2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 7

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Coquitlam community events

H. Bloy

Youth safety programs

P. Sahota

Harm reduction strategies in Victoria

J. Bray

Oral Questions

Disciplinary matters involving Liberal MLAs

J. Kwan

J. MacPhail

Hon. G. Collins

Electric power generation in B.C.

B. Bennett

Hon. R. Neufeld

Federal government aid for B.C. cattle industry

P. Nettleton

Hon. J. van Dongen

Preservation of Burns Bog

V. Roddick

Hon. B. Barisoff

Disciplinary matters involving Liberal MLAs

J. MacPhail

Funding for social housing

R. Nijjar

Hon. M. Coell

Second Reading of Bills

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

Hon. G. Collins

Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 23)

Hon. G. Collins

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 11)

Hon. G. Collins

J. Bray

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C. Clark

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection

Hon. B. Barisoff

G. Hogg

B. Suffredine

J. MacPhail

W. Cobb

B. Penner

[ Page 9621 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 24, 2004

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

MacKay: Today in the House I have two friends and guests down from the state

of Alaska. In the gallery today are Sen. Robin Taylor and Terry Otness, who is a

project manager. They're both from Juneau, and they're down here to discuss

projects of mutual concern between the province of British Columbia and the

state of Alaska. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1405]

Hon. S.

Bond: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a friend who is in the

House. That's Mr. Chris Dittmar. Chris has been working in Victoria for over two

years, and he will be leaving the capital on Friday. The good news about that is

that he's going to be leaving the capital to return to our shared home, which is

in Prince George actually. Victoria's loss will be Prince George's gain. I hope

the House will certainly help me make Chris feel very welcome today.

P. Wong:

Today in the gallery we have 70 very brilliant and active grade 11 students

visiting from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School in my riding. They have come

to Victoria for a tour of the Legislature, along with their teachers Mr. Rob

Ferguson, Mr. Auton Lum, Mrs. Ann Young and Mr. Albert Mann. Would the House

please help me to make them all very welcome.

Penner: In addition to the two elected people we have here today from

Alaska, we're also joined by, again, Matt Morrison from the Pacific NorthWest

Economic Region. He's here today to help us prepare for PNWER's next annual

summit, which members may know will be held right here in Victoria in July. It

promises to be an exciting and successful event. I hope all members will take

the time to get to know what that event is about and perhaps participate by

attending the conference, which will take place this July in Victoria.

Roddick: In the gallery today is a special young woman to my family,

daughter of the late Diana Rankin Bates, originally from Victoria, and the late

Richard Geoffrey Bates, originally from Gyrn Castle, Llanas, North Wales.

Nicola Bates, currently attending Malaspina College, is off to the American

InterContinental University in London, England, to complete an MBA in interior

design. Will the House please join me in wishing her good luck, or iechyd da ,

as her father would have said.

J. Bray:

Joining us today is a grade 5 class from one of the great schools in my riding,

Margaret Jenkins. This class is also hosting students from Quebec, and both

groups are here to tour the buildings and learn about parliamentary democracy as

it's done in British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make both my constituents

and our friends from Quebec very welcome.

H. Bloy:

It's my honour to introduce a group of students up here from a college in the

United States, in Washington State, that sang in the rotunda this afternoon.

Their sound was just amazing, and I wanted to thank them for that very much.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 25

public servants seated in the west gallery who are participating in a full-day

parliamentary procedure workshop. This workshop offered by the Legislative

Assembly provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a

greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries

and how that work affects the Legislature. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25b)

COQUITLAM COMMUNITY EVENTS

H. Bloy:

I'm proud to inform my colleagues today of a new title I have received:

Ambassador Bloy. That's right — ambassador. I was recently appointed by Mayor

Jon Kingsbury and council to this prestigious position. My job will be easy.

It'll be to promote the city of Coquitlam, which covers part of my riding of

Burquitlam. I take this position with great honour to talk about Coquitlam

wherever I go.

[1410]

ambassador, I have special passports for everyone in this province, and I'll be

delivering a passport to every MLA in this House later today. This passport will

inform and invite you to a variety of events in the city of Coquitlam: the

Festival du Bois, the Teddy Bear Picnic, Faces of the World arts and cultural

festival, and many more activities covering every month of the year. Attend

these activities and get your passport stamped, and you could have an

opportunity to win many great prizes. I would like to acknowledge Barb Stegemann,

director of tourism, and all the sponsors for making this happen: Westwood

Plateau, Westwood Plateau Golf Academy, Coquitlam Centre, citysoups.ca,

Executive Plaza Hotel, Best Western Coquitlam Inn, Tall Cedars bed and

breakfast, Anducci's restaurants and Milestones restaurants.

colleagues from Coquitlam-Maillardville, Port Moody–Westwood, Port

Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and I would be pleased to tour any of our colleagues

in the city of Coquitlam, and my colleagues and I look forward to seeing you in

Coquitlam.

YOUTH SAFETY PROGRAMS

Sahota: This past weekend my colleague from Burquitlam and I had the honour

of participating in the

[ Page 9622 ]

launching of a new program with the Protect Our Children Society. This

grass-roots organization wants to help and protect our children from the dangers

of substance and sexual abuse. Their board of directors is composed of people

from various walks of life, from Father Charles Walters, who is an Anglican

minister, to an RCMP officer who has extensive background in the community

policing, to a father whose daughter had fallen into the sex trade.

Parents

alone are, at times, unable to deal effectively with children that may be

involved in drugs and crime. Police forces alone can't do it. The government

alone can't do it. This organization is trying to do more for our children, and

I want to commend them for tackling some of the most troubling and complicated

issues in our communities today.

As I said,

all of us know that no one agency or group can do it alone. We must all work

together to tackle the problems that are affecting our youth, and I know our

government is doing its part. This past week the Premier made the announcement

of provincial standards that will help young people, parents and educators work

together to improve student safety and reduce bullying.

This

announcement was made at Stride Avenue Elementary. This school is at the

forefront of dealing innovatively with complex social issues like bullying,

intimidation and harassment. With the leadership of their principal, Joan Lee,

and their teachers, Stride has been able to bring 40 active parent volunteers on

board. It helps the students understand their emotions and teaches them

compassion in the Roots of Empathy program. It has a partnership with South

Burnaby Neighbourhood House, and it has a peer mediation program.

The new

provincial standards will now allow these types of innovative ideas to be shared

with other schools across the province. The safety of our children is one of our

most important priorities, whether it's at home, on the playground or in the

classroom. I know these new guidelines will greatly benefit our education system

across the province.

HARM REDUCTION STRATEGIES

IN VICTORIA

J. Bray:

As this House knows, I have been an advocate for harm reduction strategies for

those living with addictions in Victoria's downtown core. Specifically, I have

spoken many times about the need for a "wet house" for those with

chronic alcoholism who are either homeless or at risk of being homeless due to

their active addiction. The goal of the wet house is not treatment per se, but a

reduction in the harm suffered by the person with chronic alcoholism and the

effect that homelessness has on other people's sense of safety in the downtown

area. But I was on record as being opposed to a supervised injection site for

Victoria.

Last week I

attended a public forum on this subject where the Minister of State for Mental

Health and Addiction Services, Mayor Alan Lowe and former Vancouver mayor Philip

Owen all spoke. After this forum, I must say that on the issues of a Victoria

supervised injection site, my views have been tempered significantly.

At the

forum I saw a cross-section of the society in Victoria represented, who all

appeared to support the goals of harm reduction. However, Vancouver's supervised

injection site was dealing with specific issues of people shooting up on the

street, in the alleys, etc. I have toured that site and talked to staff, and

they expect only a small percentage of clients who are accessing that service to

move to treatment. The goal of the Vancouver site is to reduce harm on the user

and take the injection activity off the street.

I believe

that for Victoria to consider a supervised injection site of its own, these

questions should be examined. What are the harm reduction needs of users in

Victoria? How many users need or desire this service? What are the harm

reduction needs of the community as a whole? What are the objectives of the

Victoria site that may be the same or different from the Vancouver model? Should

this be one locale that centralizes the activity or several smaller sites that

do not draw people to an area they otherwise might not go? If we can identify

the needs and the solutions that will enhance our community in Victoria, I would

be very supportive of that outcome.

[1415]

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

DISCIPLINARY MATTERS

INVOLVING LIBERAL MLAS

J. Kwan:

The continued secrecy surrounding the inner workings of the Liberal caucus would

be laughable, except for the fact that the public has been kept in the dark

about some very serious matters. Yesterday the Speaker ruled again that the

questions about the Liberal caucus discipline are in order when they deal with

financial implications to the government.

The

opposition has been informed that the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville was

disciplined for inappropriate behaviour involving a staff member at a 2002

Liberal convention. Can the Deputy Premier tell us if the caucus discipline of

the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville included removal from a

government-staffed government caucus committee and whether or not the government

has disclosed that information to the legislative comptroller?

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

These questions are completely in order…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

[ Page 9623 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…and the Deputy Premier should be getting up to answer these questions.

Covering up

caucus discipline for being late to a meeting is one thing, but covering up

disciplinary action for inappropriate behaviour involving a staff member is

another all together. The public has the right to know if their MLAs are

violating the public trust.

Hon. G.

Collins: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker: The Government House Leader on a point of order.

Point of Order

Hon. G.

Collins: These questions continue to be out of order, Mr. Speaker. They were

out of order last week. They were out of order yesterday. They are out of order

today.

Mr.

Speaker: Thank you. It is up to the Chair to decide what is out of order and

what is not out of order. The Chair ruled about two weeks ago that matters

pertaining to the governance of caucus were out of order. Any impact it has on

the treasury is not out of order.

Debate Continued

J. Kwan:

So these questions are in order. It was the government Whip, acting on the

instructions of the Premier's office, who opened this can of worms in the first

place.

In the case

of the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, we are talking about a serious

infraction that we understand the entire government caucus, including the

Premier, was well aware of. As we know, when a caucus member is disciplined, it

carries financial implications for caucus funding.

I'll ask

again of the Deputy Premier: did the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville's

inappropriate behaviour result in disciplinary action, and did that disciplinary

action affect the Liberal caucus budget?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

I do not

detect a financial implication in the member's question. Therefore, it is out of

order.

J. Kwan:

The financial implication in this question will be clear, Mr. Speaker. The fact

of the matter is this: the cover-up continues with this government….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, let us hear the question.

J. Kwan:

The raid, the Finance minister's office…. The minister says it has nothing to

do with us. Liberal MLAs suspended from caucus and government-staffed government

caucus committees and disciplined — none of your business, none of your

business…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

J. Kwan:

…the government says. Taxpayers, none of your business — with the exception

that those government caucus committees are funded by taxpayers and funded by

the Legislature's funding.

To the

Deputy Premier: stop the games. Stop the cover-ups. Just tell the truth. What

action did the government take to discipline the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville for his behaviour at the 2002 Liberal convention, and

what were the financial implications to the taxpayer?

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, the question is out of order.

MacPhail: Well, Mr. Speaker, this one is definitely about financial

improprieties. They won't answer any questions….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: They won't answer the questions about…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, let us hear the question.

MacPhail: …the inappropriate conduct of the member for

Coquitlam-Maillardville. Why don't we now talk about the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon?

Two weeks

ago the opposition asked about the suspension from caucus and the government

caucus committees of the member for Burnaby-Willingdon for financial

improprieties. This week the member's suspension was confirmed in the media.

[ Page 9624 ]

[1420]

Can the

Deputy Premier tell the House why the member for Burnaby-Willingdon was

suspended, what the financial implications were to the taxpayer and what the

financial improprieties were for which he was suspended? While she's at it,

maybe she can explain to the constituents of Burnaby-Willingdon why they don't

have a right to know that their MLA has been suspended.

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. members, Leader of the Opposition, two parts of your

three-part question are out of order. The financial implication to the treasury

is in order.

Hon. G.

Collins: There are none.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Isn't it interesting? When it suits this government to besmirch

the reputation of one of their members, they run around and tell everyone who

will listen about caucus suspensions.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: As soon as it gets embarrassing for the government, they stand up

and stonewall. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon was suspended for financial

improprieties. If the Government House Leader says there were none, why doesn't

he come clean about what financial improprieties the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon was suspended for? What were the financial improprieties, and

on what basis was he suspended if it has no implications for the taxpayers?

Justify that statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr.

Speaker: The question is out of order, hon. member.

ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION IN B.C.

Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, on both sides of the House. Let us

have order.

Bennett: I have a question I'd like to ask on behalf of my constituents, who

are more interested in jobs than they are in political posturing and political

rhetoric. The media reported today that roughly 10 percent of the electricity we

use here in B.C. is imported from Alberta and the U.S. and that we as a province

have become dependent on imported electricity.

My question

is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. Under the dubious direction of the NDP

government during the 1990s, B.C. Hydro was forced to turn to the import market.

Instead of investing in new power generation here at home, they invested in

failed energy projects in Pakistan. It's also true that the former NDP

government and this current NDP opposition have made it very clear that they

would prefer to see energy jobs go to the U.S. and to Alberta rather than have

them here in B.C. to take advantage of the….

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, may we have the question, please.

Bennett: Can the Minister of Energy and Mines please inform the House as to

what our government is doing to meet the expanding needs for electricity here in

British Columbia?

Hon. R.

Neufeld: The member is correct. British Columbia has been a net importer of

electricity for three out of the last 12 years. We are working very hard with

our energy plan, which we released in November 2002 and which lays out a path

forward that we can look to independent power producers to provide the

electricity needed going forward.

It's going

to come, most of it, from very clean sources — what we call B.C. clean energy

— but there are opportunities for people in the energy plan to actually have

coal-fired plants, to have natural gas–fired plants, to be able to have micro

hydro, to be able to have biomass hydro. All those things are possible there.

We're moving ahead with an energy plan that will take us well into the future to

provide electricity for British Columbians.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AID

FOR B.C. CATTLE INDUSTRY

Nettleton: The federal budget yesterday appears to provide good news for

cash-strapped cattle producers here in British Columbia. I'm wondering if the

Minister of Agriculture could provide us with some detail with respect to that

announcement in the federal budget announced yesterday, specifically dealing

with British Columbia producers and the impact it will likely have on them and,

as well, if there's been any contact between himself and his federal

counterpart.

[1425]

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I was in a conference call with the federal minister and other

provincial ministers on Monday morning before the announcement was made. The

estimated impact for British Columbia is $36 million for B.C. producers. That

breaks down to about $23 million for beef producers, $10 million for other

producers and $3 million for whole-farm insurance for 2002. The actual per-head

payment amounts to $80 for all bovine animals, other than mature cows and bulls

— on animals and inventory on December 31. It also includes some compensation

for smaller breeds, such

[ Page 9625 ]

as goats and sheep, that took significant impacts in the BSE crisis, and that

payment will be $16 a head. We believe this is a welcome announcement for our

producers.

PRESERVATION OF BURNS BOG

Roddick: My question is to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

The conservation of Burns Bog, as opposed to the development, has been one of

this government's new-era commitments. Its preservation is of great interest and

concern to the constituents of Delta and to the people of this province. Every

level of government — federal, provincial, GVRD and Delta — has been

negotiating for over two years to achieve this goal. To the minister: what is

the current status of this special ecosystem that has been referred to as the

lungs of the lower mainland?

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Does the Leader of the Opposition

seek the floor?

Minister of

Water, Land and Air Protection.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: Today, actually, is really a great day. The Premier made a

commitment in 2001, in the New Era document, that we would protect Burns

Bog. Today the preservation of Burns Bog has become a reality.

For five

years the people of Delta and the lower mainland have actually worked on Burns

Bog to get this. In some respects, I think maybe the fact that it took a little

bit longer was probably a good thing because the members opposite were actually

going to turn it into the PNE, into a theme park.

Today 5,000

acres — five times the size of Stanley Park — have been protected for the

people of the lower mainland and Delta. I think the federal government…. The

members opposite said that we don't have a good working relationship. Well, I

think we do. The federal government, city council of Delta, the MLAs for Delta

and the Premier have worked extremely hard in making this happen. This is a

great day for the province.

DISCIPLINARY MATTERS

INVOLVING LIBERAL MLAS

MacPhail: The Attorney General has been present at these matters where there

may have been criminal matters involving financial improprieties or

inappropriate conduct by caucus members. Was the…

Interjections.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: …Attorney General aware of these actions, and did he, in light

of the financial improprieties and the conduct improprieties, ask for further

investigation by the police?

Mr.

Speaker: Hon. member, the question is out of order. The Attorney may answer

if he wishes.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

FUNDING FOR SOCIAL HOUSING

Nijjar: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's

Services. Some of my constituents….

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: On both sides of the House, let us have order.

Interjections.

[1430]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question from the member for

Vancouver-Kingsway.

Nijjar: Some of my constituents…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Nijjar: …received a COPE e-mail which stated: "Due to cuts in social

housing by the B.C. Liberals, approximately 1,200 people in the city are

shelterless on any given night." Obviously, COPE-NDP continue to put their

provincial political ambitions ahead of their responsibilities to the city of

Vancouver. Given that the NDP is trying to fight the next provincial election

from the city hall with their staff, can the minister please clarify…

Interjection.

Nijjar: Not quite.

…how the

misinformation is being spread, and tell us how the money is actually being

spent…?

Hon. M.

Coell: Since 2001…

Interjections.

[ Page 9626 ]

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. M.

Coell: …the budget for social housing….

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Let's just wait for a moment until we have

order in the House. Okay. Please.

Hon. M.

Coell: Since 2001 the budget for social housing has increased by more than

$40 million to the largest ever in British Columbia at $153 million. Since June

of 2001 we have committed funding for the construction of 3,400 units. To date

2,800 of those are either complete or in the building phase. We've also

introduced the independent living program that will provide another 3,500 beds

for frail elderly and people with disabilities, and we'll continue to work to

provide housing for British Columbians.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of

members, we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Water, Land and

Air Protection. In this House I call second reading of Bill 21.

Second Reading of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2004

Hon. G.

Collins: This supply bill is in the general form of previous supply bills.

The first

section of the bill requests 1/6 of the voted expenses as presented in

the estimates to provide for the general programs of the government.

Fifty

percent of the financing transaction requirements set out in schedules C, D and

E of the estimates have been provided for in the interim supply bill. This will

allow time later for more complete debate on these items.

The third

section requests the disbursements related to revenue collected for and

transferred to other entities, which appear in

schedule F of the estimates, as

there is no impact on the deficit, borrowing or debt from these particular

financing transactions. One hundred percent of the year's requirements is being

sought in this supply bill as in previous bills.

I move

second reading of Bill 21.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill 21,

Supply Act (No. 1), 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the

Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 23.

[1435]

MINISTERIAL ACCOUNTABILITY BASES,

2003-2004, AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Collins: I move second reading of Bill 23.

As I said

yesterday upon introduction of Bill 23, this bill provides for the exemption in

the ministerial accountability act for the expenditures that were approved

yesterday in a supplemental estimate for the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal

and Women's Services to fund the Olympics. The debate was extensive yesterday. I

think the House is well aware of the expenditures, their desire and the sources

of revenue that are funding them. It's the government's commitment to fund these

provisions, and this provides an exemption for the minister under the

ministerial accountability act. I move second reading.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23,

Ministerial Accountability Bases, 2003-2004, Amendment Act, 2004, read a second

time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading of Bill 11.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

The

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Financial

Administration Act to support modern business processes and technology. The

current financial administration act is not consistent with the way government

and other jurisdictions now operate. Since the act was passed in 1981, the

control framework and the way government conducts business have changed

consistent with best practices.

In most

situations pre-audit compliance checks prior to payment are no longer practical

or required. Instead, statistical sampling is used to verify payments and to

support payment approval. In addition, advances in technology have enabled

decentralized decision-making and the flow of information regardless of location

or time.

The

amendment will improve accountability and financial control through an emphasis

on expenditure initiation rather than payment requisition. This will en-

[ Page 9627 ]

sure that accountability starts at the beginning of the process, not just

when payment is due. It will also permit reliance on a blend of people and

systems controls versus purely people controls as in the past, and it will

streamline administration as well as document handling.

New

legislation has improved the financial framework by introducing an obligation

for public service employees to report to the comptroller general when an

expenditure authorization or payment is considered to contravene financial

policies. Information will be treated confidentially, and the reporting employee

will not be subject to discipline or reprisal for reporting. This obligation is

consistent with the standards of conduct for B.C. government employees to report

situations which involve misuse of public funds, represent a danger to public

safety or contravene the law. In addition, the reporting mechanism will

supplement the financial framework by providing oversight and compliance

information.

The

amendment provides broader authority for the comptroller general to make

decisions at the point of expenditure initiation prior to and at payment. This

includes the ability to order that an expenditure may not be authorized or

payment may not be made. There is no change in Treasury Board's authority to

review the comptroller general's decisions.

The

amendment requires the comptroller general to make an annual statement by August

31 to provide a

summary of all known payments that are not compliant with

legislation or where Treasury Board has overruled a comptroller general's

decision. The change from September 30 to August 31 will permit timelier

reporting as well as align more closely with the public accounts reporting time

line. As well, we consulted with government interests in developing the

amendment before it was finalized for introduction.

In

summary,

the amendments to the Financial Administration Act form the cornerstone of a

modernized financial framework. Changes will streamline both expenditure and

payment controls, address a higher degree of automation and risk management, and

support new business processes and technology.

I move

second reading.

Mr.

Speaker: The question, hon. members, is….

Oh, sorry.

The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill seeks the floor.

J. Bray:

Thank you very much. I rise to support Bill 11. I just have a few comments.

Having come

from 13 years in the civil service, actually operating under the previous

structure was extremely cumbersome. It delayed everything from major procurement

to buying a box of paper clips, without any real results out of that process. So

I am very supportive of recognizing that we have professional civil servants who

have the ability to make these types of decisions and operate in a modern,

streamlined, businesslike way; and of providing a framework to ensure that

taxpayers are protected but that, in fact, our civil servants can get on with

their daily business.

particular, we now have protection for civil servants who actually notice that

something might be going awry. By having the obligation to report covered in

Bill 11 and that their reporting to the comptroller general is held in

confidence, it provides a measure of security for our professional civil

servants to ensure that they can actually operate within their professional

standards and also act as an additional safeguard for British Columbia

taxpayers. I know that this will be welcomed in the public service. It should be

welcomed by taxpayers.

[1440]

I think

you're going to see greater efficiency. I think ministries and offices

throughout the province can now operate in a much more efficient manner in

getting rid of some of the rather arcane paper methods but, most importantly,

that public servants and their professionalism have an added level of protection

today as a result of Bill 11. I am strongly supportive of that, and I

congratulate the minister for bringing this forward. I will be supporting Bill

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for

consideration by Committee of the Whole at the next sitting of the House after

today.

Bill 11,

Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to

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

House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll

be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Committee of Supply

The House

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

[1445-1450]

The

committee met at 2:53 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote

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

J. Kwan:

I'd like to begin by asking the minister whether or not the information that I

requested from yesterday's estimates was sent to my office. I just went down to

double-check, to see if anything arrived in the mail this afternoon, and nothing

has arrived at my desk so far. I just want to see whether or not it's been sent.

Hon. C.

Clark: The information has been prepared. It's ready. We're not sure if it

has actually been sent. I

[ Page 9628 ]

can provide it to her in the House today. I'll make sure that somebody will

run out, go get it, and we can talk about it right now.

J. Kwan:

As far as I know, we haven't received it yet in the office. I checked the mail

this morning, and I checked it, as I said, just now to see what mail might have

come in, in the afternoon delivery. Nothing has arrived.

[1455]

Let's carry

on, until that information arrives, with some other areas. Yesterday we were

canvassing the budgeted dollars for the year 2002-03 and the actual spending. In

the midst of that, I've calculated that there is $127.8 million of underspending

in that budget year in the areas of community living, children and family

development, provincial services and executive support services.

I'd like to

go through each of those categories and find out from the minister specifically

where those dollars have gone, since they were underspent in their budget line.

Let's start with the community living area. The budget was $668.2 million. The

actual, as the minister reported, was $632.8 million. That's a difference of

$53.4 million. Where did the $53.4 million go?

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members, please, through the Chair.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My apologies.

The

minister was asking me which year, and the year that I'm referring to is '02-03.

Yesterday the minister reported that in the area of community living, the

budgeted dollars for community living were $686.2 million and the actuals were

$632.8 million. There's a discrepancy of $53.4 million, according to my

calculations, and I would like to know where the $53.4 million went.

Hon. C.

Clark: The difference in money went to the strategic investments we made at

the end of the year that year, in one-time funding. Most of that or all of it

went into the Victoria Foundation to support the community living restructuring

fund, Success by 6 partnership, youth educational assistance fund, B.C. adoption

and permanency trust fund, B.C. institutional legacy trust fund and the McCreary

youth foundation fund.

Those are

some of the examples of where we spent our money at the end of the year last

year and examples of spending that was in communities, for communities, based on

the priorities that government set for itself and in particular for priorities

like little children — children under six about whom we know that if they

don't get the best possible investment, the best possible start in life before

they're six, they will be disadvantaged for the rest of their lives. We are

making key strategic investments in those areas to make sure we can support our

youngest citizens and make sure we're making that investment in the future that

will benefit generations of British Columbians.

J. Kwan:

I'd like to actually get the specific details about each of these allocations

that the ministry had made. She named, for example, the Victoria Foundation that

had most of it. How much exactly did the Victoria Foundation get? That's one

example. What other organizations and what are the amounts attached to that? If

I could get those details from the minister.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'll be happy to provide that information to the member. In fact, I

can give her a briefing on that specifically, if she'd like. We are here today,

though, to discuss the '04-05 budget estimates, not the '02-03 budget estimates.

You know, I'm quite willing to speak about those estimates inasmuch as it

provides context for this, but if she wants real details about where that money

was spent two years ago or a year and a half ago, probably a better place to

have that discussion would be in a briefing. I'd be happy to provide that to

her.

[1500]

J. Kwan:

These dollars definitely, as I understand, have ongoing ramifications in terms

of the programs in the community and, of course, on the work that the ministry

does on an ongoing basis. So there is absolute relevance with these questions to

today's budget, to the budget that we are debating, in terms of the '04-05

budget.

By the way,

Mr. Chair, again, it's not just the opposition who is interested in this

information. Since yesterday's debate the opposition has actually received

e-mails from members of the community wanting to know exactly where those

dollars went and how they broke down. There is a series of other questions I

have associated with this area as well.

I'd like to

begin, first of all, with the breakdown of these dollars and where they went.

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, I'd be happy to provide that information to the member and

to anyone else who has inquired of her. If she wants to ask on their behalf,

we'd be happy to answer those questions for her, and she can provide that

information to them. But the appropriate venue to do that would be in a

briefing. We aren't talking about the '02-03 budget estimates here. My

recollection is that there was an opportunity to debate that in '02-03 budget

estimates, but I'm happy, of course, to provide that information to her if

that's what she'd like to do.

If there is

some relevance to this discussion that that spending in 2002-03 has on this

budget for '04-05, perhaps she could try and make that case. It might give me

some understanding of how I might be able to address those questions, if she'd

at least put them in the context of the current debate and explain where she

sees the connection between spending two years ago and the spending now in this

specific case.

J. Kwan:

There is a direct link to what is going on within the ministry today with

respect to these funding areas. The programs the ministry delivers and provides

[ Page 9629 ]

for have ongoing ramifications for children in our community, for the

organizations that operate these services. Some of these organizations continue

to receive funding from the government to do the work they do, so there is a

direct link from year to year with respect to that. There are many linkages in

terms of this pertinent information.

I would

further submit that there are linkages with respect to how the contracts are

arrived at, what criteria the government used for the allocation of the funds,

etc. — the administration parts of it. All of those things are relevant

because, presumably, those procedures that were established then may well be

followed right now today in the ministry. These are questions to which I would

like the minister to provide on record here…. It is completely legitimate

within the estimates process for me to ask these questions.

I would

like the minister to provide that information, first of all, on the associations

that got the dollars and then on how much they got. By the way, these kinds of

questions were asked of other ministers in other estimates debates. In fact, in

this very chamber I engaged in a lengthy discussion with the Minister of Health

regarding unspent dollars or allocations of federal dollars, etc. The Health

minister was very cooperative in providing that information. In the other

chamber I engaged in these kinds of discussions with the Minister of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services, and he, too, provided the information asked of

him. So I think we're well within the boundaries of the estimates process to get

this information.

Hon. C.

Clark: The questions are certainly legitimate, and as I said, I would be

happy to answer those. It is certainly true, though, that decisions that were

made ten years ago when that member was in government are relevant today in

what's going on in the ministry. That's also true. But we don't debate what was

going on…. We don't debate the estimates from ten years ago, and we don't

debate the estimates from two years ago when we are debating the estimates for

today. We're here to debate the '04-05 budget estimates.

Again, I

would be happy to provide the information that the member is seeking, but we

will do it in another venue. I would be delighted to provide that information to

her and to the people that are inquiring of her.

J. Kwan:

I don't know why the minister is trying to not provide this information through

this estimates process. It is completely within the realm of the estimates

process to do this and for me to ask these questions in terms of how the money

flowed, where the money flowed and so on. The minister well knows that

oftentimes at year-end the questions that would be asked in terms of the savings

— where did they go…? At the time of the estimates for that particular year

those numbers would not have come in, and they would not have been finalized.

Therefore, you would not be able to ask those questions. In any event, there is

a direct link.

[1505]

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister goes: "It's two years ago." Nonetheless, the spending of

those dollars has ramifications in today's budget as they impact children.

Because those organizations….

Mr. Chair,

I'm just going to wait for the minister's attention before I continue on,

because I want to make sure that she actually listens to what I'm saying and

therefore will be able to answer the questions I put to her. If she is busy

talking to her colleague, I certainly would be happy to pause for her so she can

engage in those discussions with her colleague, to make sure she doesn't lose

the questions that I put to her.

The

questions that I put to the minister are completely legitimate. They have a

direct relationship with the services that are provided to children today. They

have a direct relationship with the organizations that provide the services to

our communities today and in today's budget. I don't know why the minister is

trying not to put this information on the record through a televised structure

where not only the opposition would get this information. Members of the public

are interested in getting this information and are, in fact, asking for this

information through the opposition. I'm trying to do my job here to canvass

these matters with the minister for her to provide the information for the

public's knowledge.

The

minister is just sitting there shaking her head, without getting up to answer

questions. The minister cannot hide this information from the public. She did,

after all, in the new-era campaign, campaign to be open and accountable to the

public. The estimates process in which the opposition puts questions to the

minister…. The minister is responsible for getting up to answer those

questions. I will give the minister another chance. Where did the savings go?

The savings of some $127.8 million that were underspent out of the '02-03 budget

year — where did they go specifically? How much toward organizations for what

program?

Hon. C.

Clark: I've already answered that question in general, although it's not

within the parameters of this debate here. But if she wants details, I'd be

delighted, as I said, to provide that to her in a briefing and to provide that

information to anyone who has inquired about it. These disbursements were made

two years ago. It's not within the parameters of the debate today. We're in the

estimates for '04-05, not '02-03. If she didn't want to ask those questions two

years ago, she could have asked them a year ago. If she did ask them and got the

answers, perhaps I could refer her back to the Hansard. She could look at

the debate from that estimates process.

J. Kwan:

Well, you know, it doesn't serve the minister well, nor does it serve British

Columbians well, for her to not provide these answers to questions put to her in

this chamber. Other ministers have no trouble whatsoever answering questions in

this kind of man-

[ Page 9630 ]

ner. In fact, they were happy to provide the information so that a clear

picture is set. Other ministers understand completely that the linkages of

previous dollars spent in previous programs and delivered by organizations have

ramifications for the budget year of '04-05. They fully understand that. They

fully understand the community impacts of those, and they were ready to provide

the information.

If the

minister claims she has the information, I don't know why she won't provide it.

If she doesn't have the information before her, she could say: "I don't

have the information before me, and maybe you can stand down these questions

until I get the information." I'll be happy to do that and come back to

them later on today or tomorrow when the minister has the information, like I

did yesterday. She didn't have the information on the FTEs in terms of the

regional breakdown of where the reductions came from and how many. I was happy

to say okay, I will stand down those questions until the minister gets the

information. The same logic could apply here.

[1510]

The

minister should have nothing to hide. The public has the right to know; the

opposition has the right to know. Hence, I'm putting the question to the

minister. I would advise her through you, Mr. Chair, to behave like other

ministers have — the Minister of Health, to name one; the Minister of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, to name another — and to actually

answer these questions for the public's information.

The

minister is refusing to answer these questions. Isn't that interesting? I'm sure

the public will judge for themselves. Where is that level of accountability that

this minister claims she is holding to? Where is the level of openness that this

minister campaigned on during the election campaign? Obviously, they don't match

her actions to date. She refuses to answer pertinent questions relating to her

budget, in the estimates process, that have ramifications for children and

families who depend on these programs — that have ramifications for the

organizations who got these dollars. Some of those organizations are still

providing programs to British Columbians in the area of children and family. It

is shocking for this minister to refuse to answer the questions.

Okay. She

won't put the information on record with respect to how much money was put

where. Then let me put this question to her: what criteria were used for the

allocating of the funds — the savings, the $127.8 million — that were

unspent in the budget cycle of '02-03? What criteria were used for allocating

the funds?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member will have to find some way to link these questions to the

current debate.

J. Kwan:

I'll tell you exactly where that link is. I would be very interested in

knowing what criteria were used for the allocation of these funds and whether or

not the government has done any review with the allocation of those funds. As we

know, we have a big scandal right in the middle of this minister's area. In

fact, it is tied right into the contracts, to which there are a lot of

questions. There are a lot of questions that I have with respect to contract

allocations throughout.

What did

the government do with respect to the policy and the criteria which they apply

for the allocation of these funds? We know of the Doug Walls scandal. Some

$400,000 has magically disappeared right under the former minister's nose, and

they claim not to know anything about it. The minister claims she is going to be

doing an audit. She will not make available the information from the audit

except for the chosen parts of it, which would be the

summary of the audit. The

public is being kept in the dark, and the minister knows it.

What

policies has the ministry been using with the allocation of funds? What criteria

were used to determine who should get what funds? In the last minutes of the

budget cycle, $127.8 million were allocated. Where did they go? How much went

where? What criteria did the minister use for making those allocations?

[1515]

Hon. C.

Clark: I think I found a way to link the member's questions to our current

debate, so I'll be able to answer the part of what she asked that's relevant to

this debate. That's this. One of the things that I heard her ask is how we are

monitoring how this money is being spent currently, which is a question quite

relevant to this debate — although I know she had difficulty trying to make

that connection. I'm happy to help her with that.

Part of the

disbursement of that money in the first place was regular reporting. They are

doing regular reporting currently back to government. That regular reporting is

quarterly, so we have a sense of and can monitor where the money is being spent

and how it's being spent. I know that the member, as a critic, will be familiar

with the strategic shifts of the ministry. The primary criterion for spending

that money is that it had to be consistent with strategic shifts that the

ministry has set out.

We also

want them to invest that money in a way that shows savings in future years —

for example, invest the money in services that will mean they can support

families better so that there are fewer children coming into government care.

That's a good financial policy, but it's also the right thing to do. We know

that kids have better outcomes when they're with their families than when

they're not. We want to try and build healthy, functioning families. There's an

example of where the foundations could be spending money that would demonstrate

a savings in future years.

J. Kwan:

Actually, it's not me who can't see the link with these questions in relation to

the '04-05 budget. It's the minister who fails to see that. I'm glad that she at

least saw part of the light in terms of that relationship, but her answer is

insufficient with respect to my question.

[ Page 9631 ]

The

criteria for allocation of these dollars are critical to it. What led the

government to allocate these funds to these organizations to begin with? What

was in the contracts that were associated with it? What process did the minister

go through? Associated with that would be the evaluation of the end product —

that is to say, the measure of what is the benefit to the community.

We have to

keep in mind that we're talking about over $100 million — $127.8 million —

that was handed out to various organizations. This is in the middle of drastic

cuts to the ministry in terms of core services — drastic cuts to ministry core

services. The accountability question of how these moneys were spent, where they

were spent, what processes were in place in terms of the allocation of these

dollars and what specific evaluation criteria were in place — not just some

vague notion from the minister's point of view that if it somehow helps the

ministry reduce the number of children in care, that would be sufficient

evaluation…. I would think that one would need more than that.

I would

also hope that the evaluation of when children need to be apprehended is taken

seriously. It's not to say that we should just take children into care with no

consideration for the optimal outcomes for the child's future or that family's

future. I'm not suggesting that at all. What I'm suggesting, though, is that we

have to ensure that the interests of the child are best protected and that it's

not driven by a bottom-line decision — by the government's need to save money

— to decide what policies ought to be in place.

[1520]

Instead,

the policies should be based on what is in the best interest of the child. Yes,

I'd be one of the first people to say that children, if they're not at risk,

should be kept in the family — absolutely. I fully understand that. But if

children are at risk — their safety and health are at risk — and where that

risk becomes paramount, then action needs to be taken, unfortunately. In the

meantime, certainly, government should be providing support programs to

families, as well, so that we minimize the children that need to be taken into

care — absolutely. At the end of the day, after it's all said and done, those

decisions should not be driven by cost savings. That should not be what drives

the government policy.

I would

like to have information from the minister in full detail, once again, in terms

of the criteria that were used for the allocation of these funds and the

complete evaluation associated with the contracts, presumably, that were let

with these organizations and the language of these contracts.

Hon. C.

Clark: I've already answered those questions, but I'd like to just expand a

little bit on some of the other points the member made. That's to say this: the

cost savings to government that are achieved by investing in programs don't

necessarily reflect a policy that government is managing the number and always

trying to get to a bottom line.

For

example, investing in good-quality parenting programs for young parents or for

older parents who themselves perhaps never had a good parent in their lives and

who need to learn a bit about parenting…. Investing in those programs saves

government money, because investing in parenting programs and giving parents

those skills can mean that perhaps kids who might otherwise not be safe and

healthy in their homes are, because their parents have the range of skills there

to support them.

It saves

government money, but it's the right thing to do. It's the right thing to do to

invest in those kinds of programs to make sure we can support families and build

the supports around families that they need to keep children safe and healthy in

their homes. That's been a central policy of this government.

I think

it's important to note, too, that the policy of this government has shifted from

the policy of the government she represented when she was in government.

Throughout the 1990s, when that member was in government, we saw skyrocketing in

the number of children who were taken into government care, taken away from

their families.

Our

government has deliberately shifted its focus to say that instead of trying to

take kids out of their families, we want to try and support the families so that

kids can stay safely there if that's possible. That should always be our first

option. If we can, we want to intervene before things reach a crisis so that we

can make sure those families are healthy. Of course, no child should stay in a

home that's unsafe — absolutely not. That's why we take children into care.

That's why we have a child protection ministry.

At the same

time, social workers — those dedicated professionals we have out there on the

front lines every day — are trained to have a broad range of skills to help

families, to work with people and to give counselling and support. We need to

give them the ability to use that broad range of skills to try and support

families, build families, build on their strengths and build on their capacity

so that kids can stay safe in their homes. That's been a deliberate change in

policy that our government has made from her government, and I think it's

something that's been broadly welcomed not just by people who work in the field

but by the families that benefit from this.

J. Kwan:

The minister claims they're investing dollars in parenting programs, as an

example, for people who might not have had good parents in their lives to give

them the kind of support to become good parents to their children. I'm not

disputing the value of these programs. All I'm asking the minister is: how much

money did the minister put into what programs out of the $127.8 million savings?

[1525]

What

criteria did she use to make these contracts? What evaluation criteria did she

put in place with respect to each of these contracts? Were they even contracts?

Let me just ask this question: were there contracts for each of the

organizations that got funds from the government relating to the unspent $127.8

million in the '02-03 budget cycle?

[ Page 9632 ]

Hon. C.

Clark: No, they were not contracts; they were grants. I think just a quick

perusal of the website would tell the member that, but I'm happy to provide that

information to her too.

The

evaluation is part of our audit plan — the regular evaluation that we do. We

get regular financial and other reports from the fund holders. Each investment

specified the criteria for which the funds could be used, so that would be

individually done. As I said, they were grants; they were not contracts.

Community representatives are on the trust advisory committees that provide

ongoing evaluation of each disbursement request. That's an ongoing issue. That

will be going on into '04-05. So as I said, in that respect, it's a perfectly

legitimate issue to raise for the '04-05 budget estimates.

J. Kwan:

Who administered these funds?

Hon. C.

Clark: The foundations do.

J. Kwan:

Let's start with the Victoria Foundation. Does the minister know who in the

Victoria Foundation administered these funds?

Hon. C.

Clark: The executive director of each of the foundations that get the money

signs off on the reports that our ministry currently receives.

J. Kwan:

The minister said they're written reports that she receives with respect to how

these funds are spent. Has the minister received any of these written reports to

date?

Hon. C.

Clark: The answer to that question is yes. Where disbursements have been

made, we've received reports.

J. Kwan:

And the funds that may yield future reports…. Are there future reports the

minister is expecting from these funds?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes. That's a basic criterion of funding.

J. Kwan:

Well then, there is your direct link into the '04-05 budget cycle.

Let's go

back, then, to finding out exactly what these programs are. These programs that

are still to report to the minister on how they're doing — I would like to

know every one of them, what they are and how much they got.

Hon. C.

Clark: I would be happy to provide that information in complete detail to

the member as it relates to the '02-03 budget estimates. If she would like to

ask some questions that relate to these budget estimates, I would also be happy

to answer those in this venue here.

J. Kwan:

The minister just admitted that there is a direct link, because she is expecting

reports from these organizations that are tied to the '04-05 budget. They're

ongoing. She has yet to receive the reports.

Reports are

related to the work and the role — at least the administrative part — of the

ministry in terms of staff who have to review these reports. That's tied into

exactly the '04-05 budget, because her staff would have to do that work now to

review those reports as they come in. So there is the direct link.

There is no

need to hide the information. If the minister doesn't have this information

before her right now, as I mentioned, I would be happy to ask these questions

tomorrow. I'm sure that the debate for this ministry will continue on until

tomorrow or some other time into the future. We can debate it when the minister

provides that information. I would be happy to do that if that's her wish. But

if she has the information, then she should provide it in this House now.

Hon. C.

Clark: Mr. Chair, there is no budget line item for the issues that the

member raises for '04-05, and that's what we're here to debate. As I said, I'd

be delighted to provide that information to the member in quite some detail if

that's what she would like.

[1530]

J. Kwan:

Well, Mr. Chair, the minister has been a minister for some years now. She should

know that estimates questions flow from the various line items, and they don't

have to be from a direct line that says "Provincial Services."

Therefore, you can ask questions under "Provincial Services." If the

minister has a staff that does work for her in the ministry and that work is

related to previous contracts that have been let, then the ministry is paying

the salary of those staff doing that work. That is exactly tied into the '04-05

budget — exactly. So all of the questions I put to the minister are relevant,

and she should be putting this information on the public record. That's what I'm

asking for — for the minister to provide this information for the public's

evaluation and information. I really do fail to understand why the minister

doesn't want to provide this information on the public record. She claims they

are….

I'm going

to pause until the minister is actually paying attention because….

The

Chair: Member, it is simply not appropriate to reflect on the actions of

another member in the House. You should just proceed with your question or

comments…

J. Kwan:

Sorry, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: …but it's not appropriate.

J. Kwan:

Sorry, Mr. Chair. It's to prevent the minister from asking me what did I say or

what question did I ask, which has happened. It is just in the spirit of

efficiency here in terms of what we're doing and how we conduct ourselves in

this House.

The

minister says she will provide that information. All right. Then let's try

another tack, because obviously

[ Page 9633 ]

she is not going to provide that information in this House through my

questions. Let me ask the minister to provide this in writing to the opposition

by the end of today. Here's what I'm looking for. The savings that were

unspent…. Sorry. The savings from the '02-03 budget year which, according to

my calculations, amount to $127.8 million. They flow from the information I

derived from estimates yesterday — in the area of community living services, a

savings of $53.4 million where the budget dollars were $686.2 million and the

actuals were $632.8 million; the child and family development area, savings of

$52.2 million where the budget was $767.5 million and the actuals were $715.3

million; provincial services, $110.8 million budgeted, actuals $96.9 million,

yielding a savings of $13.9 million; executive support services, the budgeted

dollars were $23.1 million and actuals were $14.8 million, which yield a savings

of $8.3 million for a total of $127.8 million worth of savings.

I would

like to know from the minister in writing: where did these dollars go; how were

they allocated; what organizations got funds flowing from these savings; with

these grants that were given to these organizations, what criteria were used to

determine the allocation of these funds; the evaluation process associated with

the allocation of these grants that were put in place; the reports the minister

has received to date regarding these grants; what future reports she is

expecting and from what organizations regarding these grants.

[1535]

I would

like to get all of this information from the minister. She says she has it. I

think it is reasonable to expect to receive this information by the end of

today. We're sitting until nine today. When we come back tomorrow or whenever we

come back to the estimates debate for the Children and Family Development

ministry, I can pick up from that information once I've received it. I would ask

for the minister's confirmation of her commitment to sending the opposition this

information by the end of today.

Hon. C.

Clark: I said a number of times we would be happy to provide that

information to the member. It probably won't be by the end of the day, but we'll

certainly make sure it is provided to her.

J. Kwan:

I would need a specific time line in terms of when we could receive this

information. Otherwise, the minister will accuse me of not asking the questions

at the right time. Hence, it has always been the problem in terms of the

materials we ask of the minister through the estimates process. We don't receive

them in a timely manner, then estimates are closed, and there is no opportunity

to ask the questions. Or the ministers will say: "Don't ask me. Go ask some

other minister." Then the estimates process for that particular minister is

finished, and there is no opportunity, as an example, to ask those questions.

I would

like to receive a specific time line when I can expect this information. With

the information the minister said she would send to my office by yesterday

afternoon regarding the FTEs, as of today — this afternoon at about 3 o'clock

— I just went down to my office to see if we received that information at the

beginning of the debate, and we still have not received it.

So you will

understand, Mr. Chair, that I'm rather skeptical in terms of the timeliness with

these matters when the minister says she has committed in the House that she

will forward this information. We consistently fail to receive it in a timely

manner, so I would like to know a time frame specifically.

Mr.

Chair, I'm not quite sure why the minister wouldn't even answer that question.

It is not unreasonable for members to ask for information and for the minister

to rise in this House to say: "Yes, you can expect that in a day, in two

days." Other ministers have done exactly that. I have done a number of sets

of estimates now….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Labour is heckling me. He has perhaps been made very

uncomfortable about questions around accountability related to this government.

They like to talk about accountability, but when actions need to flow from the

talk, they don't like to follow up on those actions. They don't like to be held

accountable.

Mr. Chair,

I think it is completely legitimate for me to ask the minister this question:

when will we receive this information? Once I receive it, I can continue to ask

questions. The minister has refused to provide the answers to my questions in

this House so that I can carry on debate. In order for the opposition to do

their job, which is the role to hold this government to account and to get the

information for the public, it is my responsibility to ask the questions, and it

is the responsibility of the minister to provide the answers. So I expect some

courtesy, and an answer from the minister would be appreciated.

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, I will provide that information to her as soon as we're

able.

J. Kwan:

You know, yesterday morning she said that she would provide the information

regarding the FTEs by the afternoon. By the same day in the afternoon she said

she would provide that information. You know, Mr. Chair, it has now been more

than 24 hours since then, and the opposition has yet to receive the information.

So you will understand why I want to nail it down specifically in this House

when the minister says she will provide information, not some vague answer —

at a later date, as soon as she can, at some point in time. Even when she puts a

time frame to it, she does not abide by her own time frame she has put out, so

you will understand why I would want to nail down the specific date.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

That minister heckles me and says I don't have further questions. Just so you

know, Mr. Chair, I have a full binder of questions, and this is only one

[ Page 9634 ]

binder. I have another one downstairs regarding this ministry.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Proceed, member. You have the floor.

[1540]

J. Kwan:

The Minister of Labour is very concerned about having to deal with questions —

for this minister to have to deal with these questions. I actually, quite

frankly, do understand that. After all, it is a minister and ministry fraught

with scandals…

The

Chair: Member….

J. Kwan:

…so I understand why they wouldn't want to answer the questions, but you know

what? Questions are going to be put to them, Mr. Chair. They are going to be put

to them.

The

Chair: Member, please proceed with your questioning. This is getting very

tedious — your line here. You have a number of questions to ask. Please

proceed.

J. Kwan:

I would be happy to move on to other questions if I could get an answer from the

minister. Any reasonable person watching this debate, I'm sure, would say,

"Okay, she's asking a question of when she will receive this material, with

a specific time line" — not some vague notion that I will receive it at

some point in time, at a later date, as soon as possible. Not some vague answer

but something specific — within a day, within two days.

The

minister has a responsibility to provide answers and be open and accountable,

and I would expect her to do so in this House. I would remind the minister, Mr.

Chair, that I'm speaking on behalf of many people in British Columbia who sent

these questions to me, to the opposition. They, too, would like these answers,

and they have the right to know. They are the taxpayers who paid for these

programs. They have the right to know how this government and this minister

spent them, how they were spent and what procedures were used to allocate these

dollars. They have the right to know, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

My goodness. Stonewalling is obviously the best policy. The Premier had said

once….

The

Chair: Member, can you take your seat, please.

Member, I

would just remind you that the purpose of this estimates debate is to ask

questions regarding the minister. She is not compelled to answer. She has given

you an answer. I just suggest that probably we should move on to a new line of

questioning, if you're not satisfied with what you're getting. Let's proceed

with this line of questioning.

J. Kwan:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. That was in fact very helpful. By the rules of

the House, which I'm abiding by, I have 15 minutes to lay out the groundwork —

the background, if you will — around the questions that I put and then put my

questions. I'm absolutely following the rules of the House. I thank you for that

advice.

The Premier

once said that openness is better than hiddenness. Albeit it raises the question

of the Premier's literacy level, set that aside for a moment.

[H.

Long in the chair.]

I think we

generally understand what he's trying to say. Openness is better than hiddenness.

That would be advice that I would suggest the Deputy Premier should undertake

from her leader — unless, of course, that is just code language from the

Premier to his cabinet ministers and all the government MLAs, and in fact the

code really is that hiddenness is better than openness. Maybe that is really the

direction that the Premier was driving at, which the Deputy Premier is now

following.

We have no

confirmation from this minister on when we can expect this information that I'm

seeking. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts, Mr. Chair, that we will receive this

information after estimates debate. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that we

would not see the information for a long time to come.

I hope that

I'll be proven wrong. The minister's action, by not confirming when she will

provide this information with a specific time line, only raises further

suspicion not just in the minds of the opposition but also in the minds of the

public who have these concerns. We will wait for this information. I hope it's

before the estimates debate is over so that I could ask the minister questions

arising from this.

[1545]

Could the

minister advise: are there rules, or what rules exist, within the ministry to

address issues of potential conflicts of interest regarding administration of

funds within the ministry to organizations?

Hon. C.

Clark: We follow the government standards, and we expect all organizations

that are affiliated with the government to do the same.

J. Kwan:

What are the government standards?

Hon. C.

Clark: Someone will be sending those in for us so that she can have it word

for word.

J. Kwan:

Would that be within today's estimates that we would receive this

information? I'm sorry. I have to ask these questions because, as I laid out

earlier, information that was asked for in the morning yesterday that the

minister said would be coming in the afternoon…. It hasn't arrived yet even as

of this afternoon. Information that I asked of the minister about the

administration of funding that was not spent and the evaluation procedures, and

so on and so forth…. The minister wouldn't commit to when she

[ Page 9635 ]

would provide that information. Probably in 2007, I suspect — that is, of

course, if she is in her seat, but that is all questionable at the moment.

With

respect to this information, when can we receive this information? It certainly

does not facilitate debate when, with every question I put to the minister, her

answer is: "We'll get you that information."

Hon. C.

Clark: I hope I'm not shocking the member by telling her that I haven't

brought every single policy of conduct of government with me today. I have

brought all of the information that's relevant to the '04-05 budget that we

could anticipate. That's why we have a lot of staff here, and we have a lot of

information in front of us. Of course, I'm happy to answer all those questions

as well as I can as quickly as I can. I haven't brought every policy manual,

though, that she could possibly think about asking a question on — unless the

member is looking to ask questions that will just take up a lot of time. I'm not

exactly sure where she's going with this. We've already asked our staff to go

see if they can find the information about the policy manual and those specific

questions she asked with that, and I'm quite confident we will be able to have

that by the end of the evening tonight.

J. Kwan:

I advised the minister yesterday, when we started these estimates, that we

are going to be dealing with general cuts, restructuring and governance. This, I

would think, falls right into the notion of governance, in terms of the

ministry's approach to governance. The minister may not have the guidelines with

respect to how conflict issues are dealt with word for word, but surely the

minister knows generally what those guidelines are and what they look like. If

all she can say is, "It's consistent with government policy," well,

that tells you nothing. I will be happy to wait for the specific guidelines when

they come in by the end of today, but in the meantime perhaps the minister can

advise: what are the general policies related to it?

[1550]

Hon. C.

Clark: We are getting the exact word for word. I know the member likes to

have as much accuracy as possible, so we're making sure that we're going to get

that word for word for her. I believe it's in the Core Policy Manual of

government.

I am also

advised by staff that those guidelines haven't changed much from when she was in

government, so perhaps she might want to…. I know she has high expectations of

my memory. Perhaps she could check her own records, her own memory. Perhaps hers

is better than mine, and she may remember what they were when she was a cabinet

minister for many, many years. Of course, those policies, as I am advised,

haven't changed substantially since then.

J. Kwan:

I'll tell you that when I was minister, we never actually hired a relative

of a Premier who actually, well, somehow got a loan of some $400,000 that was

written off. I would say the policies might well have changed quite

substantively.

This

government, of course, is saying it's changing everything and that the direction

in which it's going is completely different from that of the previous

administration, so I'm not making any assumptions about that. When the minister

says there is not very much change…. We know, as an example, that the former

Minister of Human Resources has said that welfare policies have not changed

substantively, but as we see, they have actually changed quite substantively. I

don't need to go into the details around all of that, but we do know they've

changed substantively.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

You know, it's quite interesting. The Minister of Labour and the Minister of

Children and Family Development are heckling me and saying: "Perhaps you

can tell me what your government policies were." Well, guess what, Mr.

Chair.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the members don't know the rules of the House yet. They are in

government. They provide the answers. The opposition asks the questions. It's

their government's policies, not my government's policies. We're no longer in

government. We're in opposition, so we're asking them questions.

The

minister thinks it's cheeky for her to ask me what my government policies were

on conflict. News flash for the minister: I'm not in government; I'm in

opposition. It's her responsibility to provide taxpayers with the answers on

conflict-of-interest guidelines. It's her responsibility to ensure that there is

accountability and to demonstrate that accountability level, and it is my

responsibility as the opposition member to ask these questions and to hold the

government to account, lest she forget and get confused with the roles here.

The

minister says she will get the information. It seems to me she doesn't even know

broadly what the conflict-of-interest guidelines might be. Fair enough. That's

her failing to do her job, so I'll wait until she gets it in front of her so she

can read it and put it on record. I'll wait until later on tonight or until

tomorrow, for that matter — until whenever we get it.

I must say

that now I must actually flag this for my staff for all the unanswered questions

which the minister says she will be coming to. Please flag it for me so that we

have to come back and ask all these questions all over again. The list, I know,

is growing longer and longer, unfortunately.

Let me then

ask the minister this question. When the government was going through the

restructuring of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, all the

experts told the government it was not possible to restructure and make cuts at

the same time. Yet this government attempted to cut this ministry by some 23

[ Page 9636 ]

percent in its budget. When even the former minister finally admitted that

those cuts were too deep, the decision was only then to cut 11 percent.

Let's just

understand what we're talking about here. In this year's budget the cut is $70

million. In previous years the cut was $105 million. That's $175 million worth

of cuts in services to children and families under this government. What

evidence did the minister have and what evidence did the minister use to base

its decision to make cuts at the same time as it was restructuring?

[1555]

Hon. C.

Clark: I can certainly speak to this year. The total reductions for this

year were 4 percent. We are managing our way through that. Nobody likes to have

to go through change, I suppose, or many people don't like to have to go through

change, but change is happening nonetheless. That 4 percent reduction — we're

on track, we're on target, and we will be meeting our budget.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't actually answer my question, and I will repeat it for her.

I'll put it to her very slowly so that she gets what I'm asking her. What

evidence did the minister have and what evidence did the minister use to base

the decision to make cuts at the same time as the ministry was restructuring?

Hon. C.

Clark: Again, I'm having a challenge linking this particular question to

these current estimates. I'm sure the member can find some ways to make that

link if she wants to put her thinking cap on to do that.

It is not

the speed with which the member is asking the questions that makes it difficult

to answer them. It is the rules of this House that require us to talk about the

2004-05 budget estimates, which is the information I have before me and the

information I have come prepared to talk about.

J. Kwan:

The arrogance of this minister is astounding. It's absolutely astounding.

In all her

efforts to try to hide information from the public, the reality is for everyone

to see. Everyone knows that the budget decisions of previous years, the

restructuring that is still going on in this ministry and the impacts on her

community are far and wide. They're impacting the community right now in this

budget cycle. Make no mistake about that.

For the

minister to pretend that somehow there is no relevance with this question on

what basis the government made a decision to make deep cuts into the Ministry of

Children and Family Development while it is going through this major

restructuring, when everyone said it was the wrong thing to do…. For her to

say it is not a relevant question for her is astounding. It is shameful, quite

frankly. The minister needs to, I would argue….

Maybe this

is the problem, Mr. Chair. Maybe Martyn Brown is not here to direct traffic, to

tell the minister how she should answer these questions. Maybe Martyn Brown

hadn't told her and rehearsed with her how to answer these questions. Well, it

doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Because guess what. These questions are not

puffball questions from her colleagues; that's why. Martyn Brown is not here to

rehearse, and she has never had rehearsals. That is just too bad. She would

still have to answer these questions. She would still have to answer these

questions, and they're absolutely pertinent to this budget cycle and the

functioning of this ministry in this budget year. Make no mistake about that.

What

evidence did the minister have to launch into this huge restructuring process

and make deep cuts year over year? I will remind the minister where the

relevance of the '04-05 budget comes in, because this year's budget cut is

cumulative — on top of previous years' budget cuts. They don't happen in

isolation, one year separate from the other.

It's also

not the first year in which the cumulative impacts of these cuts on the

community…. The minister can't just walk away without answering this question

by saying that it's not in her budget cycle this year. They have ongoing

ramifications. Cuts have ongoing ramifications year over year, and they impact

this year, the '04-05 year, as well. I expect the minister to answer that

question for the public's information.

Hon. C.

Clark: Of course, the safety and well-being of children is our number one

priority in this ministry — protecting children and making sure we protect the

vulnerable adults that depend on the services we provide. That is our priority

as a ministry, and I think the people on the front lines and the staff who work

in our ministry can really be applauded for the excellent, incredible

professionalism and the excellent effort that they put in.

[1600]

We looked

at best practices across North America, the U.K. and Australia. We looked at the

leading-edge research that was out there, and we used that to make

evidence-based decisions about what would be best for vulnerable children and

adults in British Columbia. We're committed to making sure that we deliver those

services, that we deliver them effectively, that the support is there that

people need, and that we are maximizing the value of every dollar that we spend,

making sure that the services we provide are the best possible services that we

can deliver.

We are

investing strategically in social programs that are evidence-based and that

produce measurable results. We are working to empower children and their

families to make more decisions about what goes on in their lives and to change

their lives positively. In doing that too, we are finding savings in duplication

that's out there and administrative costs that are out there which we can

reinvest in the front line and make sure that we are getting maximum value for

every dollar. We have a responsibility in this ministry, probably more than any

other…. Because the people that depend on us are often very, very vulnerable

people, we have an obligation to make sure that every penny is spent as

[ Page 9637 ]

well as it possibly can be and that we squeeze value out of every dollar that

we have available to us.

J. Kwan:

It seems that Martyn Brown actually has a longer reach than I had expected. The

minister is spinning rhetoric, and I'm not interested in rhetoric, Mr. Chair.

I'm expecting specific information — specific information.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister is proud. She goes: "You don't think I can do that on my

own?" The minister is very proud of the fact that she can put out rhetoric.

Well, be that as it may…. Good on you for putting out rhetoric, but I'm not

interested in rhetoric. I'm interested in actual facts.

The

minister says: "Programs that are evidence-based…." She says:

"Reports that exist…." I am waiting for the minister to provide

specific information on what programs were evidence-based, and I would like the

minister to be able to cite these programs specifically. I would like the

minister to listen to the question; it would be helpful. Therefore, maybe she'll

be able to answer the question, which is…

Interjections.

The

Chair: Order, members.

J. Kwan:

…to also put forward specific reports that she claims exist. What were the

reports? Cite them specifically.

[1605]

Hon. C.

Clark: I've got the standards of conduct for public service employees,

something that's available readily on the Web. I'm sure the member could, if she

let her fingers do the walking on her computer, look this up. It's under the

B.C. Public Service Agency, "Standards of Conduct for Public Service

Employees," revised September 2003. I understand it's not a significant

change, though, from previous governments. It also resides in the Core Policy

Manual,

section 6.3.2, if she wants to look that up.

J. Kwan:

I would remind the minister that these questions are not just for the

opposition. They're for the public, who actually e-mailed these questions to the

opposition and wanted the answers from the minister. I don't think that they

were looking for a reference to where they could look up the information but,

rather, what the information is.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, if the member would like me to do the research for her, I will

certainly oblige. What I can do is table these three pieces of paper that we

just pulled off the Web, if she'll find that useful.

J. Kwan:

The arrogance of this minister never ceases to amaze me, I must admit. As I

said, it's not just the opposition who's interested in this information from the

minister. It's the public. In fact, I have an e-mail right here from the public,

who wanted me to ask these questions of the minister. These questions came out

of yesterday's estimates debate. They flowed from that. Obviously, the minister

is not comfortable in providing answers to the public. That's what this forum

does as well. It provides answers to the public.

Not

everyone is like the minister, who has a whole host of staff who could assist

her to get this information. Most people in the community, I would submit, have

no one. In addition to their regular jobs, taking care of their family, doing

the things people do, when they take an interest in issues that concern their

community, they take the time to listen to debate, to review Hansard .

They have questions for the minister. It's completely legitimate for them to use

the opposition to ask these questions, and it's a completely legitimate

expectation for them to expect this minister to provide the answers and not to

be flip about it and brush them off as though somehow they're not relevant or

they're trivial. It's really quite shameful. I'll let the public decide that.

They'll judge this minister's action and her lack of answers accordingly.

I'm still

waiting for the answer, though, from the minister about specific programs and

specific reports that she says are evidence-based and that the minister had used

to decide that making deep cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family

Development at the same time as it goes through a major restructuring was a good

thing to do — that there was evidence to show from other jurisdictions that by

doing exactly that, it would yield the results that they were hoping would be

positive for the community. I'm still waiting for the specific information from

the minister.

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, our ministry looked at best practices across North

America, the U.K. and Australia so that we could make our decisions about

practice and about service transformation based on what's working and what the

leading-edge research says. There is a lot of research that we've brought

together — a ton of it.

[1610]

I can't

physically enter every example of that into the Hansard of the House

today, so I'm going to read out a few examples for the member. She can also then

go and visit our website, if she'd like to do that, and that's www.mcf.gov.bc.ca.

There's a link on there that will give her more research than I'm sure she's got

time in her very busy life to read.

For

example, family preservation, which is brief home-based interventions that

prevent children being taken out of their homes…. The evidence, in a study

done by Schwartz, AuClaire and Harris, indicated that of youth who were diverted

into family systems–based programs, 43 percent were still in their homes after

a year compared to only 8 percent in the comparison group. There's a good

example.

How are we

acting on that? We contract with a variety of service providers to provide

various intensive

[ Page 9638 ]

home-based interventions for vulnerable children, families and youth. That

includes parent-training homemakers, family advancement workers, child care

workers and other intensive home-based individual intervention. It's a hallmark

of the family preservation approach. The hallmark of it is integrated case

management. That's a wraparound service — services to families that are

coordinated amongst family and service providers to really try and provide a

seamless array of services for them.

In the area

of home visits. We define that as outreach services for mothers and children by

professionals and paraprofessionals. That, we think, helps prevent child abuse

and neglect and promotes healthy pregnancies and effective parenting — two

critically important things. There was a 15-year study done by Olds, who found

that women who were provided with a nurse and a home visitor had 46 percent

fewer reports of child abuse and neglect, 31 percent fewer subsequent births and

69 percent fewer arrests. Adolescent children of visited homes had 59 percent

fewer arrests, 56 percent fewer days of alcohol consumption and 60 percent fewer

instances of running away.

How are we

acting on that? We are providing, as a government, nurse home visitors, social

workers and contracted service providers who are parent-training homemakers and

family advancement workers. Child care workers do home visits to provide support

for parenting, to help parents with formal and informal positive support

networks and child behaviour management support and that kind of thing.

Parent

training and education. I think the definition of that is pretty obvious from

its title. There was a U.S. study by Webster-Stratton that determined that

increases in parental praise reduced criticism and negative commands. Increases

in parent supervision, decreases in parent depression, increases in parental

self-confidence and better child behaviour were all a result of more parent

education. There's a whole long list of these things that she can go look for

and that anyone viewing today or reading the Hansard can go look at and

get a sense of the evidence we're using to base our decisions on.

J. Kwan:

The minister actually didn't answer the question. What she did was put forward

research that showed policies in terms of particular programs that would yield

positive results. What I asked was this: what evidence did the minister have to

go through a major restructuring process while making deep cuts? All the experts

have been telling this government that you cannot do this. You cannot

restructure the ministry substantively while making deep cuts. The government

plowed ahead anyway and ignored these experts' advice. That's what the

government has done.

[1615]

What she

has done is tried to cloud the question I put to her by putting information that

does not answer the question. Her information speaks to programs, and I'm not

disputing programs about parent training and education, home visits or family

preservation approaches. I'm not disputing that research. What I'm disputing is

— and I'm trying to seek information from this minister — what information

she has that says while you go through this major restructuring of the ministry,

you could also cut $175 million out of the ministry in terms of its core service

delivery.

Hon. C.

Clark: This year the 4 percent cuts that the ministry is going to implement

will be mostly taken care of or mostly addressed through lower demand, as we

discussed yesterday — significantly lower demand out there. This is partly as

a result of the change in the population but also, I think, really largely due

to the very hard work of the dedicated professionals out there that we have in

social workers who are trying to build families, build support around families.

At least half of the saving this year is also going to come out of compensation

savings, so that's where the savings are going to be coming from this year for

the $70 million that we are looking to save.

J. Kwan:

Hon. Chair, I swear to you I think I'm in a time warp. I'm asking a question to

the minister, and she completely ignores the question I put to her and just puts

on whatever she wants to put on. It simply doesn't even make sense with what I'm

asking her. I'm asking the minister this specific question, and I will pause so

that the question that's put to her is fully understood.

Just for

your information, Mr. Chair, I put a question to the minister earlier. It seems

to me that she has completely missed my question, so I was just going to pause

so that she would have a full opportunity to understand what I'm asking of her.

Here's the question, because the last two answers the minister gave are not to

the questions I asked. It appears that we're on a different planet or something,

so here's the question.

Here's the

question, Mr. Chair. My question to the minister is this: what evidence did the

minister receive, what research did the minister have, to base the minister's

decision to go through a major restructuring of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development while the ministry is undergoing significant cuts to its core

service delivery?

The

ministry cumulatively, over the last few years, has cut $175 million out of core

services for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That's what the

ministry has done. In the midst of that, they have embarked on a major

restructuring program. I would like to know: what specific evidence did the

minister have that shows doing restructuring and deep cuts to the ministry at

the same time is effective?

Hon. C.

Clark: For years this ministry, under the NDP, was making decisions without

evidence, not based…. Oh, I see the member's information is coming. Perhaps

the questions will start to come faster too.

For years

there was very little evidence for the decisions this ministry made and the

kinds of practices they chose to employ, and the result of that was a

skyrocketing number of children that were coming into

[ Page 9639 ]

government care and coming out of their families. That was a conscious

decision of the previous government. They thought, I suppose, that would be the

best way to spend the money, and I disagree. I think a better way to spend our

money is to try and keep families intact and to support children in their

families, if we can — try and make families safe, loving, whole, stable places

for children. We know they do better when they're in their families than when

they're not in their families, most of the time.

[1620]

What we've

done in British Columbia is that we've actually seen the rate at which children

are coming into government care start to fall, and we're the only province in

the country where that's true. Not only can we look at other provinces across

the country to see how dramatically different things are in British Columbia,

but we can look at previous years. We can look at the decade of the 1990s, when

this ministry was managed by a policy at the top that really didn't focus on

trying to support families and instead tended to take kids out of their homes

instead of trying to find ways to make families loving, supporting, whole places

where kids could grow and thrive.

Not that

there wasn't effort put into that. So many of the incredibly professional,

hard-working social workers we have, have worked for years to try and make these

things a reality. The difference has been that the previous government left

parts of the act unproclaimed that would have given social workers the ability

to use that broad range of skills they need to be able to use in order to keep

families whole and intact and try to support them.

Our

government has proclaimed those sections of the act because we really believe in

the evidence that tells us that children usually do better in their own homes if

we can make those homes safe, healthy, caring, predictable places for children.

We've acted on that, and that's a big difference between this government's

approach and the previous government's approach.

budgetary terms it's also a less expensive approach. Not only is it better to

try and keep a child in their family for that child's good and that family's

good, but it's also less expensive for government to try and do that as well.

Providing parenting courses and supporting families and doing all that other

range of things we can do to try and support families is almost always less

expensive than taking a child out of their home and putting them into foster

care or some other kind of arrangement.

Sometimes

that's necessary. Some children just can't stay in their own homes, but our

government has really worked hard to try and change this focus. I'm proud to say

that the thousands of dedicated professional social workers we have out there

working on our behalf, working for families day in and day out, have taken up

this change with vigour. What they've told us is that they like these changes.

They appreciate the opportunity to be able to use that broad range of skills

they're trained to have, to be able to use the wisdom and the training they've

gained over the years to try and make families work.

That's at

the core of what this ministry is trying to do, and I am proud to be a part of a

change in this ministry that is, for the first time in many years, making that

change happen.

J. Kwan:

The minister can skate around all she wants, and the reality is that she has not

answered the question. It's not a difficult question to the minister. Based on

her answer, one can only come to the conclusion that she actually has no

evidence whatsoever to back up the government's action — that is, to cut $175

million out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development while making

structural changes through its restructuring process.

There is no

evidence, I would submit, that the minister has. That's why she's not been able

to cite any of the studies. The information she's citing that says it's

effective in terms of program changes has nothing to do with major cuts the

government's going through at the same time — nothing. I may as well say and

put on the record again for the minister that the experts have been saying to

the minister and this government all along that restructuring and making deep

cuts at the same time will not serve families and children in British Columbia.

In fact, they will just create chaos, and that's exactly what's happened. There

is chaos in our community. There is chaos in this ministry, which is plagued by

scandal after scandal. People cannot see and stick their head above water to try

and figure out what is going on.

The

minister was commenting on the information that was sent into the House for my

information, for these debates. It's interesting in terms of the minister's

comment, but I'll also let the minister know that perhaps this will help her in

her answers and the approach she decides to take in the estimates process here.

[1625]

In this

package arrived an e-mail from someone who is watching the live broadcast of

these estimates. Here's what the individual had to say: "I'm watching the

live broadcast regarding the Ministry of Children and Family Development. You're

doing an incredible job, and I appreciate your efforts to hold this dictatorship

government accountable. Thank you for your efforts." From this individual.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister says: "Nothing like a self-congratulatory message." It's

not about me. Let's be very clear. It isn't about me.

Interjections.

J. Kwan:

The minister might think this is funny, but these have serious

ramifications. What this goes to show is that it's the minister's behaviour

which people are reacting to, on which the opposition consistently gets comments

from people as they are watching the

[ Page 9640 ]

debates and listening in on the debates. They are appalled.

I don't

know who this individual is, and it doesn't matter to me who this individual is.

What does matter…. As I say, it isn't about me. It's about the children and

families in our community. It's about the services they need. It's about the

very serious nature that this government has created the kind of chaos that is

happening relating to the ministry and the services which children and families

depend on. It's about the very serious question of how this government had even

begun to embark on this exercise of restructuring the ministry in a substantive

way while at the same time cutting the budget of this ministry — deep cuts,

$175 million worth of cuts. Cumulative cuts, I might add — cuts that began a

few years ago and that continue under this minister's leadership. I would say

again: cumulative cuts, year over year over year.

When this

minister was in opposition, she chastised the former government for cutting or

for actually not providing enough money in the area of children and family

development. She actually said that more money needs to be put into the Ministry

of Children and Family Development. Lo and behold, she's now the minister, and

what is happening? She's actually making cuts. She's continuing on with the

government's agenda to cut funding for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, negatively impacting the children and families in our community.

This is what's happening with this minister.

She did not

answer my question, and I can only come to the conclusion that there was no

evidence whatsoever, in terms that this minister used, to base this decision to

make deep cuts and at the same time to restructure the ministry substantively.

If there were such evidence, the minister would be tabling it. I'm sure she'd be

quoting from it, and I'm sure she'd be saying: "See, that jurisdiction did

exactly that, and look at the fine outcome they've received." I'm sure the

minister would be doing that, except that such evidence doesn't exist, and the

experts have been saying to her all along that that is the case.

Will she

finally own up to the mistake her government has made? That is what people in

the community have been saying to her: deep cuts and restructuring at the same

time don't work. Will she commit to reinstating the dollars that are necessary,

reinstating the cuts that this government has made to the Ministry of Children

and Family Development?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member can stand up and talk about the fact that restructuring

and giving control back to communities isn't worth it, but I fundamentally

disagree with her. When she stands up there and says that we shouldn't be

returning these services to the community or giving these services to the

community, that we shouldn't be engaging in what has been called the third wave

of deinstitutionalization in British Columbia, I fundamentally disagree. I

believe there is wisdom in allowing communities to have control over delivering

community services in their local areas. I believe there is value in that.

That's why this move has been so broadly supported. That's why 14,000 people

provincewide participated and made their views known in the consultation this

ministry did about devolving services to communities.

[1630]

Is it the

right thing to do? Absolutely it's the right thing to do. But if for one minute

the member wanted to talk about outcomes, which I know she avoids like the

plague, she might start to have trouble making some of the arguments and some of

the suppositions she's put forward. For example, this is not a theory we're

talking about. We're not just talking theoretically about what might happen if

we bring some of these practice changes into use.

The number

of children who have gone into government care, out of their families, has

dropped. The number of adoptions has doubled under this government. Double the

number of children are now finding permanent homes than under her government,

where the area, I'm sure, didn't get very much political attention.

Kith-and-kin

arrangements for the first time are allowed, because of the work that our

government has done. That means placing kids with extended family and in their

own communities so that if they have to be separated from their parents,

particularly aboriginal children, they can stay in their home communities and

keep some of those cultural connections.

Family

group conferencing is another example of something the previous government

passed in legislation and then never bothered to enact, because they didn't

think it was important. Well, I think it is important. Family group conferencing

is important. Putting all of those people around the table, who care about a

child, and making them part of a decision about what should happen for that

child's future is critically important.

Alternative

dispute resolution is expanding across the province so that families can find

ways to settle their differences without going to court. All of those changes

are important. All of those changes are important not for us politically; they

are important for children in communities across the province. They are positive

changes that weren't happening under the previous government. They are positive

changes that have happened over the last two and a half years as a result of the

changes in practice that we've implemented out there in the field, and those

practice changes have been based on best research.

If for one

minute the member would stop to look at the actual results that we are getting

in the work that we do out there in the field, she would find that there are so

many indicators of success, that there are so many areas where we're doing

better. She might find she has trouble throwing some of the suppositions out

that she's thrown on the floor today.

Those kids

who are not going into government care and are staying with their families, I'm

sure, appreciate the fact that we're trying to keep their families together.

Those kids who found permanent homes through

[ Page 9641 ]

adoption appreciate the fact that our government has put some focus on that.

Kids that have gone and stayed with extended family and friends in local

communities appreciate the fact that they have been able to keep their cultural

connections.

All of

those are positive changes, and those positive changes are a direct result of

the changes that our government has made in the practice, as opposed to just the

theory of practising social work, out there in the field in British Columbia.

J. Kwan:

It's very interesting in terms of the direction that the minister wants to take

this debate. Let me just put some information here on the record. Just earlier

the minister actually praised social workers and what a wonderful job they are

doing. You know what? I absolutely agree. They are trying their very best in

very trying circumstances with substantive reductions to their budgets and

reductions in staffing, but charged with very important and serious work that

they have to undertake on behalf of our community in many cases.

Let me just

put this letter and their comments on the record with respect to their view of

what they think of how well she's doing. This happens to be a statement issued

by the B.C. Association of Social Workers as recently as March 17, 2004 — the

very same social workers that this minister praised just moments ago. Here's

what they have to say about this minister and this government's performance in

the area of children and family development:

[1635]

"The

B.C. Association of Social Workers is deeply troubled by the misleading

statements of the minister" — and it names this minister in this

document — "in her letter to the editor" — which says —

"Clark defends changes, Vancouver Sun , Tuesday, March 16,

2004." It states the name again. "The minister's assertions that

'services are being provided and their budgets are not being cut and they're

not disappearing' represent a form of political dishonesty that does not

present the province's chief parent in a good light.

"The

minister" — and it names the minister again, and it's this minister —

"would have readers believe that vulnerable people are the highest

priority of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Yes, the safety

of children, the strengthening of families and the care for the

developmentally disabled are the main priorities of all MCFD social workers

and staff. Unfortunately, it is not the priority of the B.C. Liberal

government. Otherwise, why would social workers and other professionals be

asked to provide such crucial services to children within a budget that has

been reduced by $63 million?"

That's just in this year's budget book. As I mentioned, if you look at

previous years, it amounts to $175 million in terms of cuts.

"Though

the minister defends the decision to eliminate funding for safe houses with

the assertion that there are a sufficient number of placement options for

children within the ministry, the information we receive from child protection

social workers is that this is clearly not the reality — that in some

locales there are simply no beds available, particularly for teens and for

children with challenging behaviours. The closure of safe houses ensures that

many of these kids are destined to be living on the streets.

"The

forthcoming cuts by the ministry will decimate services. The risk to children

will be increased as, one by one, programs are eliminated, wait-lists grow,

families are left in crisis and shrinking child protection teams worry about

delayed child protection investigations. The good intentions of the minister

will not contribute to children's safety if she's unwilling to advocate a

moratorium on MCFD budget cuts. The minister will need to move beyond

participating in a financial shell game in which she claims there is no loss

in services while presiding over a ministry that cannot possibly meet

children's needs with these cuts.

"The

minister states: 'We're reducing overlap and duplication of services among

hundreds of different service providers.' Although framed in a positive way,

it appears that the ministry is poised to put the whole social service sector

in an uproar by putting the contracts of all service agencies out for tender.

"This

process is not predicated on how best to serve children at risk and has been

carried out with little or no regard for the effectiveness of the existing

programs. Budget efficiencies will rule the day, and children seeking help

from trusted programs will attend at their local agency only to find it closed

or their program eliminated.

"Children

and their families will be able to tell the minister what the program cuts

mean to them, but will the minister be listening?"

This is only part of a very, very well-informed letter, I would submit. After

all, this statement comes directly from the B.C. Association of Social Workers,

the very social workers that just minutes ago the minister praised.

When I said

it came from the B.C. Association of Social Workers, the minister laughed and

threw her head back and said: "Oh, the union." The very same people

that are part of this association are the workers that are busting their hump

trying to do a job in an untenable situation as a result of this government's

direct actions.

This

government forced the situation on. We now have chaos in the ministry.

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister goes: "Oh no, we don't." Well, I would advise the

minister to open her eyes and open her ears and do what the B.C. Association of

Social Workers is suggesting for her to do. That is to listen — listen to the

people who provide her with good information, who tell her the truth about

what's going on even though she might not like what they are telling her. They

are the experts out in the field. They are the people delivering the programs

and trying to deliver the programs in light of these huge cuts and the chaos

that this minister and this government have created in the community.

Hon. C.

Clark: Do you have a question?

J. Kwan:

I absolutely have many questions for the minister. I would like the minister to

begin first by answering the issues that have been raised by the Association of

Social Workers and their concerns with re-

[ Page 9642 ]

spect to cuts in the ministry and the impact on the families and the children

in British Columbia.

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm delighted to be able to actually answer a question, which I

always like to do whenever the member sits down.

[1640]

It is the

professional staff on the front lines that have been monitoring and advising and

designing some of the changes that have happened out there on the ground. I

think what the member is specifically referring to is something that we

internally call "service redesign," and that means trying to redesign

the services we provide to people to meet the needs that we recognize they have.

Traditionally,

what this ministry has done is provide services based on historically what was

there before, as opposed to what the needs were — tweaking a contract here and

there, adding to this, adding to that, as opposed to having a really good look

at what the needs are. The demography changes, populations change, people move,

and things change, so we need to make sure that our services keep up with those

changes and that we're meeting the needs as well as we can.

I think the

example that the letter the member copied from the newspaper is referencing is

"All right, what is the population in Vancouver that depends on the

Ministry of Children and Family Development for service? And what is it they

need?" Then the third question is: what services do we provide based on

that need? They engaged in a really long and involved community consultation to

talk to the community about the kinds of services that they thought and the way

we could provide those services to meet the needs of the community…. It was a

very productive process, and I think the product of that is certainly going to

be services that better meet the needs of people in Vancouver.

Those

consultations have wrapped up. The service redesign is now happening. That

certainly means change. Some agencies that are seeing their contracts move or

change aren't always necessarily happy about it. The bottom line is that there

hasn't been any cut in the amount of money that's available to the Vancouver

region as a result of that process.

Yes, some

of the money has shifted, but it's shifted to services that better meet the

current needs of the people in the communities, because of course, that's how we

should be spending money. We shouldn't be spending our money based on what

historically we always used to do, which was the NDP approach to this ministry.

Our approach is to say, instead: "Let's approach this from the needs of the

people that we're serving. Let's put the clients first, and let's design our

services based on what they need." That's what we've done in Vancouver.

J. Kwan:

According to the minister, the front-line workers, who actually see the families

and their children that are in crisis, are wrong, and she's right. She's right.

She's in her office with, you know, her spin that Martyn Brown tells her —

"You have to say this, and everything is fine, and everything is

working" — and therefore she's right. The people from the community, who

are the front-line workers — moments ago she just praised the good work that

they did — are all wrong, incidentally, when they actually raise issues and

concerns with this minister.

They

actually said it. I'm not making this up. This is their language. The assertion

from the minister that services are being provided, their budgets are not being

cut and they're not disappearing — and here's what they say about this

minister's statement, which she's just repeated in paraphrase form, that the

minister put in the newspaper — "represents a form of political

dishonesty that does not present the province's chief parent in a good

light." These are what the front-line workers are saying about this

minister's statements.

The

Chair: Order. I would suggest the member be very careful on some of the

language that is coming through that letter, please.

J. Kwan:

I'm just quoting it directly from the letter.