates debate last year. The argument about whether there is or is not a case

for change is over. It's history. We have changed the way we do things, and our

challenge and our opportunity now is to make this new system be the best that it

can possibly be.

Mayencourt: I'm not attempting to argue that over again. I think there was a

good debate on those items. I'm merely trying to highlight it for my community

and perhaps for other communities that have raised concerns about this.

With that

in mind, I just want to continue on in a couple of other areas. The Attorney

General has spoken a little bit about the other jurisdictions. This is a new

model. The key to it, I guess, is this direct access model, and I certainly do

support that. How do people in British Columbia find out about the direct

access? How do they encounter this as a private citizen that feels they have

been discriminated against? How are they to learn about that?

[1450]

Hon. G.

Plant: At one level and in simple terms, I suppose, all that has changed is

that instead of phoning or writing the Human Rights Commission, now they phone

or write the Human Rights Tribunal. We are working as government to develop some

tools to expand the ways in which people could learn that fact — that is, the

brochures and providing information to MLAs and government agents so that when

their constituents call with questions about these issues, the people in MLA

offices and government agent offices will know where to direct those folks who

have these issues.

The

tribunal itself will be doing work to make sure that its existence and its

responsibilities are well known across the province. There will be, I suppose,

other things that will be done and perhaps other things that could be done. But

really, we spent a lot of time, I think, trying to talk in public forums like

this one about these changes, and it's up and running.

The

tribunal's offices are in Vancouver, as the former commission's offices

primarily were, and I think there's a 1-800 number, which I don't have with me.

I think there's a way for pretty well everybody to contact the tribunal and

explain their circumstances and then find out if they've got an issue they

should be pursuing or not.

Mayencourt: As a matter of fact, one of the ways I felt we could provide

more information in my community is to get some training from the Human Rights

Tribunal. The tribunal is very close to my constituency office. It's less than

two blocks away, so we've taken that opportunity. Sometime next week we will

visit at the tribunal and have some greater introductions so that my CAs will

have the opportunity to inform our constituents who have concerns about it.

I just want

to ask a very simple question. It's the name. We've called it the Human Rights

Tribunal, and I am often stopped on the streets and asked why we don't have a

Human Rights Commission any longer. I think that in people's minds in our

community, the name was important. You know, we're doing our very best to find a

way to communicate to them that what we're talking about really is the services,

but I wonder about the name and why we chose Human Rights Tribunal as opposed to

Human Rights Commission.

Hon. G.

Plant: As the member knows, there has been a Human Rights Tribunal in

British Columbia for a number of years. It was one of the three statutory

agencies that used to exist. The commission no longer exists, although some of

its responsibilities have been moved to the tribunal. But there were some things

the commission did that were a significant part of its workload, which are not

being done anymore. The commission received complaints and then undertook

investigations of those complaints.

Our view is

that the process was part of the problem with protecting human rights in British

Columbia rather than part of the solution to protecting human rights. Our view

was that the institution which was the commission had for a number of reasons

simply broken, and it could not be fixed. What we have done is take the tribunal

with its central responsibilities around adjudication and expanded its functions

to ensure that it has the ability to use the widest possible array of dispute

resolution techniques to manage in the best possible way the cases that come in.

[1455]

The member

raises an interesting question. I suppose it's a variation on the age-old

question: what's in a

[ Page 6434 ]

name? What I can say about that is that I've been doing this just long enough

to realize that transition is difficult for everybody who is used to the status

quo in some way or another. The transition is difficult because it requires that

people learn new words, new names. It requires that people learn how to use new

institutions.

I think

these institutions we created here are better institutions than the ones that

existed before. I think the ones that existed before were not doing a good job.

I think that over time — it may be three weeks; it may be six months; it may

be two years, but sooner or later — people will stop asking the member why we

don't have a commission anymore, and they'll, with any luck, be stopping him on

the street and thanking him for having supported a restructuring that led to

this new tribunal.

Mayencourt: I share that hope, and I actually believe that is going to be

what does happen. So I thank the Attorney General for that.

The

Attorney General mentioned the clinic. In other words, an individual who feels

they've been discriminated against comes into the Human Rights Tribunal and has

access to a clinic, which, I suppose, is going to allow them to try and work

through the issues they need to work through to find more speedy resolution.

The clinic

— is that going to be located in the same building as the Human Rights

Tribunal? I guess what I'm really getting at is: what if I'm in Prince George

and need to access the human rights clinic?

Hon. G.

Plant: The clinic is not in the same place as the tribunal. At some point I

think it's necessary to realize that what we're calling a clinic is something

that's not a government agency. It's a service being provided by people with

whom government has a contract, and those people need to be, in some respects,

independent of the tribunal, and the tribunal needs to be independent of them.

The

question the member asks about — what if you're in Prince George — is a good

question, because one of the distinguishing characteristics of the former system

was its complete and utter failure to do anything in respect of human rights

protection outside the lower mainland or southern Vancouver Island. The new

system, I hope, will do a better job. Obviously, when you're trying to manage

something in a way that is affordable, particularly in times of fiscal

restraint, we don't have the resources, and I'm not certain that there would be

the justified need in any event to establish a set of tribunal offices in every

city in British Columbia.

The

tribunal, I think, is committed to the challenge of expanding the range of its

services. I'm hopeful that using technology, they'll be able to make some

improvements on that. I think the tribunal recognizes that the historic

experience of the commission was that it did not get much business, frankly,

from rural British Columbia. That's hard to figure, because I don't think

discrimination is any more or less a problem in urban British Columbia than it

is in the heartlands of British Columbia. We have some work to do to make sure

the people in Prince George will feel they have reasonable access to a tribunal

and to clinic services that will work for them.

[1500]

Mayencourt: I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General on the issue

of the clinics. Am I to take it that these clinics, in effect, because they are

subcontracted to another agency…? Perhaps I should get more clarification on

the AG's point on how those clinics are going to be managed. Is this part of the

contract with Community Legal Assistance Society? It is? In effect, their

services are located throughout the province. Is that correct? If that's the

case, does that mean if a clinic is needed in Prince George or Kitkatla, the

clinic could, in effect, go to that community?

Hon. G.

Plant: I am advised that the services CLAS — the Community Legal

Assistance Society — is providing for the purposes of this contract are

centrally located in Vancouver. The contractual relationship, the funding

relationship, is between the Community Legal Assistance Society and the

government of British Columbia directly, and my ministry.

Mayencourt: Is it conceivable that these clinics will be offered in other

regions of the province as need arises?

Hon. G.

Plant: The short answer to the member's question is no, probably not in the

foreseeable future.

We're using

the term "clinic," and that's probably the right term, but I'm not

sure if the member is using it in the same sense that I am. We're talking about

a service that's going to be provided to people, and they are going to have

to…. I think they'll get referred to it by the tribunal, in appropriate cases,

and then they'll have to call up. If they are able to get to the office, then

that's great; and if it's too far away, they'll have to deal with these issues

by telephone, fax or some other way.

I don't

think it's going to be like a poverty law clinic where there are ten lawyers

sitting around, all waiting for someone to come in and use their services. I

don't think it's going to be like that. It is a funded service that we are

supporting from my ministry to ensure people who need information, advice and in

some cases representation, who can't afford to pay for it themselves, will get

that from the service providers we've talked about.

Mayencourt: Okay. I think that clears up the issue of the clinic for me. I

would expect that individuals who have a problem could do that through the

Internet, could do it via fax, via the toll-free number.

The idea

behind the clinic is to try and resolve as many of these potential conflicts

between two individuals or between an organization and an individual in as

speedy a fashion as possible, using whatever tools are available to them. Does

the Attorney General have some targets for the number or percentage of

complaints that are dealt with successfully through the

[ Page 6435 ]

clinic model as opposed to going to court? Do you have some sort of idea of

how many of these complaints can be resolved through that function as opposed

to, I guess, litigation?

Hon. G.

Plant: We don't have yet, at least in my ministry, any specific targets that

represent our expectations of what we hope will be the numbers of cases that

will be resolved through alternate dispute resolution as opposed to requiring a

full hearing in front of a Human Rights Tribunal officer. But that, I know, is

an important issue for the tribunal. They're committed to try to resolve as many

cases as they can through ADR techniques, and so we'll be monitoring and

watching what they actually achieve in that respect.

[1505]

Mayencourt: Thank you to the Attorney General for that.

Another

component of the Human Rights Tribunal that is very important is the education

component, and there are specific groups within the province that are more

susceptible to discriminatory actions — obviously, the gay and lesbian

community, people from different cultures, different countries. I wonder if the

Attorney General could speak to the issue of how education might be offered to

the multicultural community, as an example. What kinds of materials is he

working with for groups such as MOSAIC and SUCCESS and other groups that provide

services to the multicultural community, the immigrant community?

Hon. G.

Plant: One of the features of the arrangements that were put in place a

month ago is that we have an arrangement with the B.C. Human Rights Coalition

under which they will offer preventive education and training programs through

this clinic we've talked about. The Human Rights Coalition will continue to do

the work that it has done successfully for many years in raising awareness about

these issues and also helping employers and others learn about what's required

to avoid committing acts of discrimination and to become more respectful

employers.

Some of the

other organizations that the member refers to, like MOSAIC or SUCCESS or other

organizations that service multicultural communities and vulnerable communities

like the gay and lesbian community…. I expect those organizations will invest

some time in studying the new processes and work with the tribunal, to some

extent, and with CLAS and the coalition to get up to speed on the changes and

what they mean. Then we'll help do the outreach to their own association members

to ensure the work is done.

I think

government has a responsibility in the area of education, but frankly, we don't

have a monopoly. Again, one of the things that the former commission did not do

as good a job of as I had hoped it would is the sort of day-to-day business of

giving people — employers, business owners, potential groups of vulnerable

people — the kind of practical advice and information they need to understand

their rights and responsibilities. The commission spent a lot of time

investigating larger systemic societal issues, but frankly, I think they

invested that energy at the expense of doing the real on-the-ground work that

can help make a real difference in ordinary people's lives.

One of the

groups that filled that gap, frankly, over the last number of years by doing

work around the community to help people understand these things was the Human

Rights Coalition. We're going to continue to use that expertise in helping us

get this new model up and running.

Locke: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Locke:

I would like to introduce into the gallery today about 60 students from Green

Timbers Elementary School and their parents and teachers, Lisa McCreedy and

Wendy Kaland. They are a group of children who are very energetic and happy to

be here in the capital city. They enjoyed visiting the museum. Would the House

please make them very welcome.

[1510]

Debate Continued

Mayencourt: I join in welcoming this group of young people here. Perhaps

that's a good way, with all of these young people here in the gallery, to talk

for a few minutes about the Human Rights Tribunal and how it relates to

children. Is it going to be through an organization like the Human Rights

Coalition that we would reach into the schools in British Columbia to teach

children about our human rights legislation and about what we value in terms of

protecting people from discriminatory actions?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think, fundamentally, the issue the member now addresses is an

education curriculum issue for the Ministry of Education and for school boards

around British Columbia. Again, I don't think any of us should assume more

responsibility or less than is appropriate, and all of us can do things in our

own way to help.

Our focus

is on trying to get this system — this new institution, this reconfigured

institution — up and running. In our service plan one of the performance

measures we have relates to the implementation of a human rights education

program. The program plan is supposed to have been completed in the last fiscal

year. In the current fiscal year we are going to be developing priority

education and training materials, and in the years to come we're going to

continue to have performance expectations and measures in relation to making

sure that this new institution works.

In terms of

the larger responsibility for raising awareness on the part of young people and

people throughout society, I think we all have a role to play. I

[ Page 6436 ]

know that the issue is of importance to the Education minister. I think there

already are curriculum tools in place.

It's a good

thing to be interested in. I encourage the member to follow up with the Minister

of Education in relation to what specifically can be done in the schools.

Mayencourt: Yes, I most certainly will take that up with the Minister of

Education. One of the things we've done over the last little while is have a

safe schools task force that's toured the province. We met with a lot of kids,

and we've talked to a lot of them about some of the issues they're facing. Every

once in a while I heard stuff, and I went: well, these kids don't seem to know

that the Human Rights Code applies to them, as well, as citizens — that

they're protected by it. I think that's something we need to make sure we bring

a greater awareness about to their parents, to their teachers, to their school

boards and to whomever — that the laws of British Columbia do apply to all

British Columbians, regardless of their age.

The

Attorney General has talked a little bit about the way that legal assistance

might be offered to someone who feels they have been discriminated against. I

assume that what they'll go through first is they'll come through a clinic

process where they might try to find some way of resolving the problem. I agree

with the Attorney General that sometimes a lot of these problems can be solved

with a simple and sincere apology.

I wonder if

the Attorney General could please tell us what we have set aside to provide

legal assistance services to individuals in British Columbia who have come

forward to the tribunal. He has mentioned that assistance is available to those

British Columbians who — I think the words are — cannot afford…. I assume

there is some form of means test for that legal assistance. Could he speak to

what defines someone who cannot afford to provide their own legal assistance

with that particular complaint?

Hon. G.

Plant: Sorry. I thought I caught the member's question, but I'm wondering if

he could just repeat it so I don't waste time pretending to answer something

that he is not interested in hearing.

[1515]

Mayencourt: My question relates to the issue of legal assistance to an

individual who has come forward with a human rights complaint. That individual,

I would assume, would approach the Human Rights Tribunal — correct me if I'm

wrong — and probably be referred to a clinic, in the nature of which he has

described the process. Assuming they were not able to resolve that issue with

the assistance of the clinic, they might go further along in the process and

stand before a tribunal, speak their truth about their situation and have some

resolution.

Now, in

some cases individuals will require legal assistance to do that. The Attorney

has mentioned there are legal services available to those individuals who cannot

afford to provide those on their own, so there must be some sort of means test

or some sort of definition of where an individual would qualify for the legal

assistance. Could the Attorney please give me some sense if there's a level —

an income level or disposable income level — and, if he could, let me know

what that is?

Hon. G.

Plant: The means test is under consideration and under development. I think,

fundamentally, it's going to be as much as anything a matter for those providing

the service, although I'm sure government will continue to be pretty integrally

involved in the discussion.

Mayencourt: I assume, then, that the provider of the legal services —

which I assume is the Community Legal Assistance Society — will make some

determination on a case-by-case basis, and after a period of time I would

imagine that a pattern would emerge. Is the Attorney contemplating setting some

guidelines for CLAS with respect to providing legal services to perhaps

low-income or mid-income people with exorbitant medical bills or what have you?

Hon. G.

Plant: The member's question is a fair question. I have to say that we've

talked about legal advice and assistance being available through the clinic to

complainants and respondents who qualify for publicly funded help to conduct

their cases. We pretty deliberately talked about those who would qualify for

publicly funded help, and that certainly suggests the development of a means

test. But as part of the continued examination of that issue, we are looking

at…. There are a lot of practical questions about how you do the work to

determine and apply means tests, and sometimes the questions you have to ask are

difficult. Sometimes you have to do the work to make sure you can be certain of

the answers you receive.

Government

has a lot of experience — certainly at second hand — in watching the Legal

Services Society, as the deliverer of legal aid in British Columbia, try to

administer the implementation of means tests and eligibility criteria in a way

that is affordable, effective and fair. We might actually get to a point where

we're not having to be as disciplined or rigorous about these things. We're

working on seeing what we can do to get this service offered in a way that

spends the most possible energy helping the people who need help and the least

amount of unnecessary energy asking people to bring in their income tax returns.

So that's underway.

[1520]

The issue

for respondents is a challenge, because sometimes respondents can afford to

defend themselves and sometimes the costs associated with doing that are pretty

extensive. We're still actually not certain how respondents are going to be

represented by the clinic in the way that we thought originally. Some of that is

still being worked on.

I'm pretty

committed to ensuring that the playing field should be as level as possible for

people within the limits of the resources that we have and making the

[ Page 6437 ]

best use of those resources — the most effective use of those resources.

The fact is that the precise dimensions of how all that will play out are not,

as of today, all fully settled.

Mayencourt: Also on the topic of legal assistance, I would imagine — as a

matter of fact, I can think of a couple of cases I've heard about that have gone

to the tribunal in the past — a complainant might, in fact, have money to

provide for their own legal assistance, but it does create a real hardship for

them. Actually, I'll just use an example, and I'm not asking the Attorney to

comment on a specific case.

A couple of

weeks ago there was a headline about an individual in the lower mainland who

went to the commission over the issue of access to gender reassignment surgery.

This individual mortgaged their home. The costs were enormous. They wanted the

Medical Services Plan to kick in and provide for some services. At the same time

that the person may have been able to access funds of their own to defend

themselves at the tribunal, they were also moving forward with their operation,

which meant they were spending a lot of the money that they'd mortgaged their

home to pay for.

There are

going to be incidents where an individual may, in fact, have money to pay for

their own legal assistance, but it creates a very great hardship not only to

them but also to their family. I'm kind of wondering, when we're looking at

that: if there is a great public benefit in that case going forward and the

complainant is not really able or willing to fund that themselves, will the

tribunal, through CLAS, be allowed to move that forward? I think there was a

sense that there was a systemic discrimination within British Columbia that was

worth pursuing. I wonder if that would be a factor in deciding whether someone

would receive that legal assistance. Sorry for being so long-winded on that one.

Hon. G.

Plant: I respect the member's desire to try to keep distinct an individual

case from the general proposition. Unfortunately, having asked the question the

way he did, it's kind of hard for me to answer it in a way that won't be

interpreted by somebody as a comment on the individual case.

The fact is

that these are difficult issues and these things are, in terms of their detailed

application, still being worked on. The fact is that no matter what state of

completion we get with respect to the arrangements for how the clinics will

operate, the advice that'll be provided and the way in which decisions will be

made about whether or not to provide legal representation — and no matter what

level of detail we reach in those discussions and arrangements — there will

still be difficult issues. There are today and there always are difficult

issues.

[1525]

The

question of to what extent the state has the responsibility to fund people who

bring forward legal issues is an issue that is much bigger than its application

in the context of human rights, but it is important in the context of its

application in human rights. It's fair to say that if we are looking at people

who can afford to pay for the cost of litigation, they're going to continue to

be asked to pay the cost of litigation in British Columbia. That's so, whether

it's a criminal matter, a family matter, a poverty law matter or whatever it is.

Legal aid

has not been available in British Columbia for a long time for anybody who could

afford to pay for a lawyer. Legal aid is a source of legal representation of

last resort. The extent to which different organizations apply those principles

successfully on a case-by-case basis is something that we could also discuss,

but the general principle is that if you've got the means, you are supposed to

pay for the issue yourself.

I get it

that that becomes a challenging question in the context of what the member is

describing as a systemic case or a case that raises public interest issues or a

test case, whatever the box is that we're trying to put the case into. But I'll

tell you that my own view is that even in those cases, if you can afford to pay

for your own legal advice, you should. There are a couple of reasons for that.

One is the simple fact of affordability, and the member knows of what I speak.

The fact is real, and it is present, and it is not going away. The second reason

has to do with the way in which economics plays a

part in making people

reasonable litigants. The fact is that if you're not paying your way in trial or

court or mediation or any other proceeding, there is much less incentive to be

reasonable, because you don't pay for the consequences of your unreasonableness.

That's just

a basic fact of human behaviour that has operated on law and judicial processes

for as long as those processes have been around. It doesn't necessarily mean

they're easy answers to the application of those principles to specific cases,

but it is important — at least for me — to put on the table, if you will,

some of my thoughts about the principles that we ought to apply in dealing with

those cases.

I get that

for many people, human rights issues raise important systemic issues. I suspect

that many, many people believe their human rights issues are systemic in nature.

Frankly, that belief and managing the implementation of that belief has been one

of the reasons why we have had processes that have been unmanageable,

unaffordable and unwieldy, that have encouraged division and adversariality, and

that have led to cases taking decades instead of weeks and months.

The reality

is that not every case of discrimination does, in fact, engage society in the

deepest consideration of its most fundamental issues. Some do; most don't.

Finding the line between them is a big challenge, and determining what the role

of government is in ensuring the playing field is level so that the parties to

the most difficult cases get to argue their positions fairly is also a tough

question.

I think

there's somebody out there who would probably describe that as one of my famous

equivocations, but there you have it.

Mayencourt: I thank the Attorney General for his answer and for his thoughts

on that matter. I'd like to

[ Page 6438 ]

ask a question about the role of the Human Rights Tribunal with respect to

advocacy. Is that a role for the tribunal, and if it is, how is that manifested?

I would put resources to that.

[1530]

Hon. G.

Plant: Fundamentally, the tribunal is an independent adjudicative agency, a

decision-maker, and it has been given some significant new authority to help it

and encourage it to help the parties to human rights issues resolve their

disputes earlier and less confrontationally than has been the case in some past

experiences. At the end of the day, the Human Rights Tribunal is not an advocacy

organization. It's a decision-maker, and it has to be independent in its

decision-making.

Mayencourt: I accept the answer. I am going to ask the Attorney if we

can…. This is going to step just a tiny bit over the line of the estimates

process, but is the advocacy role then to rest with an agency like the Human

Rights Coalition? If that is the case, is that part of the allocation of his

budget dollars towards the Human Rights Coalition? Is that where that's coming

in?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, I'm not certain where the member would draw the line between

what I would call education and what I might call advocacy. I think education is

an important function, and we've talked about the extent to which the different

actors here — me as minister, the coalition, the tribunal — have a role to

play in educating the public about the existence of the tribunal and about the

rights and remedies available under the code and the opportunities to ensure

that complaints of discrimination are dealt with fairly.

There is a

particular statutory responsibility that I, as the Attorney General and minister

responsible for human rights, now have in relation to education. I can imagine

there might be times when that starts to look a little bit like advocacy, but I

don't think that government…. Well, as I understand the question the member

asks, the fact is that our communities are filled with advocates. They are

effective; they're forceful. Some of them sit in this chamber. They do their job

to advocate for human rights here in this chamber, and others do it in other

parts of our community.

I hope that

work will continue, but I think as government our fundamental responsibility is

to put in place an institution that can help people resolve complaints of

discrimination in a way that's fair, effective, efficient, affordable and

accessible. Our main priority right now is to help the tribunal do just that.

Mayencourt: I want to thank you very much. As I said, I had the pleasure of

being with you and the other folks at the announcement of the tribunal. I do see

it as positive. I see it as a way for people to access human rights at a very

grass-roots level and to be able to receive some support from government as

needed. I think it's a positive, and I think that human rights are accessible in

British Columbia. I'm glad to be part of that change.

conclusion, I just wanted to also say, for other members of this House and for

the general public, that I think it is very important for all of us to become

aware of this new process — of the way it's going to unfold in British

Columbia. I know that it's constantly evolving. As I said earlier, my office

will be visiting with the tribunal to get a better understanding of that so we

can provide that direct service to our constituents. I would just encourage

other members to do that. I thank the minister and most especially the tribunal

for extending that courtesy to my office.

[1535]

Christensen: I did have a few questions around the Human Rights Tribunal,

but my friend from Vancouver-Burrard has very thoroughly canvassed a number of

the issues there.

The only

question I will ask — because I'm not sure if it has been asked in respect of

the tribunal — is: given that it's a relatively new and developing entity,

does it currently have a service plan, or will it be expected to produce a

service plan?

Hon. G.

Plant: Technically, the Human Rights Tribunal is an agency within my

ministry, and therefore my ministry's service plan encompasses the service plan

objectives that are related to the work of the Human Rights Tribunal.

The new act

contains processes, I'm certain, for accountability, but we don't yet have a

separate document or a separate plan for the tribunal for the current fiscal

year that I think would meet the definition of the member's question.

Christensen: Is that something you anticipate over this next year — either

the tribunal or the ministry developing a service plan that will specify some

performance measures for what we expect from the tribunal in terms of timeliness

of decision-making, responsiveness to complaints, perhaps part of its education

function — the things we expect it to be doing?

Hon. G.

Plant: The tribunal will be expected to report and will report on its

activities.

Christensen: I should just get a bit more clarification in my own mind. In

its reporting there's an opportunity that it can essentially give us a review of

what it's been doing. But are we going to have specific measurements so that on

a year-to-year basis we can set objectives — or the tribunal can set

objectives on its own, given its resources — that we can measure on a

year-to-year basis to, hopefully, see that improvements, however those may be

categorized, are being made year over year?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think the answer to the member's question, in general terms, is

that the agencies of the government of British Columbia are part of the gov-

[ Page 6439 ]

ernment of British Columbia, and we're all expected to work forward together

in terms of the commitment to have service plans.

There are

specific statutory obligations and functions that the tribunal has in terms of

reporting. I expect those will be fulfilled. We will be monitoring, as a

ministry, what the tribunal does in fulfilling its responsibilities and spending

the money that is allotted to it by this Legislature. There will be, I hope,

performance goals and expectations established, recognizing that this is, in

some respects, a demand-driven business so there are limits to or qualifications

on the kinds of ways in which an agency like this can report. But I am certain

that the tools will exist for the member to look both prospectively and

retrospectively at the work of the tribunal in the manner that I think is

contemplated by his question.

Christensen: I thank the minister for that.

Certainly,

I agree we need to be careful that we don't measure the success of a tribunal,

any tribunal, based on the number of cases put before it. Ideally, particularly

when it comes to complaints of discrimination, I would hope that the number of

complaints actually goes down over time as we better educate the public —

whether they be employers or landlords or anybody else providing a service —

that they shouldn't be discriminating and on what in fact constitutes

discrimination.

[1540]

I know

that, certainly from my own experience and in reading about the commission over

the second half of the last decade, one of the consistent complaints was that

where somebody found themselves having to deal with the commission, it took a

number of years to come to any resolution.

That's sort

of what I'm getting at — that certainly there are some goals that the

government has established in moving toward this new model of dealing with

complaints under the Human Rights Code. Hopefully, we'll have some concrete

measures by which we can determine whether this new model is better performing

over the previous model. I don't need a response to that, but that's sort of the

gist of where I hope to see we are perhaps a year from now, when we're going

through next year's estimates process.

I'm going

to switch back into some of the specifics of the Attorney General's service

plan. Looking at justice services, it seems pretty clear there that in ensuring

that people coming in contact with the justice system in the province get good

service and that they receive protection from crime and its socioeconomic

consequences, one of the strategies that is being embraced quite thoroughly by

the Attorney General's ministry is to try and increase the number of disputes

settled through processes such as the court mediation program, facilitative

planning meetings, other alternative dispute resolutions or intermediary

processes before something actually gets to trial.

Perhaps in

the context of the civil and family justice system, the Attorney General could

review some of the steps being taken along the lines of those strategies as set

out in the service plan.

Hon. G.

Plant: There's a range of initiatives: the notice-to-mediate process, the

court mediation practicum program, the British Columbia Mediator Roster Society.

ADR advice to government provided by the dispute resolution office is part of

the general theme of the member's questions, because, of course, government is a

party to a number of lawsuits. Those are some of the things we are doing in the

dispute resolution reform business.

There are

also some things that are happening in the family law area, specifically, that I

think are relatively new and relevant — the family justice registry pilot

project. Parenting-after-separation, of course, has been around — at least as

a pilot project — for nearly a decade, but it has been expanded provincewide.

There are some pilot projects funded by the Legal Services Society and the

family justice services division of the ministry.

One

project, in particular, that is pretty interesting is a family advice lawyer

project to provide up to three hours of free legal advice to low-income parents

experiencing separation or divorce. This service is apparently available in

Kamloops, Kelowna, Prince George, Surrey, Terrace, Vancouver and Victoria, and

this builds on a pilot project in Kelowna last year. I think that's largely

being done under the aegis of the Legal Services Society. We're doing lots of

work with LSS to try to look for opportunities to use limited dollars in ways

that will encourage people to resolve disputes earlier. That's a list of some

initiatives.

[1545]

Christensen: I note that one of the performance measures that the service

plan sets out is a pretty dramatic increase in the number of qualified mediators

on the B.C. mediation roster, from about 120 in '01-02 to 180 in '02-03, and

then increasing year over year. Have we reached that goal for what was this last

year, and do you anticipate any difficulty in reaching those future goals?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, the question was asked yesterday. As a result of that, we went

back and looked again, and I'm told the number on the roster now is about 190.

Christensen: So you're ahead of schedule, which is always good. Actually,

what constitutes a qualified mediator for the purposes of the B.C. mediation

roster?

Hon. G.

Plant: I think you need to have had at least 80 hours of training. You need

to have participated in or mediated ten supervised mediations. You need to have

insurance, and you need to know how the civil justice system works — which, if

you're a lawyer,

[ Page 6440 ]

would be a qualification that should be relatively easily achieved.

Christensen: I want to switch to the general legal issue of child custody

and access, because I've certainly had a number of inquiries at my constituency

office, and I suspect other members have. There's been a good deal of attention

at the federal level over the last few years around custody and access laws and,

I think it's fair to say, a general perception that they often don't work well.

At the same time, there's a good deal of debate and disagreement on whether

there's something that might work better. Certainly, anybody who's ever had to

deal with a child-in-custody case, whether personally or through some

involvement in the legal system, can agree that these can often be the most

difficult things we expect our legal system to try and deal with.

Firstly,

are there any current provincial initiatives looking at law reform around

custody and access?

Hon. G.

Plant: We have been working with the federal government as part of the work

they have done that has led to the recent introduction of proposed changes to

the Divorce Act. I think it's also fair to say that we don't yet have a firm

position, necessarily, on what has been proposed by the federal government. I

certainly agree with a lot of what the member says about the status quo. We

don't have underway right now any active initiative to reform the Family

Relations Act in relation to these issues, because I think most of our energy

has been devoted to listening to, learning about, participating in and helping

the federal initiative.

[1550]

Christensen: The Attorney General referenced the federal initiative, and

obviously in the areas of family law we've got to be working very closely with

them, given the sort of shared jurisdiction. Will the province get to the point

where it has a formal response to the federal initiative and, if so, when do you

anticipate being in that position?

Hon. G.

Plant: To some extent the federal government leads the parade here. It may

be that if the changes that have been introduced to the Divorce Act are passed,

we may have work that has to be done in British Columbia one way or the other.

In the meantime I suppose one way of answering the member's question is to

invite him to offer me, or government, his views on what he thinks about the

federal proposals.

I think the

old labels and the old structure have produced some real challenges. They do

tend to produce a kind of proprietary approach on the part of parents to issues

of custody and access. Goodness knows, there's a landscape littered with pain

and hurt and sorrow and dysfunctional relationships. Almost anything that tries

to move away from bright-line distinctions based on rights toward something like

collaborative, shared, mutually responsible, mutually recognized obligations

toward children and members of the family unit…. Almost anything in that

regard I am inclined to think is an improvement on the status quo. We don't have

a firm position on this yet.

To argue,

just for a moment, the other side of the coin, I do sometimes wonder how much of

this is just inherent in the psychology, the emotion, the financial consequences

of family breakup. It doesn't really matter what labels we attach as lawyers or

lawmakers to these things; we're still going to have the same stress, the same

challenges. It may only be a matter of time before shared parenting, or whatever

this year's term is, acquires some of its own baggage that isn't all that

helpful.

I don't

think that's my view. I think that's too cynical a view. There is a role for the

law here, but I sure hope people start to realize that the law is actually not

necessarily the right paradigm or framework within which to sort out how to make

sense of the relationships and obligations in families that have broken apart.

There is definitely stuff we have to do to make sure that the law is right, that

people have some sense of obligation and all of that.

Anyway,

enough of that. It's a pretty important topic, and if the member or any member

in this chamber has views — it doesn't have to be right now — we could

pursue those issues. I think they're worth pursuing, and I would welcome their

input.

Christensen: I thank the Attorney General for his comments and for that

invitation. I expect that's certainly something I will take him up on when I can

find some time to try and organize my thoughts a bit better around the whole

issue. I do agree that it's extremely complex. The reality is that a change in

terminology certainly doesn't fix anything. Ultimately, I suspect the best fix

is when individual parents, in relation to their individual children, are going

to recognize clearly that it's in the best interests of the child to have a

relationship with both parents, and they're able to put that thought and fact

ahead of all else that may be happening between the parents.

[1555]

What I do

want to comment on…. I know there are some initiatives that certainly the

provincial government has undertaken in the past and continues, which try to

assist parents in getting over the dispute between them and focus on their

shared-parenting obligation, regardless of who has custody and who may have

access. I know that last year's annual report for the Attorney General

highlighted the establishment of a website and a toll-free inquiry line to

provide information on resolving family disputes, including custody disputes.

Can the Attorney comment on what sort of uptake we've seen — whether it's the

number of hits on the website or calls to the inquiry line — and whether it's

a service that is being well utilized?

Hon. G.

Plant: We're not certain if we actually have the number of hits on the

website. What I can tell you is that we think this is successful enough that the

work

[ Page 6441 ]

is now being done to develop a special website for kids alone, so they can go

and get information about the way these issues may affect them directly in their

lives. I think that's a project that's getting some federal money, as was the

case with the other project. I understand that the work to develop this

additional tool is underway.

Christensen: I understand, as well — I thought I had a note about it, but

I can't find it — that within court registries around the province or in some

locations, there are certainly programs offered and in some cases programs

mandatory for parents. I think parenting-after-separation is the name of one of

them. Can the Attorney General comment on what's available in respect to those

types of services?

Hon. G.

Plant: I have some information about the main program that I think the

member is referring to. It's parenting-after-separation, which is a program that

began as a pilot project in 1994 and was later expanded provincewide. There is a

three-hour free session that the parents attend separately where they learn

about the impact of separation on children and adults, the range of dispute

resolution options that are available to them and the services that are

available through government and in the community. Also, they learn how the

child support guidelines work.

I'm told

communities throughout the province, and there are specialized

parenting-after-separation sessions delivered in Cantonese, Mandarin, Punjabi

and Hindi in a number of lower mainland locations.

The member

may know that in ten Provincial Court registries, it is mandatory to attend a

parenting-after-separation session. This was started as a pilot project in 1998,

and it's since then been expanded. It's mandatory to attend

parenting-after-separation in Burnaby, New Westminster, Vancouver, Surrey,

Kelowna, Prince George, Abbotsford, Victoria, Nanaimo and Kamloops. The

parenting-after-separation is, I suppose, the service that is best known in this

regard.

[1600]

Christensen: Given that there's a track record of registries where there's

mandatory attendance, as well as a greater number of registries where the

attendance is up to the participants, has there been any ability to track the

outcome of the mandatory one and whether it's making a difference? Is it

something that, if it is making a difference, the Attorney contemplates

expanding to other registries?

Hon. G.

Plant: There are very high levels of satisfaction reported by the

participants in these programs. One of the main reasons why we have not

necessarily moved forward to expand beyond the ten mandatory communities is that

outside the bigger towns, it's hard to design a cost-effective business plan for

delivering the service in a mandatory way. That has been the rationale behind

where we are now. I think, probably, the service is reaching quite a lot of

people in the communities where it's not mandatory, and we might not actually be

able to affordably reach a whole lot more people in those communities than we do

now.

Christensen: In looking at the business case for it, does the ministry try

to look at the relationship or try to look…? Presumably they do. How

successful is the ministry in looking at the relationship between the fact that

people are required to go through the shared parenting or the

parenting-after-separation program and a lower rate of disputed custody

hearings? If parents are going through the program, are they better able to come

to some agreement about the custody and access?

Hon. G.

Plant: It's apparently very hard to track the actual cases to provide a

number that would meet the member's interests. We do hear anecdotally, for

example, from family justice counsellors that people who have been in the

parenting-after-separation program are much more likely to try to mediate their

disputes. We think, in fact, that is what happens — that people who take this

program are more likely to at least try to mediate their disputes.

As the

member knows, if you introduce people to the possibility of mediation, you are

bound to get a good success rate in terms of resolving disputes by mediation,

and in some areas of life where you require parties to mediate, the success rate

of that is pretty high too.

Christensen: I note that one of the strategies under justice services is —

in terms of encouraging greater public use of out-of-court resolution options

— to conduct court-ordered assessments in child custody cases and enforce

maintenance orders. Has the ministry contemplated any performance measures in

terms of the timeliness of those assessments? It's been some time since I spent

any time in family law court, but my recollection is that it was often a

complaint and that it was difficult to get those assessments in a timely manner.

[1605]

Hon. G.

Plant: One of the challenges ever-present in relation to this issue has been

the issue of public resources. There has probably never been enough public money

dedicated to this. I think there are a couple hundred of these done a year. It's

an interesting question — what to do about that situation. We do try to have

the ones that we have control over done at the front end of the dispute. The

court, of course, has the power to order these assessments, and we have much

less ability to control when those orders are made. It probably doesn't lend

itself well to the kind of performance measure that the member is talking about.

Christensen: Ideally, in any of these programs — whether they be

court-ordered assessments or whether

[ Page 6442 ]

they be the parenting-after-separation efforts at mediation that we'd like to

encourage by putting public resources into — the end goal would be to avoid a

judge having to make a decision as to whether a child is going to be with mom or

dad and to try and avoid the parents fighting to the bitter end.

Are we able

to measure statistically whether we're having any success or how we're doing in

terms of the public resources spent in avoiding that ultimate battle? Can we see

over time that where these programs are available, for example…? We can see

how many divorce actions are started that have children somewhere involved in

those proceedings. Can we tell that in registries where more services are

available, there's a greater percentage of those divorce actions that don't

ultimately have the judge having to decide about custody? Do we have any

research around that to know whether we're in fact getting value that's

measurable in terms of a decrease in the use of court time?

Hon. G.

Plant: I'm told there has been some research done with respect to the rule

five family court project that was sponsored by the federal government, I

believe, and that there has been an interim report done in relation to that

research that has some pretty positive information in it. I think we are getting

close to the conclusion of the preparation of that report, and I'm told that

when it's done, it will be made public. That will hopefully provide some

information of the kind that the member is interested in.

The member,

of course, will know that it's hard to measure what in many ways is sort of a

multiple moving target. If you make it easier for people to resolve their

disputes in a non-confrontational way, you may find that some people are willing

to come to the justice system who aren't even willing to come to it now, and

vice versa. There is some work being done, and I hope we'll be in a position to

provide the member with that information in the near future.

Sultan: I seek leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Sultan: I would like to reintroduce to the House two persons who really need

no introduction because they're well known in these corridors. First, there's

Peter Kains, one of my constituents, a distinguished businessperson from the

North Shore who I've previously introduced to this House. He's accompanied by

Gerald Strongman, a former MLA, a very prominent art collector in British

Columbia, a philanthropist, former head of the president's council and

ex-chairman of B.C. Rail. Would the House please make them both welcome.

MacPhail: It gives me great pleasure to introduce grade 10 students from

Templeton Secondary. As I say when I talk to them directly, it's the coolest,

best high school in British Columbia. Now, when Van Tech comes, I say the same

thing. We'll say it's one of the two coolest high schools in all of British

Columbia. We had a great meeting in the rotunda where there were some very

astute questions asked. I predict that at least half of them will be sitting in

these seats within the next ten years. Would the House please make them welcome.

[1610]

Debate Continued

Christensen: Unfortunately, Mr. Chair, I don't have an introduction to make.

I'm going

to switch from custody and access issues, which I think all of us can agree are

some of the most difficult ones to deal with, to another area that is difficult.

But because it deals with dollars for the most part, the legal system seems to

be able to better deal with it. That's maintenance payments and specifically

FMEP. I guess the first question there is: what are we seeing in terms of the

caseload for FMEP? Is it increasing, decreasing, or is it remaining pretty

steady?

Hon. G.

Plant: There's usually a table that tracks the caseload over time. I don't

think it's been updated for this year, but that may be a piece of work we should

do. I'm pretty sure the table will show us that the caseload is growing over

time. It certainly was showing that until recently.

In the year

2001-02, which is the last year for which I appear to have this number, the B.C.

family maintenance enforcement program collected over $140 million for families.

The program dealt with almost 54,000 cases during that year, and the amount

collected was 79 percent of the total amount due. The cost of collection was

about 10 cents per dollar collected, which is a reduction from 14 cents five

years ago and half the cost of ten years ago.

Christensen: I understand that in respect of child support in Kelowna,

there's a pilot project where essentially a child support officer works with

parents to understand the federal child support guidelines and then to try and

calculate and negotiate support.

Can the

Attorney General provide any information on how that program seems to be

working? Are the folks who go through that program and come to some

agreement…? Are we finding there's better compliance then with payments being

on time?

Hon. G.

Plant: There is, I'm told, one child support guidelines worker, or whatever

the actual title is, in Kelowna doing work that I think meets the description

the member gave. I am told that work is very successful. It helps resolve these

issues. There are at present no resources to permit the widespread expansion of

that program, but we think it's a good idea. When and if we can find the

resources, it's the kind of thing we might do more of.

[ Page 6443 ]

Christensen: Has that particular worker been doing it long enough that

there's a track record so we know whether it is, in fact, resulting in greater

long-term compliance? Or are we finding people can agree for a few months, but

then all of a sudden the payments stop and we're essentially back to square one

in terms of FMEP having to do a bunch of work?

Hon. G.

Plant: We have not done that research. The research that has been done into

the issue, broadly speaking, shows us pretty convincingly that where parties

agree to an obligation, they are much more likely to discharge it than when the

obligation is imposed on them by court order, for example.

[1615]

Christensen: I'm going to switch just briefly to the Legal Services Society

and their service plan and just some general questions around legal aid. It's no

secret that there's had to be some pretty difficult decisions there and a

significant reduction in the overall budget to the Legal Services Society.

Perhaps the Attorney General can start by putting that in some context, because

certainly my experience has been that, really, over the last 15 years we've seen

a dwindling legal aid budget and significant reductions in both eligibility and

coverage right through the last decade.

What I

found when I was practising is that you had a portion of our population that's

pretty well off that could afford legal services and a portion at very, very low

income who were provided some services through the Legal Services Society, and

then the vast majority of us in the middle — and heaven forbid that we ever

needed to retain a lawyer.

Perhaps the

Attorney can start with some comments on what has happened around legal aid over

the last decade and how we can address that in a broader context of perhaps

making legal services more affordable overall or the system more affordable.

Hon. G.

Plant: A decade ago or so in British Columbia the mandate of the Legal

Services Society expanded broadly, and some funding commitments were made by

government that caused the budget for legal aid to expand enormously and, I

suggest, unsustainably, particularly given the overall ability of government to

support a rapidly expanding cost associated with the provision of this service.

Legal aid

has been under stress for a long time. I actually think you could probably say

with a certain measure of objectivity and fairness that legal aid has been under

stress in one way or another since the idea was first created. One of the things

that has contributed to the stresses in British Columbia has been that over the

last decade, the federal government, which used to be a 50 percent partner in

sharing those costs that it acknowledges it has responsibility for, has drifted

down to today, where it's about a 26 percent contributor.

I don't

have the numbers right in front of me, but the cumulative total and the

cumulative impact of that failure on the part of the federal government to do

the job they acknowledged they have responsibility to help with is a pretty big

number. That has certainly had an impact on the delivery of legal aid in British

Columbia. We were forced to make some pretty tough decisions a year and a bit

ago as part of our overall commitment as government to ensure that we did not

any longer ask our grandchildren to pay for the services we are providing today.

That's

another way of talking about deficit reduction, but the impact of that, clearly,

in this area has been real. There has been a significant reduction in the budget

for the Legal Services Society over the three years of the service plan,

commencing last year. The good side of that, I suppose, is that it became the

occasion for the Legal Services Society to reinvent itself obviously with some

help from this Legislature but also with a great deal of will and commitment on

the part of the staff of the Legal Services Society.

They've

come up with a new service delivery model. They are less top-heavy than they

were. They are much more focused on delivering service and fully engaged in what

I think is kind of the fundamental part of this exercise, which is to rethink

what it means to give people the advice and representation they need to help

them resolve their issues and their disputes. The answer to the problem with

respect to funding legal aid, in my view, is not more money for the same old way

that legal aid was being done half a dozen years ago.

It didn't

work then, and it won't work now. It doesn't not work in the sense that it was

an issue of enough money or not enough money. Where it falls apart is that in

some of the ways the service was being provided, we weren't helping people solve

their problems. We were just giving people excuses to litigate at some length

about their issues. That is particularly the case for family law.

[1620]

In poverty

law, it seems to me — while I acknowledge that there has been real impact in

terms of service delivery and poverty law — I have been pretty committed over

the last two years to figuring out how we can make administrative justice

institutions work better, how we can persuade the front-line officials who

deliver the programs and benefits of government to do a better job of ensuring

that they don't create disputes and that they resolve their disputes and issues

according to processes which are less legalistic and more result-driven.

All of that

makes a difference. It doesn't represent a complete answer by any means, but it

is some of the work that we have to do that I think about whenever the subject

of legal aid comes up. The good news is that the Legal Services Society is fully

engaged in the same kind of work and is thinking about how they can make the

best use of their limited dollars to reach the furthest and help the most people

in the most effective possible ways.

You know,

there is always a need for more money. The federal failure to contribute,

stretched out over the

[ Page 6444 ]

last 11 or 12 years, comes to $22 million. I can assure you that we could

provide a lot of service to people in British Columbia if we had that $22

million instead of whatever it is that Ottawa has chosen to spend that money on

— money which, in other provinces, they are spending. They're not spending at

the same per-capita level here in British Columbia.

It's a big

topic, obviously. I get that there is a significant impact in some places, but

I've also begun to hear some very interesting things. I now hear from people who

are excited about the work they're doing in and for LSS to rethink how they help

people with family law problems or other sorts of problems and, for the first

time, are sort of getting out of the old grind of tariff referrals and are much

more directly engaged in the business of helping people solve their problems in

the best way possible.

Christensen: Thank you to the Attorney General. I am actually very

encouraged by a number of things he said, particularly around LSS now having the

opportunity to rethink what, in fact, it is they're trying to do. Certainly, my

impression, which it sounds like the Attorney General shares, is that many of

the services being provided by LSS were driven by the way the system operated

— that being the court system — rather than taking a step back perhaps and

focusing on what the problem of the client is that we're trying to resolve and

how we can best move forward. I suspect some of the best examples are around

family law, where I certainly found that often, in too many cases, what was

happening is that the former legal aid model was allowing people to perpetuate

the dispute rather than perhaps find an appropriate solution.

Having said

that, I expect there are still, certainly in terms of the delivery of legal aid,

some pretty significant restrictions in terms of how far LSS can go in a rethink

of how their services are provided. I noted at least in the early version their

service plan, they're projecting that by 2005 criminal law is going to account

for just under half of LSS's budget.

I know that

is certainly something, when constituents hear that the vast majority of funds

within legal aid are being spent on criminal defence matters, many have some

difficulty understanding why on earth that's where the resources are being spent

when they're putting that up against a family law dispute where there's perhaps

a little more sympathy for the parties involved, particularly when children are

involved.

Perhaps the

Attorney General could give a brief explanation of some of the constitutional

restrictions we face in terms of what LSS is more or less required to fund.

[1625]

Hon. G.

Plant: In simple terms, the constitution provides a measure of protection

for people who are charged with criminal offences. That means that for those who

can't afford to pay for the cost of their own representation, in many

circumstances, particularly when their liberty is threatened by the possibility

or likelihood of imprisonment upon conviction, they have the right to turn to

the state for help in funding their legal representation.

That

constitutional priority does not exist in respect of family law matters, for

example. It does not exist in respect of the range of civil matters that comes

under the umbrella, euphemistically, of poverty law. That's one of the major

drivers in terms of how any legal aid organization in Canada will determine its

priorities. It's a reason why we need to try to rethink what it means to provide

criminal legal aid too, and that's a complex question. We actually started

talking a little bit about that yesterday in this debate in terms of all the

questions about how the criminal justice system works.

It is the

constitutional concern with the deprivation of human liberty by the state, in

criminal cases especially, that motivates the courts to make sure governments

fund the defence costs of people who are charged with crimes in circumstances

where they can't afford to represent themselves and, if convicted, they face the

likelihood of imprisonment.

Christensen: Just following the earlier theme of LSS having the opportunity

to rethink how they provide their services. I think you may have just answered

this, but I'm going to just ask it for confirmation — that LSS has the

opportunity or the freedom to take a pretty comprehensive review of how they're

providing services to those facing criminal charges, and they may come back with

proposals around that or look at different alternatives there perhaps. I know

there's a number of different models around North America — perhaps in other

provinces. Are they open to look at those, or are they locked into the way it's

been done in the past?

Hon. G.

Plant: That's right. The issue is representation in criminal cases. That's

how that constitutional priority plays itself out. But there are lots of

different ways you could fund to achieve representation. The Legal Services

Society has a pretty wide-open ability to examine different models. That is work

I think I could say is being done more collaboratively with government than has

been the case in the past, in a constructive way.

LSS is

fully independent in all of those areas where it needs to be to make the

decisions about whether to provide representation in particular cases. We work

with LSS in defining some level of performance plan expectations that help them

establish or get a sense of what we think their priorities ought to be, which is

a part of what informs their creative thinking about how to change service

delivery models.

Christensen: Just looking at dollars alone, again on the criminal defence

side, there are from time to time — in this province in particular, it seems

— some pretty big cases that get headlines where the state is on the hook for

the defence bills. Where does that funding come from? For example, in the Air

India or the Pickton case, are those dollars coming out of the LSS budget so

that it's then having an impact on the money

[ Page 6445 ]

available for other purposes, or are there special contingency funds

available for those high-profile cases and also cases where the defence lawyers

find they need to make application to court — I think they're called Rowbotham

applications — to get increased funding? Is that coming from some other

contingency fund, or does it have an impact on the LSS budget?

[1630]

Hon. G.

Plant: Air India and Pickton are being funded by central government through

contingency funding. It was the case that Rowbotham funding had been sort of a

separate item in the Attorney General's ministry until the last couple of years.

We took that money and rolled it into LSS, so LSS is expected to absorb the

costs for most of the relatively big cases — in fact, ideally almost all of

them.

Christensen: Just one final question under legal services. This is more a

clarification, I think, arising from some of the questions that the Leader of

the Opposition had asked. I understand that over the next year, LSS is phasing

out providing legal services to immigrants. I just want to clarify that we're

not phasing out…. That wasn't to be interpreted as phasing out services to

immigrants; we're just talking about legal services.

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, when the opposition leader and I were talking about legal aid

services for immigration and refugee funding, legal aid funding, we were talking

only about legal services. There are other ministries of government that have

responsibilities and programs in respect of things like immigration settlement

services, and they were not part of the discussion that the opposition leader

and I were having.

Christensen: Thank you for that clarification. My concern was that in

looking at the transcript, it wasn't abundantly clear, and I didn't want people

to misconstrue that.

In respect

of the operation of the courts as a whole, does somebody keep stats in terms of

the number of unrepresented litigants and how that's increasing or decreasing

from time to time and any sort of ongoing assessment of the number of

unrepresented litigants on the operation of the court system?

Hon. G.

Plant: We have no statistics, but the anecdotal evidence from judges,

lawyers and court administrators is that there is an increase in the number of

unrepresented litigants. Actually, I'm given to understand that unrepresented

litigants are now starting to appear in the Supreme Court of Canada. It's not

something that's just happening in British Columbia; it's a broader phenomenon.

Yes, we do monitor it in the sense that we obviously hear what we're being told,

and I am concerned about it. We are looking for ways to deal with the issue.

Christensen: I know that from time to time it's something that we hear the

judiciary comment on and express a concern about. Is it something that would be

within the parameters of the B.C. Justice Review Task Force to be looking at, or

are they looking strictly at…? Well, I guess in looking at process, they could

look at how changes to process could better accommodate unrepresented litigants.

Can you comment on that just briefly?

Hon. G.

Plant: Well, it may not be a full comment, but I guess what I'd say is that

absent the statistical evidence, we're all sort of drawing our best conclusions.

But I think it's pretty fair to say that unrepresented litigants are a symptom

of something. The challenge for people who are interested in justice system

reform and in access to justice is to look at the initiatives that would address

and alleviate that symptom.

Vote 11

approved.

[1635]

Hon. G.

Plant: If I may, as part of moving vote 12…. Mr. Chair, you don't get to

do what I've been having to do for the last number of hours here without there

being a whole lot of people — some of them here, some of them back at the shop

— all working very hard to try and ensure that I get the best possible

information. I wanted to acknowledge the support of all the folks in my ministry

who have helped prepare for these estimates debates and all the people who

worked to prepare the service plans and to crunch the numbers to create a budget

that is affordable but also does the work we hope it does.

I want to

take this opportunity to thank everybody in the Ministry of Attorney General for

getting up in the morning every day and doing their jobs serving the public of

British Columbia, serving the public interest in a better justice system. I

don't get as many opportunities as I'd like to say that publicly, so I wanted to

take advantage of this opportunity to say that. It's a marvellous group of

dedicated people from top to bottom. It continues to be nothing but an awesome

privilege to represent them and the work they do when I come into this chamber.

So, thanks.

More

specifically, while I'm about to introduce vote 12, I want to say the same thing

about all the people who work in the treaty negotiations office. It's been a

pretty exciting adventure for the last couple of years in the treaty

negotiations office. It's been reinvented and restructured, and I think it's

been made to work in a way that is bringing us very close to some success

stories in the treaty file in British Columbia.

To the

extent that's so, I think there is some policy leadership that has come from the

Premier and from government, but the day-to-day work is done by negotiators,

analysts, support people and administrators in the leanest, meanest, most

effective fighting machine in government — the treaty negotiations office.

They also work hard to help make the estimates process possible, and they do a

great job day in and day out. Some of

[ Page 6446 ]

them are sitting at tables having interesting discussions in different parts

of British Columbia right now — I hope bringing us closer to resolution on

some important issues. I wish them luck, and I thank them for all their hard

work.

Vote 12:

treaty negotiations office, $34,665,000 — approved.

Vote 13:

judiciary, $51,636,000 — approved.

Vote 14:

statutory services, $28,700,000 — approved.

[1640]

Vote 45:

citizens assembly, $1,500,000 — approved.

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the committee rise, report resolution of the estimates of

the Ministry of Attorney General and ask leave to sit again.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 4:41 p.m.

The

House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee

of Supply B, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading debate on Bill 31.

Second Reading of Bills

COURT JURISDICTION AND PROCEEDINGS

TRANSFER ACT

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Bill 31 is

the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act. This bill, and the act that

it will become, is based on a uniform act prepared by the Uniform Law Conference

of Canada at the request of the provincial and territorial ministers responsible

for justice.

The purpose

of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, and the uniform act upon

which it is based, is to establish clear and harmonized statutory rules to

accord with the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada respecting

the basis upon which a court in a province or territory may properly hear and

determine a matter upon which its decision is sought — in short, jurisdiction.

The

question of court jurisdiction becomes particularly important in cases where the

matter before the court involves what lawyers call a "foreign element"

— that is, where a party to the proceeding or some other aspect of the matter

is located outside the province or the territory of the court. In those

situations there is a need for some principles and some rules to decide when it

is that a court may properly take jurisdiction over the matter.

There are

two important decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada that have influenced the

jurisprudence and have defined the jurisprudence in this area. One of them is

called the Morguard Investments Ltd. case, and the other is Anchem Products Inc.

v. the Workers Compensation Board of British Columbia.

In those

two cases the Supreme Court of Canada stated that the basis upon which a court

may properly take jurisdiction in cases involving a foreign element is where

there is, to quote the courts, "a real and substantial connection between

the province or territory and the parties or subject matter of the

proceedings." That's the principle — the requirement that there be a real

and substantial connection.

The courts

of British Columbia do not take jurisdiction over cases where there is no real

and substantial connection between British Columbia and the territory where the

dispute may have arisen or parties or the subject matter of the proceedings. In

many different ways the question arises whether there is a real and substantial

connection. That's the principle, that's the requirement, and that's the test.

[1645]

The Supreme

Court of Canada said that this principle is a correlative principle to the

principle governing the enforcement of judgments from courts of other provinces

and territories, which the court also addressed in its decision in the Morguard

Investments Ltd. case. The Supreme Court of Canada stated that the principle

that Canadian courts should extend full faith and credit to the judgments of

courts from other Canadian provinces and territories requires that Canadian

courts properly exercise jurisdiction — that is, on the basis there is a real

and substantial connection with the province or territory.

The Supreme

Court of Canada held that Canadian courts should give full faith and credit to

judgments from Canadian courts in other provinces and territories where the

original court properly took jurisdiction on the basis of a real and substantial

connection between the province or territory in question and the proceedings. In

simpler terms, what we're talking about are rules that require us to respect the

judgments and decisions of courts in other parts of Canada, but we're also

saying that the obligation to extend full faith and credit to those courts and

their decisions is dependent upon a certainty that those courts will only take

jurisdiction in cases where it's appropriate they do so.

The Court

Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act is, therefore, a companion statute to

Bill 32, the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. Together these

two statutes give expression to the principles established by the Supreme Court

of Canada, and together they will provide a comprehensive approach to

jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in Canada.

Bill 31,

the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, would provide for the

substantive rules of jurisdiction in a statute in express statutory form

[ Page 6447 ]

rather than leaving them implicit in each province's court rules for the

service of process. The rules would be based on the existence of defined

connections between the province and the party to the proceedings or to the

facts upon which the proceedings are based.

Another

important element of the act is to provide a statutory means by which the

superior courts of Canada may transfer litigation to a more appropriate forum in

or outside Canada if the receiving court accepts such a transfer. By including

provisions respecting the transfer of proceedings in the same statute respecting

court jurisdiction, the act would make the power to transfer, along with the

power to stay proceedings, an integral part of the means by which a Canadian

court may deal with proceedings that more properly should be heard elsewhere.

In a real

sense we're talking about a step along a road that has taken us a long way from

a day where you might have said the provincial courts existed in splendid

isolation, one from the other, to a world in which the Canadian judicial system

is integrated, collaborative and cooperative and in which litigants who have

disputes in one part of the country can be assured that their disputes, if

necessarily resolved elsewhere in Canada, will be dealt with fairly, effectively

and efficiently.

This act

and its companion act, Bill 32, have been identified as priorities in the

modernization and harmonization of Canadian commercial law by the commercial law

strategy of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. What all those words add up to

is some hard-working people in my ministry and in ministries across the country

who are determined to make Canadian law as modern and effective as it can be. I

want to express my thanks to the people who do that work — many of whom do it

as volunteers — and to express the commitment of the government of British

Columbia to this most worthwhile endeavour.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

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

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

Bill 31,

Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act, read a second time and referred

to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

[1650]

Hon. G.

Plant: I call second reading of Bill 32.

ENFORCEMENT OF CANADIAN

JUDGMENTS AND DECREES ACT

Hon. G.

Plant: I move that Bill 32 be now read a second time.

Bill 32 is

the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act. As was the case in Bill

31, this act is based on a uniform act prepared by the Uniform Law Conference of

Canada to address changes in the law respecting the enforcement of Canadian

judgments. Bill 31 is concerned with the jurisdiction of courts; Bill 32 is

concerned with the enforcement of judgments. This uniform act was prepared by

the Uniform Law Conference of Canada at the request of provincial and

territorial ministers responsible for justice.

The purpose

of Bill 32, the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act, and the

uniform act on which it is based is to provide a harmonized statute to accord

with the principles respecting the enforcement of judgments amongst Canadian

provinces and territories established by the Supreme Court of Canada in its

decision in the Morguard Investments case. In that decision, the Supreme Court

of Canada stated that the principles of the Canadian constitution require that

the courts of each province and territory of Canada should give full faith and

credit to the judgments of courts in the other provinces and territories of

Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada also enunciated a correlative principle

respecting the appropriate basis on which a Canadian court should take

jurisdiction in a matter, and this principle is the principle underlying Bill

31, the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.

The Supreme

Court of Canada said that it's no longer appropriate that the judgments of

Canadian courts should be treated by the courts of other provinces as if they

were judgments from courts of foreign countries. In particular, Canadian

judgments should not be subject to the same rules by which Canadian courts may

refuse or limit the enforcement of judgments from foreign countries. Rather,

this act will provide that a judgment or order of a court in another province or

territory of Canada may be registered in the British Columbia Supreme Court by

filing a certified true copy of the judgment. A judgment so registered may then

be enforced in British Columbia as if it were a judgment of the British Columbia

Supreme Court.

This act

does not pertain to types of orders that are the subject of existing legislation

providing for interprovincial enforcement in such specific areas as family

support or custody and access orders in relation to minors. Also excluded are

orders respecting fines and penalties and non-monetary orders of administrative

tribunals.

The act

would provide that the British Columbia Supreme Court will not entertain as

grounds for staying or limiting the e