British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, May 17, 2006

H0517pm-05

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session, 38th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Afternoon Sitting Volume 12, Number 5 THE HONOURABLE BILL BARISOFF, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Iona V. Campagnolo, CM, OBC SECOND SESSION, 38TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Bill Barisoff EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations .......................................................................................................... Hon.

John van Dongen Deputy Premier and Minister of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy...................... Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation .......................................................................................................Hon. Tom Christensen Minister of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology ........................................... Hon.

Murray Coell Minister of Agriculture and Lands.......................................................................................................................................................Hon. Pat Bell Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism............................................................................... Hon. Wally Oppal, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ..........................................................................................................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of State for Childcare ........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Linda Reid Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors’ and Women’s Issues........................................... Hon. Ida Chong Minister of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics.................Hon.

Colin Hansen Minister of Employment and Income Assistance ...........................................................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources .......................................................................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Minister of State for Mining............................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Bill Bennett Minister of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities ...............Hon. Barry Penner Minister of Finance.......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Carole Taylor Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing ............................................................................. Hon.

Rich Coleman Minister of Health ......................................................................................................................................................................Hon. George Abbott Minister of Labour and Citizens’ Services .......................................................................................................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General................................................................................................................................Hon.

John Les Minister of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform............................................ Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts .........................................................................................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Minister of Transportation...........................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Kevin Falcon LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition .........................................................................................................................................................Carole James Deputy Speaker ....................................................................................................................................................................................Sindi Hawkins Assistant Deputy Speaker.....................................................................................................................................................................Sue Hammell Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole.................................................................................................................................................

Harry Bloy Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .........................................................................................................................E. George MacMinn, OBC, QC Clerk Assistant.........................................................................................................................................................................................Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .......................................................................................................................................................Ian D.

Izard, QC Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees ....................................................................................................................................... Craig H. James Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk ..........................................................................................................................................Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms............................................................................................................................................................................. A.A.

Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ...................................................................................................................................................................Jo-Anne Kern Legislative Librarian ..................................................................................................................................................................................Jane Taylor Legislative Comptroller...............................................................................................................................................................................Dan Arbic

Party Standings: Liberal 46; New Democratic 33 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) .................................................................... Shuswap Austin, Robin (NDP)............................................................................. Skeena Bains, Harry (NDP).................................................................. Surrey-Newton Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)..........................................Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Hon. Pat (L) .............................................................Prince George North Bennett, Hon.

Bill (L) ............................................................... East Kootenay Black, Iain (L) ............................................................ Port Moody–Westwood Bloy, Harry (L)................................................................................Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).....................................Prince George–Mount Robson Brar, Jagrup (NDP).....................................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Campbell, Hon.

Gordon (L) .........................................Vancouver–Point Grey Cantelon, Ron (L)..............................................................Nanaimo-Parksville Chong, Hon. Ida (L) .................................................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ...........................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Christensen, Hon. Tom (L) ................................................. Okanagan-Vernon Chudnovsky, Dave (NDP)........................................... Vancouver-Kensington Coell, Hon.

Murray (L) .....................................Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L)...........................................Fort Langley–Aldergrove Conroy, Katrine (NDP) .......................................... West Kootenay–Boundary Coons, Gary (NDP) ....................................................................... North Coast Cubberley, David (NDP)............................................................Saanich South de Jong, Hon.

Michael (L) ...................................Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Dix, Adrian (NDP) .........................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Evans, Corky (NDP).................................................................Nelson-Creston Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................

Surrey-Cloverdale Farnworth, Mike (NDP) ...............................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Fleming, Rob (NDP) ..............................................................Victoria-Hillside Fraser, Scott (NDP) ..............................................................Alberni-Qualicum Gentner, Guy (NDP).......................................................................Delta North Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................ Comox Valley Hammell, Sue (NDP) ................................................... Surrey–Green Timbers Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) ..................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Hawes, Randy (L).......................................................... Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Sindi (L) ............................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................

Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Gordon (L)..............................................................Surrey–White Rock Horgan, John (NDP)......................................................Malahat–Juan de Fuca Horning, Al (L)........................................................... Kelowna–Lake Country Ilich, Hon. Olga (L)...............................................................Richmond Centre James, Carole (NDP).......................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Jarvis, Daniel (L)..................................................

North Vancouver–Seymour Karagianis, Maurine (NDP) ........................................... Esquimalt-Metchosin Krog, Leonard (NDP)......................................................................... Nanaimo Krueger, Kevin (L)..............................................Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP)........................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lali, Harry (NDP)........................................................................

Yale-Lillooet Lee, Richard T. (L)....................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L).............................................................. Peace River South Les, Hon. John (L)............................................................... Chilliwack-Sumas Macdonald, Norm (NDP).................................... Columbia River–Revelstoke MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................

Bulkley Valley–Stikine Mayencourt, Lorne (L).......................................................Vancouver-Burrard McIntyre, Joan (L).................................................West Vancouver–Garibaldi Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L) .................................................. Peace River North Nuraney, John (L).............................................................Burnaby-Willingdon Oppal, Hon. Wally, QC (L).......................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Penner, Hon. Barry (L)...........................................................

Chilliwack-Kent Polak, Mary (L) ....................................................................................Langley Puchmayr, Chuck (NDP)...................................................... New Westminster Ralston, Bruce (NDP) ............................................................. Surrey-Whalley Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................ Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L).............................................................

Kamloops Robertson, Gregor (NDP) ................................................Vancouver-Fairview Roddick, Valerie (L).......................................................................Delta South Routley, Doug (NDP)..................................................... Cowichan-Ladysmith Rustad, John (L) ........................................................

Prince George–Omineca Sather, Michael (NDP).........................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ...................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Bob (NDP)..................................................................Cariboo North Simpson, Shane (NDP) ....................................................Vancouver-Hastings Sultan, Ralph (L) ....................................................West Vancouver–Capilano Taylor, Hon.

Carole (L).....................................................Vancouver-Langara Thorne, Diane (NDP) .................................................Coquitlam-Maillardville Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L).......................................................Okanagan-Westside Trevena, Claire (NDP) ..................................................................North Island van Dongen, Hon. John (L)............................................ Abbotsford-Clayburn Whittred, Katherine (L)........................................

North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wyse, Charlie (NDP) .................................................................Cariboo South Yap, John (L)...................................................................Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman .......................................... Hon. Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum..........................................................................

Scott Fraser Bulkley Valley–Stikine ...........................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North ...........................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds........................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Willingdon................................................................... John Nuraney Burquitlam.......................................................................................Harry Bloy Cariboo North..............................................................................

Bob Simpson Cariboo South..............................................................................Charlie Wyse Chilliwack-Kent ..................................................................Hon. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas...................................................................... Hon. John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke................................................. Norm Macdonald Comox Valley........................................................................ Hon.

Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville..............................................................Diane Thorne Cowichan-Ladysmith ................................................................. Doug Routley Delta North ...................................................................................Guy Gentner Delta South ............................................................................. Valerie Roddick East Kootenay....................................................................... Hon.

Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin.........................................................Maurine Karagianis Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops.....................................................................Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson .....................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country.................................................................. Al Horning Kelowna-Mission ......................................................................

Sindi Hawkins Langley ...........................................................................................Mary Polak Malahat–Juan de Fuca .................................................................. John Horgan Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................ Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..................................................... Michael Sather Nanaimo......................................................................................

Leonard Krog Nanaimo-Parksville .....................................................................Ron Cantelon Nelson-Creston .............................................................................Corky Evans New Westminster .................................................................. Chuck Puchmayr North Coast....................................................................................

Gary Coons North Island ...............................................................................Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale................................................Katherine Whittred North Vancouver–Seymour..........................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head ........................................................... Hon. Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon......................................................... Hon. Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside..............................................................Hon.

Rick Thorpe Peace River North.......................................................... Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South..................................................................... Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley .................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain ............................................Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Westwood.................................................................... Iain Black Powell River–Sunshine Coast ...............................................

Nicholas Simons Prince George North.................................................................... Hon. Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson ............................................Hon. Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................ John Rustad Richmond Centre......................................................................Hon. Olga Ilich Richmond East........................................................................Hon.

Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston...........................................................................John Yap Saanich North and the Islands ............................................ Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South ........................................................................ David Cubberley Shuswap............................................................................Hon. George Abbott Skeena.......................................................................................... Robin Austin Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................... Hon.

Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers ................................................................Sue Hammell Surrey-Newton............................................................................... Harry Bains Surrey–Panorama Ridge.................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey-Tynehead ....................................................................... Dave S.

Hayer Surrey-Whalley...........................................................................Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock .....................................................................Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard..............................................................Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview.............................................................Gregor Robertson Vancouver-Fraserview .................................................Hon.

Wally Oppal, QC Vancouver-Hastings .................................................................Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington.......................................................David Chudnovsky Vancouver-Kingsway ......................................................................Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara ........................................................... Hon. Carole Taylor Vancouver–Mount Pleasant........................................ Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................Hon.

Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena.........................................................Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill...................................................................

Carole James Victoria-Hillside ...........................................................................Rob Fleming West Kootenay–Boundary........................................................Katrine Conroy West Vancouver–Capilano...........................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ........................................................Joan McIntyre Yale-Lillooet..................................................................................... Harry Lali

CONTENTS Wednesday, May 17, 2006 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Statements..................................................................................................................... ............................................................ 4951 Sullivan mine accident Hon. G. Campbell C.

James Introductions by Members ....................................................................................................... .............................................. 4951 Statements (Standing Order 25B) .............................................................................................................................. ............. 4952 Schools in Richmond area J. Yap Trudy Rumbucher G. Robertson World Partnership Walk and Aga Khan Foundation J. Nuraney Healthy democracy D. Routley Bell Walk for Kids Help Phone R. Cantelon Mount Saint Joseph Hospital and Chinese community D.

Chudnovsky Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 4954 Softwood lumber agreement and forest policy in B.C. B. Simpson Hon. R. Coleman Government response to forestry concerns in Port Alberni S. Fraser Hon. R. Coleman C. Evans Appointment of Carmen Purdy to Agricultural Land Commission B. Ralston Hon. P. Bell Highway interchange project in Delta G. Gentner Hon. K. Falcon Staff concerns at Employment and Income Assistance Ministry C. Trevena Hon. C.

Richmond Petitions...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 4959 S. Fraser Reports from Committees........................................................................................................ ............................................... 4959 Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner J.

Rustad Motions without Notice ......................................................................................................... ................................................. 4959 Appointment of Merit Commissioner J. Rustad

Second Reading of Bills........................................................................................................ ................................................... 4959 Representative for Children and Youth Act (Bill 34) Hon. W. Oppal A. Dix Hon. L. Reid R. Austin M. Karagianis N. Simons C. James S. Simpson D. Thorne Hon. S. Hagen J. Kwan Hon. W. Oppal Committee of the Whole House................................................................................................... .......................................... 4986 Tenancy Statutes Amendment Act, 2006 (Bill 27) D. Routley Hon. R.

Coleman Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply............................................................................................................ ................................................... 4995 Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services C. Puchmayr Hon. M. de Jong R. Chouhan B. Simpson H. Lali J. Brar

4951 WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Prayers. Statements SULLIVAN MINE ACCIDENT Hon. G. Campbell: I'm rising today to update the House on the tragic situation that has developed at the Sullivan minesite in Kimberley this morning. I know that all members of the House are thinking of the fami- lies that have been affected by this tragedy. The details of precisely wh at happened are still being investigated, but what we do know from this morning is that a worker at the decommissioned Sullivan minesite called 911 to request help for another worker who had collapsed.

Two paramedics fr om Kimberley responded only to find that both workers had collapsed, suffering from an apparent cardiac arrest. These two paramedics, doing their jobs and trying to aid the fallen workers, also collapsed. All four victims were subsequently rushed to hospital in Cranbrook. Trag ically, all four have passed away today. The exact cause of their deaths has not been determined. [1405] This accident is a sobering reminder of the dangers that emergency workers face every day in B.C. as they risk their lives attempting to save others.

I can tell the House that this afternoon the Minister of State for Min- ing and the Minister of Health are en route to Kimber- ley along with the member for Columbia River– Revelstoke. As it does with all mine accidents, the Min- istry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources will conduct a full investigation. Today I know that all members of the House would want to have our thoughts and our prayers going to the families who have been so tragically impacted to- day.

To wake up in the morning and think a day is about to start as a typical day, and then to find that out of the blue one of your loved ones is gone, creates a hole in your life which is difficult for any of us to really comprehend until we go through it. I hope the House will join me in sending their prayers, their condolences and their support to the families and to the community of Kimberley, a small community in British Columbia, all of whom will have been deeply touched by this tragedy. C.

James: On behalf of the opposition, I would like to join with this House in expressing our deepest sym- pathies and condolences to the people of Kimberley following the tragic accident at the mine. Certainly, our thoughts and prayers are with the families, friends and co-workers of the two workers and two paramedics who died on the job today. As legislators, a day like today is really a reminder o f o u r d u t y t o s t r i v e a s h a r d a s w e c a n t o m a k e s u r e that the people of this province who go to work every day come home safely at the end of the day.

I know a town like Kimberley will pull together to provide sup- port to those families. They will do everything they can. I know we send along our wishes to all the people of Kimberley as they go through this very difficult time. Introductions by Members V. Roddick: Joining us for a second time in the House are three concerned constituents from Delta South: Bernadette Kudzin, parent advisory council chair for South Delta Secondary; Maureen Broadfoot, com- munications expert for TRAHVOL; and Cec Dunn, co- chairman for TRAVHOL, which is an acronym for Tsawwassen Residents Against Higher Voltage Over- head Lines.

Will the House please make them welcome. C. Puchmayr: It gives me pleasure today to intro- duce two people in the House, two people who have worked very hard on the ve ry issues the Premier just spoke about — health and safety, and the safety of workers. They have been strong advocates for not only unionized British Columbians but non-unionized Brit- ish Columbians as well. I want the House to make wel- come Jim Sinclair from the B.C. Federation of Labour and Steve Hunt of the United Steelworkers of America. J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today my nephew Shafiq Dahya and a friend, Leigh Dawson.

Both of them are students at Royal Roads University. I would like the House to please join me in welcoming both of them. M. Karagianis: Today in the House we have four of my constituents. We have Gordon Stewart in the gal- lery, and his three beauti ful daughters Charlotte, Lucille and Georgina. All thr ee girls are involved in an organization that I am particularly fond of, the Girl Guides of Canada. Would the House please help me to make them very welcome here today. Hon.

J. van Dongen: Visiting us in the Legislature today are about 50 grade six, seven and eight students from Chief Dan George Mi ddle School in my riding. This school has a motto: "Excellence is achieved to- gether." They have 300 students in band and 600 stu- dents in French immersion. The students are accompanied by their teachers Ms. Laura Stevens, Ms. Amanda Shaefer, Mr. Ray Goerke and Mr. Colin McTaggart, and a number of parents. I ask the House to please make them all welcome. [1410] D. Routley: I'd like the House to help me welcome two constituents, Ken James and Roger Wiles.

They are members of the executive of the Youbou Timberless Society and are tireless in their advocacy for forestry issues and in the effort of educating the public on the important issues of forest land–based management. Please help me make them welcome.

4952 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 L. Mayencourt: I would like to introduce two very good friends of mine that are visiting from Vancouver- Burrard. Josif and Gitte Baka linsky are constituents of mine. Josif has been a friend for about five years and is a recent recipient of a brand-new kidney. Gitte is his wife, and she works at Riverview. Would the House please join me in welcoming Josif and Gitte. S. Fraser: I have all of my constituents here today.

I can name only a few, if you will help me welcome them after I name the few I can name: Mayor McRae from Port Alberni; Councillor Jack McLeman and re- gional district director Wayne Crowley; Wayne James and Keith Wyton from the Save Our Valley Alliance; labour council president John Young; Steelworker president Monte Mearns; and a whole bunch of friends. Welcome all. Please help me welcome them. Hon. L. Reid: I would ask the House to please join me in welcoming to the gallery today Brenda Plant.

Brenda is the executive dire ctor of the Turning Point Recovery Society, which does extraordinary work in the addictions field in British Columbia. I would ask the House to please make her welcome. H. Bains: I t i s m y p l e a s u r e t o i n t r o d u c e t o t h i s House a number of steelworkers from Local 185, Port Alberni, led by their local director, Steve Hunt. T h e y a r e h e r e t o l o b b y u s o n s t o p p i n g l o g e x p o r t s . Will the House please join me in welcoming them all here. D.

Routley: Would the House please help me wel- come friend and constituent Laurie Jordan and his parents, visiting from the Maritimes, Herb and Hazel Jordan. They have taken the long route on a reposi- tioning cruise through the Panama Canal to Seattle and, finally, to this Legislature to see how politics ought to be done. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) SCHOOLS IN RICHMOND AREA J. Yap: When I was elected as the MLA for Richmond- Steveston, I made a commitment to visit every school in my constituency. I wanted to gain a firsthand appreciation of our schools. I also wanted to give teachers, students, education assistants, administrators and parents an op- portunity to give direct feedback to their MLA. With the help of Al Klassen, president of the Rich- mond Teachers Association, I have visited 12 secon- dary and elementary schools since my election. During my school visits, I witnessed the diversity of programs offered in school district 38.

For example, at Hugh Boit Secondary, the first school I toured, I met with PE teachers who double as athletic coaches. Boit offers students a unique combined studies program. Principal Alex Campbell showed me around McMass Secondary, where I saw the thriving French immersion program and the excellent work they do with the disabled and special needs students. At Landon and Steveston secondary schools, I learned about the new coordinated campus, which will see the two schools combined into one facility offering students greater flexibility and the opportunity to take courses at either school.

Dickson, McKinney and Menoah-Steeves elemen- tary schools are just three of the many schools in my riding that offer the Montessori program. Dickson also offers its students a French immersion program, which is become increasingly popular. Grauer Elementary works hard to accommodate low-income families. Ferris Elementary boasts the larg- est number of students of all Richmond elementary schools, and they have three day care centres operating on site. [1415] I learned a great deal from my time in Rich- mond's classrooms.

We have truly great schools in our community, with dedicated and caring teachers and support staff. Our students are receiving a great education. Visiting the schools in my community has been a great experience, and I would highly recom- mend that all MLAs take on this challenge and visit all schools in their constitu encies if they have not already done so. TRUDY RUMBUCHER G. Robertson: It is my pleasure today to honour one of my constituents, Tr udy Rumbucher, who is a true inspiration. Trudy is 67, a mother of two with six grandchildren.

Last July she was diagnosed with can- cer of the colon and liver, but this terminal illness has not slowed Trudy down. Even after four operations, chemo and an artificial colo n, her motto is: "You don't just sit down and give up." On May 7, Trudy com- pleted her third half-marathon in Vancouver, which she calls her miracle run because it was less than a year ago that she was diagnosed with cancer. Trudy is advocating vigorously for urgent action on the prevention of colorectal cancer, for which a simple and cost-effective intervention is available.

A standard policy of mandatory screening and immediate removal of all polyps upon discovery should be implemented immediately. This is now common practice in Europe. There needs to be the same approach to colorectal can- cer as there is for breast and cervical cancers, a point supported by the Canadian Cancer Society. The bottom line: this will save many precious lives and save costly cancer treatments. Trudy has also taken personal responsibility for her health.

Last week she told me about how she changed her whole lifestyle to a good, healthy diet of fish; raw fruits and vegetables, especi ally dark leafy greens; and supplemented with herbs, vita mins and plenty of exer- cise. These measures have allowed Trudy to remain positive and active. We can all learn something from Trudy. Congratu- lations to Trudy for her miracle run and kudos for all

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4953 her inspiring hard work on cancer prevention and liv- ing life to its fullest. WORLD PARTNERSHIP WALK AND AGA KHAN FOUNDATION J. Nuraney: The Aga Khan Foundation was created by His Highness the Aga Khan, the spiritual leader of the Ismaili Muslims, in 1967 with a view to improving living conditions and opportunities for the poor with- out regard to their faith, origin or gender.

The Aga Khan Development Network, an umbrella organization, looks after the Aga Khan Education Ser- vices, Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development, Aga Khan Health Services, Aga Khan Planning and Build- ing Services, Aga Khan Trust for Culture, the Aga Khan University and the University of Central Asia. These institutions seek sustainable solutions to the long-term problems of poverty, hunger, illiteracy and ill health, with special emphasis on the needs of rural communities. There are presently 130 projects in South and Central Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.

One of the fundraising arms of this foundation is the World Partnership Walk, which takes place across the country. This year the partnership walk for British Columbia will take place in Vancouver at Lumber- men's Arch in Stanley Park, an d in Victoria it will take place at Beacon Hill Park. The events will begin at 11 a.m. on Sunday, May 28. Our Premier will initiate the walk in Vancouver. I take this opportunity to invite all members of the Legislature to participate in this very important event. HEALTHY DEMOCRACY D. Routley: I rise today to talk about healthy de- mocracy.

I rise today to speak on that very important subject on the one-year anni versary of this House and the election. Being a proud member of this House, I rise in a spirit of non-partisanship to celebrate the successes of this House. [1420] I think we can all be proud, as members, of having pushed several issues forward. The government can be proud of having listened to the constituents and pushed forward on labour relations and in other mat- ters. The opposition can be proud that we have affected government policy in a positive way.

We have success- fully advocated for our cons tituents with a louder voice perhaps — well, maybe not louder voices, but certainly more numerous. With more numerous voices, pressure has been brought to this House, which has resulted in very positive resolution of conflicts in our communities, and we should all be proud of that. We should all be proud of the fact that we've brought our individual constituents' issues to the House and advo- cated for them on both sides of this House. A healthy democracy comes from an engaged community.

Yesterday we witnessed outside a very engaged demonstration on the issue of child care and early childhood education. Out of that sort of activism comes the kind of voice that legislators will never ig- nore. Today we saw a demonstration protesting the export of raw logs — again, voices that any legislator would ignore only at their own peril. Healthy democracy, again, relies on that commu- nity engagement. But more than that, it relies on us as legislators to listen and to hear those voices. When the communities are engaged and when democracy is healthy, responsible leaders follow.

BELL WALK FOR KIDS HELP PHONE R. Cantelon: On May 7 of this year I took part, along with the member opposite from Nanaimo, in the fifth annual Bell Walk for Kids Help Phone event. The help phone line is a vital service to our young people aged five to 20 in crisis. The crisis may be bullying or relationships. It could be abuse, self-image or depres- sion. Intervention and support at these pivotal times can change a life, maybe save a life.

The Kids Help Phone coun sellors answer calls and questions every day from kids across Canada who need support, information, or even referral to a local community or support agency. Thousands of children rely on this great service to help them in time of need. The help phone provides young people with immedi- ate help and hope that they need 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, toll-free and in both official languages. In Nanaimo alone, the walk raised $14,000 — a $4,000 increase over last year.

In B.C. we raised $144,000 thanks to the hard work of volunteers in Nanaimo, Van- couver, Victoria — where the walk began — White Rock and Kelowna. Nationally, th e event was a big success. Some 20,000 people, approximately 45 communities, raised a grand total of $2.7 million — an increase of $600,000. All of the proceeds from this great event go to the Kids Help Phone.

I'd like to thank the sponsors, Kathy Power and Jason Lambrick of Bell Canada in Nanaimo, Donna Vidal of the Country Club Centre in Nanaimo and Nora Loftus, who chaired and enthusiastically led what seemed like an army of volunteers that made this great event in Nanaimo a tremendous success. Their support will make a difference in thousands of our young people's lives across the country. MOUNT SAINT JOSEPH HOSPITAL AND CHINESE COMMUNITY D. Chudnovsky: Mount Saint Joseph Hospital on Vancouver's east side is a remarkable community facil- ity.

Established decades ago by Catholic nuns and members of the city's Chinese community, Mount Saint Joe's soon became known as Vancouver's Chinese hos- pital. Today about 50 percent of the patients are still from the Chinese community. Translation services are read- ily available for Mandarin and Cantonese speakers and for those who speak many other languages. Culturally appropriate programs that take into account the tradi-

4954 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 tions and needs of Asian patients are also available. The Chinese community has provided countless volun- teers and millions of dollars in donations to this hospi- tal's charitable foundation. Members of this House know that the emergency department at Mount Saint Joe's was recently threat- ened with a 23-percent cutb ack of physician services. We learned this week that the cut, which was to take effect on June 1, has been put off for at least seven months.

This is great news for our community. [1425] I want to congratulate the courageous doctors who spoke out in support of their patients. I want to thank the thousands of member s of the community who signed petitions and stood up for Mount Saint Joseph's.

I want to pay tribute to the Chinese community organiza- tions which joined the campaign to protect vital health services: the Chinese Benevolent Association of Canada, the Chinese Benevolent Association, the Cheng Wing Yeong Tong, the Shon Yee Benevolent Association of Canada, the Chinese Freemasons of Canada national headquarters, the Gee How Oak Tin Association of Van- couver and the Taiwanese Canadian Cultural Society. If it's necessary, I'm sure all of these individuals and groups will be there again in seven months to pro- tect their hospital and its services.

For now, I know all members of this House will want to join me in wishing the staff and patients of Mount Saint Joseph Hospital many more decades of good health, success and service to our community. Oral Questions SOFTWOOD LUMBER AGREEMENT AND FOREST POLICY IN B.C. B. Simpson: Yesterday the Minister of Forests fi- nally admitted that yes, Washington will have veto power over forest policy changes in this province. However, he stated that British Columbians shouldn't worry about that because: "We're done. We've done our forest policy changes for the next seven years. We're not going to need to adjust them.

So frankly, there's nothing there to worry about." If we're done, as the minister suggests — if we have no more forest policy to develop or change — then there really isn't any need for a Minister of Forests. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. B. Simpson: And as the hon. members on the other side state, maybe the Leader of the Opposition needs to use my resources differently as well. However, given that the minister has indicated that he is done, when will he be officially stepping down from his role? Hon. R. Coleman: I hesitate to say that that ques- tion was music to my ears.

I didn't say they had a veto power; you said they had a veto power. I said we had an anti-circumvention clause that would be in the agreement going forward so that the two countries would work within the agreement. Working within the agreement, there's al- ways an evolution in policy. It just means you cooper- ate on that. Just for the member's own information, there was an anti-circumvention clause in the last soft- wood agreement as well. Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North has a supplemental. B.

Simpson: The minister indicated yesterday that yes, he would have to go to Washington and that Washington does have the right to approve our forest policy. His response to it was a deflection. He said we shouldn't worry about it as British Columbians, be- cause we have no more forest policy to do. Well, there's a group of people here from Port Al- berni, who have a meeting with this minister. That group is here today to get forest policy changes. There are many other communities and workers who want forest policy changes.

My question to the minister is: if we're done — if under the terms of this deal we will have seven years of no forest policy changes — should these good peo- ple from Port Alberni simply go home and come back in seven years? Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, they're our trees, it's our forest, and we make our forest policy in British Columbia. When you take a portion of an interview out of context, or a portion of a context of an interview, you run the risk of actually not getting the entire context of that particular interview.

What I was talking about was that since the last NAFTA stuff came along, we've made a number of changes in forest policy in British Columbia — the member is well aware — with regard to how we do market-pricing systems to deal with the circumstances in and around the issues around softwood and our rela- tionship on trade going forw ard.

That had to be dealt with, because there were cert ain issues with regards to how B.C.'s forests were pricing their fibre in an interna- tional marketplace relative to competition. [1430] Having said that, that was a huge body of work on policy that was done over a period of time by the pre- vious minister and this government. I, as the minister going forward, know that policy is complete. I also know that policy within a resource-based industry is always fluid, and there will always be other things we need to do in the future. Mr. Speaker: Member for Cariboo North has a fur- ther supplemental.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4955 B. Simpson: I t ' s n i c e t o k n o w t h a t I a m f i r m l y planted in Cariboo North as well. With respect to the minister's comments about the interview yesterday, he was explicit. His words were: "We're done with forest policy changes for the next seven years." It's very difficult to misinterpret that statement. The softwood lu mber agreement also does not differentiate between market policies and other forest policies. One could argue that every forest policy impacts our position in th e marketplace and our price across the border.

This minister admitted that we've still got coastal forest policy to review. We still have a value-added strategy that has policy implications. He enumerated a lot of strategies that require forest policy changes. My question to this mini ster is…. His understand- ing of the softwood agreem ent and the fact that we need the mutual consent of Washington to make forest policy changes…. Why is he so cavalier in dismissing the concerns about our sovereignty at a time when we still have lots of work to do with respect to forest pol- icy in this province? Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not cavalier at all.

We're not giving up our sovereignty on forest policy in the prov- ince of British Columbia. But just for the member's information, on the his- torical side of this file, British Columbia and the United States — through different departments of commerce — have always discussed and presented different changes that would be made in forest policy on both sides of the border. That's been going on for years. The reason it goes on is because people within an agree- ment want to make sure somebody is not trying to cir- cumvent an agreement to do something that will be outside the agreement.

It's incredible to me that somebody says, when you make a deal, and the terms are this…. This is how I think the member from the opposite side of the House.… He's already thinking about how he can break a deal. The reality is that within our forest pol- icy we can operate, but we're not going to circumvent the fiscal and financial arrangements of a softwood lumber deal. That's what it is. It's an agreement be- tween two countries, and we will live up to the terms of the deal. GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO FORESTRY CONCERNS IN PORT ALBERNI S.

Fraser: The minister just said that this govern- ment makes its own forest policies in B.C. That is the problem. The minister has discounted the concerns of Port Alberni as a private land issue. The only reason the concerns of Port Alberni are a private land issue is because this government removed 70,000 hectares from TFL 44 with no consultation. Because of this govern- ment's decisions, companies are increasing their cut by millions of cubic metres, and Port Alberni will see 15,000 more logging trucks leaving our valley. Up to 80 percent of that wood is going to go across the line.

The government caused this problem. My question to the minister: how can the Minister of Forests and Range sit back and allow a flood of log exports to ruin coastal forest communities like Port Alberni? [1435] Hon. R. Coleman: I don't like to see the export of any logs. I believe if we could keep them here and manufacture them, it would be great. I know we've had this discussion with the member before. The member is aware that private land in Can- ada…. The export of logs off private land is a federal jurisdiction. We know that.

We are the only jurisdiction in Canada that still has Notice 102 applied to our pri- vate lands, and we're the only jurisdiction in Canada that has a surplus test on the export of logs. Having said that, the concern in the Alberni Valley we're going to be talking ab out shortly, actually. I'm looking for solutions, hon. member. The member has been invited to the meeting with members of his coun- cil and members of the B.C. Federation of Labour and the coalition in the valley. I'd like to find a solution to this problem. I don't know that it's going to be that quick that we'll find it.

Even if we look back in history provin- cially, in 1999 in this province 417,000 cubic metres of logs were exported in addition to provincial log ex- ports without discussion with communities by the job protection commissioner. In 2000 there were 321,000 cubic metres of fibre, and in 2001, 284,000 cubic metres of fibre. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental. S. Fraser: I do, hon. Speaker. Federal issue — private lands. It's interesting that the minister won't accept responsibility for the crisis of these communities, because the forest companies sure know who to thank.

When this government removed lands, they did so without compensation to Port Alberni — compensation that could have been used to build a small mill or pro- vide jobs or job security. A brief to the Minister of For- ests at the time presumed that there would be compen- sation paid to Port Alberni, the people of Port Alberni and the people of B.C. Yet even though these lands were removed from TFL 44 against the advice of your own staff, there was no compensation paid to this community.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: why wasn't the town of Port Alberni, th e citizens of Port Alberni, compensated for pulling that land out of TFL 44? Hon. R. Coleman: I'm not going to sort of inflame this discussion in this environment, because I really do think — I hope — there's an opportunity for some con- structive discussion that will take place this afternoon with regards to a number of these issues.

4956 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 I do think, though, we have to remember that log exports in British Columbia have been around for a while. There have been pe aks and valleys, under dif- ferent governments, over a number of years. I also think there is a contrary to positions here. On November 26, 2003, the Leader of the Opposition said this: "I think we need to take a look at banning raw log exports." On March 30, 2005, on Voice of B.C., the mem- ber said: "There are times that you want to look at some raw log exports. That's why I'm saying that we need to reduce.

It isn't possible to look at a complete ban, but we do need to look at a reduction in that area." I agree with that sentiment, and I hope the member opposite does. The question is: can we find the invest- ment and the manufacturing fo r the type of fibre that's coming out of the Alberni Valley today to be milled? In the conversation with mills in the valley today, some of them are actually not milling this type of fibre. That's the type of discussion I really want to have with the people from Port Alberni today, so we can get an understanding of this and, frankly, look at what those long-term solutions are.

Maybe for once we can all come together to try and find a solution. C. Evans: Sometimes when the Minister of Forests is answering questions, I wi sh I was a blowfish so I could get bigger and be as big as he is. Mr. Speaker: Member. C. Evans: He doesn't want to inflame the situation, but I think that maybe it's my job. All the minister seems to have done so far is to obfuscate the situation. Talk about policy — federal government, private land, all the…. He says he doesn't support log exports, and he cites 417,000 cubic metres — 1999. Oh, that's a terri- ble time.

There were 321,000 cubic metres, which was terrible, in the year 2000. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. C. Evans: Maybe the minister will inflame the situa- tion by telling us what it is right now, so that people here have something to compare it to. [1440] Hon. R. Coleman: That was just the portion that the job protection commissioner gave out at 100-percent exports, without consultation with anybody. In the years that I was recording, 2.477 million cu- bic metres went out, 2.482 million cubic metres went out, and 2.938 million cubic metres went out.

It has been as high over the last 15 as 3.5 million to 4 million cubic metres and as low as 1.5 million. That's the real- ity, but it has been going on for some time now. The reality, hon. member, is this. What we need to do is find a solution. Frankly, the solution is going to be a combination, with the conversation I had earlier today with the federal Minister of Natural Resources, because part of this is that there is going to be a solu- tion we may have to come up against with regards to a lawsuit with regards to notice Notice 102 on private lands.

There are a number of issues at play here — as well as the competitiveness of the coast, our ability to have a marketplace for those guys to go to…. That's why, hon. member, rather than in this softwood agreement doing something that disproportionately hurt the coast, we've actually given them the opportunity to be their own marketplace for the first time in Canadian history, so they can actually build a marketplace for their future. Mr. Speaker: Member for Nelson-Creston has a supplemental. C. Evans: You know, hon. Speaker, I really have only ever had two trades in my life.

This is one of them, if you can call it a trade. The other one is logging. I logged under Social Credit, Ray Williston and those folks, and I logged under New Democrats — Bob Wil- liams. I even logged under a member opposite once upon a time, I think, when he was minister. All those left-wing, right-wing…. It didn't matter. They all had to have a few log exports — a couple million cubic metres a year — in order, public policy would say, to have a window on the market value of our own stump- a g e i n t h e w o r l d .

S o l e f t o r r i g h t , w e a l w a y s h a d p u b l i c policy that there would be some logs exported. But today, because of this deal that happened in Port Alberni and the fact that the government has cho- sen not to ramp down elsewhere, we're now at 4.7 mil- lion cubic metres. That's 175,000 logging trucks a year. Imagine that. What we are facing here is the very first govern- ment to abandon the Social Credit principle that the wood was here for the value of community, so people could live in place. My question for the minister is: do you intend…?

No, my question through the Speaker to the minis- ter representing the governme nt, hon. Speaker: is his government going to be the first government that ever worked here which abandoned the principle of the resources being for the people? And if so, will he stand up and say it, instead of doing it by stealth day by day invisibly? Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Member. Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for his question. Through to the member: this is not a challenge that hasn't been faced by Forests Ministers for generations — number one.

Secondly, starting in January of this year, we made a number of changes with regards to how we deal with pulp logs and pricing of logs on the coast and fibre to try and encourage fibre to come out of the forest to our mills at a price that they could afford. We made those

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4957 changes, because the industry has to submit those changes, hon. member. The reason we did that is because we believe there's a long-term strategy that needs to be put in place for the coast of British Columbia, which is struggling. There is no question. Anybody that doesn't believe that is kidding themselves. The reality, though, is that we started the incre- mental changes. We will move to the next level of the plan, and that will be working with communities on their future.

We have to attract investment — in defer- ence to even the comment from one of your own mem- bers, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, who said yesterday that American investment in Canada is $64 billion greater than Canadian investment in the United States. This is not good for British Columbia. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Member. Member. Hon. R. Coleman: Hon. member, we need to attract investment for modern mills on our coast, and we're going to do that by building an environment for that to succeed. [1445] APPOINTMENT OF CARMEN PURDY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION B.

Ralston: This government has taken to appointing Liberal friends and insiders to the Agricultural Land Commission. But this partisan policy isn't limited to the appointments of John Tomlinson and Bill Jones. For months now concerned stakeholders have been trying to get this government to address their concerns about Liberal Party supporter Carmen Purdy, who sits on the Kootenay panel of the Agricultural Land Commission. Mr. Purdy allegedly negotiated with a developer on behalf of an organization that Mr. Purdy is strongly identified with.

In a decision of the Agricultural Land Commission made by the Kootenay panel that Mr. Purdy sat on, that same developer, Mark Himmelspach, had land removed from the ALR. Will the Minister of Agri culture and Lands explain why he ignored the requests of local agricultural groups and renewed the appointment of Carmen Purdy? Hon. P. Bell: I think I just heard an accusation about a wrongdoing within the Agricultural Land Commission. If the member actually believes that, I would strongly sug- gest he makes that accusation outside these doors. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Surrey-Whalley has a supplemen- tal. B. Ralston: The minister himself said that the body has to be seen clearly in the public eye to be an impar- tial body. Local agricultural g r o u p s h a v e p r e s s e d t h i s minister to investigate this allegation. He has refused to do so, and his only response was simply to appoint Carmen Purdy again to that panel. My question is to the minister. Will he remove Carmen Purdy from the panel while these allegations are investigated? Hon. P.

Bell: Again, I would encourage the mem- ber, after question period is over, if he wishes to make an allegation against Mr. Purdy, to make that outside this room. I have a number of names here I would like to read into the record: Christin e Hunt, Ruth Veiner, Gus Horn, James Ingram, Patricia Halliday. What do those five people have in common? They were all members of the Agricultural Land Commission in the year 2000, out of a total of ten members. What else did they have in common? They were all NDP party members and all party donators. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE PROJECT IN DELTA G.

Gentner: Mr. Speaker, 37,000 vehicle move- ments a day move along 72nd Avenue in Delta and Surrey. For years the government has been negotiating an agreement with Delta for a new interchange at Highway 91 and 72nd Avenue, but during estimates last week the Minister of Transportation placed a new wrinkle on the project. Apparently, the interchange hinges on development of the privately owned lands of Burns Bog.

How is it that the money needed to do this from the government's own border in frastructure program is now contingent upon the developer needs and friends of this government and not the needs of moving goods and people going to and from work every day? Hon. K. Falcon: Thank you to the member for the question. The member should note that what I said in estimates was that the developer and the city need to work together to come to a common solution to make it easier for us as a province to actually make a decision to go forward.

If there are lands required from the de- veloper in order to make this intersection work, which I understand would be a re quirement there, then it would be helpful if Delta could come up with a com- mon position in working in cooperation with the land- owner so that the province could go ahead and make this happen. That was the issue. Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta North has a supplemental. G. Gentner: Well, to the minister: the mayor of Delta knows nothing of this deal between the devel-

4958 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 oper and the province. Last week this is what the min- ister said: "We'd like get on with it.

But you've got a developer and you've got a city that are having diffi- culty coming to agreement…." Now, again, the mayor knows nothing of this. [1450] The minister went on to say: "If Delta can negotiate something with the developer, come to some kind of agreement that would allow them to come to the minis- try and say, 'We've already agreed….'" He went on to say: "I think we can get to an agreement very quickly if that was able to happen." Why is it that the mayor of Delta, her chief adminis- trative officer and staff know nothing of this discussion between the province and the developer? Hon. K.

Falcon: I can't comment on what the mayor of Delta or her staff know or don't know about a situa- tion. I assume that they're in regular contact. All I can tell y o u i s w h a t I u n d e r s t o o d t o b e t h e s i t u a t i o n f r o m m y staff. I'd be happy to look into it further for the member. One thing I can tell you, member, is that whenever we as a province are lookin g to make decisions regard- i n g i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , i t ' s m u c h e a s i e r t o w o r k w h e n y o u have a situation of cooperation between landowners and cities and the province. Really, it's as simple as that.

My understanding as the minister — and I don't pretend I have everything perfectly — is that there is some challenge between lands that we require that are owned by a private developer. The developers gener- ally don't just give you land for nothing. My under- standing is that the developer has plans for the land that they own — I have no idea what the plans are, but they have plans — and that they have yet to come to an agreement with the city of Delta. If that's not the case, I'm happy to hear from the administrator or from the ma yor directly to find out what the situation is.

But that is the situation as I un- derstand it. All I'm saying is that I would love to be able to help move things along if there's some way we could, but it would be extraordinarily helpful if the developer and the city could come to an agreement. STAFF CONCERNS AT EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME ASSISTANCE MINISTRY C. Trevena: Internal staff feedback on a new service code for the Ministry of Employment and Income As- sistance shows that staff are deeply troubled by the devastating effect of cuts to their service.

Let me provide a quick feedback for the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance in case he hasn't had time to read these responses. "Over the last four years our government policies have made it more and more difficult to actually help people. We are pushing p e o p l e a r o u n d . " " T h e w a y w e w e r e r e q u i r e d t o t r e a t people who were already in so much pain and need was shameful." "We were ac tually told that employ- ment plan targets were to be prioritized ahead of medi- cal needs." The ministry's own staff say that people who are in genuine and desperate need are being turned away.

I would like to ask the Minister of Employment and In- come Assistance whether he's actually taken the time to read these comments from his own staff and what he is going to do to correct the serious problems they have identified. Hon. C. Richmond: I don't know which staff the member is talking to, because the staff that we've talked to are just absolutely thrilled with our new ser- vice delivery, which we have just introduced ministry- wide. Our caseload has change d dramatically over the last few years as we have put 46,000 people back to work from the income….

These are people who were expected to work, and with a little bit of help from our employment programs, we have managed to get them back into the workforce. Conversely, those with dis- abilities — the number has gone up dramatically, which refutes the statement that it's difficult to get onto income assistance. Mr. Speaker: Member for North Island has a sup- plemental. C.

Trevena: I take it that the minister hasn't read the information that his own staff have provided on an in- ternal website, because he would clearly see they were not thrilled at the way that the service is being delivered or what they're expected to be doing. Nor are they thrilled with the cuts that are being made to the service. [1455] In February I asked the minister if staff in his minis- try were being given free lunches for cutting the caseloads. At that point the minister replied that my question was absolutely absurd and the idea was pre- posterous.

There was much derision from the other side of the House. One month earlier, in January, a front-line worker said, as quoted in the review: "I find it distressing that offices in our region are re warded for caseload reduc- tion with a free lunch or Tim Hortons gift certificates while people we are here to serve live on the streets and go hungry. There is something very, very wrong with this picture." I think there is something very, very wrong with this picture, so I'd like to ask the Minister of Employ- ment and Income Assistance whether he thinks it is appropriate to reward staff for denying people benefit.

Hon. C. Richmond: I said back when the question was first asked that it was preposterous, and I will say it again. I guess I would ask the member: who writes your stuff? You know, they're not doing their job. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Hon. C. Richmond: They're not doing their job.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4959 The rewards she's talking about are lunches that were provided for many, many years through the pub- lic service for a job well done by staff. [End of question period.] S. Fraser: I seek leave to submit a petition. Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Petitions S. Fraser: This is a petition from the Save Our Val- ley Alliance. There are about 800 signatures of people very, very concerned about raw log exports. Reports from Committees J. Rustad: I have the honour to present the report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner.

I move the report be taken as read and received. Motion approved. J. Rustad: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report. Leave granted. J. Rustad: I move that the report be adopted. This report constitutes the committee's unanimous recommendation for the appointment of the first inde- pendent Merit Commissioner of British Columbia. As members will know, the Public Service Act was amended last November to separate the role of the Merit Commis- sioner from that of a deputy minister of the Public Service Agency.

At that time the position of the Merit Commissioner was also established as an independent statutory offi- cer of the Legislature. Ther efore, although there had been three individuals serving as Merit Commissioner in the past, this is the firs t to be appointed in the new capacity as a statutory officer. The Merit Commissioner is responsible for monitoring the application of the merit principle to the public service appointments through random audits and through re- views of specific appointment decisions as the third and final step in bargaining unit staffing review processes.

As the overseer of the merit principle in B.C.'s pub- lic service, the committee believes it's important not only that the Merit Commissioner have the knowledge, skills and ability to carry out the responsibilities of the position but also that the Merit Commissioner person- ify that principle. After assessing 102 applications from well-qualified individuals from across British Columbia and Canada, we found a person who does that justice. The commit- tee is very pleased to recommend Ms. Joy Illington to the House. Motion approved. Motions without Notice APPOINTMENT OF MERIT COMMISSIONER J.

Rustad: I ask leave of the House to permit the mov- ing of a motion requesting the Lieutenant-Governor to appoint Ms. Joy Illington Merit Commissioner of the province of British Columbia. Leave granted. J. Rustad: I recommend that this House recommend to Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor the appointment of Ms. Joy Illington as a statutory officer of the Legislature to exercise the powers and duties assigned to the Merit Commissioner for the province of British Columbia pur- suant to the Public Service Act, RSBC 1996, c. 385. [1500] Motion approved. J. Rustad: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted.

Introductions by Members J. Rustad: On behalf of the Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner, I would like to intro- duce Joy Illington, Merit Commissioner of British Co- lumbia, to the Members of the Legislative Assembly. Ms.

Illington has served British Columbia in many capacities during her 18-year career, including investi- gative officer of the Ombu dsman, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, deputy cabinet secretary serving under four provincial admini- strations, chair of the Medical Services Commission, and Associate Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Abo- riginal Relations and Reconciliation. Her dedication and excellence has been recognized by her peers in the public service as well as those of us here who have had the pleasure of working with her in previous roles.

The committee is confident that Ms. Illington will bring those same qualities to the Office of the Merit Commissioner. Orders of the Day Hon. M. de Jong: M r . S p e a k e r , i n t h i s c h a m b e r , I call second reading debate on Bill 34. In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of La- bour and Citizens' Services. Second Reading of Bills REPRESENTATIVE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH ACT Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

4960 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 The Representative for Children and Youth Act will establish the Legislative As sembly's authority to ap- point a new officer of the Legislature, a Representative for Children and Youth, and will set out the role, pow- ers and obligations of the representative. This bill is, in part, the government's response to the B.C. Children and Youth Review , an independent review of B.C.'s child protection system submitted by the Hon. Ted Hughes on April 7, 2006. [S. Hammell in the chair.] The Minister of Children and Family Development appointed Mr.

Hughes to do an independent review of a portion of the child protection system in British Co- lumbia and to make recommendations for improve- ment in a report to the minister and to the public. The Hughes review also covere d related matters, including the roles of the child and youth officer and the chief coroner and public reporting of child death reviews. Mr. Hughes noted that th e experiences of previous offices, such as the child, family and youth advocate, the Children's Commission, and the Office for Children and Youth.

He recommended a new Representative for Children and Youth, who would build on the strengths of these predecessors and on the lessons learned from their experience. This bill accomplishes that. This bill outlines the repr esentative's role and func- tions in three critical areas: advocacy, monitoring of service delivery, and review and investigation of criti- cal injuries and deaths in specified circumstances.

The representative's functions resemble those of the current child and youth officer in the areas of monitoring ser- vice delivery and of providing information and advice to children and families about services. The representative will review and investigate indi- vidual child injuries and deaths, as did the Children's Commission, but the scope of this function has been modified to match the recommendations of Mr. Hughes. [1505] The representative will al so have the authority to advocate on behalf of children and their families.

The bill also contains provisions of various types of report- ing that will reflect the representative's mandate and roles to keep government and the public apprised of important child welfare matters. Madam Speaker, this bill is the enabling legislation for a new representative for children and youth. While the bill is not a complete response to the Hughes re- view, it fulfils one of Mr. Hughes's primary recom- mendations and allows us to begin the organizational changes and planning required for the other recom- mendations.

The first recommendation in the Hughes review is the appointment of a representative for children and youth as an officer of the Legislature, based on the unanimous recommendation of a special committee of the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Hughes suggests a five- year term of appointment, renewable to a maximum of ten years. The status of the officer of the Legislature and the fixed-term appointment for a minimum of five years are critical for us to build public confidence in the representative's independence. It is also consistent with the terms of other independent officers. Mr.

Hughes's second recommendation is that the Legislature strike a standing committee on children and youth and that the repr esentative and the deputy representatives report to this all-party committee at least annually. The representative will report annually to the select standing committee on children and youth in service plans, annual reports and special reports from time to time, as outlined in the bill. The bill en- ables the representative to appoint deputy representa- tives. Everyone here today will agree that our children's welfare is of paramount importance.

This all-party com- mittee will give us the opportunity to put aside our differ- ences, as suggested by Mr. Hughes, and work in coopera- tion in the interests of B.C.'s children. These recommenda- tions of Mr. Hughes and the bill contemplate that we set aside our political differences and work for the common good. This is an opportunity to demonstrate to British Columbians our united commitment to the protection of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

The representative's role covers three areas, as rec- ommended in the Hughes review: (1) the advocacy role — to support, assist, inform and advise children and their families concerning designated services; (2) the monitoring role — to increase accountability by moni- toring, reviewing and auditing the ministries and other public bodies responsible for designated services; and (3) the review and investigation role — to review, in- vestigate and report on children's critical injuries or deaths in circumstances as outlined in the bill.

Critical injuries are injuries that may cause serious or long-term impairment to a child's health or result in a child's death. The bill enables a representative to conduct a review of children's injuries and deaths for the purpose of identifying trends and improving re- viewable services or addressing broader public policy initiatives.

The representative will be able to investi- gate a child's critical injury or death if it took place within one year of the child receiving services and if the incident was due to any of the following: abuse or neglect, an accident in unusual or suspicious circum- stances, or injuries that were self-inflicted or inflicted by another person. [1510] The children's standing committee may also ask the representative to investigate the critical injury or death of any child. The representative will report back to the children's standing committee on any case the commit- tee has referred.

Overall, the bill defines the representa- tive's role, function and du ties with respect to desig- nated services. Designated services include the following services and programs provided or funded by government for children and families: services or programs under the Child Care BC Act, the Child Care Subsidy Act, the Child, Family and Community Service Act, the Com- munity Living Authority Ac t, the Youth Justice Act; early childhood development and care reviews; mental

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4961 health services for children; addiction services for chil- dren; services for youth and young adults during their transition to adulthood; and additional services or pro- grams prescribed by regulation. The representative's mandate to investigate indi- vidual critical injuries and deaths focuses on children in receipt of reviewable services. Reviewable services are services directed at addressing the needs of our most vulnerable children.

They include the following services from the list of desi gnated services: services or programs under the Child, Family and Community Service Act and the Youth Justice Act; mental health services for children and additional designated services prescribed in regulation. The provisions described respond directly to Hughes's recommendations. They respond to recom- mendation three, which outl ines the need to support people who are navigating the child welfare system and to help them become effective self-advocates.

They respond to recommendation four, which specifies that the representa tive's mandate should in- clude monitoring, reviewing, auditing and investigat- ing performance and accountability within the child welfare system. They respond to recommendation five, which states that the representative shou ld carry out the reviews of aggregate information on children's critical injuries or deaths. The bill's provisions concerning investigations of child injuries and deaths respond to recommendations five, six and seven.

As the Hughes review points out, one of the ways to ensure that the investigations undertaken by the representative produce meaningful recommenda- tions to the responsible ministry or public entity is to focus on limited circumstan ces where services, poli- cies or practices contribute d to the injury or death. That's what this bill does. It provides a specific role for the representative distinguished from the coro- ner's role.

To enable the representative to carry out review and investigation responsibilities, the bill requires min- istries and other entities to give the representative in- formation about the critical injury or death of any child receiving designated services within the previous year. The representative also has a right to any information held by any public body or bodies that is necessary to carry out the office's roles, functions and duties as Mr. Hughes advocated in recommendation 54. As emphasized in Mr. Hughes's review, this bill gives the representative the power to recommend — rather than order — change.

The reporting require- ments outlined in the bill in the form of annual and special reports give the representative a mechanism to inform the children's stan ding committee, the Legisla- ture and the public of the recommendations made to the ministries or to other public bodies and their com- pliance with prior recommendations. This bill is a testament to this government's com- mitment to make changes that serve the interests of British Columbia's children. [1515] S. Hawkins: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members S.

Hawkins: Visiting the precincts and in the Legisla- ture today are 40 grade seven students from Kelowna Christian School in the Ke lowna-Mission riding. With them are Mr. MacArthur and Ms. Hendren and, I under- stand, some adults that are also visiting with the stu- dents. I would ask everyone to give them a warm wel- come. They're here to see how the Legislature operates. Debate Continued A.

Dix: It's very good and a very positive thing that we have young people from Kelowna here today, be- cause this is — in this session of the Legislature and since I've been elected — one of the most important debates and most important pieces of legislation that I have dealt with or that we will deal with. Today that is, of course — for those in the galleries and for people watching — the decision that this Legis- lature will take to create a new office called the repre- sentative for children and youth.

I think it's one of the most important things we've done, and it's been part of one of the most important debates we have, or can have, as a society. That is how we deal, how we support, how we help, how we ensure that everybody in our society…. Not just some. Not just those who have the good for- tune — as I have, as many members of this House have had — to have two parents who love them, to have support through their lives, to continue to have sup- port even after we become adults, to live in family ar- rangements that support us and to have access to pub- lic education and public health care that help us….

For children in our society who do not always have access to those things, this is the most important thing we can do as a province, as a society, as a government. It's something we always have to do together. So when people say that we should take the politics out of this, they're only partly righ t. We have to put the poli- tics in this in the sense that all of us have to care more, do more, support more, help more, because equality of opportunity in our society is fundamental to a democ- ratic society.

Regardless of your views on great issues of the economy and of state, the issues we deal with when we talk about children in care or children who need the support of the Ministry of Children and Family Devel- opment or children who receive support indirectly from other ministries such as the Ministry of Employ- ment and Income Assistance — who get income assis- tance support…. The work that we do is fundamental. It is important. It is in fact, I think, a debate where we need politics — politics in the best sense — we as representatives bringing these issues, shin ing light on these issues,

4962 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 never allowing these issues to disappear from the pub- lic debate and, of course, tr eating the issues with re- spect, treating people with respect and treating chil- dren with respect — all of those things. But if we don't think these issues matter, if we don't put everything we have into solving this issue, if we don't…. When people say to us, or say to my friend the Minister of Children and Family Development: "Isn't it too bad you got this assignment…?" If we don't say: "No. This is the assignment you want. This is the job you want.

This is why we were elected here…." That is what this debate is about. That is why I am so honoured to be the opposition spokesperson for Children and Family Development. In this debate — which, as I say, I think is an extraordinarily important debate — I think of a lot of people who work on these issues every day and who have struggled through what most observers regard as a fairly dark period in the way in which we've dealt with issues of children and youth in British Columbia.

I think of social work- ers who have faced expanding real workloads and who have raised these issues, sometimes at risk of their jobs. [1520] I think of them working every day, not just 35 or 37 or 40 hours. We're talking about committed govern- ment employees who virtually any time of the day or night, week or weekend, ar e prepared to go and help people in our society, not just because they're paid to do so but because they've devoted their lives to the support of children and youth.

I think of youth workers, who do the same for a group of youth who have been particularly neglected in recent years — youth 13 to 17. This goes beyond politics again. It is unacceptable to me, and it should be unac- ceptable to everybody in this House, that there are youth in this province today — youth in care and youth who receive supports from the ministry — who are living in the most substandard and abject poverty.

I admire youth workers who have brought these issues to the attention of the public and who every day try and make life better and improve life and provide the kind of supports and services that youth need. They've brought those issues to the debate in British Columbia in the face, I must say, of some risk to their employment. Foster parents. Imagine the work of foster parents which, as the minister kn ows and as all members of this House know, has not gotten easier in recent times. Indeed, the challenges that foster parents face….

Often the circumstances of young people and of children who come into care are increasingly problematic. Foster parents have faced what can fairly be called significant cuts in recent years to the services they receive, given the extraordinary services they provide. They have spoken out. They have brou ght issues to the attention of people. I think of extended families, of people who work on these issues, of people wh o work for service organiza- tions. I think of people who have led this debate.

All I can say is that if anyone, any MLA, thinks that being on the new Standing Committee on Children isn't the most important thing they could possibly do, they should spend a few days, a few minutes meeting the people who work in this area. The work they've done, the courage they've shown, th e efforts they've made to shine a light on these issues…. It's not about politics. They need more support from us. They need more politics from us on this issue, but the best kind of politics — politics designed to im- prove and uplift the lives of children and youth in this province. Hon.

Speaker, I should mention at this time to you and to the Clerks that I am the designated speaker on this bill. As you know, the official opposition supports Bill 34. We will vote for it at second reading. We have some ideas for committee stage that we'll put forward. We support it, first of all, because it closely parallels the legislation that we intr oduced as private member's legislation last fall. It brings together many of the pow- ers of the old Children's Commission and the child advocate positions, which were created in the 1990s with the support of all members of this House, of both sides of this House.

We believed at the time that there was a need. In the system there is a fundamental need, when you're talking about the Ministry of Children and Fam- ily Development — just as there is with other institu- tions that have significant power in our society — for a second set of eyes, another place for people to go when they have concerns. The A ttorney General, who intro- duced this bill, knows this, because he served on a commission — an important government commission — with respect to the police.

There are very few minis- tries of government or areas where government has so much potential power over the lives of individuals. Think of it. The Ministry of Children and Families can decide, under certain circumstances, to go into a home and remove a child. Im agine that. Imagine that extraordinary power.

Altern atively, as the ministers across know, they can decide to review a situation and make what can also be a very difficult decision to leave a child in a home, under specific circumstances. [1525] That level of government power requires a place, an independent place, a place where we can have an- other set of eyes, where in fact there can be some check on that power, not because — and it's certainly not the case of the police — those agencies aren't intrinsically good. They are. They're tryi ng, with everything they can do, to serve the public interest.

It's important because the power is so great that it has to be checked. Those decisions are so important; they are fundamentally important. No ministry of gov- ernment has that kind of power, and that's why we believed fundamentally that it was wrong of the gov- ernment in 2002 to eliminat e those agencies in the name of cost efficiencies. It's why we fundamentally believe that was the wrong course, the wrong decision, and sent the wrong signal.

I believe in the idea — and it's certainly what we proposed — of putting those agencies and concepts together — the need for a place of advocacy, a place for people to go if they have concerns and complaints, on

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4963 the one hand, and on the other hand, also a place of oversight and investigation of child deaths in particu- lar but also of serious injuries. We believe that needed to be reinstated in British Columbia. We are delighted that Judge Ted Hughes agreed with that position, and we support fundamentally this legislation. I want to talk a little bit — because I think this, too, is fundamental — about how we got here.

I don't think it's any secret that the years that children live, particu- larly their early years but all their years, are fundamen- tal to their long-term development. This is so self- evident that it's almost become a cliché. But we've had a period of years where children have suffered because of mistakes made by government. Those mistakes, and the consequences of those mi stakes, are lasting. They don't go away because we've decided to introduce Bill 34. They don't go away.

If we don't shine a light on those issues, if we don't say: "Let's learn some lessons…." If we don't say that what happened over the last few years is wrong, that it should never be allowed to happen again and it has lasting consequences, then we are not doing our jobs as legislators, and we are not do ing our jobs as citizens in British Columbia. Prior to the 2001 election, the Premier of British Columbia said a series of very specific things about the exact issues we are dealing with in this bill. He said a series of things about thos e issues. He campaigned on them for years.

I am not going to bore this House with his quotes over that time, but I will say what he told the electorate prior to 2001, what he promised the elec- torate prior to 2001. He said, from their campaign book, in 2001: "We will make children the number-one priority and devote adequate resources." What were adequate resources? He said again and again and again in the 1990s that adequate resources meant more resources. And why not? He promised to "sto p the endless bureaucratic restructuring that has drained resources from children and family services." That's what he said. That's what he campaigned on.

He promised to support and keep the Children's Commission of the time and the child advocate at the t i m e . H e c a m p a i g n e d o n t h a t . H e s a i d h e s u p p o r t e d that. He went to the voters and promised that. Those were commitments. They weren't commitments that we created on this side of the House. They were com- mitments that he called solemn commitments to British Columbia. We all remember him on election night waving those commitments. In some cases, it's fair to say, it's true…. As the Premier has said in other cases, circum- stances change, and you have to break your promise.

He's talked about that with respect to B.C. Rail. This isn't B.C. Rail. This is a commitment to fundamental services to protect children and fundamental services to ensure some equality of opportunity for children. [1530] Unlike issues such as B.C. Rail, children in British Columbia — especially children in care, especially children living in poverty — don't have a lobby group. They don't get to see the Premier when promises and commitments made to them are broken. They don't say that at all. They don't get that opportunity at all. What happened in 2002?

In fact, the Ministry of Children and Family Development was targeted with some of the largest cuts any ministry has ever seen in the history of government in British Columbia — hun- dreds of millions of dollars of cuts from a Premier who promised that he'd make children the number-one pri- ority. What were the consequences of those cuts? What were those cuts? What kind of cuts did they make? Well, they laid off hundreds of front-line child protec- tion workers. They introduc ed legislation to punish foster parents who speak out as advocates for kids.

They attempted a vast and then botched restructuring that created chaos in the ministry. They went further than that with respect to em- ployment and income assistance. They imposed very significant cuts on working families at a time when they were committed to families, and they said: "We believe there should be alternatives to care." At the very time they were doing that, they were cutting ser- vices to families in need. I don't need to list them all, but I'll list off some of them. Single parents lost money. Those were the priori- ties.

You know, we talk abou t single parents and this notion of income assistance that has sometimes formed the basis of some of these policies on that side of the House. We talk about income assistance for parents as if it's their responsibility, their mistakes, and they should pull themselves up by their bootstraps. But when you cut services, as this government did systematically to single parents and to families, you're cutting services to children. When you eliminate a child care program, you're cutting services to children.

Who in this House can stand up and say that any child in this province deserves that kind of treatment? It must never happen again, and that's one of the reasons why we're here debating this bill. On the chopping block, what else did they cut? They cut Christmas gifts for children in care. That's what they did. They cut th e funds that helped pay for summer camp and recreation programs. They made fundamental cuts that affect ed the lives of everyone working in this sector. It was wrong, hon. Speaker — the largest cuts in history. It was simply wrong. When you think about it….

They also, by the way, restructured and changed the way we care for children. They said they were go- ing to restore family rights and ensure that children stayed in families. They created programs. Let me re- call the words of the Premie r: "Enhanced training re- sources and authority for front-line social workers." Well, it's very interesting. It's very interesting, indeed, what the Premier says about these questions. In June of 2002 he bragged about how successful this was. Well, what else happened in June 2002? The government proclaimed a new program in the cabinet room. It came to the cabinet room.

It's called the kith- and-kin program. They pr oclaimed a new program,

4964 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 and they put it in place. It would be almost comical if it were not so tragic — a new program to protect the most vulnerable children in society. They implemented it before they were ready, before they had standards in place, by faxing guidelines to agencies. This is where it came to. This is where the rubber meets the road. [1535] T h i s i s w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n y o u d o n ' t m a k e c h i l - d r e n a p r i o r i t y . T h i s i s w h a t h a p p e n s w h e n d e b a t e i s s i l e n c e d . S o w h a t h a p p e n e d ?

W e l l , w e k n o w s o m e o f the things that happened. I'm not going to go back over the cases we're talking about, but it seems to me that when you introduce new programs…. It wasn't just kith-and-kin agreements; it wasn't just

section 54.1 agreements. There were myri ad programs put in place without adequate training, without resources that were cut-rate programs where people got less money to support children in care, children with serious issues because almost every one of those children was in need of protection. Can you imagine being in need of gov- ernment protection and then being the subject, in addi- tion to that, of government cuts? Yes, we want to keep children in their families, but we should be supporting families. We should not be creating programs that cu t support to children.

We should not be making budget savings on the backs of the most vulnerable children in society. That is what this government did, and the consequences for chil- dren are what we know — very, very serious. It is a terrible fact that with respect to children in care but also with respect to other programs, 49 per- cent of children in care are in aboriginal communities. When you focus cuts, because that's what happened here…. They focused cuts on children services.

The consequences were felt greatest, felt most, were most painful in aboriginal communities, communities that surely have suffered from government recklessness before. This was the road we went down: comprehensive cuts to the supports that ch ildren and families need to succeed in life. This is what they did. At the same time as they did that, they eliminated the Children's Com- mission, and they eliminated the child advocate.

They eliminated, in fact, the watchdogs that might have blown the whistle; that might have said too much; that might have shown us, in 2003 and 2004, the conse- quences of what happens when you engage in such reckless policies. Fundamental reform in th e system…. It's not just me saying it.

You need to read the Hughes report and what it says about governments that engage in funda- mental reforms of the system while at the same time cutting resources for the system, as if somehow any financial benefit from th ose fundamental changes should be scooped away from the children involved and handed — I don't know — to another business of government. Of course, that's not what happened. There weren't financial savings. What happened was that the children and families suffered, and they suf- f e r e d i n s i l e n c e . W e m u s t n e v e r g o d o w n t h i s r o a d again.

The decision to get rid of the Children's Commis- sion and the child advocate in 2002 is one we are recti- fying today — the decision that the Premier said he would never make and then made, the decision that he, to this day, refuses to apol ogize for. That decision is why we're here today. What happened subsequent to that? There has been much talk about this, of course. The Hughes report says it: 955 child death reviews sent to a warehouse. The government did this. They got rid of these two offices, and they didn't ha ve a transition plan. They didn't have any idea what they were doing.

They didn't care enough to take responsibility for those cases. And 955 cases were sent to a warehouse. When did we discover this? How did we discover this? Well, it took years to discover it in the system. It took years for anyone to blow the whistle. The Solicitor General was there the day I asked him about it, and he confirmed that they were in the warehouse last No- vember, three years later. Those files in that warehouse were allowed to rot for three years. People say that 955 cases sound like a lot of cases. Every single one of those is a child, and we have names for those children.

Many of those cases are tragic. If you consider, in the context of this legislation, that 255 of those children in question were either children in care or children known to the Ministry of Children and Family Development…. They 're 255 children who this act would have applied to. [1540] The recklessness — is that not a public scandal that should make people angry? It did make people angry, and I'm glad it made people angry. It should. We should never allow such things to happen again. What happened besides that? The government promised that they had a mo re efficient model.

They were bringing forward a more efficient model to re- view child deaths. It would go to the Coroners Service. Starting on January 1, 2003, there is this claim that they've done 546 child death reviews — a claim con- tradicted by the people doing the work in the Coroners Service. So you add those cases — 546 cases not done. Apparently, a review there is simply an issue of input- ting names into a computer; 546 further cases not done, and the fact they weren't being done, hidden. They cut the $4 million Children's Commission. They cut the child advocate .

They cut the coroner's office by $800,000, then they sent $200,000 over, and they said: "We'll do the same work." This is reckless- ness. This is the contempt for government expressed as public policy. There is no way that agency could have done what the government said it did. People can say they didn't know. People can say they didn't know about that . They can say that. They can claim that within government. But how is that pos- sible? How is it possible that reviews can go on one day, and then reviews completely stop and nobody notices?

If ever there was a case for the need of an inde- pendent children's commissioner and a watchdog committee of this Legislature to draw attention to is-

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4965 sues, this is the case, because surely that recklessness, that contempt for the basic responsibilities of govern- ment…. People talk about primary reviews and secondary reviews of child deaths. The Premier never, in opposi- tion, made that distinction — t h a t w e o n l y h a d t o d o one. He always said there needed to be secondary child death reviews. He campaigned on it. He supported legislation in this House based on that, and then as Premier he allowed 1,500 child deaths to go undone. It must never happen again.

It must never happen again, and one of the reasons why I believe it's impor- tant that the Premier apologize for that is because peo- ple are already rewriting history. The person rewriting history in the first place is the Premier himself. He stood in this Legislature in response to the Hughes report. Let me read the Hughes report just with respect to the cir- cumstances that I'm talking about, because people there may think that this is partisan. It's not partisan.

Here's what Ted Hughes said: "I cannot agree with the Pre- mier's earlier assessment that budget cuts did not con- tribute to the failure of the transition process or that the transition provisions of the new act constituted a clear plan for the transfer of the death review function." Page 128, hon. Speaker. He further says that the Premier took the knife too far after he was elected in 2001 and must now restabi- lize the system. That's what Ted Hughes says. Read the report, hon. Speaker. It is a condemnation through its pages of the exact policies I've been talking about. It is a condemnation.

What does our Premier say? What does he say about that? What lessons has he le arned from this scandalous period in our history — a period that never must be re- peated? I believe and I'm co nvinced….

I know that the Attorney General and the Minister of Children and Fam- ily Development opposite are good people, and we are going to try and work together to ensure that the system is improved, that the standing committee works, that we get a child representative in place that does his or her job, but what does the Premier say? [1545] It is important that people acknowledge their re- sponsibility and their mistakes in life, and sometimes it is hard. We all know that. But what does the Premier say when he refuses to apologize? He says: "Mr. Hughes said that we perhap s took on too many initia- tives at once.

If we have any failings as a government, I would suggest that it was because we were trying to provide for the children of B.C." So you stand up in the House, and you give a standing ovation to a budget that cuts the Ministry of Children and Families by 23 percent, that negatively affects every child in care, every foster child, other children receiving support of the ministry, other chil- dren receiving the support of the Ministry of Employ- ment and Income Assistance. That's what you do. And then you say: "Well, the problem was I was trying to do too much." We have to learn from these mistakes.

This was a serious and fundamental faili ng of government. That's what it was. Fifteen hundred child death review cases lost; children in every part of this province suffering because of cuts. They dese rve more than this. They deserve an apology from the Premier of British Colum- bia. Of course, as the Attorney General has said, this bill o n l y d e a l s w i t h p a r t o f w h a t M r . H u g h e s h a s r e c o m - mended and only part of where we need to go from here. There are more fundamental changes that need to be made. Mr.

Hughes has set forth a long list of rec- ommendations, and as the minister has rightly said, it will take some time to get on with it. We believe, on this side of the House, and we have been saying this since last July, last August…. We got into the House last September, and we raised these issues many times in the session last fall, and we were met with denials at that time that change was needed. But now we've reached the point, we've convinced the government that change is needed.

There are signifi- cant new moneys in the budget, moneys that the Pre- mier had said they didn't need, and there is this new child representative in place. On this side of the House we are going to continue with everything we have to put a focus on these issues; with everything we have to draw attention to the fact that there aren't enough fo ster parents in British Co- lumbia, that we need more and they need more of our s u p p o r t ; w i t h e v e r y t h i n g w e h a v e t o s a y t h a t i f y o u have programs, as Mr.

Hughes said in his recommen- dations, such as kith-and-k in or other programs, you should fund them and support the families at the same level as you support other families. The children don't need less food. They don't need poorer clothing be- cause they're in a kith-and-kin program as opposed to a restricted foster-parent situation or in care. They need the same amount. Those programs deserve our support, and we're go- ing to fight for those programs. I believe in those pro- grams, but I don't think we should ever countenance cut-rate social work. I don't think we should ever do fewer home studies.

Every child matters in British Co- lumbia; no child should be left behind in this system. That's why, to make these programs succeed…. We have in the last year or two a decline in some of these programs. There are significantly fewer — the minister knows this —

section 8 agreements since April 2004. There are considerably fewer

section 54.1 agreements, which are guardianship agr eements, than there were then. Those programs are failing because we're not giving them enough support. We have fought for that, and we're going to continue to fight for that, because we believe these issues are important. They're not partisan issu es. Everybody in British Columbia surely should believe that children deserve our support, that children deserve an equal opportu- nity in life.

The fact that we have a child representative who will monitor these issues, who will oversee the ministry, who will review children's deaths and serious injuries, who will provide the opportunity to advocate for children, for their families, for foster parents — with members of the public wi th an interest in the sys-

4966 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 tem — will help us, as well, and that's why we support this bill. [1550] In conclusion, I want to speak of a man that I met along the path of the fight, I think, to change the sys- tem, to turn back this terrible direction, to shine light on what has been a dark period in the history of the ministry, of the government, a dark period for children in British Columbia. I met Harvey Charlie last October, and Harvey's granddaughter tragically is at the centre of some of these terrible events.

Again and again, at considerable p e r s o n a l p a i n t o h i m s e l f , h e … . I n s o m e r e s p e c t s , i t i s easy to get up and speak about things as MLAs or as people concerned about the system, even the social workers. It is our passion. We care about it, of course, and it is important, but that's easy. We don't have what Harvey Charlie had at stake. Again and again he stood up and said no to the government. He said: "In spite of the pain that it causes, we must find a better way.

We must seek im- provements to the system." I admire it so much, so I think of him today and of what Harvey and Rose did for children across British Columbia — something that was extremely painful and difficult to do. What our children need in our society is equality of opportunity. What they need is freedom and liberty. What they need is opportunit y, and what they need is our fraternity. These are old ideas and old goals, but in this Legislature and this de bate we shouldn't forget them.

What children need is to have a fair chance in life, a fair opportunity to reach and do whatever they want: come to the Legislature, start businesses, serve the public, join professions — whatever they want to do, or not do any of those things. What we need, hon. Speaker, are supports to ensure that all children — the 9,000 children in care, the tens of thousands of children who otherwise receive services from the ministry, the children living in poverty in our province — have an equal and fair shot in life.

It is un- conscionable that in a place as wealthy as this we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada — not accord- ing to me, according to Statistics Canada. What we have is a period of economic growth where social ine- quality is becoming greater — something that for all of us who believe in those noti ons of freedom, of equality in our society, should be a very disturbing fact. Every child deserves a fair chance. Having a child representative in place, I believe, will help us get there. The efforts that all of us can make in this House will help us get there.

Embracing and acknowledging the incredible work done by people who work with chil- dren will help us get there, but we will not get there unless all of us in society take responsibility for our children, for giving them the opportunities they de- serve. All of us take responsibility so that, in the best sense, we make this a political issue, and in the best sense, we work together to improve the lives of chil- dren.

I commend all members of the House to support this bill, and I ask all members of this House to con- sider in all our decisions we make, now and in the fu- ture, the impact of those decisions on our children. Where we have been, we must never go back to. We must come ahead. We must improve services. There is too much at stake for all of us. There is too much at stake for the future. S. Hawkins: I seek leave to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members S. Hawkins: In the gallery, visiting from Kelowna- Mission, is the second half of the school I introduced ear- lier, Mr. MacArthur and Ms.

Hendren are here with 40 grade seven students from Kelowna Christian School. I would ask the House to give them a very warm welcome. Debate Continued Hon. L. Reid: I r i s e t o l e n d m y s u p p o r t t o B i l l 3 4 . This is a complex and cha llenging area. There's abso- lutely no question about that. Resourcing young chil- dren and our families — hugely complex, hugely chal- lenging.

Those challenges change day by day and will continue to be a very fluid area of societal development as we move forward. [1555] The issues for me are about building resiliency — how we do that; how we move forward collectively to care for what are, indeed, the most precious citizens of this land. There's no question about that. It's a complex area. I use that terminology because identifying risk will always be complex. It will always be challenging. For the indi viduals who engage in that as a profession I have the highest regard and the high- est respect.

I do not believe for a second that there is any more difficult a decision than one that separates a child from his or her family. For the people charged with that responsibility, it weighs heavily upon them. There is no question in my mind that it is an enormous responsibility that society places upon them. I bring to my remarks the highest regard for that level of sophistication when it comes to that level of decision-making. Protecting vulnerability is also an underlying prin- ciple. Once we've identified the risk, how is it that we as a society, as a community, as a nation, choose to protect vulnerability?

It's a challenge. It's a challenge for babies of every age, fo r young people, for adoles- cents, for adults. How do we choose to transition chil- dren? How do we choose to transition their support systems? How do we choose to move them through a continuum of service that is about who they are at that time in their lives? This is never going to be a discussion about one- size-fits-all. This is always going to be a discussion that's underlying a notion of value that says, frankly, one size rarely fits anyone. We have to be adept. We have to be responsive. We have to be thoughtful, and

WEDNESDAY, MAY 17, 2006 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 4967 in my view we must always be respectful when it comes to issues of child protection. This is family. Each person in British Columbia that this legislation will touch is a member of someone's family. I don't believe there' s anyone in this room who would wish to have their child raised by a stranger. It affects their child. It affects that level of secure attach- ment. It affects who they will be as parents themselves one day. All of those layers must be folded in and must be un- derstood in terms of the complexity of this decision- making.

It's a complex area. It's hugely challenging. My time in government has been in this ministry, and my time in opposition has been in the critic role currently shared by the critic today. There are vantage points to this. What I want to say today and want to clearly im- print upon the individuals li stening to this debate to- day is that we must always place the child squarely at the centre of this discussion , because each family, each corner of the province, each agency, each jurisdiction will bring a different vantage point to how we do it.

We understand that there is enormous complexity to this level of decision-making and that respect and regard must be folded in, in terms of how we proceed. It's the basic underlying principle of the debate that must happen today. It's challenging; there's no ques- tion about that. There are family responses to child protection, to building resiliency, to caring for children, and there are community resp onses. Frankly, there are national responses, and there are neighbourhood re- sponses. To be successful, we need each of those enti- ties to work collaboratively. This has always been a challenging area.

No matter the province, no matter the country, no matter what corner of the globe, this work is not easy work. This is complex and challenging work, and I think I'm in a unique position to comment today. I have been in this House for 15 years, and I ha ve seen and worked with and commented on the work of each of the individuals who have held roles similar to this one. I was the critic when Joyce Preston was in her role. I was the critic when Cynthia Morton was in her role. Neither of those individuals will tell you that this is easy work. It's complex, challenging, heartbreaking, gut-wrenching.

It's tough, tough work. Indeed, this role will require someone who is incredibly gifted in under- standing oversight, protection and resiliency and in how we get to have a better understanding of what identifying risks looks like and what protective factors look like in society. [1600] There isn't a person in this chamber who wouldn't wish to be part of a process that keeps children safe. I wouldn't believe for a second that there is anyone who would knowingly, willingly put a child at risk.

They are citizens, and we have an enormous responsibility to collaborate when it comes to how to deliver a service that's vitally important to every single community member. I believe that we have an enormous amount to learn from aboriginal communities in British Columbia — their sense of family; their sense of collaboration; their sense of extended family; ho w children are cared for in community; how extended family plays a vitally im- portant, critical role in that interface, integration and connection.

That is a lesson that each of us as commu- nity members will learn as we go forward and, I hope, will bring a greater regard and a greater respect to those discussions. It's vitally important. It isn't about ignoring societal wishes, needs and desires. It's about a better under- standing of how to produce the best possible outcomes for the children of this province. I am on the side of measures that protect the integrity of the family. I'm on the side of doing our very best to ensure that every child in British Columbia has a glorious childhood. That has been my professional life; that has been my public life.

That is work that I believe in fundamentally because it is the cornerstone. How families parent their children today is the cor- nerstone of the health and success of our communities, neighbourhoods and societies. How we engage a proc- ess that has oversight protec tion around that parenting role is enormously important. How we engage foster parents in British Columbia is enormously important. How we understand that collectively we have a re- sponsibility to every baby born in this

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0517pm-05
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0517pm 05
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	2a2193411c21d5a0b57ec76a8110e93e1a5e8abe

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