2004 Legislative Session: 5th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Wildfire Act (Bill 25)

Hon. M. de

Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Cascade Heights Elementary School

J. Nuraney

RAV transit line and transit

projects in lower mainland

Halsey-Brandt

Breast cancer and mammography

services

R. Nijjar

Oral Questions

Cost of 2010 Olympic Winter Games

and role of auditor general

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

MacPhail

Consultation with first nations on

aquaculture policy

B. Belsey

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Second Reading of Bills

Education Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 12)

Hon. T.

Christensen

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

Anderson

K. Manhas

Committee of the Whole House

Sustainable Resource Management

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Abbott

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Sustainable Resource Management

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)

Royal Assent to Bills

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Act (Bill 2)

Business Practices and Consumer

Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)

Social Service Tax Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 7)

Ports Property Tax Act (Bill 8)

Ministerial Accountability Bases

Act, 2003-2004 (Bill 10)

Financial Administration Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 11)

Sustainable Resource Management

Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)

Railway Safety Act (Bill 20)

Ministerial Accountability Bases,

2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 23)

Supply Act (No. 1), 2004 (Bill 21)

Supply Act, 2003-2004

(Supplementary Estimates No. 4) (Bill 22)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

Anderson

Hon. R.

Coleman

P. Sahota

P. Wong

MacPhail

Estimates: Ministry of Education

Hon. T.

Christensen

R. Masi

MacPhail

J. Kwan

[ Page 9951 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Mr.

Speaker: Good afternoon, hon. members. The member for North Coast will lead

us in prayer today.

[1405]

Belsey: Dear Lord, as we return to this chamber each day, may we be reminded

of the responsibilities to the people of this great province and conduct us

through with reason and temperance. We ask for your guidance to carry out our

duties in a progressive and compassionate fashion so that we may better serve

our province and our constituents.

Please hear

our prayers for our colleague from Kelowna-Mission, who will undergo her bone

marrow transplant procedure this day. Guide her through a speedy recovery and

return her to this chamber, that she may once again join us in our labours.

Watch over us and guide us all with your most benevolent hand. Amen.

MacPhail: I know it's inappropriate to extend the prayer period and

inappropriate to say, "Hear, hear," during the prayers, but I do want

all members to know that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I join

with everybody in this Legislature in giving our heartfelt prayers to the member

for Kelowna-Mission. We can hardly wait to hear of her speedy recovery and even

more so her return.

Introductions by Members

J. Bray:

I have a couple of introductions today. First of all, joining us in the gallery,

we have several wonderful communications staff that work for government caucus.

Christine Lewis is one of them. Joining us in the gallery today is her

grandfather Lorne Lewis, as well as Lorne's friend Bob Hilltout. I would ask the

House to please make them very welcome.

Also

joining us today are friends of other staff members. Nick, one of our

legislative assistants and a constituent of mine, is joining us today We have

Lisa Voormeij and her friend Michael Artemenkov joining us today. It's her first

time visiting the Legislature, having a look at question period and taking in

B.C. politics firsthand. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome as

well.

Hon. M.

de Jong: In the precincts today are students, teachers and parents from Rick

Hansen Secondary School in Abbotsford — great students from a great school

named after a great British Columbian. I hope everyone will make them feel

great.

Hon. T.

Christensen: On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Oak Bay–Gordon Head and

of course myself, I would like to welcome to the House today 21 grade 5 students

with their teacher Ms. Tanner from Glenlyon-Norfolk school. They're also

accompanied by Courtney Pattinson. I hope all of you students have had a good

visit at the Legislature today and are learning a little bit about B.C.

politics. I would ask the members of the House to join me in welcoming these

students to the House.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

WILDFIRE ACT

Hon. M. de

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

intituled Wildfire Act.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 25 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I am honoured to introduce Bill 25, the Wildfire Act. As members

may recall, this bill was introduced last year during the fall session, at the

time Mr. Gary Filmon was conducting his review of the 2003 wildfire season. The

Legislature did not debate or pass the bill.

This

legislation, the reintroduction of the Wildfire Act, incorporates the existing

legislative provisions relating to fire protection into a separate act to

comprehensively address wildfire-related issues in B.C. The key objective of the

act is to clarify the specific responsibilities and obligations of not just

forest licensees but all users of the forest with respect to fire use,

prevention, control activities and rehabilitation. That addresses a key

recommendation of the auditor general's 2001 report on managing interface fire

risks to establish firefighting priorities for the protection of life, property

and natural resources. The bill also seeks to address Mr. Filmon's

recommendations as they relate to clarifying firefighting responsibilities and

managing interface fire threats.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

after today.

[1410]

Bill 25

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CASCADE HEIGHTS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Nuraney: I was invited last week to visit an elementary school in my riding

called Cascade Elementary and had the opportunity to visit each classroom and

witness its work in progress.

In my

culture the place of a teacher is held in the highest esteem, as they are the

providers of knowledge and enjoy great respect. I was particularly impressed to

watch the teacher deal with a child who unfortunately

[ Page 9952 ]

was mentally challenged and had no notion of communication. The patience,

tolerance and total dedication of this teacher were remarkable and did the

profession proud.

I also had

the opportunity to meet with all the teachers and the principal during their

lunch break. The discussions outlined some of the challenges faced by the

teachers as our restructuring initiatives are being implemented. Whilst we have

given the school boards total autonomy in making decisions relative to education

in their districts, we must keep abreast of the changing environment and new

developments in this field. Class sizes should receive close scrutiny,

particularly when there are children with special needs in the group.

It is

common for teachers to use their own funds to buy books and school supplies for

the students. This indicates the commitment of teachers to do full justice to

their profession and to protect the interests of the students. An interesting

point was raised in our meeting, and that was that the teachers should receive a

benefit through tax relief when such expenditures are incurred. I have discussed

this possibility with our Minister of Finance. He assures me that he will

consider this proposal as the budget is put together for the year 2005. I will

be pursuing this matter with the minister at that time.

At the end

of my visit to Cascade Elementary, I left with total conviction that dedication,

commitment and professionalism are very much in the hearts and souls of our

teachers. I pay them tribute and salute them for their unparalleled service to

our young ones.

RAV TRANSIT LINE AND

TRANSIT PROJECTS IN LOWER MAINLAND

Halsey-Brandt: I have the privilege this afternoon to inform the House that

the RAVCO board has just announced this morning its selection of the two

successful teams it will be recommending to the board of the Greater Vancouver

Transportation Authority to submit their final and best offers to build the

Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit line.

This is

indeed a very exciting project. Vancouver-Richmond is one of the region's most

congested corridors. It's home to a third of the region's jobs and 20 percent of

the population. About 500,000 people — that's half a million people a day —

travel as commuters between downtown Vancouver, central Richmond and the

airport.

The RAV

line itself is the equivalent of ten lanes of additional roadways. It will help

to ease the growth of vehicle congestion while at the same time contributing to

greenhouse gas savings and helping to improve air quality in the region.

This

afternoon I want to thank the GVRD and TransLink boards not only for moving

ahead on this project but on having a ten-year vision for transportation

improvements in transit and roads throughout the region. Upcoming improvements

cover all areas of the GVRD. Some examples include commencement of construction

of a rapid transit line in the northeast sector as soon as possible; a new

bridge across the Fraser River between Langley and Maple Ridge; a third SeaBus

across Burrard Inlet; expansion of the system-wide fleet by one-third by the

addition of 400 new buses and replacing the electric trolley fleet with new

trolleys in Vancouver; major road projects such as the North Fraser perimeter

road linking Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, New Westminster and Burnaby; widening of

the Fraser Highway in Surrey; and twinning of the Dollarton Bridge on the North

Shore.

The

three-year plan and ten-year outlook are designed to provide transit service as

a real option to the automobile. It also addresses the mounting gridlock on our

roads and bridges.

Today I

especially want to congratulate and thank those members of our local city

councils who have the courage and the foresight to tackle our ongoing

transportation challenges.

[1415]

BREAST CANCER AND

MAMMOGRAPHY SERVICES

Nijjar: In 2002 the Canadian Cancer Society estimated that 21,200 women

would be diagnosed with breast cancer. They estimated that 5,300 would die from

it. On average, 407 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer weekly, and 102

will die every week. One in nine is expected to develop breast cancer in her

lifetime, the most frequently diagnosed cancer in Canadian women.

I am

speaking today on behalf of all the men in this Legislature, all the men

throughout British Columbia — all the husbands, sons, fathers, brothers,

friends and colleagues — to plead with all the women on both sides of this

House and with women across this province to please ensure they get regular

mammogram tests and take all the preventative measures possible to decrease the

risk of fatal breast cancer.

They say

that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Although we can't prevent

all cases of breast cancer, we can certainly prevent some cases and the negative

effects. The benefits of mammography far outweigh the risks. There is plenty of

evidence that early diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer can save lives.

Quality of life is another benefit. Early diagnosis of breast cancer can reduce

the need for radical treatments, including extensive surgery, chemotherapy and

radiation therapy.

Unfortunately,

mammography is still an underused detection tool in Canada. Many don't know or

don't use the tool available. Women 40 years and older are entitled to one free

mammogram test in British Columbia. It's so very important that they take this

preventative measure, early diagnosis measure.

I know a

lot of my colleagues here are so very busy serving their constituents, but

fortunately, with set schedules we have the opportunity to have one week off. I

encourage all those that have not had a test in the last 12 months to please go

and

schedule themselves.

[ Page 9953 ]

To all the women that take care of their families, work their jobs, go to

school and try to make a better life, please, please — on behalf of all the

men of British Columbia — take the time to get this very important and simple

test done for yourself.

For more

information, contact your local physician or check out the websites for the

Canadian Cancer Society, the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation and the B.C.

Cancer Agency.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

COST OF 2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

AND ROLE OF AUDITOR GENERAL

J. Kwan:

It's been less than a year since B.C. celebrated winning the 2010 Olympics, and

it seems that it has already been hit by cost overruns. Olympics president John

Furlong said the capital budget will be hit by escalation and inflation.

To the

Deputy Premier: can she tell us just how much escalation and inflation we're

talking about here, and what does it mean for the government's bottom line?

Hon. C.

Clark: We're going to stick to the budget that we've got for the Olympics.

The member should keep this in mind, because I know she didn't support the

Olympics coming to British Columbia, and I know that Carole James didn't support

the Olympics coming to British Columbia. It shouldn't be news to her that the

people on this side of the House — the government members — who have the

best interests of British Columbians at heart, do support the Olympics coming to

British Columbia.

The

Olympics will bring the eyes of the world to British Columbia. It is the single

best marketing opportunity we will ever have to promote our province to the

world — to promote our wood products, to promote our human resources, to

promote the incredible wealth and scenery of this province. We will be there in

2010, and the world will be here.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

The Premier has sold the Olympics as a big benefit to the taxpayers despite many

legitimate questions about the potential for rising costs, from his friends at

the Fraser Institute to B.C.'s independent auditor general. The Premier has

assured us that we won't have another Montreal on our hands. But do you know

what? Just this morning it was reported that John Furlong, the Olympics

president, said they are going to be faced with escalating costs and inflation.

I know everyone in British Columbia will work like heck to ensure that we don't

see costs run out of hand, but it is very concerning that before a single shovel

has even been put in the ground, plans already appear to be out of whack.

[1420]

To the

Deputy Premier once again: so that British Columbians don't wake up in the

morning with the Olympic sticker shock six years from now, can she just tell us

in the ballpark how much more Olympic facilities will cost than has been

projected?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, hon. members. Let us hear the question.

Would the

member put her question again, please — not the whole works, just the

question.

J. Kwan:

To the Deputy Premier, once again, so that British Columbians don't wake up

with Olympic sticker shock six years from now: can she just tell us in the

ballpark how much more Olympic facilities will cost than has been projected with

escalation and inflation costs?

Hon. C.

Clark: Our provincial contribution is set, and that provincial contribution

is going to remain where it is. I know this member would love to be able to

stand up and say that the Olympics aren't coming to British Columbia, but I've

got news for her. In 2010 British Columbia will be opening its doors to the

world, and we will have an incredible opportunity to showcase the great things

about our province to people from around the globe.

She should

remember that if there is a rising cost of labour in British Columbia, that is

as a result of the fact that our economy is booming — 129,000 new jobs. There

was one month in British Columbia where our economy created more jobs than the

economy of the entire United States of America, and that is something to be

proud of. That means more working people out there. It means more people

bringing home a paycheque to support their families. It means more people making

sure they can pay their mortgages. It means a healthier British Columbia, and it

means a better future for people all across our province.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The Deputy Premier's answer just shows how out of touch she is. She does not

know what the province's responsibilities are under the Olympics Games. I will

remind the Deputy Premier that the Premier had said that to win these games, he

gave the Olympic organizing committee an ironclad guarantee to cover any

financial shortfalls that may be incurred.

The

province signed a full indemnification agreement, and that puts the taxpayers on

the hook. It really doesn't matter if the Premier says there's no more money.

When the bill comes in, the taxpayers are obligated to pay. It is one contract

that this government cannot rip up. Rah-rah rhetoric is all well and good, but

it doesn't ensure that the project doesn't go out of control.

[ Page 9954 ]

Will the

Deputy Premier just admit that the planned expenditures on the Olympics reflect

government's guesswork at best? Will she take steps to ensure that B.C.'s

independent auditor general is brought in to oversee all Olympic expenditures?

Hon. C.

Clark: The auditor general has looked at it, and the auditor general has

said that the estimates the government has are realistic. I would ask this

member…. In fact, we should ask British Columbians: do they want the Olympics

to come to British Columbia? I know that Carole James and this member across the

way don't want the Olympics to come. I know they would like to keep our doors

closed. I know they don't see any benefit in making sure that there are more

British Columbians working in skilled trades, but in our government we do see

that that's a benefit.

Let's ask

British Columbians if they want the Olympics. And they do want the Olympics to

come. Do they want the NDP overseeing this project? Do they want members like

that one, who oversaw the fast ferries, who oversaw every major financial

boondoggle of the last decade…? Do they want them overseeing it, or do they

want a government that has truly balanced a budget for the first time in a

decade in British Columbia making sure that this project comes in on time, on

budget, and delivers benefits for people across our province?

MacPhail: Actually, this is a very serious matter, and clearly the Deputy

Premier doesn't have a clue what she's talking about. The Premier gave full

indemnification for the entire Olympics. That means the provincial taxpayer is

on the hook for every single penny. The Olympics are not subject to freedom of

information. They're not subject to the Auditor General Act. But the taxpayer is

subject to covering off every single cost overrun.

[1425]

Here's what

the auditor general warned. The auditor general did not in any way say that

there wasn't trouble in the Olympics. He warned the government last year that

the contingency fund set aside for the Olympics might be inadequate. The

Olympics minister dismissed the concerns and said the costs in the bid

"reflect the exact expenditure."

Mr. Furlong

I don't think is wrong, unless the Deputy Premier is accusing him of being

wrong, and he's saying it isn't the case. I suppose with this government, exact

expenditure is a flexible term.

The only

person in the province who has a public mandate…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

MacPhail: …to ensure the costs don't spiral and who can guarantee full

public accountability and transparency is the auditor general. Again, to the

Deputy Premier: now that the costs are already on the rise — Mr. Furlong is

warning her government of that; the auditor general is warning her of that —

will she take immediate action to bring the auditor general in as the full-time

Olympic spending watchdog?

Hon. C.

Clark: Let's cut to the chase here and get to what this question is really

about. The NDP is opposed to the Olympics coming to British Columbia. We know

that. We know that the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant even voted against

the Olympics coming to British Columbia when they held a referendum.

The fact is

that our government has a very different vision for our province than Carole

James and the NDP. While they don't want the Olympics, while they don't want

aquaculture, while they don't want mining, while they don't want forestry, while

they don't want oil and gas, we do. We want to make sure that those jobs are

here in British Columbia for British Columbia workers. It is a contrast. It is a

different vision for our province, and if the NDP would allow their leader to

run for office and let her come to the Legislature, then we could have an

opportunity to compare our visions and talk about what we want for British

Columbia.

Let's have

the next leader of the NDP come to this House. Let the Leader of the Opposition

stand up and say she'd like to let Carole James come to this Legislature and

she'd like her to be held accountable, and let's enter into a real debate about

our vision for British Columbia.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I find it strange that the Deputy Premier is commenting about in

this Legislature…. Her Premier has the poorest record ever of attending this

Legislature — the poorest record of any Premier in this history of attending

this Legislature.

All the

bravado doesn't do one thing to protect the taxpayer — not one. The

Olympics….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let us hear the question.

MacPhail: The Olympics have been pursued by this province since 1998. The

Italian organizing committee for the Turin Olympics warned the Premier yesterday

that costs could escalate by 20 percent, and they said that's conservative. On

the facilities alone, that's an extra $120 million for the taxpayers. It's a lot

of money when you consider that health care wait-lists are growing — they're

going through the roof — when you consider that the government, this Deputy

Premier, is cutting funding for at-risk kids.

The

opposition has asked again and again that the auditor general be chosen as the

Olympic auditor. The organizing committee…

Interjections.

[ Page 9955 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: …for the Olympic Games is not subject….

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, order, please.

Hon.

member, it's time for the question, please.

MacPhail: The Olympic organizing committee is not subject to the Auditor

General Act. So I ask again, before taxpayers are put on the hook for millions

in cost overruns: will the Deputy Premier just do the right thing, stop

stonewalling, stop avoiding the question and ensure that the auditor general is

hired to provide regular public reports on Olympic spending so that we don't all

wake up in 2010 with a massive Olympic hangover?

[1430]

Hon. C.

Clark: The reality is that I think taxpayers know that having the first

government that has balanced a budget in a decade — a real balanced budget in

a decade — is a better protection than they will certainly get from anything

that member could offer in terms of advice or experience in this House.

But let's

remember that those members don't oppose the Olympics because of the cost; those

members oppose the Olympics because they don't want British Columbia to do well.

They want to shut the doors to British Columbia. That's why Carole James and the

NDP have so assiduously avoided any kind of policy that would promote British

Columbia, any kind of economic thrust that would make sure we move forward.

If those

members are so confident of their vision, let them stand up and voice a vision.

We on this side of the House do have a vision for government. Our vision

includes the Olympics in 2010. It includes a thriving forest industry. It

includes a mining industry that's reinvigorated across the province. It includes

those thousands of jobs that come from aquaculture in coastal communities. That

is our vision of British Columbia. If the members across the way have one, I

call on them today…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: …to find the courage…. Let their leader run for office, and let's

compare where British Columbians…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Thank you.

Hon. C.

Clark: …believe we should go.

CONSULTATION WITH FIRST NATIONS

ON AQUACULTURE POLICY

Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Yesterday both Carole James and the leader of the NDP stood in this House and

clearly made it evident that the Georgia Strait Alliance report on aquaculture

is the NDP aquaculture policy. One of the things that come out very clearly in

the NDP aquaculture policy…. Carole James says that we do not consult with

first nations. That is just not true. She wants to shut down 4,000 jobs in this

province and hundreds of jobs for first nations. That's not fair.

I ask the

Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries if he'll please stand in this House

and tell the people of the province how he has consulted with first nations.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. J.

van Dongen: First of all, it's important to note that there are many first

nations people working on fish farms and in processing plants. As time goes on,

there are more and more first nations interested in aquaculture because, unlike

the NDP, they know we are committed to a sustainable industry. We have first

nation leaders such as Richard Harry of the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association;

leaders such as Percy Starr, the Kitasoo band, leaders such as Russell

Gamble of the Kitkatla, who don't want to be told by environmental groups or the

NDP what they should do or think. They know that aquaculture provides

sustainable jobs for their community and provides a way for their people to have

meaningful employment in their bands.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. R.

Harris: In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 12. In Committee

A we'll be resuming Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll

be debating the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

[1435]

Second Reading of Bills

EDUCATION STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. T.

Christensen: I move that Bill 12 be read for a second time now.

This act

introduces changes to the School Act and to the Independent School Act.

Beginning in the 2004-05 school year, school boards will adopt generally

accepted accounting procedures, commonly known as GAAP. Boards will also be

included as part of the government financial entity for financial purposes, as

has been long recommended by the auditor general.

With regard

to both the School Act and the Independent School Act, redundant references to

the Ministers of Finance and of Revenue are replaced with the correct reference

to the appropriate ministers.

[ Page 9956 ]

School

boards will now be included in the government reporting entity by an amendment

to the definition of the government reporting entity in the Budget Transparency

and Accountability Act. In order to meet the requirements of the Budget

Transparency and Accountability Act, this bill gives the Minister of Education

the ability to request financial reports from school boards in the form and at

the times necessary.

In order

for the financial information supplied by school boards to be consistent with

the information supplied by other government organizations included in the

government reporting entity, the information must be prepared according to

generally accepted accounting principles.

stakeholder committee consisting of representatives of the Ministry of

Education, the Ministry of Finance, the office of the comptroller general and a

cross-section of school districts around the province worked to identify the

changes that were necessary for the full implementation of GAAP for school

boards throughout British Columbia.

The changes

to the School Act required for school boards to use GAAP are changing and

deleting

definitions and financial procedures that are inconsistent or redundant

in relation to GAAP. For example, the term "annual capital grant" will

be changed to "annual facility grant" as these grants are used for

both operating and capital purposes as defined by GAAP. It is true that all of

these amendments are certainly housekeeping in nature to bring us in line with

GAAP.

With the

implementation of GAAP, government is providing school districts with an

additional $35 million a year to assist boards in covering the costs of

pensions, vacation pay and future employee benefits.

Previously,

districts had discretion whether to fund these liabilities, and some districts

have fully or partially funded these costs

whereas other districts have not.

Districts that have already set aside funding for employee future benefits and

vacation pay will be able to direct their share of the GAAP funding to improve

student achievement. For example, the Nechako Lake school district has met all

its GAAP requirements and is free to use its share of the GAAP funding — a

little over $300,000 a year — to provide services for students in the

classroom. School districts that, in the past, have not set aside adequate

funding for future costs can now use GAAP funding to offset these costs instead

of taking dollars out of the classroom.

Let me be

clear. Once a school district has accounted for its outstanding liabilities

under GAAP, this additional $35 million in funding to school districts can be

directed to students in the classroom, and therefore all school districts will

directly benefit from this additional $35 million.

Education

is our government's number one priority. These changes are necessary for the

responsible, accountable management of the public education system in British

Columbia and are consistent with long-term recommendations that the auditor

general has been making to government. These changes are long overdue. The

procedures and accounting requirements contained in GAAP will ensure consistency

and clarity in the management of school district finances across the province,

and the inclusion of school boards and the government reporting entity will

ensure increased accountability to the public. I move that the bill now be read

a second time.

Motion

approved.

Hon. T.

Christensen: I move that Bill 12 be referred to a Committee of the Whole

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

Bill 12,

Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a

Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. R.

Harris: I now call on Committee of Supply to continue for the Ministry of

Children and Family Development.

[1440]

Committee of Supply

The House

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

The

committee met at 2:43 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 16:

ministry operations, $1,381,568,000 ( continued ).

J. Kwan:

Five aboriginal service planning groups have been set up for each of the

province's regions: the Fraser, interior, north, Vancouver coastal and Vancouver

Island. The service planning groups will help create the aboriginal regional

authorities and assist in the devolution of services to these authorities. The

minister said earlier that people are working on the devolution plan. What will

happen to the aboriginal services branch of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development once the authorities are created?

Hon. C.

Clark: We will keep responsibility for standards, development and those

broad provincial responsibilities, and then the operations component of it will

move to the regional authorities.

J. Kwan:

The minister said components of it will move to the regional authorities. Can

the minister elaborate and provide more details and clarification on that?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, we're very much still in the planning process. This

transition is due to be made in 2006-07.

[1445]

J. Kwan:

In other words, we don't know. We don't know. Okay.

[ Page 9957 ]

understand that 131 of the 200 bands in B.C. fall under 19 agencies. Are the

remaining 69 bands administered by the ministry?

Hon. C.

Clark: There are complex relationships in the aboriginal communities, as

there are in any very broad community. So we are working with the aboriginal

communities to get some direction from them that will help us resolve those

questions.

J. Kwan:

What about the issue of capacity-building? How would that be resolved with,

particularly, the remaining 69? We understand that the 131 would be delegated,

would be devolved. But the remaining 69 that the ministry is still working on in

terms of capacity-building — what plans are being undertaken in the ministry

for that?

Hon. C.

Clark: The plan, by the way, isn't to devolve services to each of these

bands separately. I don't know if that's the assumption the member made. Just in

case it was, I'll correct her on that.

The other

issue, too, is that we are continuing to work with aboriginal communities on

capacity. That's precisely going to be our focus for this coming year, and

that's why we've formulated this process. We recognize — and the aboriginal

community, in particular, recognizes — that there are capacity issues. We're

going to work to address those.

J. Kwan:

Is there a budget set aside specifically for capacity-building?

Hon. C.

Clark: The budget we have for planning includes planning for

capacity-building and working on some of those projects. Remember, this is a

project that's due to come to its full realization in 2006-07. Through the

service redesign that we're doing where we are changing the mix of services we

provide currently, under the current governance structure that we have as well,

we're making sure that we are better reflective of the needs of the aboriginal

community, and that is very much a capacity-building process.

J. Kwan:

Well, I would like to get a breakdown in terms of how much is for the

planning and how much is for the capacity-building.

Hon. C.

Clark: They are going to be for this period very much related. In fact, they

will be the same thing.

J. Kwan:

Capacity-building and planning, I would say, are not the same things.

Certainly, building capacity for the community is very much different from the

interim authority planning processes. According to a letter that was sent to the

regional aboriginal planning committee chair, it actually highlights the notion

that…. Let me just put on the record what it says.

"The

ministry has been implementing $170 million in reductions since the 2001-02

fiscal year. It is critical that funding be allocated to where it is most

needed. As such, the transition budget for planning will be significantly

reduced from $7.8 million to $3.53 million. Of that budget, a proportion will

be allocated to the community living interim authority to continue its

planning work. A majority, $2.03 million, will be allocated to aboriginal

planning processes, both to regional committees and to the political

organizations to support their role."

Then it

says: "Additional details in the budget are included in appendix A."

I would

like to know more specifically: out of that $2.03 million that is dedicated to

aboriginal planning processes, how does that budget break down? What is it for?

Capacity-building is actually not even mentioned at all. The minister claims

this is one and the same. Planning, generally speaking, in my view, is not the

same thing as capacity-building. So I would like the minister to clarify the

$2.03 million.

[1450]

Hon. C.

Clark: We're reinvesting $5 million in direct capacity-building through the

service redesign project, which I already talked about. The member has raised

this letter, and I've responded to questions about this letter quite a few times

in estimates so far.

The issue

of the planning money is money we are providing to ensure that we can move to

governance. Part of that is planning for capacity-building, figuring out where

the gaps are, figuring out how we're going to fill those gaps. Capacity-building

can't always start with just spending the money. We actually have to figure out

how we're going to spend it and where it would be spent best based on the needs

of the community.

J. Kwan:

Well, yes, I brought this letter up before, but it was in the context of

confirming the fact that over the three years the government did indeed cut $170

million out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, which this

minister consistently denies. It was in that context when the quote was put on

record.

Now, in

this context, I'm asking specifically about the aboriginal planning process and

the dollars within it. If you go to the attachment of the letter where it says,

"Budget details are further outlined," it actually doesn't give you

very much detail at all other than this information. I'll just quote part of it

for the record: "It is proposed that of the $2.03 million fixed budget,

$320,000 be allocated to each committee with a top-up to the interior and north

regions of $75,000, each in recognition of the extraordinary travels, and

$70,000 would also be allocated to each of the four political

organizations."

That breaks

down part of that money and where it goes. Mostly, it's going to planning

meetings — it sounds like to me — to facilitate travel, to allow for the

members to get together to talk about the planning process for devolution.

Then the

letter goes on to say in this attachment: "However, as this does represent

a reduction from the previous level's expenditure, it will be important for the

committees to begin to reduce current expenditures to be in line with budgets in

2004 and '05." As identi-

[ Page 9958 ]

fied, the budget for the planning process is being reduced. It was budgeted

at $7.8 million, and it was reduced to $3.53 million. It's a significant

reduction. So all the planning processes that took place before, based on what

they thought the budget was going to be…. They are now forced to rework that

plan to accommodate a reduction in the budget. Once again, there's no talk about

capacity-building. Hence, I would argue that there are issues associated with

the government's revised plan on the budget.

So there's

no further information from the minister with respect to how the budget would

actually break down for capacity-building and where it would fit. Having said

that, there is the reduction in budget from $7.8 million to $3.53 million. The

amounts that are reduced from the budget — where does the rest go? Where is it

planned to be spent, in the reduction?

Hon. C.

Clark: This is a new budget for this year. The member stands up and says she

doesn't think that we should be spending money for aboriginal communities to

meet and discuss and plan how they would want to deliver these services. I

suppose if she wants to argue that we should cut that budget down to zero, she

can make that argument, but I fundamentally disagree with her.

This is a

big province, and people need to…. You can't get together across this province

for free. It certainly costs money. I would further argue that it's important

that aboriginal people be part of this planning process. If there is no budget

to support people to get together and plan, there will be no ability to include

aboriginal people in the planning process. The member can sit in her cosy

Vancouver riding and argue that, well, maybe we shouldn't have travel budgets

for people who are taking over a service to be able to do planning, but I

fundamentally disagree with that. It's a big province. We need to include

aboriginal people in the plans that we're making. They need to be the people

that are primarily making the plan. It can't be just ministry-driven. The only

way to do that is to make sure that we provide some travel budget and some

support for them to be able to fully participate in what will be an incredibly

exciting and, I think, in many ways revolutionary change in the way we deliver

services for aboriginal children in British Columbia.

[1455]

J. Kwan:

The minister has once again demonstrated that she's in a state of delirium,

because I said no such thing. All the stuff that she just said comes out of —

I don't know where — some deep corner, I'm sure, in her own mind.

She just

claimed that I don't support travel costs. I said no such thing. I asked a

question about the budget and its breakdown. The information I quoted from a

letter from her own deputy talks about how the budget is to be broken down and

where it is to be spent, which includes travel expenditures. I asked a question

about where the government is providing moneys to the aboriginal community for

the planning process as well as for capacity-building. How does that budget

break down, where does it flow, and what are the programs involved in

capacity-building?

She

answered no such question and then started to make up information as though I

actually asked it. It is clear that her brain has orbited somewhere else but

certainly not to the task at hand and the responsibilities she's been charged

with as the minister responsible.

I have

always — and let's be clear — advocated for supports for the aboriginal

community, for capacity-building and for their ability to make decisions for

their own community. I have always supported and advocated for that in every

context, whether it be in the area of the Ministry of Children and Family

Development or for the settlement of treaty negotiations and treaty land claims

issues. I've always advocated for the aboriginal community as the first people

of this land and for their rights to be recognized.

The

minister can make up all the false statements she wants and assert somehow that

the opposition is saying these things. It simply is not true. You know what?

It's not credible either, and nobody believes her. She can engage in her own

delusional mind all she wants, but it does not help the debate.

The

Chair: Member, let's get back to the debate.

J. Kwan:

It does not help the debate when the minister spouts out this

misinformation.

I asked a

question which the minister did not answer. Of the $7.8 million that was

budgeted, only $3.5 million will now be spent for the planning process. Where is

the rest of the $4.3 million being spent?

Hon. C.

Clark: The rest of it is going to fund transition costs with respect to

community living devolution this year.

J. Kwan:

So money that was budgeted for the aboriginal planning process is being

taken away and put into community living. That's the answer the minister just

gave. Isn't that interesting?

Then in the

meantime, the deputy has written to the regional aboriginal planning committee

chairs and told them that they have to rework their budget because their money

has been taken away into community living programs. That's interesting. That's

what the government's planning.

In terms of

priority, on what basis has the government come forward with this decision to

take money away from aboriginal regional planning authorities and divert it —

$4.3 million worth — to community living?

Hon. C.

Clark: That $7.8 million budget the member has identified was never in its

entirety intended to be devoted for aboriginal planning. First of all, I need to

correct her on that. She seems to be operating under a misapprehension,

deliberate or otherwise, about that.

The other

thing I need to clarify for her is that capacity-building is about redirecting

our current funding to better support aboriginal children and families.

[ Page 9959 ]

That is not a separate budget. When I talk about the new money that's going

to be going in to support aboriginal services, that's through service redesign.

That's separate from the planning budget.

J. Kwan:

It's not credible when the minister says that the $7.8 million was never

intended to be spent in the area of aboriginal planning processes for

devolution, because the deputy minister's own letter actually states:

"Because of this reduction, however, as this does represent a reduction

from the previous level of expenditure, it will be important for the committees

to begin to reduce current expenditures to be in line with budgets in 2004 and

2005."

[1500]

If that was

the case and the money was never intended be there, why would there be budgets

already established before? And why would, after the fact, committee chairs have

been written a letter telling them their budget has now been reduced, and

therefore they have to reduce the expenditures?

There must

be some other rationale, though, where the pressure came that the government

decided that they have to rob Peter to pay Paul. That is, I know, the practice

of this government, and it is happening right here in the aboriginal planning

processes. It's happening in education. It has happened in many other areas

since this government has been in charge. It's not any different based on,

again, the facts before us and the documentations that back up this set of

information.

The

aboriginal community will have less money for planning. The capacity-building

the minister claims is all wrapped up in the planning process, which I find

difficult to accept, to be frank…. Capacity-building means resources in the

community to allow the community to do the work and deliver the work and the

services that would be critical for community members. We know that in the

Ministry of Children and Family Development we have, over three years, a $170

million reduction. We know by that alone that capacity in the community would

also be reduced.

That's not

just within the Ministry of Children and Family Development in terms of

reductions. Capacity to support the communities elsewhere, from other services

and other ministries, has also been substantively reduced since this government

has been elected. Cumulatively there is an onslaught of capacity reduction, if

you will, because of the government's cuts in budgets across ministries and

across government. The impacts will be cumulative.

As we speak

today, Mr. Chair, March 31 is the last day that women's centres, as an example,

would have funding.

The Chair: Member,

get back to this debate, please.

J. Kwan:

This is part of the capacity I'm talking about.

The

Chair: Women's centres are not part of this debate. Please proceed with

this….

J. Kwan:

Non-profits that have lost moneys, lost support and lost provincial dollars will

be impacted, and there would be cumulative impacts. Things like women's centres

provide for….

The

Chair: Member, I asked you to please move on. This is not part of the

debate.

J. Kwan:

Children with mothers who need services across the community, in terms of

capacity, vary, so child protection issues…. The issues of violence and abuse

often come into hand, where families will seek refuge to deal with these kinds

of challenges. They need the community's capacity to be there with services they

could access so that they can deal with these challenges, Mr. Chair. Without

those services, women who are faced with violence with children…. If they

can't access these services because they have been eliminated because of budget

cuts from this government, it puts the children in jeopardy.

We also

know, and certainly it is the case in my own riding, that the representation of

children at risk who might need to be in care is overwhelmingly represented by

the aboriginal community.

The

capacity question does not operate in a silo. It doesn't operate independent of

everything else that is going on in the community or independent of what this

government is doing — closing services and closing supports that women and

children need. There is a direct connect with respect to closures of a variety

of services.

Capacity-building

is hampered in a number of ways, and if you talk to any of the aboriginal

community leaders, any of the non-profit community leaders that provide these

services, they will tell you exactly that, as they have told me in the last

little while, Mr. Chair.

[1505]

It doesn't

cut it. For the minister to claim that she actually cares about children, cares

about capacity-building for the community and particularly in the aboriginal

community, at the same time as she's supporting a government that cuts the

capacity support…. It just doesn't cut it. You can't have it both ways. It's

completely unclear, from the minister's answer, where the capacity-building

support is going to be coming from for the aboriginal community and how much is

dedicated to it.

A November

4, 2003, memo from the ADM of the ministry to the former deputy minister, Chris

Haynes, outlines the performance monitoring plan for the delegated agencies.

This memo notes the aboriginal audit and review process to be undertaken every

three years in the aboriginal agencies. These audits will ensure that agencies

comply with the rules set out in the Aboriginal Operational and Practice

Standards and Indicators manual. First question to the minister on this:

where can I get a copy of this Aboriginal Operational and Practice Standards

and Indicators manual?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm advised that it would be no problem to be able to send the member

a copy. I do

[ Page 9960 ]

want to correct, though, I think, some of the deliberate misstatements the

member has put on the record. First of all, there is a planning budget….

The

Chair: Minister, that is not appropriate — to call it a "deliberate

misstatement." Would you retract that, please.

Hon. C.

Clark: Oh, sorry, Mr. Chair — some of the misapprehensions the member has

that's she's discussed. I can't just let them sit on the record, because they're

just absolutely not correct.

There is a

transition budget. The transition budget is the budget that we pay for planning

out of. Planning is being done to change the governance of the delivery of

services for first nations and aboriginal people. That is one budget. Then there

is a budget where we provide actual services. There has been a significant new

investment of money into delivery of services for aboriginal people. That is

where capacity-building happens.

The member

stands up and says on the one hand — and she's done this many times in the

House and many times in this debate — that she thinks we are spending far too

much money on planning. Now today she stands up and indicates she doesn't think

we're spending enough on planning. Aside from the fact that the member blows hot

and cold day to day, the fact is that we are spending less on planning. I agree

with one of her views — her earlier view that indeed, we could be spending

less on planning. So we are.

There is

also an issue of capacity-building, though. That's where we've invested $5

million in new money in building capacity in communities. That is in actually

delivering services. Those new services that are being delivered by aboriginal

agencies and communities will build the capacity so that when we move to a new

governance model, the capacity will be there for the new authority to be able to

deliver those services.

J. Kwan:

The minister is deliberately trying to mix apples and oranges. The questions

that I raised about planning processes and the potential misuse of the funds

happened to be under the auspices of the government that hired Doug Walls

without any tendering processes. Then, out of that, moneys have disappeared into

the system; $400,000 has disappeared. A boatload of money has been spent. As

much as $500 to $700 a day has been paid out to Doug Walls accordingly. This is

part of the planning process for the devolution in the community living sector.

Those

questions were raised by me. Make no mistake about that. The minister refused to

answer those questions. She tried to shut down debate. She, in fact, did shut

down debate, because she just stonewalled and didn't answer the questions. Those

questions that I raised were in that context.

The

aboriginal planning process is a completely different kettle of fish. I'm trying

to find out what is going on in the ministry and where the dollars have gone.

The minister had just gone on record to say that from the aboriginal planning

dollars that were budgeted as $7.8 million, $4.3 million has been taken out and

put into community living again.

[1510]

Let's be

clear in terms of what we're talking about, in spite of the minister's best

efforts to confuse matters and to create statements in her own mind and pretend

that somehow those statements were made by me or the opposition. It's untrue. I

want to correct the record, Mr. Chair, and hold the minister accountable for her

area of responsibility and hold the government accountable to be open and

transparent and to actually do what they say and claim they're doing. You can't

have it both ways, Mr. Chair, and that's what the minister is trying to do. She

is trying to mix apples and oranges, as though somehow confusing the matter

would actually serve the public interest in these estimates debates. Let's be

clear in terms of what's going on here. The information I have is facts based on

letters and information received from the community, who are part of the

planning process.

The

minister says she will get us a copy of the Aboriginal Operational and

Practice Standards and Indicators manual. I presume we will receive that

along with the other materials we've requested in the estimates process. If that

is not the case, I would ask the minister to correct that, but I will just make

that assumption. In the meantime, can the minister explain what guidelines are

set out in the manual?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member has stood up in this House so many times, even during the

estimates process, that it is quite a turnaround, I must say, in her opinions.

As I recall, we started out the estimates process with this member standing up

and making what she regarded as a fiery speech about how we were spending $25

million on planning. Boy, she sure said that with a conviction that sounded to

me like she thought we were spending too much on planning.

Now she

stands up today — I understand it has been about a week that we've been at

these estimates debates — and says she doesn't think we're spending enough on

planning. Well, the member has to decide. Does she think the budget is too high?

Does she think the budget is too low? She can't carry on through these debates

in the House constantly trying to make sure she doesn't reveal her position on

anything.

I think

British Columbians expect her to actually have a position on something. I think

British Columbians want to know where the NDP stands on things. I'm sure a lot

of British Columbians want to know where she stands on this issue, and if she

stands up and says one thing one day and says another thing another day, it

doesn't serve that cause very well.

J. Kwan:

If the minister wants to go back and debate the issues I raised about spending

on the planning process with respect to community living, I would be happy to do

that. I would be happy to put down once again the chronology of the Doug Walls

scandal for the minister's information in terms of what I was talking

[ Page 9961 ]

about. In terms of that clarification, it appears to me that she does not

know what I was talking about and what I was referring to.

I would be

happy to point out for the minister again where the dollars have gone and where

the questions were raised with respect to that under Doug Walls. I would be very

happy to do that, and then I would be happy to bring back all of the debates and

the different numbers that these ministers have provided around the planning

processes that have occurred on the restructuring for this ministry, from the

former minister to this current minister.

They range

from $25 million to $100 million, and now we're talking about $7.8 million being

shrunk to $3.5 million. Then, when asked a question in terms of what the

government actually produced on the community living side with these planning

dollars, very little information was provided from the minister. In fact,

questions about the entire process that was led by Doug Walls, in which the

moneys have gone missing…

The

Chair: Member.

J. Kwan:

…were refused by the minister.

The

Chair: Member, take your seat, please. Take your seat.

The tone of

the debate is getting a little bit out of hand here, so I would just like

everybody to take a deep breath and bring the level down a tiny bit. Also, we've

heard this same debate so often now that it is becoming very, very repetitive.

Let's get back to debating the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan:

Everything I've said about the issues around the planning dollars relate to the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. Doug Walls happened under the

Ministry of Children and Family….

The

Chair: Member. Member, please take your seat.

I'm fully

aware of that. I'm sure this House is fully aware of that. You have repeated it

several times now, and it's becoming very, very repetitive. Let us proceed with

your questions. You say you have a number of questions to ask. Please proceed.

[1515]

J. Kwan:

I would be happy to ask the questions, Mr. Chair, but it was the minister who

actually raised the confusion in her mind about what I was referring to in terms

of the planning dollars, which I took issue with. As for clarification for this

minister, just moments ago she said she didn't know where I stood on the

planning dollars, and so the Doug Walls scandal and the issues around those

planning dollars are now on the record and have been made clear, I trust, for

the minister. If the minister needs further clarification, I'll be happy to

provide that, Mr. Chair. It would be your call to decide whether or not I would

be able to do that.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister goes: "More or less." Because the restructuring and

planning are two separate issues under different areas, maybe I should go back

and talk about the Doug Walls scandal and the lost dollars that I believe came

out of that. Maybe I should go back and clarify that for the minister.

The

Chair: Member, we've already spoken about that issue. Just proceed with your

questioning.

J. Kwan:

I'm just perplexed as to what the minister is confused about. She appears to not

know where I stand on the issues around planning dollars.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

She says she doesn't. Okay, then. Let's take this opportunity and go back and

talk about the planning dollars that happened under two areas in the Ministry of

Children and Family Development. Let's go and talk about that. Let's first talk

about the interim authority in the community living area in terms of those

planning dollars and where they went and where the money's been spent.

Let me put

these questions to the minister. The planning dollars for the Interim Authority

for Community Living under Doug Walls's leadership….

The

Chair: Member, take your seat, please. I don't know. Are you having trouble

understanding the Chair? I've repeatedly warned you that this issue has been

dealt with time and time again. We're not going to go through this debate again.

Proceed with your questioning — another line of questioning, please.

J. Kwan:

Then maybe the minister should be directed to stop asking me for clarification

in terms of where I stand on these issues. We cannot proceed with debate on the

aboriginal planning dollars if she insists she is confused about where I stand

on planning dollars, and I must make clear where I stand on planning dollars on

these two separate issues. Let's be clear about that.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister still sits there and goes: "More or less." She is hiding

under the notion that she could refuse to answer questions in this House,

because it is her prerogative to not answer questions in this House, as she has

already done and continues to do. Then to actually say, "Well, I don't know

where you stand, so therefore I can't answer your questions," and to

pretend that is reality….

The Doug

Walls issue is going to be canvassed under the Premier's estimates. I'm going to

bring all these questions to the Premier, and then maybe the Premier will answer

some of these questions in the interest of openness and accountability.

[ Page 9962 ]

I asked the

minister the question, which she did not answer, and that is to explain the

guidelines that are set out in the manual.

Hon. C.

Clark: I was simply asking the member whether she thought we should be

spending more on planning or less on planning, and she quite artfully dodged the

question. I'm sure that's something she learned after a decade working for the

NDP government.

Just to

also be clear, the member…. To put the member's priorities in context, it is

difficult to understand where she stands on these issues. I think we've made it

very clear where we stand on these issues because we have made our budgeting

numbers quite public. The member has mentioned….

[K.

Stewart in the chair.]

Just to put

the member's priorities in context — in case, Mr. Chair, anyone would accuse

you of not being fair — the member has raised issues about foster care seven

times in the House. That's an issue that's very important to British Columbians.

She's mentioned the Doug Walls audit well over 30 times. She's mentioned Doug

Walls 120 times. She has talked about autism, 79. She's talked about child

abuse, 39 — just so we can get a sense of where this member's priorities are.

She has been called to order over 34 times in this chamber, and she repeatedly

continually refuses to respect the rules of this House, although I'm sure she

knows them. She's certainly been instructed in them enough times in the

Legislature.

[1520]

We've been

up debating this for at least 21 hours, probably 23 hours now. I'm happy to

continue the debate, but I look forward to getting questions from the member. I

look forward to getting questions on new subjects from the member as soon as

she's able to put some forward on the floor of the House.

J. Kwan:

Isn't that interesting? The minister actually has time to go and do a word

search to find out how many times I said what words — that's interesting —

but she doesn't have time to find the answers to the questions I've put to the

minister.

And you

know what? In case my staff and you guys are watching, I know I had said that I

might well be finished by six o'clock today in the estimates debate of the

Ministry of Children and Family Development. At the rate things are going, we

may not be able to finish by six o'clock. Just so everybody knows, that's on

record as well.

The

Chair: Member, if I can interject for a minute. If we can be very specific

about a question, the minister will either answer to her fullest…. And then

we'll move on to another question. I think that would be a good process for us

to follow from here. If you could start with that, I would really appreciate it.

The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a question.

J. Kwan:

As is the case and the practice in this House, what I was doing was actually

responding, of course, to the minister's assertions and engaging in this

dialogue. She claimed that I said so many words so many times. I was simply

responding to the minister on that, Mr. Chair.

The

minister for the third time now…. I'm sure this will show up once again in her

word count. How many times did I say: "Will the minister explain what

guidelines are set out in the manual"? This is the third time I've asked

the question, which the minister has not answered. I'm sure her word count —

people busily counting those words, for how many times I said what and when —

will show up once again. Maybe she'll finally answer the question, for a change.

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said about five questions ago, we will send her a copy of that

manual. She can have a look for herself. I don't have every manual and policy of

government here in the chamber. We have a lot of budget information in the

chamber, but we don't have that here. I will endeavour to get that to her as

soon as we possibly can. Much of it is on the website, but there may be other

issues in the manual that's she is interested in. I've made the commitment that

I will send that to her. She can ask me again if I'm going to send it to her,

and just for her future reference, the answers I've given her will stand.

J. Kwan:

Let's just be clear in terms of what I asked the minister. I first asked the

minister if I could get a copy of the Aboriginal Operational Practices and

Standards Indicators manual. The minister said: "We could get you a

copy." So I got up and said : "I assume, then, the minister will send

it to us along with all the other information we requested." She ignored

that, and then she went on to some diatribe about how many words I said, when.

Then I

asked the minister the question about explaining for the purposes of the debate

right now, given that we don't have a copy of the manual before us, what

guidelines are set out in that manual. I asked that question three times. The

minister didn't answer the question, and then she got up and pretended she

answered the question.

This is the

kind of debate that we're engaging in with this minister, and these are the

kinds of answers we're getting from this minister.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister goes: "And that's why I love estimates debate." You know

what? It does not serve the public's interest for the minister to conduct

herself in this way. She's not answering the questions put to her. She pretends

they've been answered when they have not. Then she twists the question into

something

[ Page 9963 ]

else and orbits out into Mars and thinks somehow that is reality, when it

isn't.

This

estimates process goes to show you how difficult it is for British Columbians to

get the straight facts from this government. This minister, this Deputy Premier

exemplifies the worst of openness, transparency and accountability. She's just

demonstrated that in this House in these last days during the estimates process

of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

So the

minister says she doesn't have the information about the manual. She says,

"Oh well, it is on the website," but she has no knowledge base about

that. Once again it shows you how out of touch this minister is about anything

that is going on in her own ministry. She knows virtually nothing that is going

on within her own ministry. This is yet another example that demonstrates that

very fact.

[1525]

The

understanding I have is that there will be an audit and review process for the

aboriginal devolution process. Is there an audit for all the restructuring

processes?

Hon. C.

Clark: Can the member clarify? Is she talking about the regular audit we do

of delegated agencies?

J. Kwan:

It is my understanding that there will be audits for the aboriginal

authorities, and there is going to be an audit of the planning process for the

aboriginal community. Is that the case in terms of audits being done? Is it

standardized for all the restructuring processes across the ministry, for all

the regional authorities?

Hon. C.

Clark: There is an audit, which I have talked about extensively already in

estimates.

J. Kwan:

That's the Doug Walls audit. Aside from the Doug Walls audit, is there a

standardized audit that is being undertaken for all of the authorities around

restructuring?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member asked about the aboriginal agencies. The answer to that

question is, first of all, that we do a regular review of the delegated

agencies. We do practise audits regularly. That's part of a regular process we

engage in, so that's ongoing. I don't know if she is talking about that, but

that's the answer to that one.

If she is

talking about the planning process, yes, we are, as I have talked about a number

of times already in estimates. It was early on, so perhaps the member has

forgotten my answer. I will repeat it for her. Yes, we have engaged in an audit

that is forward-looking for the planning process for the aboriginal communities.

We are engaged in that cooperatively with the aboriginal leadership.

J. Kwan:

Is it the ministry that is undertaking the three-year audit?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes, in partnership with the agencies.

J. Kwan:

In addition to the three-year audits, what other measures will be undertaken

to ensure that appropriate standards of conduct are upheld in the devolution of

services to subcontractors?

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't know what the member is referring to when she talks about

subcontractors. There are things we call delegated agencies. Perhaps that's what

she's talking about. Perhaps she can clarify for me.

J. Kwan:

You can call them delegated agencies, but they are people that the ministry

has contracted, or agencies that have subcontracted someone else, to deliver the

services. That's what I'm talking about.

Hon. C.

Clark: Perhaps the member could clarify or could tell me what services,

specifically, she is asking about. I'm a bit confused about the language she's

using. Is she talking about services in aboriginal communities? And is she

talking about child protection services that are delivered by delegated

agencies? Is she talking about some other kind of service that's provided? I

need a little bit of direction in order to be able to answer this question.

J. Kwan:

I'm talking about and asking these questions in the context of the

aboriginal agencies and the aboriginal community and, therefore, of the

devolution processes within the aboriginal community and contracted agencies

that deliver services — agencies sometimes within their own agencies. They

actually have, really, an arrangement of subcontracts, if you will, where they

have someone else deliver the said services that they have contracted with the

ministry. That's what I'm talking about.

Hon. C.

Clark: If the member is talking about the services that are provided by

delegated agencies, which delegated agencies take responsibility for, we do

audits of that regularly.

J. Kwan:

To be clear, the ministry does three-year audits. The ministry does audits

into the delegated agencies and the services they provide and how they provide

them, whether or not they are subcontracted or delivered by some other person

outside of the agency. That's the understanding I have.

[1530]

If that's

correct, then let me ask the minister this question. The memo I indicated —

which is the memo of November 4, 2003, from the ADM to the former deputy

minister and which outlines the performance-monitoring plan for the delegated

agencies — notes the support issues and problems that may arise with the

delegated agencies. The memo states: "The structure of aboriginal services

branch supports the agencies to fulfil delegated responsibilities on behalf of

the direc-

[ Page 9964 ]

tor. When specific problems arise in an agency, aboriginal services branch

provides consultation guidelines to address difficult issues before they

escalate. If the director loses confidence in the ability of the delegated

staff, the director can withdraw delegation."

Who is the

director being referred to here?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's our director of child protection. That's Jeremy Berland.

J. Kwan:

Did the minister say Jeremy Gorman? Sorry, I didn't catch the name.

Hon. C.

Clark: Berland.

J. Kwan:

That's the individual sitting next to the minister. I don't believe the minister

actually introduced some of the new staff that has come in, and I didn't catch

the name. Thank you for that.

Pleasure to

meet you. I think we've actually met before.

The

Chair: It would be appropriate if the minister would like to take this

moment to introduce her staff. You're okay with that?

J. Kwan:

Basic courtesy, but then again, move on.

What would

happen in the case of a withdrawal of the delegation?

Hon. C.

Clark: We could take it over if necessary, and the ministry would deliver

those services instead.

J. Kwan:

Are there sets of guidelines, then, which the director uses to make a

determination when problems arise, or what would be deemed to be problems, that

would actually cause the director to take over the delegated authority from the

aboriginal community? Under what circumstances?

Hon. C.

Clark: The only member of my staff that I haven't introduced is actually Kim

Henderson, who is the ADM of transition services. She wasn't in the House when I

did my introductions. Everyone else who is with me today I have introduced in

the House already. For some reason, civil servants don't enjoy the notoriety as

much as politicians do, so I will leave it at that.

We measure

the quality of services, the standards of service that delegated aboriginal

agencies deliver against the policies that are set out in the manual that I've

talked about with the member, which I'm sending to the member. We monitor

practice. We review cases as required against that. That's the standard

measurement we use. As I said, that is on its way to the member's office.

J. Kwan:

Is it the director's decision alone to withdraw the delegated authority?

Hon. C.

Clark: Under the statute, it is the director's decision.

J. Kwan:

The minister is not involved at all or the deputy minister is not involved at

all or the ADM is not involved at all. It solely is the responsibility and

decision of the director alone.

Is there an

appeal mechanism when the decision is made in that context? Who does one appeal

to if there's a disagreement in the decision?

Hon. C.

Clark: There is the possibility of judicial review. It's important to note,

though, that the director of child protection is also an ADM.

[1535]

J. Kwan:

Deputies are not involved; ministers are not involved. It is just the director

who, in this instance, also happens to be an ADM as well. Judicial review would

be the appeal mechanism. In the case where a decision to withdraw the delegated

authority is made, is it then just the ministry that will take over? Or would

there be an assigned interim authority?

Hon. C.

Clark: It is an important piece of information for the member to understand

that we don't delegate. The director of child protection does not delegate

authority to agencies. She or he — in this case, he — delegates authority to

individuals. So if there is a withdrawal of delegation of authority, it is from

individuals. It is, I understand, historically a very rare case where an agency

would have its delegated authority taken away. It is because that revocation of

delegated authority happens normally in the cases of individuals to whom that

delegation has been granted.

J. Kwan:

In the case where the withdrawal of delegated authority has been made,

confidence has been lost. Who then becomes the assigned interim authority? Is

there a specific person within the ministry who would take over? How would that

process work?

Hon. C.

Clark: In the unusual circumstances that this happens, the agency would

either staff up to replace that individual who had lost their delegated

authority, or we have in the past also loaned professional staff to delegated

agencies to continue supporting their work if there has been a revocation of

delegated authority to an individual.

J. Kwan:

Earlier this year the Ministry of Children and Family Development was in the

process of identifying a lead agency to enter into contract with, for the

delivery of aboriginal youth services in Vancouver. The agency is expected to

enter into arrangements with other folks for service delivery. This process was

supposed to be completed by January 22, 2004. So let's get an update, first of

all, with respect to this process.

[ Page 9965 ]

Hon. C.

Clark: In Vancouver the aboriginal groups came together and made a decision

about who would be the lead agency, and we are now acting on that.

J. Kwan:

Who are the lead agencies?

Hon. C.

Clark: Urban Native Youth Association.

J. Kwan:

How long is the contract for?

Hon. C.

Clark: It is about to be negotiated. It would be for a standard term of one

to three years. It is important, though, for the member to differentiate that

that contract is for non-delegated services. I don't know if she is linking her

previous set of questions about delegated authority to this subject. But they

are in many ways unrelated because what we're talking about with the agency in

Vancouver, the lead agency for aboriginal services, are non-delegated services.

J. Kwan:

What are the services that they would be delivering?

Hon. C.

Clark: They are providing family development work with youth, including

safe-house services. They are doing family preservation work, early intervention

with families, counselling work and outreach.

[1540]

J. Kwan:

How much is the contract for?

Hon. C.

Clark: It's being negotiated, so we don't have a final number.

J. Kwan:

So those would be some of the services that are currently being delivered by the

aboriginal services branch of the MCFD?

Hon. C.

Clark: No.

J. Kwan:

Perhaps the minister can make the distinction, then. What services will be

delivered by the aboriginal services branch of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes, I've already discussed that at length.

J. Kwan:

Always helpful — the minister — with her answers. Another case in point.

We'll research that information. With the very many staff that we have, we will

just have to research that information to make that comparison, because the

minister is not willing to provide that information on the record.

Is this

agency going to be solely responsible for setting up and also managing the

integrated aboriginal youth centre?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes.

J. Kwan:

When is the centre expected to open?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm advised that the centre itself will be opening sometime very

soon, and the final version of it will probably be up and running in the next

couple of months.

J. Kwan:

What's the budget for the centre?

Hon. C.

Clark: That is part of the negotiation we're engaged in.

J. Kwan:

Is it anticipated that these non-delegated services, the ones that we talked

about earlier, would be delivered through the integrated aboriginal youth

centre?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm advised that it would be delivered through the centre and its

affiliated agencies, which will be working in partnership across Vancouver.

J. Kwan:

The contract that has been entered into — is it the case that its main purpose

is to provide services and manage the integrated aboriginal youth centre?

Hon. C.

Clark: Its main purpose, as I understand it, is to provide services and to

manage the overall services for aboriginal children and youth in Vancouver.

J. Kwan:

So that would be in addition. The integrated aboriginal youth centre would be

services which the agency would provide and manage in addition to the other

services we talked about.

Now, the

budget. The minister says she doesn't know what the budget is, but the centre is

expected to open any day now. It will be up and running in a couple of months,

but the centre still doesn't know what the budget is, and that's still being

negotiated. Time's running out, Mr. Chair. If the centre is going to be open any

day now, one would think that some of these very important details would have

been nailed down. Yet they aren't, so that's a bit worrisome.

What about

startup costs? How much money is being given to the society for startup costs?

Hon. C.

Clark: This is an effort to make sure that we coordinate the wide array of

services that are provided in Vancouver. Of course, better coordination means

better value for money. It means that we provide services better overall. It's a

much-needed project. It's something we're working on now.

[1545]

As I said,

it's under negotiation. At the moment we're negotiating contracts, which is why

we see so much in the news about services that are going to be provided and not

being provided in Vancouver. We are in negotiation, and when that negotiation is

complete, we'll be able to provide all of those numbers to the public.

J. Kwan:

I asked about startup costs.

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, all of that is being negotiated as we speak.

[ Page 9966 ]

J. Kwan:

Then the MCFD document entitled Services to Aboriginal Youth and Their

Families …. That does not provide for startup costs. That's wrong then. In

the negotiation process, startup costs are being contemplated.

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't know what document to which the member refers.

J. Kwan:

The government document entitled Services to Aboriginal Youth and Their

Families .

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister says she didn't know what document I'm talking about. I just gave

her the title of her document, and she has no response whatsoever. I can only

assume that the information provided in the government's document is not right.

It doesn't provide for startup moneys for the setup of this centre. One would

assume, then, that in the negotiations process startup costs would be provided

to the centre.

We'll wait

and see what happens with this centre — how much money they've been able to

negotiate from the government to provide the services they need — and then see

about what the budget is for the centre and see about how services can be

delivered to the aboriginal community from that.

Last year

the ministry was working on a public discussion paper on youth secure care.

However, we cannot find this paper on the minister's website. My first question

to the minister: was this working paper ever completed?

Hon. C.

Clark: We are working on that now. We hope to have it out very shortly.

J. Kwan:

The Secure Care Act was passed in July 2000. It was never proclaimed as law by

the former government. As we know, the election was called. The new government

came into office, and the Secure Care Act has, I think, sat idle until now.

There is no information in terms of what's going on. The minister says they're

working on it.

What

exactly is the ministry working on with respect to this act? What changes are

they anticipating? What other ideas have they got in the area around secure

care?

Hon. C.

Clark: The working paper will be part of the consultation, and when that

consultation begins, the member will be a full part, I'm sure, of the debate we

have about the ideas that need to be contained in it.

I point out

that the member says her government brought in the secure care bill in June

2000, and then an election was called. It is true an election was called — in

May 2001. Her government had quite a long bit of time to decide whether or not

they were going to proclaim the act. They decided not to. That's because there

are flaws in the act. We need to make sure that we address those flaws. We need

to make sure that any changes we make to it reflect the will of the community,

and that's going to be part of the discussion we embark on.

J. Kwan:

It has now been more than three years since this government came to office. I

remember distinctly how this minister, when she was in opposition, grilled the

former Minister for Children and Families about the lack of action in this area.

She went up and down the sides of former ministers who had this portfolio and

talked about the urgency. Wouldn't you know it. Once this minister…. She's now

in office.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the member for Vancouver-Burrard thinks it's funny. It isn't funny. It's a

very serious issue regarding youth and the safety of youth in our community. It

is a pressing issue.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Member, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

[1550]

J. Kwan:

It is a very serious issue. It has now been more than three years. The minister

is now talking about engaging in a discussion, a discussion paper three years

later. Is this an afterthought? "Oh, by the way, we forgot about that, and

maybe we should be doing some discussion about it." I find that

unbelievable, to be honest with you, especially in light of the fact that this

minister, when she was in opposition, claimed that this was the number one

priority for the government. Three years later they are now going to go out with

some discussion paper. When can we anticipate this discussion paper will be

available for the public, and when will discussion actually take place?

Hon. C.

Clark: One of the significant things in the member's comments is

particularly with respect to the number of ministers that I would have had the

opportunity to question as a critic for Children and Families. I was a critic

for Children and Families for maybe a year, a year and a half. I think it's

quite possible that since at least I was elected, the NDP had eight or nine

ministers. I think they had at least 13 ministers in the last decade. They had a

revolving door of ministers not just in this ministry but in ministries across

government.

That is a

big departure for this government. We are moving into new stability for this

ministry, which we have not seen in a long time. That's been, I think, reflected

in the fact that the recruitment and retention numbers in our ministry are

improving. We are finding it easier to recruit staff, and the staff that we have

are staying longer. That, I think, reflects an understanding. We're not perfect;

that's for sure. There are lots of changes we need to make to improve. But a

general understanding that things are getting more stable and that there is a

greater sense of certainty in the public….

[ Page 9967 ]

I don't have anything to add to my previous answer that I gave on this issue

with respect to safe care.

J. Kwan:

I can tell you, Mr. Chair, that in the five years that I was part of the

previous administration, to my recollection there were three ministers: Penny

Priddy, Gretchen Brewin and then Ed John.

Hon. C.

Clark: Joy MacPhail.

J. Kwan:

Joy MacPhail was prior to Penny Priddy in the previous administration.

Hon. C.

Clark: Lois Boone.

J. Kwan:

Lois Boone was….

Hon. C.

Clark: Joan Smallwood.

J. Kwan:

Those were not in the last five years, to my recollection, Mr. Chair. They were

in the years before…

The

Chair: Member, can we please….

J. Kwan:

…in the administration before — ten years.

The

Chair: Let's get back to estimates, please.

J. Kwan:

You know what? The minister might think it's funny. It is nothing…. Well,

actually, under this government's administration, three years into the tenure,

the former minister was forced to resign. Well, anyway, let me just leave it at

that. Mr. Chair. This government's track record is such that the former minister

was forced to resign under a scandal. Let me just leave it at that — proud

record we have there.

In any

event, the minister says they're working on it. She has no further answer on

what's going on with secure care. It's been more than three years since this

government came into office. We're talking about pressing issues about the

safety of children and youth, particularly high-risk youth, and no action's been

done.

We don't

even know when this discussion will actually take place. The ministry claims

that they've been working on a discussion paper, but we've seen nothing to date.

I would say that either this issue has not been a priority for the government

or, because the ministry has been in complete chaos since the government took

over, they've gapped this issue entirely. I think it's probably a combination of

both, and hence we don't have any new information on secure care and the status

of that act.

Let me ask

this question anyway. I suspect the minister wouldn't know the answer or

wouldn't provide any information about it. That would be: are there any

considerations being made for aboriginal youth in the area of secure care?

Hon. C.

Clark: That's why we're doing consultation. Further than that, I've answered

this question quite fully already, and I have nothing further to add to that.

J. Kwan:

If you look in the Hansard record of the minister's answers, you will

note there's a pattern. The pattern is, "I don't know what's going on. I

can't say. We'll get back to you. We're working on it," and in spite of the

length of time which the minister claims she's working on issues: "I don't

have any updates." Then she always closes with this answer: "And I've

answered that question at length, and that would be the fourth, tenth, eighth

time" — or whatever — "that I've answered that question."

That's how it always goes. That's the pattern.

[1555]

Let me just

say this. Secure care from this government — and in fact, many of the issues

on children and families for this government — have in my view been put on a

back burner. They've slashed the funding in the ministry at an unprecedented

rate. Over three years, $170 million has been cut. There's chaos in the ministry

and scandals within the ministry.

Families

and children and the agencies that provide those services are left out there

wondering what will happen to the people they serve. They're wondering how

they'll get out of this mess the government has created for them. Secure care is

yet another example, I think, where the government just has forgotten about it.

It has not been a priority for them, and because of that chaos, they've

completely gapped the issue.

We have

another issue, the Lakeview camp — a camp for young offenders that closed last

year as a result of this ministry's cuts. What happened to the young people

staying at this camp?

Hon. C.

Clark: Could the member confirm which camp she's referring to?

J. Kwan:

Lakeview.

Hon. C.

Clark: It is important, I think, to differentiate. Lakeview was not a camp.

It was a youth custody centre. The number of youth in custody has dropped by

over half, so the youth that were in residence at the custody centre — or the

camp, as the member wants to refer to it — have moved to custody centres

around the province. There's one in Burnaby, one in Prince George and one in

Victoria. I think most of the kids that were at Lakeview — most, but not all

— moved, ultimately, into the Victoria Youth Custody Centre.

J. Kwan:

The community calls it Lakeview camp, and I obviously just followed the

reference they use.

Let me ask

the minister now the questions around the Community LINK program. The Liberal

government has decided to cut $3 million from inner-city school programs in the

city of Vancouver, and these cuts will harm those children and families who are

most in need. The $3 million cut this year means a loss of critical supports in

the ministry.

[ Page 9968 ]

Let me just

put this forward, by way of backgrounder, about the program. Actually, no.

Before I do that, let me just ask a basic question. Where is this cut reflected

in the budget estimates?

Hon. C.

Clark: That falls under the line item we call provincial services.

J. Kwan:

The line from the ministry so far, of course, is that the ministry's funding

will now go to children who are most in need. We've heard that line of argument

from a number of other MLAs — the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard, the MLA for

Vancouver-Kensington. They claim that the money is needed for other children in

other communities, so they're going to take from needy children in Vancouver and

give to other children in different communities across British Columbia.

[1600]

It raises

this question, which in my view is basically the principle of robbing Peter to

pay Paul. That's what the government has done — taken Vancouver students'

needs and diverted them to other communities.

Now, I once

heard this minister say that if there's a need, they would actually meet those

needs for the children. In the new-era campaign the government and this minister

campaigned on prioritizing the most vulnerable people first. How is it that

children in Vancouver are less vulnerable than other children? It isn't the

case, in my view, that we should pit communities against communities, because

that's what the government's done. It isn't about that. It's not about Prince

George kids who need it more than Vancouver. The issue is that all of the kids

who have been identified, who need this kind of support, should get this kind of

support. It's not a lot of money — a drop in the bucket, if you will — if

you consider the colossal wastes that the government has wasted.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

I'd be happy to answer that question, with the heckling on my side, but let

me put these questions to the minister first.

Hon. C.

Clark: I think in the 20-odd responses that I've provided to the House

during the estimates debate on this subject alone, I've answered that question.

J. Kwan:

Well, no, because I have on record exactly what the minister said about this

issue. She claims that everything is fine. "It's all taken care of. Don't

worry." That's not reality. I'll tell you that as recently as this morning,

I spoke to representatives from Vancouver about the lay of the land and how

things are and what it looks like, and things are not fine. Let me be clear

about that.

The

minister would not answer the question, and it is a critical question, in my

view. How is it that the government can decide which needy children should get

funding for counselling support, for hot meal programs, for programs to help

children stay in school and to help parents be more involved in their children's

education — those kinds of things? This minister claims that she prides

herself on addressing those kinds of issues in her former portfolio. Here we

have a situation where this government is taking $3 million out of an initiative

that has proven to help students and parents in communities, and it's decided

that some children are more deserving than others by taking moneys away from

needy children in Vancouver. No matter how the minister paints the pictures,

these cuts will mean fewer services to children who are in need and to families

who are in need.

The

ministry plans to tailor funding to school districts according to factors, and

she'll claim that they have done this evaluation process to decide that those

children in Vancouver don't need the money as much as some other children in

some other communities. The factors that I know are being evaluated include

income levels, the number of families receiving social assistance and other key

social needs. This, of course, will undoubtedly mean that some school districts

are going to be hit harder than others.

Just for

the record, the member for Vancouver-Hastings and myself, the two ridings

combined in Vancouver…. I think virtually all of our schools would be impacted

by this reduction — virtually all of them.

Let me ask

the minister this question: of the new indicators that the government said they

used to make their determination to cut funding for Vancouver, what are the 12

socioeconomic indicators that were used in the evaluation?

[1605]

Hon. C.

Clark: It's actually 15: early gestation, low-birth-weight and

large-for-gestational-age composite, very low birth weight, small for

gestational age, potential years of life lost, without high school, without

completed post-secondary, below educational expectations, infant mortality,

at-risk children, maternal alcoholism, income assistance and crime.

J. Kwan:

All of those are pressing issues and concerns and challenges, certainly for

me in my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and it's certainly the case for

the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I would venture to say that in other

communities — such as Prince George, for example — those are critical issues

as well. I don't want to minimize other communities' challenges, because we all

have them.

The point

is that it is not about taking money away from one community and then giving it

to another. It's not about robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is about supporting all

of the children who have these needs.

Demographics

and low birth weight, early death rates, infant mortality rates, etc., —

poverty really centres around some of these critical issues. In that process,

though, instead of putting more moneys into the allocation of Community LINK,

the government saw fit to actually take money away from another community. How

did the government arrive at that?

[ Page 9969 ]

Hon. C.

Clark: There was a committee that looked at how the money would be better

distributed, based on actual need as opposed to the political priorities of the

government. That included, of course, this ministry, the Ministry of Education,

the B.C. School Trustees Association, the B.C. School Superintendents

Association, the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, the

Association for Community Education of B.C., the B.C. Confederation of Parent

Advisory Councils and the B.C. Teachers Federation.

J. Kwan:

Many of the associations the minister read out oppose what this government

is doing. Parents in the community oppose what this government is doing.

Let us be

clear about the Community LINK program. It was not set up for political reasons.

The funds weren't there, set up by the previous administration, for political

reasons. In fact, the program that was set up is an award-winning program. It's

been recognized by other jurisdictions in terms of what a great job it is doing.

It's been held up as a model in terms of its delivery of services, and it's been

proven to work. That's the most important thing. It's been proven to work.

The mayor

of Vancouver actually wrote a letter to the Premier about this issue. The mayor,

on behalf of council, raised many concerns about the $3 million cut in the

Community LINK program. In the letter Mayor Larry Campbell stated to the

Premier….

Hon. C.

Clark: Is he a New Democrat?

Some

Hon. Members: Not anymore.

The

Chair: Members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan:

You know, it is so degrading — the comments the minister just made about

whether or not the mayor of Vancouver, Larry Campbell, is a New Democrat. It is

not relevant. It is not relevant to the debate. It's not relevant to anything.

He, as a mayor, is doing the best he can to represent the city of Vancouver and

the citizens of Vancouver.

It is my

understanding that they have written….

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. Can

we continue on with the estimates, please.

J. Kwan:

You know, I'd be happy to debate other issues not related to this ministry,

if that's what the minister wants.

Interjection.

The

Chair: Members, we're here to debate the estimates of the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, so could we continue on with that. The member

for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

[1610]

J. Kwan:

Many parents have written to the mayor and council about their concerns about

the loss of the Community LINK program dollars — $3 million worth of it.

They're worried because the loss of the services would increase pressure on the

city, in terms of pressures for services, the off-loading of services and

demands onto the city and, of course, potential negative impacts.

In fact, a

few weeks ago when we had the spring break, we — myself, my colleague from

Vancouver-Hastings and the MP for Vancouver East, Libby Davies — had a forum

in Britannia school. We listened to parents about issues around safety concerns,

policing and so on. Already they are saying that they're feeling an impact on

the streets, and particularly from young people, because of the loss of the

funding particularly in the area around counselling.

We had a

very important meeting with the community, and they all raised these issues. The

mayor is responding; to his credit, he is responding. He wrote a letter to the

Premier about this.

Let me put

the question to this minister: how much money was previously spent on

school-based programs — what is now called Community LINK — within the

Vancouver school board district?

Hon. C.

Clark: Last year it was $6.805 million; budgeted for '04-05, $5.135 million.

understand that MLAs and mayors from different communities advocate for as much

money as they possibly can for their communities. But we have a responsibility

in government to think about kids, not just whether or not money goes to

communities. What we've done in restructuring the way we deliver this money to

communities is actually look at the needs of the kids.

You know,

the previous government, the member says, did it based on need too. That simply

cannot be true. Otherwise, we have to assume there were no children in need in

Revelstoke or in Nisga'a or in the Conseil Scolaire Francophone. That is just

simply not true. There are needy children there too, and those districts are

also deserving of funds. It was previously the case that the previous government

gave them no money, even though there are needs in those communities.

There were

also 24 school districts that actually saw an increase in money as a result of

the changes, because we are, rather than focusing parochially on individual

communities and school districts — which the member, I know, wants to do —

focusing on the needs of kids. We're saying: "Where are the needy kids?

Let's deliver the services where those kids are, regardless of which school

district they're in." We need to recognize that we need to deliver those

services based on the highest need that's out there.

J. Kwan:

It is absolutely incorrect for this minister to suggest, even for one

moment, that the former program…. First it was actually called the inner-city

school program, and then later on it was called school-based

[ Page 9970 ]

programs. Then it was called the social equity program, and now it's called

the Community LINK program.

Let's just

review the history a little bit about this program. It was started with pressure

from the community under the Social Credit government. No, actually. Sorry, it

wasn't started under the Social Credit government. Pressure from the community

came about when the Social Credit government was in power. The community said

this money needs to be set up and schools need to be recognized in terms of the

demographics, in terms of the poverty level, in terms of the lay of the land, if

you will, in our communities to provide this kind of support to children and

families across British Columbia.

It was most

highlighted, first of all, from the inner-city area of Vancouver. The community

took to the streets. They rallied, they pressured the government, and they

lobbied — to no avail under the Social Credit government. Mike Harcourt was

the mayor of Vancouver then, in those early days. He then met with parents as

well, and then he actually dealt with some of these people.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

It's not an issue about which political affiliation he is with, Mr. Chair.

The issue is that he took up the cause as the mayor, and he later on became the

Premier of this province and began that program. He beat the Social Credit

government and then became the Premier of this province and began the inner-city

school program.

[1615]

Then,

through the very many iterations as the communities changed over the last ten

years, different demographics started to show up. And I might say that the

heartlands, particularly, are hurting even more now under this administration as

they gut even more of the services and cause economic disability in those

communities because of this government's failed economic policies. Those

communities are hurting. Make no mistake about it.

I don't

begrudge the children and families in those communities who need these moneys,

as well, to support them. What I do take issue with is for this government to

take money away from needy children in Vancouver to give to other children in

other communities. All things being equal and all children being valuable in our

communities, they should all be supported — not at the expense of one or

another and to be laughed at by this government when they make these decisions.

That, in my view, is political motivation at its worst, Mr. Chair.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

It is not a

secret that this minister and this government dislike — to say it mildly, I

think — the Vancouver school board. But that's not the issue. It's not about

who is the chair of the Vancouver school board or who makes up the Vancouver

school board in terms of its political affiliation. That's not the real issue.

The real issue is about the children in Vancouver-Burrard who need the support,

who are being cut from the services, and this member for Vancouver-Burrard is

actually supporting these cuts for his own constituents in his own community.

Let me just put this on the record.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

It's interesting. You know, Mr. Chair, the member for Vancouver-Burrard is

heckling me, saying that he met with my constituents on Sunday. You know where I

was on Sunday? I was in the West End Community Centre at a meeting hosted by the

West End Residents Association chastising this government and this member for

Vancouver-Burrard for his lack of action and representation for the people of

Vancouver-Burrard in the area of rental increases.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Member, that is absolutely not appropriate to be discussing the

actions of another member of this House. You know better than that, so proceed.

Let's get back to the debate.

J. Kwan:

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. The member for Vancouver-Burrard was trying to elicit the

response from me, and I simply obliged. It was wrong, Mr. Chair, and I accept

that.

So here we

have children in the riding of Vancouver-Burrard — and in fact, in many of the

Vancouver ridings — who will lose support because of the funding cut from this

government. Here's the letter that the trustee had written to the Premier in

response to the Premier's statements about the cuts in the Community LINK

program.

Oh,

actually, let me just put this on record first, Mr. Chair, before I go there,

because it is interesting in terms of these concerns. It's not just partisanship

in terms of myself or the member for Vancouver-Hastings, who is raising the

issues around these cuts and how they hurt children. In fact, a member from the

Liberal caucus actually raised the issues and highlighted the issues in terms of

his concerns as well. Let me just put his concerns on the record here. Let me

just identify explicitly what his riding is; I wouldn't want to get it wrong.

The member for West Vancouver–Capilano — it's his riding. He wrote this

letter to the minister. It states:

[1620]

"Speaker,

through you I would like to ask the Minister of Children and Family

Development about inner-city school funding" — also known as the

Community LINK program. Recently the Vancouver Sun published a story on

the op-ed page March 9, 2004, titled 'How to ensure the biggest payoff,'

addressing an issue which I know is vital to this ministry's priorities —

namely, the funding of inner-city school programs.

"The

Vancouver Sun

article contained a very interesting table citing the

socioeconomic characteristics of 15

[ Page 9971 ]

Vancouver inner-city schools, including two of special

personal interest to me because I graduated from one of them — Florence

Nightingale School — and my late wife graduated from another of them —

Mount Pleasant School. I would like to read into the record some statistics

from each of those two fine institutions."

Then there's a bunch of statistics. Then the letter goes on to say:

recently contacted John Mullan, the community coordinator of Florence

Nightingale, and he explained to me that the considerable uncertainty over

reductions in funding at that school for some activities, such as

after-school, Saturday sports and other activities, intended" — as he

put it — "so they don't get into trouble and so they stay in school.

"According

to Mr. Mullan, the funding picture is complex, involving various ministries,

various programs and other funding agencies such as the school board, which

makes its own autonomous decisions. It appeared to Mr. Mullan that the

ministry is sharing its available resources, which we all appreciate are

constrained, more broadly across the province and perhaps even more broadly

across Vancouver. As a result, these particular inner-city schools are

particularly impacted.

also spoke with Gail Marlow, inner-city project teacher at Nightingale, who

fears serious loss of funding if such programs — micro-soccer,

micro-basketball, imagination arts, Bringing It to Artists, Science World

visits, science explorations and so on…. She fears there would be no extra

money to send kids to camp or to the aquarium and so on. Programs for parents

who typically speak Vietnamese, Cambodian or Spanish will possibly be

curtailed."

"We

appreciate that the money is tight. Could the minister give us some assurance

that inner-city schools, such as Nightingale and Mount Pleasant, will not be

unduly impacted?"

Then, the

attachment of the Vancouver Sun article. This is from a government-bench

MLA, who is saying that with these cuts, schools — to his credit he remembers

his roots — that happen to be in my riding will be negatively impacted.

Well, I'd

like the minister's response to the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, the

assurance that inner-city schools such as Nightingale and Mount Pleasant would

not be unduly impacted as a result of a $3 million cut from the Ministry of

Children and Family Development to the Vancouver school board for the Community

LINK program.

Hon. C.

Clark: I answered this exact question, and it may even be the exact same

letter when it was read into the record by the member from Vancouver-Lonsdale on

behalf of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. Under the rules of the

House, I'm of course not allowed to comment on whether or not this member was

present for any of that discussion, but I assure her if she refers back to the Hansard

debate, that issue was raised and canvassed fully.

J. Kwan:

Yes. Thank you very much. I remember the minister's answer, and in fact she gave

the same pat answer to the member for Vancouver-Kensington who raised the issue

as well. The member for Vancouver-Kensington certainly was happy with the

answer, although I don't know why.

The

minister mentioned that there was a proposal being forwarded by the Vancouver

school board district finance committee to the Vancouver school board. Here's

what the minister said:

"In

Vancouver the school district staff is making a proposal. The finance

committee is making a proposal to the school board — and I understand that

the school board hasn't yet considered it — that they will maintain the

school meals program at its current funding level. They found ways to be able

to make up that money to make sure that the school meal program continues

intact for kids. They are going to change the way they do it a little bit to

make sure that it's as efficient as possible and that it's serving as many

kids as possible, but it looks as though staff have come up with a proposal to

try and manage the funding shortfall in a way that doesn't affect the services

for kids who rely on school meals to make sure they can learn during the

day."

Let me just

stop there, because — you know what? — I know the proposal that was put

forward from the staff, and it doesn't address all of the issues around this

funding shortfall. The proposal may potentially have an ability to offset some

of the costs, and I'll get into the details of those proposals in a moment.

[1625]

But you

know what? The issues raised by the member for West Vancouver–Capilano

actually talked not just about meals programs. He talked about a variety of

other things like after-school, Saturday sports, other activities intended so

that the children — students, if you will — don't get into trouble, so that

they stay in school. He talks about visits to Science World, science

explorations, basketball, micro-basketball, micro-soccer, imagination art and

bringing the artists to the communities, camping, and so on and so forth. It

isn't just funding meals. The proposal put forward does not offset all of the

costs and, therefore, the program cuts — because of the loss in funding — at

all.

The

minister's answer doesn't even adequately answer the question from her own

government-bench side. It's dismaying, though, that the member for

Vancouver-Kensington is happy with that answer and just accepted it and went

away. I don't accept it, Mr. Chair. I don't accept that answer. It is not

adequate. It does not address the issues that we're all faced with or that the

communities are faced with.

The mayor

from Vancouver has not accepted that answer, and that of course is keeping in

mind the issue that the Vancouver school board is also facing a budget shortfall

of somewhere between $9 million and $11 million. That is in addition to the

funding shortfall in the school Community LINK program.

Let me just

put these issues to the minister. The Vancouver school board published a fact

sheet with a breakdown of the cuts for the Vancouver school board. Here is the

list of highlights.

School

meals would be reduced or eliminated in 29 schools, 24 programs and 10,800 meals

a day. Ten community schools are at risk of closing. The KidSafe program would

be eliminated. Staff at the elementary,

[ Page 9972 ]

special remedial, social development, behavioral and support programs face

staff reduction or layoff. Staff at secondary, alternative, remedial bridge

behaviour and transition programs face staff reductions or layoff. Thirty-three

positions funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development for

alternative programs face staff reduction or layoffs. The Healthy Schools

program is being impacted, and 60 teacher and support staff positions funded by

the Ministry of Children and Family Development for inner-city schools support

face staff reduction and layoff.

Let me ask

the minister this question. Which of these services does the minister deem are

not important for the children in Vancouver?

Hon. C.

Clark: Those are decisions that the school board in Vancouver makes, and I

guess that question would be better put to them. They have had increased

funding. They have had continual increased funding, particularly on a per-pupil

basis, as has every school district in British Columbia. We've added $100

million to the education budget. I know we're not here to debate those, so I

won't raise that again. The school district is the one that makes the decisions

about where their priorities lie, and the Vancouver school district has clearly

made its decision.

It is their

decision to make. They need to take responsibility for the decisions they make.

They will be held accountable for those decisions.

J. Kwan:

It is not true for the minister to claim that the school board actually has

enough money to provide for these services and that, in fact, they are cutting

these programs because they want to cut these programs. It's simply not true.

Yes, the government may have given more money to the Vancouver school board and

to school boards generally in the area of education, but at the same time the

government has also imposed increased pressures for school districts —

pressures that have gone up in the area of MSP premium increases, in the area of

fuel in terms of the gas tax increase for heating and keeping schools warm, as

an example — and has increased costs in even basic things around general

impacts for schools. PST taxes have even gone up, which can in some cases have a

negative impact for school districts. The teachers' salaries and support

staff…. Legislation that was imposed by this government increased costs.

[1630]

Do you know

what? At the end of the day, the minister, who claimed just now that school

boards can actually offset these costs, that they chose to cut Community LINK

programs…. The provincial government has given them enough money, but they

chose to cut Community LINK programs because of this additional $3 million cut.

It's all of the school board's decision, and therefore "Don't blame

me" doesn't work. It doesn't work, and that argument doesn't work, and the

facts refute the minister's statements just now.

That's why

the school board is faced with a $9 million to $11 million shortfall in addition

to the Community LINK shortfall. Then they are faced with these cuts that I've

just put on the record. Every one of those programs is important to the children

in Vancouver — for their success, for the future, to assist them to stay in

school and to maximize their success.

Mr. Chair,

maybe the minister will tell me which one of these groups is wrong in opposing

the cuts to Community LINK. They are not just the Vancouver school board, not

just the mayor of Vancouver and city councillors, as I've just identified. The

Canadian Council for Inner-City Education, the parent advisory councils from

Strathcona Elementary School, Hastings Community Elementary School, Vancouver

Elementary School Teachers Association, the Vancouver Inner City Education

Society, the Vancouver Inner City Parents Group, the Vancouver Secondary

Teachers Association, hundreds of students and hundreds of parents oppose this

cut. The Member of Parliament for Vancouver East opposed this. In fact, on

February 15, 2004, over a thousand people attended a forum called No Cuts to

Kids. It was a rally at the John Oliver auditorium protesting these cuts. These

people that oppose the government's move in cutting $3 million out of the

Community LINK program — which one of these people would the minister say is

wrong?

Well, no

answer from the minister. Well, then that is to say that none of them are wrong,

Mr. C