2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 9, Number 9

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Contributions of Roy Mah

R. Lee

Arthritis awareness

W. McMahon

Sumas Energy 2 project

R. Hawes

Oral Questions

Health care wait-lists and waiting times

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Hansen

Transfer of patient in long-term care case

J. MacPhail

Hon. K. Whittred

Government spending on health care advertising

B. Belsey

Hon. C. Hansen

Management of Forests recreation sites

W. McMahon

Hon. M. de Jong

Iris House mental health facility

P. Bell

Hon. G. Cheema

Tabling Documents

Provincial health officer's annual report, 2001:

The Health and Well-being of Aboriginal People in British Columbia

Second Reading of Bills

Community Services Interim Authorities Act (Bill 65)

(continued)

V. Anderson

J. Bray

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Hogg

Tributes

Ochi Day anniversary

J. Kwan

Committee of the Whole House

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64)

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. G. Plant

D. Hayer

J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills

Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 64)

Second Reading of Bills

Public Sector Employers Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 66)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House

Workers Compensation Amendment Act (No. 2), 2002 (Bill 63)

Hon. G. Bruce

J. MacPhail

[ Page 4075 ]

MONDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2002

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Weisbeck: Yin dee tee ma Victoria. [Welcome to Victoria.]

[Thai text

and translation provided by J. Weisbeck.]

Mr.

Speaker, it's a pleasure for me today to introduce and welcome a number of Thai

parliamentarians here on a study tour. They are Mr. Pichet Pattanachote,

Senator; Mr. Chirmsak Pinthong, Senator; Mr. Nirand Phitakwatchara, Senator; Mr.

Charoen Kanthawongs, Member of Parliament; and Mr. Prasang Mongkolsiri, Member

of Parliament. Also part of the tour are Mrs. Suthai Phitakwatchara, Mr. Takerng

Somsup, Dr. Vanchai Vatanasapt, Mr. Supanat Permpoonwiwat, Mr. Craig Kowalik and

Mr. Pitchya Sookmark.

[1405]

There are

also a number of members from Royal Roads University. I see Dr. Jim Bayer up

there and another member — is it Nancy? Nancy. I'd like all the members to

please welcome these very distinguished guests to our House today.

Hon. C.

Hansen: It gives me great pleasure to introduce several constituents who

have joined us today. Enrico and Aline Dobrzensky and their son Dominic are in

the gallery today. They are joined by a German exchange student who is staying

with them, Martin Simon. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: I have two groups of guests to introduce. Earlier today I had the

opportunity to meet a group of judges and senior officials from the Supreme

People's Court of China to discuss, among other things, court facilities and

courthouses.

I'd like to

introduce these people and welcome them to British Columbia, to Victoria and,

more specifically, to the Legislative Assembly. They are Mr. Cen, Judge Sun, Mr.

Guo, Judge Lin, Judge Li, Judge Han, Mr. Chai and Mr. He. They are joined and

escorted by Marie Burgher, who is an executive assistant with the public policy

options project, and Naiwan Liu, who is the person who made the conversation

possible — their interpreter. I hope that the House will please make this

group of people very welcome.

Brice: In the gallery today is Lady Mary-Ann Guilsen, who is visiting

Victoria from Montreal. She is accompanied by her sons Michael and Bob

Cunningham, who are both in business in Vancouver. I would ask the House to make

them welcome.

Hon. G.

Plant: The second group of people that I would like to introduce and welcome

to the Legislature are Australian public servants with specific responsibilities

in respect of aboriginal issues. We're joined today by Philippa Horner, who is

the most senior person in the government of the Commonwealth of Australia for

native title issues. Apparently she advises the Attorney General.

We are also

joined by Geoff Dickie, who is the executive director of native title services

in the state of Queensland, and John Bednarek, who is manager of negotiations in

the native title services.

These

people were here in British Columbia attending a conference on aboriginal

issues. We also had a good discussion this morning. I'm sure that they would be

looking forward to the festivities on the floor of the House, and I ask that all

members please make them welcome.

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today we have two very special people I'd like to recognize

in the House: Sherry and Reinhard Bohnenkamp. Sherry has been the constituency

assistant in Richmond Centre for almost ten years now, first serving with Doug

Symons and latterly working together with myself. I know she does a fantastic

job for all the residents of Richmond Centre. May the House please make them

welcome.

Hon. G.

Collins: I just wanted to ask the House to welcome three guests I have here

today: my wife Wendy, who's visiting again, as well as my Auntie Eileen and my

Uncle Norm, who were here a number of years ago, but they're here visiting

today. I ask the House to make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CONTRIBUTIONS OF ROY MAH

R. Lee:

I recently had the privilege of attending the "50 Years of Stories from

Chinatown" event in Vancouver presented by the Asian Canadian Writers'

Workshop. The event celebrated the contributions and achievements of authors

Wayson Choy, Paul Yee and Roy Mah to the Chinese Canadian community.

[1410]

The

organizers paid special tribute to Mr. Roy Mah, who was presented with the

inaugural Community Builder Award. Mr. Mah is founder and publisher of Chinatown

the Chinese community. Starting in 1951, the magazine ran for more than 40 years

until it stopped printing in 1995.

Many in the

Chinese Canadian community view Mr. Mah as being responsible for helping to grow

and nurture the Chinese and Asian Canadian community for writers.

Mr. Mah has

enriched our lives in many other ways. Born in Edmonton in 1918, he led more

than 100 Chinese Canadian soldiers in Malaysia and Singapore during World War II

and was awarded many medals for his heroism. Upon his return to Canada Mr. Mah

was part of a strong group of community leaders who argued that if Chinese men

can fight for Canada, they

[ Page 4076 ]

had earned the right to vote in their own country. The leaders of the day

agreed, and Chinese Canadians received the right to vote in 1947.

A few years

later, Mr. Mah launched the Chinatown News. Only five years later,

Douglas Jung became the first Chinese Canadian to be elected as a Member of

Parliament.

Though it's

a comparatively short history of political life in Canada, I think we are seeing

increased involvement of Chinese Canadians at all levels of government. This can

only be good for the strength of our country.

[Through

the Chinatown News , Mr. Mah has helped bring Chinese Canadians closer to

Canadian culture and in so doing was a catalyst for many Chinese Canadians

entering politics municipally, provincially and federally.]

[Translation

from Chinese provided by R. Lee.]

I would

like the House to please join me in congratulating and thanking Mr. Roy Mah, who

is visiting the House today with his wife, for his contributions to our province

and our communities.

ARTHRITIS AWARENESS

McMahon: This year in June, I was asked to support a friend and constituent

as she prepared for the single largest personal challenge of her life. For the

first time ever, she had entered a marathon. She began to prepare for her

42-kilometre walk. To do this, she knew she would be challenging both her

physical and her mental endurance like she had never challenged herself before.

She was

doing this for personal reasons. She was doing this to honour her sister who,

for 20 years, has suffered from arthritis. I was interested to learn that there

are more than 100 forms of arthritis and conditions that affect the joints, the

surrounding tissues and other connective tissues. Most forms of arthritis can

cause significant disability and loss of quality of life. Some forms can even be

fatal.

One in

seven people in B.C. has some form of arthritis, or one in every three families.

In the next 16 years as the baby-boomers move through the medical system,

hundreds of thousands of new cases of arthritis will be diagnosed. This is why

the government has implemented the chronic disease management strategy: to help

people manage their illnesses effectively and efficiently.

We don't

often hear from people with arthritis, and living with arthritis can be tough.

Today, October 28, 2002, Thora Casey from the great community of Invermere,

British Columbia, undertook to walk 42 kilometres as a member of the Arthritis

Society, B.C. and Yukon Division Joints in Motion team, in Dublin, Ireland. She

tells me that her sister Beverley has an incredibly positive attitude and keeps

herself fit physically, which are two of the challenges a person with arthritis

faces.

At least 80

percent of the money raised through Joints in Motion is allocated to arthritis

research and service programs for the benefit of those suffering from the

disease. Thora is pleased to have the opportunity to honour her sister and other

members of her family, and many friends, co-workers and acquaintances who suffer

from some type of arthritis.

I know she

was inspired as she focused on her goal. I know she was challenged, and I know

Thora was successful. I just heard about a half hour ago that Thora completed

the Dublin marathon. It's certainly a worthwhile cause, and Thora has made a

difference.

I ask my

colleagues to join with me in congratulating Thora Casey.

SUMAS ENERGY 2 PROJECT

Hawes: The National Energy Board wrapped up its hearings last week on a

preliminary motion from the owners of the Sumas, Washington, SE2 plant. The

motion proposed that the environmental scope of the hearings be limited only to

the effects of the power line connecting the plant into the B.C. grid.

[1415]

They argued

that the environmental impacts of the plant, which in itself will add about

three tonnes of additional pollution to an already stressed Fraser Valley

airshed every day, had been adequately heard in the United States at the EFSEC

hearings. The government of Alberta took the traditional position that the scope

of the NEB should always be limited to transmission infrastructure, and it

supported the SE2 plant in this motion.

All

provinces guard their constitutional authority and oppose any expansion of the

NEB into provincial jurisdiction. Traditionally, this has been the path British

Columbia followed, but not this time. We made a new-era commitment to oppose the

SE2, the Sumas power plant, and we're delivering on that promise. I want my

constituents and the residents of the Fraser Valley to know that after weighing

all the information and recommendations, the government directed our lawyers to

argue in favour of expanding the scope of the NEB hearings in this unique

situation.

The fact is

that our government, through the leadership of the Premier and the ministers and

MLAs throughout the Fraser Valley, decided that the health of Fraser Valley

people is more important than the traditional constitutional position taken by

the provinces. For those of us who live in the Fraser Valley, this is an

important decision, and the impacts are enormous. This is the right decision to

make, and I'm proud of the leadership we've shown on this issue. Now we will

await the NEB's decision, and we'll see if they were listening to us.

In closing,

I want my constituents to know that contrary to what they might have read in

some newspapers, MLAs have never been muzzled on this issue — or on any other

issue, for that matter. We are free to speak our minds in the best interests of

our constituents, because we live in the new era of openness that includes free

votes in the House and the freedom for all of us as MLAs to speak in favour of

our constituents.

[ Page 4077 ]

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

HEALTH CARE WAIT-LISTS

AND WAITING TIMES

J. Kwan:

Last April the Minister of Health Planning restructured health care. Since that

announcement, new figures show that the number of people on wait-lists has grown

to more than 68,000 British Columbians. Can the Minister of Health Planning

explain why, after she restructured health care, more British Columbians are now

on the wait-lists?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Once again I will invite the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant

to have a briefing on the difference between Health Planning and Health

Services. In fact, it was I who announced the changes in April.

indicated at the time that there were going to be some pressures on the

wait-lists. Clearly, we had some job actions last summer that set us back

significantly when it came to giving timely access to surgery, and we also had

job actions by physicians in the province earlier this year. We are now putting

in place the kinds of structures that will allow us to deal with the wait-lists

in the health care system in a very meaningful way in the months and years to

come.

Mr.

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

question.

J. Kwan:

There are four ministers of health across the way. If the other ministers are

not really doing their work and health planning restructuring was Health

Planning's responsibility, if there's no need for all these ministers…. Well

then, just have one.

It's not

only the number of people on the wait-lists that's growing. It's the amount of

time that people are spending on the wait-lists that is also increasing.

According to the government's own figures, wait times have increased in 13 out

of 16 categories since the Liberals' restructured health plan has been put in

place. Cataract surgery is up 25 percent. Orthopedic surgery is up by 13

percent. Vascular surgery is up by 35 percent. These numbers are an indictment

of the Liberals' health care restructuring, and these numbers, by the way, came

after the issues the Minister of Health Services has raised. Will the minister

stand in this House and explain to British Columbians why in the new era they're

spending more time on wait-lists?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'll be pleased to explain to this House. The reason is because we

had a decade with a government that did not train enough nurses in this province

to properly staff our operating rooms. We had a decade in British Columbia where

the previous government actually started…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1420]

Hon. C.

Hansen: …to reduce the number of nurses in training instead of increasing

it. What we have done since we took office is make sure we have 1,266 additional

nurses in training in British Columbia. We've got nurses in specialty training

so that they can be in the operating rooms, so that we can actually start to

deal with some of these challenges instead of the decade of denial that we had

in the 1990s.

Mr.

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

supplementary.

J. Kwan:

The health care system is being run into the ground by the Liberal government.

That's why the wait-lists have gone up. In the last two weeks we have seen that

what passes for emergency care is a broken phone outside a locked emergency

door.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

We've seen health authorities…

Interjections.

Mr.

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

J. Kwan:

…wasting money on spin workshops. We've seen patients dying, waiting for

treatment in emergency rooms. Now, according to the government's own figures, we

see that the wait-lists and wait times are on the rise. Again, will the minister

stand in this House and admit that as a result of his failed reorganization of

the health care system, British Columbians are spending more time waiting for

their surgery?

Hon. C.

Hansen: Actually, the exact opposite is what's happening. Instead of trying

to manage a health care system on a day-to-day basis, which we saw from the

previous administration, we're actually putting in place some orderly changes

that are going to allow us to give better access to care in the months and the

years to come. Clearly, we inherited some big challenges that were left over

from the previous government. I wish there were quick fixes. I wish I could snap

my fingers and make wait-lists drop after a decade of mismanagement in the

health care system, but at least this government is…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

[ Page 4078 ]

Hon. C.

Hansen: …coming to terms with those challenges.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, if members are going to ask questions, at least have

the courtesy to listen to the answer, please.

TRANSFER OF PATIENT

IN LONG-TERM CARE CASE

MacPhail: Well, here's one for the minister responsible for long-term care.

If the government's doing such a good job in putting our health care system on a

sustainable footing, I'd like them to make that case, that argument, to Edward

Laitenen. In March Mr. Laitenen was forced to leave his extended care bed at

Shuswap General Hospital. He was transferred by ambulance 108 kilometres to

Queen Victoria Hospital in Revelstoke. After three weeks in Revelstoke, Mr.

Laitenen was transferred back to Shuswap General to his extended care, again by

ambulance. A week later Mr. Laitenen was moved for a third time. This time, the

ambulance took him across the street to Bastion Place. To the minister of

long-term care: is this any way to treat a citizen in long-term care — to move

him three times in the space of four weeks?

Hon. K.

Whittred: I will take that question on notice.

MacPhail: Well, there's another aspect to this case that's very significant.

Mr. Laitenen is 84 years old. He's quite ill. He's not rich. He and his wife

live on a fixed pension. They have trouble enough paying for their medications.

Two weeks ago, seven months after the ordeal, Mr. Laitenen's wife was very

concerned and upset to find two bills from the government arriving at her door

charging her an ambulance fee for moving her husband around like a piece of

luggage. I have the bills here — two bills. She's expecting a third. Mr.

Laitenen did not want to be moved. He did not agree to an individualized care

plan that the Liberals promised every senior in this province. He was shuffled

around because of this government's cuts to care beds in this community.

Again to

the minister of long-term care: is this any way to treat a sick 84-year-old man

— to move him around against his will three times in four weeks and then

charge him for the privilege? Will she do the right thing and pay his ambulance

bill?

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, the minister has taken the question on notice. She may

answer if she wishes.

Hon. K.

Whittred: I would be happy.…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Listen for the answer to the question, please.

Hon. K.

Whittred: I would invite the member to send me the details, and I would be

happy to look into this situation.

[1425]

GOVERNMENT SPENDING ON

HEALTH CARE ADVERTISING

Belsey: I would like to ask a question, a publicly written question

submitted by Gary Coons, president of the Prince Rupert District Teachers

Association, to the Minister of Health Services. Although the Premier clearly

stated the government would not put available dollars into advertising, how much

has the government spent on health advertising?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I guess just to correct one of the assumptions in the question, the

commitment that the Premier made prior to the election is that we would not be

engaging in the kind of political advertising we saw by the previous

administration. To answer the specific question, I can tell the member, and his

constituent through the member, that when it comes to dollars spent of the

budget of the Ministry of Health Services, there has not been any money spent on

paid advertising. I can report that out of the budget for the public affairs

bureau — which I fully understand comes from the same source, and that's the

taxpayers of British Columbia — there have been the following amounts

disbursed to date: the total ad creative and production component is $198,500,

and the total ad buy cost is $416,000.

Mr.

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

Belsey: I would like to ask a follow-up question of my own of the Minister

of Health Services. There has been a campaign of misinformation…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Belsey: …designed to scare people into believing that the resources they

need do not exist. Can the Minister of Health Services tell my constituents in

this House what resources are being directed into providing quality health care

for British Columbians?

Hon. C.

Hansen: I'll tell you, one of the things that we're not doing out of the

Health budget is sending money into advertising. Just to put that into

perspective, in the ten years the previous government was in office, they spent

$42.5 million out of the Health budget on advertising.

Interjections.

[ Page 4079 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. C.

Hansen: To answer the specific question of the member, we have in fact added

$1.1 billion into the Health budget in British Columbia, increasing it from the

$9.3 billion that was in place when the previous government was kicked out to

$10.4 billion that's there today.

MANAGEMENT OF

FORESTS RECREATION SITES

McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Following the Ministry

of Forests decision to withdraw from the management and maintenance of Forests

recreation sites, several groups in my constituency have expressed an interest

in operating these sites. These sites are important to my community…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

McMahon: …but there is a concern that they are simply going to close. Can

the Minister of Forests tell me if, to date, any groups have been successful in

taking over the comanagement of recreation sites?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker, and to the member for the question because, in

fact, out of a challenge has emerged a tremendously good-news story. That

relates to the fact that across this province, people — community groups,

non-profits — are getting involved in the management of our recreation

infrastructure.

In the

riding of Kamloops–North Thompson, in Clearwater, four developmentally

disabled adults are now earning a paycheque because they're involved in managing

rec sites. In Burns Lake, in the Chilcotin area, people are getting involved.

There is a

wealth of opportunity out there. We have an incredibly valuable recreation and

trail infrastructure in place in British Columbia, and now people across this

province are going to be helping with and be involved in the comanagement of

that infrastructure.

Mr.

Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary

question.

McMahon: The Forests recreation sites in my constituency are very important

to residents, both for economic reasons and for quality of life. I have

personally heard from numerous families and numerous tourists who have enjoyed

visiting these sites for years.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Can we have some order, please, so that we may hear the question.

[1430]

McMahon: Can the Minister of Forests tell me how groups can keep these sites

open by becoming involved in the comanagement of Forests recreation sites?

Hon. M.

de Jong: Well, happily…. I talked about a few areas of the province, but

the area that this hon. member hails from has already got some tremendous

examples of how comanagement and participation by community groups can work —

whether it's the Nordic ski club or whether it's the Revelstoke snowmobile

association, who are already involved in comanaging the trail system in place.

What I want

to tell this member and, through her, British Columbians and all members of the

House is that a request for proposals has been extended. Community groups are

invited to contact the ministry, contact local offices and make a proposal.

Right across this province we are going to build on the existing recreational

infrastructure with the help of community groups of the sort I've mentioned and

the sort that are already involved right across British Columbia.

IRIS HOUSE MENTAL HEALTH FACILITY

P. Bell:

A few months ago I had the opportunity to open Iris House in Prince George,

along with the Minister of State for Mental Health and my Prince George

colleagues. Iris House is a great facility that deals with intensive care for

individuals with mental illness. To help cope with the increased demand for this

type of facility, this government's committed to adding additional beds to Iris

House.

I'm

wondering if the Minister of State for Mental Health could update my

constituents on the status of this and when it will be completed.

Hon. G.

Cheema: Iris House is a part of our $263 million commitment to mental

health. It provides a more appropriate, homelike environment for patients who

are in institutional care at Riverview Hospital. I am pleased to say that we are

now in the process of nearly doubling the capacity of Iris House with a $1.1

million expansion. We are in the construction phase of this expansion, and we

expect this project to open in March. In addition to providing improved care for

patients, this facility will improve the northern health authority's capacity to

provide care for patients in the future, and this is great news for mental

health in this province.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

[End

of question period.]

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: May we have some order, please, so that we can hear what the Clerk

has to say.

[ Page 4080 ]

Tabling Documents

Hon. S.

Hawkins: I have the honour to present the report on the health of British

Columbians, provincial health officer's annual report 2001, entitled The

Health and Well-being of Aboriginal People in British Columbia .

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 65.

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY SERVICES INTERIM

AUTHORITIES ACT

(continued)

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading of Bill 65. We'll just pause for a moment while

members make their way elsewhere quickly and quietly.

[1435]

Hon.

members, please make your way to where you're going quickly, so we may continue

the second reading debate on Bill 65 with the member for Vancouver-Langara.

Anderson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. It's a privilege to be able to get up and

speak in favour of the Community Services Interim Authorities Act, Bill 65. This

begins to bring into reality a vision which many people in our community have

had for a long time. The process is underway to begin to transfer many of the

services in our community that have been provided strictly through government

regulation and development to the community itself so that families and those

who are part of the services can share together in their planning and

development over the years to come.

The

Community Services Interim Authorities Act begins the process of transferring

services to the community to be undertaken by the community for the people of

the community. It's a process which will find a culmination in new authorities

and new services being presented on April 1, 2003. Over this interim time this

bill provides the mechanism in order to begin to set those processes in place.

So that all

might understand, particularly those who are listening throughout the province,

community services means the following types of services, which will be

available to be transferred so that community participation can bring these

services closer to home, to the people where they live in their own communities:

adoption services, services related to early childhood development, services to

assist families in caring for their children, services for children and youth

with special needs to assist them to live in their own communities, mental

health services for children and youth in their own communities, support

services for youth in crisis in their own communities, child protection and

guardianship services in their own communities, services for youth in conflict

with the law in their own community, services for adults with developmental

disabilities to assist them to live in their communities and other services that

may be deemed appropriate as these are transferred from Children and Family

Development.

This is a

very significant change in the way services are provided in the community. It

has come about by the Minister of Children and Family Development having brought

together numerous agencies from across the province which have been working in

these fields, many of them independently, and want interaction and community

correlation with each other. Now that these services are being moved to the

community, these groups have come together in an interactive process to plan, to

prepare and to make possible this transition.

I simply

want to commend the government and all the agency members and the family members

who have come together in this way to make this very important process possible

and feasible. We look forward to the completion of it on April 1, 2003, as the

interim process is completed and the ongoing process is established.

Mr.

Speaker: Second reading debate on Bill 65 continues.

[1440]

J. Bray:

I am also very pleased to stand up in support of this bill, the Community

Services Interim Authorities Act. This bill represents the start of one of the

most amazing transformations that any government in any province has seen, and

that is a recognition of the strength and the value of the community and the

strength of the value of the community as it pertains to families and to

children.

colleague mentioned the various areas that this bill covers with respect to

community services, and I would like to just focus on one, if I may. That is

service to assist families in caring for their children. Often we talk about the

term "it takes a village to raise a family." Well, this government and

the Minister of Children and Family Development have recognized that what has

often gotten in the way of that being a realization is the great dichotomy

between the community, the village, and the supports that government provides to

those communities. At times the government's involvement has seemed to be at

odds with the community, out of step with the community, butting heads with the

community. The reality is that families, families in crisis and families in

need, often bear the brunt of that.

This act

— which starts the process of transferring all of those services away from a

centralized government model out to those who know those families best, which

are the communities, a community-up process — means that for the government,

the staff that we provide in that, the social workers and the resource workers

will actually be working with the community to achieve those common goals rather

than at times being seen as an interloper in that process. It will be able to

support communities to make the best decisions for families and children, as

well as adults with devel-

[ Page 4081 ]

opmental disabilities and others that community services provide for, to make

sure that the community meets those unique needs in those unique settings around

the province.

I am

particularly pleased this act makes it very clear that it is a process of design

that the community is involved with. In fact, I was very impressed, during the

minister's comments opening debate, by the number of different groups who have

come together in positive support of this initiative. In other words, it is not

an initiative that's in isolation of government alone. It is really the

community coming together around this province, seeing this vision, and

everybody sharing this vision and moving forward. This act ensures that over the

next several months, as these community plans are developed and the way in which

services will be delivered, the community will all be working together to ensure

that delivery is not just a continuation of services but an improvement of

services.

As somebody

who has worked in the community of social service field all my life, I also know

that for those who work for government in the Ministry of Children and Family

Development — who have tremendous skills and abilities in the area of family

services, child protection and resource work and who are caring and

compassionate people who have ended up spending far too much time behind

computers and actually doing administrative work — this is starting to set the

course. They will be able to be back out in the field actually practising what

they studied for, which is services to families, services to children, services

to people with developmental disabilities. They will be able to focus their

attention in concert with the community to help families and individuals in each

of those communities.

I am

particularly excited that on Vancouver Island, the committee working in the

various areas of administration and policy and legislation is working

tremendously cooperatively. I am just so excited that I see this new way of

delivering services as not just being a leader in Canada but, really, being at

the cutting edge and leading the world. The minister spoke during his comments

about the recognition this plan is now receiving internationally. I think it's a

testament that the recognition is not just of government but of the community

assets we currently have that are going to be able to come together to ensure we

improve services.

The other

area I see this act is starting to lay out, too, is that communities will start

to be able to ensure that as they work together, they find the kind of

efficiencies that focus efforts not on paperwork and administration between

government and agencies but that they can devote more of their energy to

actually ensuring they're delivering services because they'll be working

together to develop those plans.

[1445]

I know the

minister has heard me several times in estimates talk about the rather

complicated contracting process between government and community services and

the amount of time and effort agencies have to focus on satisfying the

paper-craving that government sometimes develops. By moving things all to the

community — decision-making as well as service delivery — it will greatly

reduce all of that work which did nothing to actually serve children but served

other needs.

The

Community Services Interim Authorities Act sets out the process by which

communities will maximize their efforts and government will maximize their

efforts. The beneficiaries will be children and families and people with

developmental disabilities.

I look

forward to seeing the final plans in the spring. I commend the minister for his

work, and I know that constituents in my riding who are involved in those areas

are very excited and are working very hard to make sure this vision becomes a

reality.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Speaker, just to advise you, I'm also the designated speaker on this issue.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to first congratulate the minister for getting this bill to this House.

I know the minister has been working on this process for a long, long time. That

said, I also wish to take this opportunity to raise some concerns about this

legislation, and I'd like to share those concerns with members of this House.

understand from the minister's statements in first reading that the intention of

the act is to have "real participation and influence by communities in the

delivery of services." I think there's a real fear growing in communities

that having participation and influence is all too often a code word for

downloading of costs and responsibilities to the communities, and all too often

these additional burdens come with insufficient funding and support from

government.

I'm hoping

the minister can reassure the House and the people in the community that this

is, in fact, not the case. However, since the election…. I've been around long

enough to sometimes perhaps get a little bit cynical around the actions of

government. When government says it's protecting the most vulnerable, we see

actions to the contrary. We see program cuts that are hurting and gutting the

heart and the spirit of communities. We've seen that in education, with school

boards taking the heat for stresses caused by underfunding that this Minister of

Education, this government, have brought about. This government is very

comfortable in saying: "It wasn't us who cut the program; it was the school

trustees. So don't blame us; blame somebody else."

Well, it

was this government that brought about those program cuts and the underfunding

that caused the stress in the community. It is this government that's ultimately

responsible for the devastating cuts that are taking place across the board in

this province. We just saw it in health care. We see the crisis that's being

created by this government in health care. You can try to avoid responsibility,

but I see through it, and I suspect the public is seeing through it as well. I

just want to let

[ Page 4082 ]

the minister know that people are watching. We in the opposition are

watching.

I hope the minister understands, and I think that the minister does

understand, that the lives of children and their families are too important to

play politics with. They're too important to take a risk of reducing programs at

their expense. It is the lives of children that are at stake and the futures of

their families that are at stake.

I hope the

minister understands that and understands that the restructuring…. While on

the one hand, we can look to see how we can improve the system, how we can allow

for true responsibility for the community but with sufficient support to ensure

they have the tools to get the job done, to make sure that funding is not

eroded…. I hope that will become reality and that, along with this piece of

legislation, sufficient funding will also come from the government.

To look

back, though, in terms of reviewing what the ministry has done to date, what

this government has done to date, we hear stories from the public, stories in

the media that have been reported about what some of the impacts of the cuts

are, and it's directly in this ministry.

Let me just

quote from the Creston Valley Advance . This was an

article published on

July 11, 2002. I won't read the entire article, because it is long. I'll just

read parts of it so that we get the idea of what we're talking about:

former program assistant with the Creston and District Society for Community

Living is among employees speaking up about the lack of opinions and options

available to mentally and physically disabled adults who once lived in two

homes owned by the society. Part of what was formerly known as the Endicott

Centre, Rosewood House, was closed in May, and Archibald House was closed on

June 30 by the Ministry of Children and Family Development in what were billed

as cost-cutting measures, but Pat Mahoney said the move will cost even more in

the long term.

[1450]

"'Clients

have been given no choice in what's going to happen to them,' said Mahoney, a

former program assistant at Rosewood. Instead, the nine clients, who range in

age from 30 to 75, are being moved to other housing units operated by the

CDSCL, the Creston and District Society for Community Living, or are living

with people contracted to look after their needs. Dale Deal, a spokesman for

the Canadian Union of Public Employees who also worked at Rosewood, said

family members who disagree with the clients being moved into the community

aren't being given a choice."

The

article then goes on to say:

"Clients

being moved to other facilities operated by the society are being transferred

to already crowded locations without a corresponding increase in staff, which

Deal said makes the workload difficult. Mahoney suspects the closure was

accelerated at the behest of the provincial Liberal government. 'It sure looks

like it. It happened so fast.' Mahoney is predicting dire consequences for

disabled people in the Kootenays as they age. 'There is no safety net for

having a huge problem with somebody in Cranbrook,' he said. 'We were the

safety net.' Mahoney said the centre was a successful part of the community

that shouldn't have been closed. 'To me, it's like you're losing a landmark in

the community,' he said. 'I think this community needs to be aware of what's

going on,' Deal added. 'I think it's a shame.'"

It's just one example in terms of the cutback of programs that's

caused by government underfunding.

Another

situation, in the Alberni Valley Times , December 2001:

"What

will people with disabilities do without a citizens advocacy office, community

living, group homes and other programs? There will be no citizens advocacy

office dances or having coffee in the citizens advocacy office or having

friends. Thousands of people will be without jobs in British Columbia

communities. We need all those programs like the citizens advocacy office,

group homes, community living and other programs in this community for people

with disabilities. The funding cuts are not acceptable."

This is an editorial in the Alberni Valley Times .

The cuts,

of course, are not just in one small community in one part of the province. They

are throughout the province in very many different communities. There are a

series of articles that put these issues out for contemplation and for the

public's information and, hopefully, to bring the issues to the government and

have the government address their concerns. So far, though, we have not seen

that the government reacted in any way, shape or form to the concerns. In fact,

just this past weekend in Penticton, the Premier rose up in the Liberal Party's

convention to say they're going to stay the course. They're simply not going to

listen to the public with respect to their concerns. I hope that's not the case

here with this minister.

In another

article, in the Cowichan Valley Citizen , December 5, 2001….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

You know, the member is saying I should have been there. No, actually, I was

busy out talking to people as opposed to being locked in a room talking to only

people that the Liberal government wants to talk to. I want to talk to people

who don't have access to the government. That's what we've seen to date, because

MLA offices are locked. People are not able to get in to access the MLAs or the

cabinet ministers to raise their concerns. That's what the opposition members

were doing this weekend.

The Cowichan

Valley Citizen:

"Budget

cuts called for by the provincial government's core review of services will

have a dramatic impact beyond the expected layoff of as many as 12,000

provincial employees, warns the executive director of the Cowichan Valley

Association for Community Living. Bonner said the Ministry of Children and

Families provides CVACL with about $2.1 million of its annual $2.5 million

budget, making layoffs and service cuts inevitable if the ministry's budget is

slashed by 30 percent."

We now know

it's being cut by 23 percent. Still, 23 percent is a significant impact on the

overall delivery of programs.

"'Cutbacks

of this extent will restrict CVACL and other service providers from delivering

our present level of residential care, day program support and early

[ Page 4083 ]

i ntervention to children,' he said, 'and most of these services

already have wait-lists.' Bonner attended a meeting of the Coalition for

Community Living in Victoria last Tuesday, where he said overwhelming opposition

to budget cuts was expressed.

[1455]

"'Everyone

I talked to felt threatened, abandoned and outraged.' With 85 percent of his

ministry funding allocated to pay staff and most operational funding dependent

on community organizations like the United Way, Bonner insists that there's no

fat left to trim. It is his view that funding actually needs to be increased in

order to reduce the amount of people wait-listed for CVACL services. He took

that message to a meeting with the MLA for Malahat–Juan de Fuca. 'He told me

the ministry is essentially out of funds and having to make difficult

decisions,' Bonner said. 'I'm urging government to think of the long-term costs

of cutting back funding — cutting back our children's services really

increases the stress on families to have to deal with additional challenges.

Mothers may have to quit their jobs to take care of kids, and that leads to a

cycle of stress and poverty. As a society, do we want to send messages that

early intervention child care isn't that important?'"

That's an excerpt from the newspaper article.

Kamloops, yet another region of the province, in the Kamloops Daily News :

"Community

care workers are not the only people frightened by the B.C. government cutbacks

to social services. Several people with mental disabilities participated in

Tuesday's protest by Kamloops community social service workers. One of them,

Alice Taylor, made a speech that brought tears to the eyes of some veteran

caregivers. 'Your cuts are hurting us,' says Taylor, reading from a written

statement, 'so just leave us alone.' Taylor has lived with the same caregiver

since 1999, one of the people who might lose her job as a result of the Liberal

government's rewriting of union contracts in this sector. Taylor said she fears

a return to institutionalized care, where it's like having guards come and

go."

Still

in Kamloops:

"Upon

receiving the recent action alert of November 13 from the B.C. Association for

Community Living regarding the planned cutbacks and also hearing of the proposed

cutbacks to the front-line workers and departments in the Ministry of Children

and Family Development, I feel compelled to write a letter of concern regarding

these issues. I've worked in the public school system as a school support worker

for the last 20 years. The students I've worked with have a wide range of

disorders, both physically and mentally.

"My

history goes back to the days when Kamloops had two segregated schools

which many clients from the institution attended. During these years I've had

the pleasure of working with social workers, group home staff, parents, support

services, community support services, etc., who I feel have been most critical

in assisting students to achieve their goals to be the best they can and to

successfully integrate into our society. Without the assistance of all members

of their support team, these students would not have been able to achieve their

success.

"Many

of the students I've worked with were students who were in the care of

the Ministry of Children and Family Development and relied upon their social

workers to advocate for them. It causes me great distress to think that our

provincial government plans to initiate serious cutbacks in funding and services

for people with disabilities, as well as to children in care. The proposed

cutbacks fly in the face of the pre-election promises the Liberal government

made not to cut these services. There are many ways we can do better with the

dollars we have, but cutting staff, services and funding from an already

bare-bones system is not the answer."

similar issue has been raised in Nanaimo in yet another article. It talks about

the concern of the targeted number of layoffs of staff, the inability of the

community to cope and, ultimately, for the community, who depends on these

services, to suffer. In the Vancouver Sun , closer to home, are more

issues around problems around wait-lists. Individual letters written to us

around these concerns, too, indicate the same issue.

Time and

time and time again there is a theme that emerges as we look at these letters

and these editorials. It is the cutting of the program, of the funding and what

will ultimately happen. There won't be sufficient resources to provide for the

programs that are needed. While we're restructuring, we can look at ways of how

we can do things differently, but the government and the minister must be aware

that the tools for people to do their work must be available. You cannot cut

back and say: "Here it is. Here's your responsibility, community. Go to it,

and go do a good job of it." When the tools are not there, they can't do

their work. That's the reality, and that's what I'm concerned about.

[1500]

The Vancouver

Sun put forward a story last November that has some very interesting

statistics. The ministry supports community living for about 8,700 adults with

developmental disabilities. Approximately 75 percent, or roughly $1 billion, of

the ministry's funding is spent in the area of community living. The statistics

obtained by the Vancouver Sun through the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act show that in June there were about 12,000 children and

youths receiving services from the ministry's special needs health programs, but

14,500 were on this wait-list. In the story this minister said that the

government has dealt with the wait-lists by spreading services thinly among

children and youths, and now 6,867 remain on the wait-lists, but acknowledged

that only two-thirds of the children and youths receiving ministry aid are

getting minimum support.

I wonder

how this new community governance model will address these issues of wait-lists.

I hear about innovation, the goal of improving outcomes and participation. But

what of wait-lists in the community? It is all very well and good if the service

model has been revamped, but if you're still on a wait-list waiting for that

service, these changes won't do you much good. The reality is we're seeing

another 23 percent reduction in the minister's budget.

Earlier

today, thanks to the minister — who actually, amongst few ministers, offers

briefings to the opposition around the status of change that's going on within

the ministry — I met with the minister's staff. They were very good in

providing information and

[ Page 4084 ]

answering questions. The issue that I raised with the staff is that when the

minister is faced with the cuts in his ministry, what will happen? Will those

cuts then correspond and be transferred to the community who's to deliver these

services that have been given to the community? The answer was yes.

We know

that the transfer of service cuts is going to take place. It is a three-year

budget that the minister has put forward. In the budget it says that next year

there will be a 23 percent funding reduction. There'll be a 22 percent staffing

reduction, and those will simply transfer onto the community. Caution around the

restructuring needs to be raised at this point. It's not just about the

authority that we need to be careful. It's also the funding and the tools

associated with it and what tools are given to the community.

As well, I

asked the question: aside from the funding, who will be monitoring the progress

for the community in terms of what's going on? The answer from the ministry

staff was very simple: the minister. The problem is that the minister himself

has to bring forward these service cuts. Quite frankly, it puts the minister in

a bit of a bind. On the one hand, I'm sure the minister, in his own heart,

doesn't want to bring forward these program cuts, but yet he is forced to. He

has to. He has to do the bidding of the government. He has to do the bidding of

the Premier. So they are off-loaded.

It is the

minister who will ultimately say: "Hey, look at what we're doing and how

well we're doing it." We see this in question period every day. You ask a

legitimate question on what's going on. As an example, how can wait-lists for

the Ministry of Health have increased? The minister's own website shows the

categories of surgery have increased significantly. Not just the number of

people on the wait-list has increased, but also the amount of time has

increased.

This is all

under the auspices of the government's restructuring plan. Supposedly, it's

going according to plan, yet the northern health authority has come forward to

say they cannot meet the objectives that have been laid out. They cannot meet

the target that's been laid out. They're going to have to go through more cuts

in health care in order to achieve that. Then in the House, when asked that

question, the Minister of Health Services gets up and says they're doing a great

job, everything's on target, they're moving forward, and this is what has to be

done.

Are we

going to hear the same thing from this minister when the issues arise? I

anticipate they may well arise, because the budget is targeted to be cut by 23

percent. How can you have the watchdog function of how things are going — if

the community is getting enough resources to do their job — being monitored by

the government?

[1505]

I further

asked the question: will there by a public reporting of what's going on? The

steering committees, as I understand it, will be putting together reports to the

minister. But that's to the minister. There's been no commitment to date whether

or not those reports will be made public. I would assert that those reports must

be made public, not through an FOI process that's lengthy and that could delay

the immediacy of knowing what is going on — for British Columbians to know

what's going on and to monitor fairly and accurately what is going on with all

the changes within the ministry. It is incumbent on the minister to make that

decision and to respond in this House, to say, "Yes, I will make the report

open and accessible to the public immediately," and therefore really

support the notion of transparency within government, not this other notion

within the new-era agenda where everybody says that they're open and transparent

within the Liberal government. What we've seen to date is for the government to

bring forward more obstacles to accessing information, to create more committees

that say they're even exempted from the FOI process. That, in my view, is not

open and transparent government.

I hope the

minister will commit today, in this House, that all the reporting that is sent

to the minister from the steering committee on the restructuring, on the

progress and on what's going on is in fact made public for all British

Columbians to assess and to make a determination whether or not progress has

been made.

In the

minister's second reading statements, the minister claimed that "the

introduction of this legislation marks an important step in meeting two new-era

commitments: to stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring that has drained

resources from children and family…." It is interesting for the minister

to claim that starting the most extensive restructuring and downsizing ever

undertaken for this ministry somehow complies with the pre-election promise to

stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring.

In the

second reading statement also, the minister went on to say:

"While

we identify and develop the processes for change, we must at the same time

safeguard the quality of services to tens of thousands of vulnerable children,

families and adults that the ministry serves. A budget reduction target of 23

percent must accompany this change over the period of our three-year service

plan. A year ago many of those involved might have had some skepticism and,

indeed, declared this process impossible. Yet we have persevered, and people

have been committed to it and involved in it, and we are currently right on

track."

far as I can tell, the minister has yet to produce a shred of evidence that any

cuts, much less a 23 percent cut, can be introduced without seriously eroding

the services to vulnerable children, individuals and families. Many of the

families I've spoken to remain as skeptical as they were a year ago. I read off

some of the news media reports in terms of the concerns and what the impacts are

in the community as a result of budget cuts.

In second

reading, the minister stated: "The feedback, comments and consensus from

the core services review process were that the current systems were both

dysfunctional and unsustainable over the long term. Further, there was a strong

consensus that regional and

[ Page 4085 ]

community-based models of governance are the preferred option for more

effective and more efficient service delivery."

As far as I

can see, most of the submissions did not argue that services were unsustainable.

They argued that services were underfunded. Further, there was no consensus on

the model that the ministry is proposing. That model is based on one out of

hundreds of competing submissions to the core review process. That submission

was, incidentally, the only one that supported the minister's agenda of 23

percent cuts.

We can see,

even by submissions received by the ministry, that there is manipulation of the

information, manipulating it to actually sell and support the government's own

agenda of cost-cutting exercise. The question that I raise again is: how do we

know that there is indeed progress, that there are indeed enough resources for

the communities that take on this responsibility to do the work that is required

of them, when in fact the community groups in their own submissions to

government say that it's not an issue about sustainability?

In fact,

when I talk to people, most people say to me that investing in our children is

too important for people to actually cut its programs. That ultimate goal of

investing in children for our future is the ultimate goal. Therefore the

investment is worth it. That's what they say to me. They don't sit around and

say, "Well, gee, this is unsustainable," as the government often says

about all services, whether it be health care, education, and now children and

family services. They say the contrary. They say we need to invest in it as

opposed to taking away.

[1510]

Yet what we

see in government's actions is the opposite direction from what many British

Columbians say. This is the caution I raised earlier around the watchdog

function.

It's not

that I don't trust the minister. I think the minister has his heart in the right

place. I'm sure of that. I know some of the work the minister did before he got

elected to his position now. I know the minister, before this time, wanted to

advocate for a positive change, not to cut services and reduce services, but he

is required to do the government's bidding. He is required to do the Premier's

bidding of cutting funding to programs, thereby hurting the very people he is

mandated to protect and provide services to. That is the reality we now see.

The

minister went on to say in his second reading: "Hundreds of community

leaders have since begun to contribute their knowledge, ideas, time and energy

as we try to reinvent governance in these areas of social service. Their wisdom

has been gathered and has been focused."

Well, from

the information I've received, hundreds of community leaders who offered their

time and expertise felt they have been completely shut out of the process. They

believe it was because they would not endorse the government's predetermined

agenda of the 23 percent cut.

I want to

be very clear here. The issue is not necessarily about the governance model in

terms of a change to give the responsibility to the community. I want to be

clear that that's not necessarily the issue. The issue is the resources that

need to accompany that work and that responsibility. Many people have said time

and again that they are not endorsing a 23 percent cut from the government's

budget for children and family services.

The

minister in his second reading went on to say: "By and large, people tend

to distrust change." The people I've spoken with and had contact with are

not necessarily opposed to change. In fact, they want to see change. People see

the need for a change, and I see the need for change in some cases as well.

Where the distrust comes in about the restructuring process is that it is

predetermined and driven by the government's need to implement arbitrary and

unreasonable budget-reduction targets.

What is

driving the model for change is not what is needed to make it better

necessarily, but rather, it's what the bottom line is. If that is the reason

that drives the need for change, that's where people have issues. That's where I

have an issue. It cannot be a bottom-line exercise when we're dealing with

children and families who are at risk and who need an investment from government

so that they, too, can have a future and their quality of life can be improved.

There's

distrust that the minister has never seriously considered, I believe,

alternatives besides the plan that the government came up with a year ago. Now,

perhaps the minister has considered it and has been unable to convince his own

government to make changes. At the end of the day, the same prevails: those cuts

are taking place, and the community is getting hurt by them.

That

message somewhere…. I don't know who can deliver it to the Premier or to the

Minister of Finance, but it has to be delivered, and it has to be listened to.

That is the issue that needs to be focused on as well.

Many

families think every step of the process has been governed by the requirement

that either you buy into the minister's predetermined plan or you're left out in

the cold. We see that. We see that amongst different ministers. "If you

don't agree with me, if you don't agree with what we're proposing, then there's

no need for consultation." That's the pattern, the trend, of this

government when it comes to that.

[1515]

Then the

ministers often would say: "It's not that we haven't consulted; it's simply

because they don't agree with our suggested change." Well, if the majority

of British Columbians don't agree with your suggested change, there's a problem.

I would venture to say there is a problem. You cannot say you consulted with

people, when the majority of people don't agree with you, and then you just shut

out the people who want to bring forward different opinions for consideration.

It's not because they want to harm the government in any way, shape or form.

It's not because they want to harm the system of the delivery of services in any

way, shape

[ Page 4086 ]

or form. On the contrary, they want to actually advance those things. They

want to bring in a positive suggestion. Some of it may require that government

deviate from the original and only agenda, the bottom line.

Sometimes

it requires that. That's what is needed, I think, to see this interim set of

approaches in delivering services so that the children and families who are in

need of greater services and protection have those kinds of resources; so that

the ears of government are actually open to them, to receiving different

information, not just on the issue around delivery-of-service models. The

resources need to be there so that they can in fact deliver those services in an

adequate and successful manner.

The issue,

though, around consultation does arise in this debate around this bill. The

minister advised that there was plenty of consultation. He said:

"The

steering committee hosted video conferences linking more than 400 families in 20

communities over a four-week period, creating the opportunity for people to meet

face to face across hundreds of kilometres to dialogue with steering committee

members. Just last Thursday, I took

part in one such video conference with more

than 70 people with disabilities and family members from across the province. I

joined the co-chairs of the steering committee and other committee members in

responding to the issues and concerns from people in five different

communities."

Well,

some of the feedback I've been receiving is that the transition steering

committee's consultation consisted of a series of information sessions held as

they were drafting or after they had already submitted their draft report. In

communities like Nanaimo, where families turned out in large numbers to express

serious concerns, I've been told that none of those concerns were reflected in

the report, which claims sweeping support for all their proposals.

The

undoubtedly pricey video conferences were held in October after the steering

committee had already submitted its report to the ministry. How can the minister

possibly include that as part of the consultation? It's after the fact. He

received the information after the fact. Then to say that you have consulted….

The report had already been put in and forwarded. There's a problem with the

process around that, a problem with consultation.

The

ministry had clearly already written the draft legislation even before getting

the draft report, so what was the point of even pretending to be consulting? If

legislation is already drafted and you haven't yet received the report — never

mind that the report was sent first, and then you went out and had the video

conferencing — how does that add up to consultation? Where is the real input?

How is it reflected? How is it reflected in all the different stages that are

essential for true consultation to take place?

Now, some

ministers in the Liberal government have made this argument: "Consultation

means what we want to move forward on, and people can comment about it

afterwards." It's not good enough. That's not really how consultation

works.

How

consultation really works is that you go and ask people without a predetermined

agenda. You say to people: "We do have some ideas, and here they are. What

do you think about that? How do we improve upon it?" Then you take that

input and incorporate it into the changes that you want to move forward.

That, in my

view, in all my years working in the community, having been an elected official,

is what constitutes consultation — not the other way around. It doesn't work

when you have legislation already in place, and then the report comes out

afterwards, and you say: "Oh, by the by, here's the report. The report has

already been submitted. We went out and talked to people, but none of those

comments are included in any of these things." That does not amount to

consultation. It surely does not amount to true consultation, if anybody has any

understanding of what consultation really means.

[1520]

The

minister stated: "The changes to this legislation will create a more stable

system of services for children, families and adults with developmental

disabilities. It will bring the capacity for decision-making closer to the

community, providing faster and more direct responses to the needs of vulnerable

people."

Some

families worry that these changes will instead give families the dirty job of

implementing the minister's budget cuts for him, therefore providing the

minister with political insulation from the devastating impacts that could

result from these cuts. The changes may give families the impossible task of

having to choose between cutting services that affect their own loved ones or

choosing cuts that will affect other families.

We see

that, and I predict that in the Ministry of Education as these cuts are now

taking place across our province, as we see schools being closed, as we see

classroom sizes increasing, as we see special needs children not getting the

services they need, as we see teachers having to make a difficult decision: do

they spend time with Johnny or Annie? Who needs more support at this moment? How

do they make the decision and determine who needs one-on-one support

whereas the

other children don't? That is what's happening right now across the province in

the area of education.

I hope this

will not happen in this ministry, really, and I pray that it doesn't. I'm not

normally a religious person, but God forbid it should happen. The risks are too

high for the people who depend on these services, who do sometimes…. I think

some of them do. There's truth to it. The electorate did have an election. There

was an election, and they voted the Liberal government in. They wanted to see

change, but change that they were promised, where they said they would not cut

services to British Columbians, where they said they will in fact protect the

most marginalized, the most vulnerable in our community. Deliver that promise.

Deliver that promise is what the opposition is asking for.

[ Page 4087 ]

There is

nothing that would make me happier than if the minister and this government

would deliver that promise and not hurt the people as I do see now, where all of

their programs, many of their programs, are taking place in our community; where

people are being hurt; where children, families, seniors, individuals — young

or old, irrespective, across the board — are getting hurt by this government's

programs. And then for the Premier to say, "I'm staying the course. You

guys are just making noise out there, and you know what? People elected us for

change…."

People did

elect this government for change, but not the changes this government is doing.

Let's be clear about that. If the government changes course, the opposition will

be the first to applaud the government, to say: "Good on you for

recognizing what needs to be done and for doing what you promised to do."

That's what we want, and that's what British Columbians want as well.

I raised

the issue around the cuts, but so far the minister has not addressed this in his

comments. I also found the sections of bill that refer to donations interesting

— very interesting. We already know that this government's move towards

cost-cutting has meant more and more people having to pay out of their own

pockets. It is overt, actually; it's quite blatant. The government is saying to

you: "Fewer services for you, but you have to pay more." We see that.

We see that in the Ministry of Health. We see it in health services delivery,

where MSP premiums have gone up. Pharmacare is going up, actually, in a week's

time or so for people. We see that services are being cut off in terms of

coverage from MSP.

We see

these things and these changes taking place. Costs to communities, individuals

and families have actually gone up, but services have actually decreased. We

haven't really heard from the government in terms of how the minister's going to

address these issues, yet we see in the bill that there's a

section that talks

about…. Well, there's a way for you to get more money, for you to make more

money.

Section 12(1) reads: "An interim authority may solicit and accept

donations from any person or source for the use of the interim authority."

Section 12(2): "In addition to soliciting and accepting donations under

subsection (1), an interim authority, with the minister's prior approval, may

solicit and accept donations for purposes related to the provision of community

services or administrative services by or on behalf of a new authority."

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Is this

going to let the government off the hook to say: "Yes, we've cut 23

percent, but we gave you the authority to manage your resources. We gave you

more flexibility"? Where have we heard that? In the area of education, from

the Minister of Education, "We gave you the authority to manage your

resources; we gave you the authority to go and make more money," and all of

those kinds of things. In the meantime, the Minister of Education knows very

well that she's hurting education, or she should know very well. If she's

pretending not to acknowledge it, she should know that very well.

[1525]

We see the

same kind of theory and the same kind of approach being applied here under this

bill. I hope it is not an approach from the government to say to the community

groups: "I've given you flexibility to go and manage the service cuts, to

manage the resources so that you should be able to deliver the mandate that is

now required of you, even with less money." I hope that is not the intent

here. I hope it's not the intent of government to say to the community

groups….

I worked

for non-profits for many, many years before I became a politician, and we spent

a lot of time looking for donations and so on. Luckily for me — in the

position I was in and working with the particular non-profit that I was involved

with, dealing with low-income individuals, tenants rights and housing needs and

human rights and so on — core funding for the organization for these key

positions was never in question. I hope that we will now not see a translation

of this clause under 12(1) and (2) to say to these organizations — and now

with a 23 percent reduction in services and budgets, it means that core funding

from government in some of these programs will be eroded — therefore:

"You must exercise this section's options to go out and find moneys and

donations."

I hope the

minister will stand up in this House and guarantee that core funding for these

authorities will be stable and maintained, that he would be able to do that. I

hope this bill does not mean that the interim authorities will have to try to

raise funds on their own in order to provide for core services. If they have to

do that, they will have very little time to mind and be able to deliver the

mandate they're meant to do. I do want to say it is true that non-profits often

use fundraising to raise money, but these funds are often used to supplement

what they're getting from government, to increase and to enhance what it is that

they're doing. Fundraising should not be required to replace government funding.

That is the issue I want to raise with the minister.

In talking

with community advocates and parents, I've been made very aware of some deep

concerns in the community around how this whole restructuring process has taken

place. The report of the minister's transition steering committee — the TSC,

as it is called — has not yet been made public, but it appears that the next

stage of detailed operational and financial planning for the ministry

restructuring and cuts is already underway, based on agreements reached between

the minister and the transition steering committee.

When will

this transition committee report be made public? The latest I've heard is that

the final revised report was presented to the minister over the past weekend.

Yet again I find myself asking the government why they're not introducing this

report before they introduce legislation or at least introduce it at the same

time so that the information could be shared and reviewed by British Columbians,

so that we can assess

[ Page 4088 ]

what the steering committee had in fact said to the government and what the

concerns might or might not be. Or have they been addressed?

Who will be

on the board of the interim authority? The bill makes it very clear that the

minister can hand-pick his own appointees. I've spoken to parents and advocate

about how they feel about the representation in the restructuring process so

far. What I'm hearing is that there are some grave concerns about the steps the

minister has taken during this restructuring process and about the structure of

the transition steering committee. The biggest concern has been whether the

steering committee has been truly representative of parents and community

members or whether it just serves as a hand-picked board to recommend the cuts

and restructuring that the minister already has in mind.

[1530]

I really

hope this is not the case, but I've been given some information that raises

these issues — a whole bunch of letters, in fact, that the opposition has

received. I'll put some of these on record, and I hope the minister will respond

to these. I hope the minister will say, "Don't worry. It will be

representative, and here's how we will do it," and illustrate how he will

actually make sure that is in fact the case and not just pay lip service to the

notion of consultation, as I know some other ministers have done. I hope the

minister will respond to some of these letters.

Here's one

letter from an individual, and it reads as follows. It's addressed to the

minister.

"As

a parent of a nine-year-old autistic son, I have grave concerns over the

implementation and fast-paced transition that seems to be happening to turn over

control to community living associations to provide services to children and

youth. In the first place, I do not feel that children and youth special needs

have been duly represented in the transition steering committee and, from

reviewing all the minutes, do not feel that they will properly be represented if

this proceeds."

Now, the letter goes on to highlight some of the concerns they have,

and the minister has this letter already. I would ask the minister to please

take a look at this and respond to this individual.

Here's

another letter, again addressed to the minister. It's very recent, actually. In

fact, this letter is from October 21, 2002. Parts of the letter read as follows:

"I'm

writing to express my anger and dismay that you're proceeding full speed with

plans to downsize your ministry, implementing arbitrary, dangerous and

unjustified 17 percent budget cuts. I'm also outraged at the corrupt and cynical

consultation process that has been employed in an effort to portray that this is

something that B.C. families actively support.

" I'm

writing to inform you that as a parent of a child with autistic spectrum

disorder, I do not support your vision to transform community living services. I

do not support plans to transfer responsibility for services to a community

governance model. I do not support your transition steering group, the Community

Living Coalition, the Individualized Funding Family Coalition or the overall

process to date. As a volunteer facilitator for the Vancouver-Burnaby parents

support group of the Autism Society of B.C., I know that our families either

don't know, don't understand or don't support these plans."

It is a lengthy letter, which again raises a whole range of issues

that have been brought to the minister's attention, and I hope the minister will

respond to this letter too.

Another

letter on a similar note but with a different request:

"Please

postpone any further transformation to community living services until at least

three months after a hard copy of the Community Living Transition Steering

Committee's final report and budget have been distributed to all the

stakeholders, individuals, family members and service providers. This will give

people and their advocacy groups a chance to suggest changes and then agree or

disagree on the final outcome. Most stakeholders have not had an adequate chance

to influence the proceedings. Detailed information is extremely difficult or

impossible to obtain, and most family members do not understand what is going

on. Until the wishes of all these people are known and the majority agrees to

the new governance model, the mandate to create community-based governance would

not have been met.

"You

have committed to a 17 percent funding reduction over two years plus an

additional 6 percent capacity to address the waiting lists, which adds up to a

nearly 23 percent reduction in funding per person. I don't see how this can be

accomplished without a serious reduction in service quality that's violating one

of the CLTSC's basic principles stated in their May 17 meeting: no reductions in

service quality.

"In

order to understand how this 23 percent reduction is to be accomplished,

we need to have detailed budgetary information — i.e., how many social workers

will be eliminated, how much will funding for accreditation and licensing be

reduced, which support services will be cut, whether basic services will have

their funding further reduced or be required to add additional clients without

additional funding, etc.

"The

new community living authority will have an extremely difficult task

ahead, so I'm asking you to simplify their job and not request any transfer of

funds from other ministries for programs supporting the most vulnerable people

with developmental delays."

It's

not necessarily disagreeing with the need for a new governance model, but

there's concern around the budget constraints, what is in the report and what

information is available so that people can evaluate it and then determine what

that new model should look like.

There seems

to be a theme that emerges from many of these letters. Yes, some actually say

outright: "I'm very concerned. Here's how I feel that I or people I know

have not been consulted." Many of the letters also say, though, that yes,

we know there's a need for change, but here are some underlying core

foundational issues that have been put in front of these groups to try to meet

these challenges. Much of it centres around the funding, what the intent of the

government is and why the government and the minister don't make that

information public and available so that people can assess and make a

determination and therefore comment on these proposed changes so that we can

truly create cohesiveness in terms of trying to

[ Page 4089 ]

change the system in a way that can be positive and minimize the

confrontation and dissension that can exist and, perhaps most important of all,

minimize the distrust that exists in our broader community.

[1535]

Here's

another letter. This is actually a very recent letter. It just came in on

October 23. I'll just read a couple of paragraphs from the letter.

"I'm

seriously concerned about the proposals being discussed by your organization

with the Liberal government, which have cost reductions as the primary focus and

will jeopardize my son's eventual successful placement into a suitable facility

outside of our home. I think many families are simply gravely concerned about

the eventual outcome of the changes proposed for the provision of services to

persons with developmental disabilities.

"The

Supreme Court of Canada recently adopted this position. Since disability

strikes randomly and irrationally, it is unfair to place the burden of care and

cost entirely on the shoulders of the family for life. The community as a whole

should share in the care of those among us who are the most vulnerable.

"It

has generally been the view of progressive agencies and service

organizations, as well as governments, that disabled persons are entitled to be

full members of the community. In my opinion, enabling disabled persons to be

members of the community requires us to ensure suitable living accommodations

are made available that offer comfort, privacy and dignity to the residents.

That is what I hope will be available for my child. That is what I fear is being

placed at risk through your current deliberations respecting transition

services."

Just

three more letters here that I want to put some information from onto the

record, around people's concerns. This one, again, came in on October 23. Just

to highlight some of the concerns that have been raised, the letter reads:

"I'm

aware of families and perhaps other stakeholders who have been afraid to voice

concerns for fear of repercussions, which could include being targeted for

funding or service reductions — that services will be discontinued for adults

who are assessed with an IQ bordering on 70 and above or a new, more restrictive

threshold; that the community living authority will take over equity in group

homes currently being held by the B.C. Buildings Corporation, as this will

facilitate the possible sale of some of these homes; that there will be wage

cuts, discontinued block funding and implementation of individualized funding

for specialized services for those with autism. This will result in the loss of

supports and qualified, seasoned staff with the necessary specialized skill and

experience to support individuals with autism, with complex or challenging

needs."

Actually, there are many bullets in terms of what some of the

concerns are, and I've only just highlighted a couple for the flavour of the

debate for the minister's information and this House's information.

Here's

another letter with respect to concerns around changes. Parts of the letter from

this individual read as follows:

"It

saddens me, though, to think that the needs of the older population have not

been identified during the months of the CLTSC planning, except for a passing

verbal reference now and then when older parents have expressed their concerns.

Take, for example, the proposal to sell off existing group homes to produce

revenues. Individuals who are now seniors, like their parents, and have lived

all their lives at home have had their names on wait-lists for residential care

for years.

"If

no new group homes are being set up and existing ones may close, what are

the residential options for them? Congregate care? We've already seen the

minister think about that. Foster care? Sorry, there are not enough foster

parents with experience and dedication to fill the void. Frankly, older parents

are already experiencing the stress and heartache of adult children being

shuffled from one foster parent to another. Each time a situation doesn't wo rk

out, the individual returns home to wait for another placement. Meanwhile,

parents wind up in hospital emergency as they share the trauma of their son or

daughter and because of their own failing health."

This letter only just came in on Friday the 25th.

The people

who are writing these letters…. The point I want to make is that they've heard

the minister's second reading debate. They have now seen some of the changes

that have been proposed, and they still have some of the concerns.

[1540]

There's a

final letter from somebody from Maple Ridge, actually, who essentially raised

similar points to all the others around the notion of potentially putting in

place income testing to make it more difficult for people to qualify to get the

support they need, the concern around the ministry's budget cuts in terms of the

ability for the community to deliver the services they need and also the issue

around consultation and perhaps the lack thereof in terms of true consultation.

I won't

read all of the letters. Many of these letters were copied to the opposition,

but they were also written to the minister. I expect that the minister would

have these letters, and I would hope that the minister would address them.

As I said,

I raise these letters in this House to illustrate the points that are flawed

with the process to date, not necessarily to say that people don't want to see

change. That is not it at all. You see that from the flavour of the letters I've

read onto the record. Rather, people want to make sure how the changes take

place and, after the changes are in place, that the future, in terms of

resources, is provided for so that the delivery of the services is actually in

place so people at the end — the families and the children, the elders and so

on — would not be hurt.

It would be

interesting to see who is to be appointed to the board of this interim authority

and if the board will be truly representative of those impacted by these

changes. I hope that it will.

The

minister did put out a paper on community living services last October. From a

scan of the minister's website, I saw there were plenty of responses. I did pick

up on some of the themes throughout the responses, and I would like to flag some

of those from the Web for the House.

There must

be, above all, adequate funding for services. This is not currently the case.

The ministry must commit to providing adequate funding. Many indi-

[ Page 4090 ]

viduals and families are currently sitting on wait-lists for services. This

needs to be addressed. Provincewide standards need to be in place regarding the

availability of services.

Many adults

with developmental disabilities do not have family support. This government must

not lose sight of that when restructuring. Families should not be relied upon to

replace the role of government services. I hope that the minister has taken

these issues to heart and that he'll manage the restructuring in addressing

these issues as well.

Before I

close, I'd like to ask what the role of the aboriginal authorities is in this

bill. We have been contacted by a few representatives in the aboriginal

community who are concerned about the lack of specifics around aboriginal

authorities in this bill. I note that the original MOU that was signed by the

previous government by Chief Ed John, who was the minister then, brought about

changes — changes that need to actually ensure the aboriginal community has

full say in terms of how these issues around children and families are

addressed. That was done.

I know that

the minister was very anxious to see the continuation of that MOU. I understand

that the minister actually sought out Chief Ed John and met with him and others

to look for ways of how to renew and revitalize the MOU since the election. I'm

glad that the MOU has been renewed, and I'm glad to see it is being revitalized.

I know the

government says that addressing the aboriginal issues — the dismal statistics

that are out there around aboriginal children and families, whether it be

educational outcomes, health outcomes, being in conflict with the law, substance

misuse situations that take place in the family, education outcomes in terms of

completion of high school or advancement into post-secondary education….

Disproportionately, the aboriginal community takes the brunt of it, and yet they

are less than, I think, 3 percent of our population.

There's

something wrong with this picture. Make no mistake about it. There's something

wrong with this picture when the statistics tell us so. I know that Chief Ed

John had taken the leadership to address these issues prior to becoming part of

the previous government, and he had brought forward in that capacity the MOU. I

applaud the minister by putting aside partisan politics and seeking out Chief Ed

John and others to say: how do we advance with respect to this?

[1545]

The MOU

that was signed brought forward some key commitments from the government. The

government acknowledges that there are no statistics that exist for aboriginal

children, who make up approximately 4,000 of the 10,000 children in care in the

province. Of course that number has to be reduced, and we are all in agreement

with that.

What is

signed and agreed to under the MOU…. There are some key purposes around this

front, and I would like to just put that onto the record, because the MOU also

required the government to address not just the purposes but also the funding

issue as well.

First, on

the issue around the purposes of the MOU. I quote directly from the MOU:

"The

purpose of this MOU is to establish a joint dialogue and decision-making process

regarding general and systemic issues relating to the safety and well-being of

aboriginal children and families that (

a) is on a government-to-government

basis, (

b) recognizes that first nations — the Métis nation, the Inuit and

other aboriginal peoples — assert jurisdiction over their children and

families regardless of residency, (

c) recognizes the importance of transferring

the delivery of services to aboriginal communities, (

d) draws on the expertise

of aboriginal service delivery agencies and research institutions, and (

e) reflects the historic and new relationship established at Tsawwassen on June 11,

"The

joint dialogue and decision-making process will focus on (

a) reducing the

number of aboriginal children in care and returning aboriginal children to their

communities where it is appropriate to do so, and (

b) other topics or issues

agreed to by the party. "

Subsection

1.3 then states that the joint dialogue and decision-making process will be

carried out through the minister's joint aboriginal management committee, which

is established in

section 2 and is composed of representatives of the parties,

aboriginal service delivery agencies, and co-chaired by the Minister of Children

and Family Development and an aboriginal representative.

Then it

goes on to list all of the different groups that are involved. So the purpose,

as I understand — and the intent really is the basis of the purpose — is a

good one. Make no mistake about it. We want to see joint decision-making, we

want to see shared responsibility, and we want to see the aboriginal community

really taking the lead on a lot of these issues and advising the minister

accordingly in terms of what is the right thing to do, with the goal of

ultimately reducing the number of children in care.

Part and

parcel of that agenda, of course, goes not just to dealing with the children who

are now in care but also to preventative actions — how to prevent the children

from coming into care to begin with. This morning, as I mentioned earlier, we

had the lucky opportunity, as the minister had offered, for his staff to meet

with the opposition. I met with the ministry staff on that, and I asked about

preventative actions and about the other ministries' involvement.

Having been

in government, I know how it works. It's not just one minister working in a silo

by themselves, but rather you see it across ministries in terms of some of the

influences and impacts of other government decisions that ultimately impact on

the outcomes of your mandate. I can just see from this government now where some

of the ministries that do have influences…. With the Ministry of Health

Services, health outcomes are tied hand in hand with the issue around

apprehension and the prevention of apprehension, as an example.

We see the

Human Resources ministry is also very much related and tied to advancing the

mandate of this ministry's goal. Yet we see Human Resources putting forward some

very regressive policies that would actually hurt children and families even

more, particularly

[ Page 4091 ]

those who are low-income and addressing the issue of poverty. That's

something the Ministry of Human Resources has not taken up, but those issues

impact the outcome of this ministry — absolutely, without a doubt.

How would

those preventative needs be met across government? I ask the staff that

question. Will they be contributing? How will they be contributing? Will they

contribute finances, resources, programming with the ministry? The only

assurance I got from the ministry staff is that there would be dialogue, maybe

sharing of the information.

[1550]

Well,

that's all very great, well and fine, but at the end of the day, having been in

government, I know how it all works. You also need the resources and commitment

from the other ministries to share in the responsibility in order to facilitate

your end goal. If one or two or three pieces of those interministerial

components don't come into play, then your job is made that much more difficult.

The reality of yielding and achieving the goal that you've set out to achieve,

the mandate that the minister has within his ministry, is made that much more

difficult, if not impossible.

I look

forward to hearing the minister advise this House that, in fact, there will be

commitments from other ministries that have influences on the ultimate outcome

of this ministry's mandate, and that they will not just contribute by having a

dialogue with the minister but will contribute their ministries' financial

resources, as well, to make sure that the end goal is achieved.

On the

issue around funding. Under the MOU, under

section 3, the Minister of Children

and Family Development will substitute annual allocations by Treasury Board,

provide adequate funding to support all of the activities of the Joint

Aboriginal Management Committee and its technical working groups, including the

establishment of an independent aboriginal provincial secretariat and

reimbursement for expenses in accordance with government financial police.

Section 3.2 says the Ministry of Children and Family Development will provide

adequate funding for the implementation of activities and action plans intended

to achieve the purposes of this referendum, subject to annual allocations by

Treasury Board. Here's what the funding

section says under the MOU.

One of the

things that I hope the minister will entertain in terms of the funding

section

of this MOU is for the steering committee for the Joint Aboriginal Management

Committee to put forward a needs budget — not a budget determined by Treasury

Board that says: "Here's how much you've got, and here's how much you've

got to work with." Rather, assess the situation, truly understand what the

real needs are, and then make a plan towards achieving and meeting the basis of

the needs. On that basis, then, we can have a real opportunity here to actually

achieve the goals that I think we all share in this House. It is very much

determined by whether or not the government is prepared to invest resources in

it.

I hope that

at some point in time, perhaps, we can see a change somewhere along the line in

the legislation that talks about adequate funding that is determined by Treasury

Board, as opposed to that of a needs budget to be determined by the people who

have been asked to take on that responsibility. Work and develop a plan on that

basis — not with predetermined conditions of government that say, "Here

are the parameters in which you can work," but broader than that:

"Here's the mandate which you must achieve. Tell us what you need in order

to achieve it. Map out a long-term and a short-term plan for us to get

there."

I'm not

saying that we'll do this all in one day. I'm not saying: "Hey, you know

what? Let's go to the bank and just break it open and see what will

happen." I'm not saying that at all. I'm talking about truly assessing what

the real needs are and then mapping out a plan that could achieve that end goal

over time. I think British Columbians will commit to that, and I hope that this

government will as well.

We see in

this legislation, Bill 65, that there is very little mention of the aboriginal

authorities. I understand that there is a lot of work to be done. I really do

appreciate that. Make no mistake about it. It's not easy to implement change,

and it's not easy to plan what all the changes are. But if the aboriginal

community is a priority of this government, to reduce the dismal statistics that

we now know, then make sure that it is on the agenda for change. Make sure that

progress does take place.

I was

hoping that in this interim bill, there would be specific pieces identified in

addressing the aboriginal communities and their authorities. In this piece of

legislation, we don't see that yet. We haven't seen that; it's not there. I hope

the government will double its efforts in achieving that goal. I hope the

government will open up the funding mandate to the community groups for that. I

hope that when the community groups put forward their reports to government,

they are immediately made available to the public for their review.

[1555]

At this

time I want to put on the record that this bill itself, as mentioned, is silent

on the aboriginal authorities. Instead of legislating the aboriginal authorities

at this time, the government has chosen to introduce a bill that, in the words

of the minister, moves us closer to our goal of improving outcomes for

aboriginal children and families. The bill also foreshadows the creation of five

regional aboriginal authorities, moving closer to and foreshadowing promises —

change.

It's nice

— it's change — but I hope that change comes sooner rather than later. As I

mentioned, I was hoping those changes would be here now because it is a priority

of government, but it isn't. Given that it is a preliminary step of a larger

restructuring exercise, I do wish the minister the best in the decisions he will

have to make as part of these changes.

As I

researched this bill and the restructuring process, many of the questions have

come to light about the inclusiveness of the restructuring and whether the

community was widely represented. I

[ Page 4092 ]

hope the minister keeps these concerns in his mind as he proceeds. I worry

about the restructuring that has its basis the need for planning for the

implementation of a 23 percent cut behind the scenes — a cut in funding of 23

percent, a 22 percent cut in staffing — and what the ramifications are. I hope

the minister would have thought that through, as well, before the cuts are put

in place. I hope, in fact, the decision will be reversed so that we don't see

these cuts, come the next budget in February of next year. I hope we don't see

the cuts in staffing. I hope we see a needs budget from the community on all of

these fronts.

The

services, I fear, though, will be impacted. The opposition will be watching very

closely, along with the public. I feel there is a responsibility from the

opposition side to share these concerns that have been brought to us. I don't

want to leave the minister with the impression that we're against change. We're

not. We want to see change.

I want to

acknowledge that in the previous government when we were in government, we

didn't do everything right. We could have done better; we should have done

better. I acknowledge that. This is not about resisting change. It's about

making changes in a way that will realize the goals we've all set out and the

hopes for a positive direction — the hopes and dreams the families have for

their children, their family and our community.

I hope that

can be materialized in such a way that is realistic for the community to deliver

and that does not compromise the community further in having to make decisions

about who should have support and who shouldn't. Community groups should not

have to choose who is more worthy or what service is more worthy.

The

minister, I hope, will not put that position onto the community groups so that

they're saddled with such a dilemma. I hope the minister will not turn around

and say that. Those service cuts are perhaps inevitable, as the budget cuts may

be inevitable. When they are realized, I hope the minister does not rise up in

this House and say: "I didn't do that. We gave that authority to the

community groups, and they did it themselves. It was their choice." I

really hope the minister does not do that but that he takes on the

responsibility to go back and challenge his own government on such issues when

they arise.

On that

note, I'm looking forward to third reading debate on this bill. Then we will

have questions for the minister on a clause-by-clause basis. I'm really looking

forward to the minister's response and, in particular, to the reassurances that

the minister can give to the people who have raised their concerns through the

opposition, to the opposition and, as well, reassurance to the community that

the funding issue will not jeopardize the ultimate outcome and that we will not

see the 23 percent budget reduction next year for this ministry and this work.

Deputy

Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, closing second reading debate, the

Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. G.

Hogg: Thank you to the members who spoke to this bill, and thank you to the

opposition for their comments with respect to this item. There are a couple of

items I'd like to add to the record with respect to those.

Firstly,

with respect to the issue of the aboriginal memorandum of understanding which

was recently referenced, there was a comment that we re-signed the memorandum of

understanding. Just to correct the record, the memorandum of understanding which

was talked about with respect to the last government was a memorandum of

understanding that talked about forming an organization or a group of aboriginal

leaders that would be able to make recommendations to the minister — an

advisory group.

[1600]

The

memorandum of understanding which the Premier signed is dramatically different

than that. The memorandum of understanding which this government has entered

into is a comanagement group. It's not about an advisory role but is about the

delegation of responsibility within the framework of this ministry to allow for

the provision of decision-making.

I should

point out that this piece of legislation is not a piece of legislation which

allows for the provision of services. It's not moving towards service provision.

That would come with a piece of legislation that we hope to introduce at a later

point in time.

So often

government introduces legislation and says, somehow, to the community, to the

world, to the people of the province: "Make this legislation work."

We're taking a different tack with this. We're introducing legislation that

serves notice that government is serious about moving to a different form of

governance, a different type of model for service delivery. We're creating a

legal entity with this legislation. We're creating a process by which this

planning can take place to move to permanent legislation.

We're being

very respectful in the development of the legislation so that it can reflect the

needs, the public policy. Too often legislation isn't a servant of public policy

or social policy. We want to be sure, through this piece of legislation, that it

is in fact responsive to and is a part of ensuring that we'll be able to move

forward the social policy, the public policy, that we've talked about and want

to bring into existence.

The

aboriginal memorandum of understanding does exactly that. It moves us into

comanagement, and it allows the aboriginal leaders to be participants in the

development of a piece of legislation which will move the governance towards the

authorities. There isn't intent to have those entrenched within this piece of

legislation, only to be facilitated in a cooperative process to allow us to get

to that.

I recognize

that through the processes of change, there is uncertainty that happens. There

are challenges: challenges with respect to services; challenges with respect to

organizational culture; and, as the member has appropriately put, challenges

with respect to the issues of budget and budget targets that we have to work

with and have to reach through the ongoing

[ Page 4093 ]

processes of our service plans. We intend to do that. We intend to work

forward in a process that is respectful within the framework that we have to

deal with.

The hon.

member has made reference that things can be different and that we can look at

better processes and better ways of delivery. If we would take the budgetary

issues out of it, as artificial as that would be, I believe that the structure

we're talking about and the plans we're moving to are structures and plans which

will allow us to have the very best structure, framework or model for service

delivery that we possibly can — a model which is respectful of communities and

recognizes, as so many of the researchers and practitioners across the world

have said, the value of the social capital that exists within the context of

communities.

Development

is building that capacity up in ways that will allow communities to make

decisions and will ensure that the decisions made are made as close as possible

to the people who are most vulnerable and need to receive those services.

There's a principle contained within that, which says that the best decisions

possible are the decisions made closest to where the service needs to be

provided. It's the principle of subsidiarity as it is applied to governance

models, and that's a principle which we've looked at and are trying to project

throughout this whole process.

The member

made reference to the report and why the report hasn't been made public. I

haven't received the report in its final form yet. I'm hoping to receive that

later today. This is the report with respect to community living. I hope to

receive that report today. As soon as we get that report, it will be posted on

our ministry website. There's no secrecy in this. It has been a very open and

transparent process, and it must remain such.

We also

have to do due diligence with that, because there will be people who are

concerned and who didn't have a chance to comment with respect to that. We want

them to have the opportunity to comment on it. There will be people who don't

believe that it is the right way, the best way to go, despite the fact that

there are lots of people who are saying it is — as I made reference to in my

second reading speech earlier, people around the world who are passing comment

on that.

At the same

time, we want to make sure that our due diligence is done when that report is

received and that people do have the opportunity to speak to and comment on it

from around the province. We're looking at methods and processes to do that.

Certainly, we want to ensure that we have the best information and that we do an

educational process with respect to this, so people get a grasp and an

understanding of the issues that are put forward. That report, contrary to the

comments, has not yet been received and, when it is received, will be made

public to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate in it.

[1605]

Hon.

Speaker, I look forward to the opportunity of discussing these matters in fuller

detail as we move into the committee stage. I should also comment that there was

one reference made by an hon. member earlier with respect to the closure of the

Endicott Centre in the Creston Valley — that that represented some closure or

some change in service provision. I should point out that was an institution,

and part of the institutional process we've moved to is to deinstitutionalize,

to provide new opportunities for the developmentally disabled that are

community-based and that allow them to move into greater and fuller

participation with respect to the opportunities that exist within our society.

Yes, we

were closing that facility. We were deinstitutionalizing, which has been part of

the direction and focus that the last government had and indeed the government

had before them, and part of a legacy that this province and the people of this

province should be very proud of — the fact that we have indeed led much of

the world in deinstitutionalizing for the developmentally disabled.

I just

wanted to correct that part of the record, as well, to point out that that is

part of the process. I'm sure it is something that all members would be pleased

was taking place as we move more and more to a community-based model of service

delivery.

In closing,

again, this interim legislation is legislation which establishes a principle. It

shows that government is serious about wanting to move forward with respect to

the ideas coming out of an exhaustive consultation process. It creates a legal

entity that starts functioning in that. It's not moving into service provision.

That is part of something which will come about with further pieces of

legislation. This is a transition that allows us to move into a model to

delegate some authority before it is entrenched in legislation. It allows us to

delegate some of that authority, and it allows there to be an interaction, a

respectful partnership in the development of a piece of legislation that will

come forward in the future, a piece of legislation that will be responsive to

the development of a consultative process of public policy development,

legislation which will reflect the best interests of public policy and social

policy as we move forward.

With that,

I will move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I move that Bill 65 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House at a

sitting after today.

Bill 65,

Community Services Interim Authorities Act, read a second time and referred to a

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

after today.

Deputy

Speaker: Leave to make an introduction?

J. Kwan:

Yes, thank you.

Leave

granted.

[ Page 4094 ]

Tributes

OCHI DAY ANNIVERSARY

J. Kwan:

This actually just got walked in while I was debating Bill 65, second reading. A

constituent of mine who has brought this information advises that today is the

sixty-second anniversary of the Ochi Day, when Greece did the right thing and

stood up to the Nazis after ten European countries offered no resistance. The

Greeks handed the Allies the first victory of the war. The Greeks delayed the

Germans enough to cause them to lose the war. The war was won on the mountains

of Albania just as much as on the beaches of Normandy. My constituent Stathi

Rallis has asked me to introduce this information in the House for the members'

information.

Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.

Hon. J. van Dongen:

I call committee stage of Bill 64.

Committee of the Whole House

HUMAN RIGHTS CODE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 64; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

Chair: Members, we're going to have a recess for ten minutes until we get

started on the next bill.

The

committee recessed from 4:09 p.m. to 4:14 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Section 10,

sections 23 and 24 approved on division.

[1615]

section

11,

section 25.

J. Kwan:

Section 11 deals with, in the act, sections 25(2) and 25(3). These are being

removed and replaced with subsection (2). The subsection that is being deleted,

which allowed for the consideration of the nature of the proceedings and the

adequacy of the remedies available in other proceedings in the circumstances

before a complaint is deferred, it seems to me, is an important subsection. Yet

it's being removed. Could the minister please advise why?

Hon. G.

Plant: We have

section 11, which repeals two subsections of

section 25 and

substitutes for those two subsections a power that is expressed in the following

terms: "If at any time after a complaint is filed, a member or panel

determines that another proceeding is capable of appropriately dealing with the

substance of a complaint, the member or panel may defer consideration of the

complaint until the outcome of the other proceeding."

This is a

power to defer. The fundamental issue in any attempt to seek the exercise of

this power is whether there is another proceeding capable of appropriately

dealing with the substance of the complaint. Our view is that that test is

sufficient to ensure that the power is exercised in a case-by-case way in

accordance with the principles and purposes of the code. It may well be that the

panel members will consider the facts and factors that are now referred to in

subsection (3), but we did not think it was necessary to tie the hands of a

panel or a tribunal member with those specific criteria.

J. Kwan:

The suggestion that the panel, in making this decision, must also consider

remedies available in other proceedings in the circumstances…. It appears to

me that it doesn't tie the hands of the panel in making decisions, but rather

simply says that you must take into consideration all the other aspects,

especially those proceedings that might be available in other circumstances,

before you make your decision. There's nothing that binds the decision, but

rather it simply says you must consider these other components as well. It seems

to me that would be a wise and appropriate approach, so I fail to understand why

the minister would say it actually binds the panel. I don't believe it does.

Hon. G.

Plant: The subsection that is being eliminated requires the commissioner of

investigation and mediation to consider all relevant factors, including the two

specifically enumerated relevant factors. That is an obligation that now exists

and rests on a commissioner of investigation and mediation who is considering

whether or not to defer a matter within the scope of

section 25(2) and (3). I

think that was the sense in which I intended the obligation I referred to last

time.

[1620]

What I

think this does in its amended form is, first of all, move the authority that

was in the

section in the hands of a commissioner of investigation and mediation

into the tribunal. That's the first thing it does. The second thing it does is

ensure that power can be exercised at any time after a complaint is filed. Then

the third thing it does is express the principle or the test pretty broadly and

pretty generally.

All the

member of the panel has to determine is that another proceeding is capable of

appropriately dealing with the substance of the complaint. If that determination

is made, then the member or panel has the power to defer further consideration

of the complaint until the outcome of the other proceeding. That's what we're

doing here.

Section 11,

section 25 approved.

section

12, sections 26 to 30.

J. Kwan:

Section 12 deals with sections 26 to 30. These sections, of course, are being

repealed and are to be replaced by sections 27.1, 27.2, 27.3, 27.4, 27.5, 27.6

and 30. Could the minister please advise why these sections were introduced to

this bill?

Hon. G.

Plant: The sections that are before us now include a

section which creates

the power to dismiss a complaint; a

section dealing with the assignment of

[ Page 4095 ]

complaints, which is an internal organizational provision; a

section that

deals with evidence, 27.2; and a

section that gives the tribunal the power to

make rules respecting its practice and procedure, 27.3.

Section 27.4 is a

discontinuance provision,

section 27.5 is a dismissal for failure to pursue a

complaint,

section 27.6 ensures that a member or a person engaged or retained

under

section 33 has the power to assist the parties to a complaint to achieve a

settlement, and then

section 30 is an enforcement provision.

These are

concerned with processes as much as anything. They are there to ensure that the

chair and/or the member or the panel dealing with a complaint has powers and

authorities to set up rules and procedures and deal with matters in a way that

will assist, I hope, their speedy resolution.

When we get

to it, I have an amendment proposed to what will be

section 27.1. I hope that

amendment is in the hands of the member. I think it is. I'm certainly in your

hands, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to go along with whatever procedure w