British Columbia Hansard — THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004 (37th Parliament, 5th Session) (20040325pm-Hansard-v22n9)
20040325pm-Hansard-v22n9
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
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)
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 22, Number 9
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
NoRooz celebration
Whittred
Education system seminar for
immigrant parents
R. Lee
Post-polio syndrome
S. Orr
Speaker's Statement
Rules for questions in question
period
Oral Questions
Children in government care
J. Kwan
Hon. C.
Clark
information of B.C. residents
MacPhail
Hon. C.
Hansen
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 Skills
Development and Labour (continued)
[ Page 9731 ]
THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2004
The House
met at 2:04 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Nuraney: In the gallery today visiting us there are 30 students from the
Maywood Community School. The Maywood Community School is truly a community
school that plays a pivotal role in our community and in the lives of the
parents whose children go to the school. They are largely children of new
Canadians that benefit greatly from the opportunity for interaction the school
provides them — truly a community link, as the ministers had contemplated.
[1405]
I would ask
the members to please join me in welcoming their teacher, Connie Bradley, who is
accompanying them, and parents Carolynn Naklicki, Brandee Ubels, Marlene Larson
and her mother, and Afaf Saroukhan. Please join me in welcoming the students and
their companions.
MacPhail: Today in the gallery is Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C.
Indian Chiefs, and he's accompanied by staff person Don Bain. They are here
today to press for issues of aboriginal rights. Would the House please make them
welcome.
Hon. K.
Falcon: The B.C. Transit board of directors are in Victoria today for their
annual fiscal year-end board meeting. B.C. Transit, as you know, Mr. Speaker,
provides excellent service across 50 municipalities right across this great
province. Today we are joined by Mr. Gregory Slocombe, the chair of the B.C.
Transit board of directors. Greg is also the president, general manager and
chief operating officer of Ridley Terminals in Prince Rupert.
We're also
honoured to be joined by some board members, including Mayor Walter Gray from
the city of Kelowna; Mayor Colin Kinsley from the great northern city of Prince
George; Mayor Don Amos from the town of Sidney; Mr. Bob DeClark, human resources
consultant from Nanaimo; and Mr. Dave Fisher, a business analyst from Kamloops.
Mr. Speaker knows that riding well. I would ask the House to please make them
all welcome.
S. Orr:
We all have "a very bestest friend," and believe it or not, I do
actually. I have a friend. I have two friends, actually. Today visiting in the
gallery are two people who have known me since I was young, cute and thin.
Interjections.
S. Orr:
We want no more comments.
They are
John and Jane Sproule, and they're visiting from Vancouver. You may recognize
the last name Sproule. John is an internationally acclaimed architect, and his
wife is an incredible designer. They are also the parents of Spencer Sproule,
who is a staffer here in research, and they are here celebrating Spencer's
birthday. I actually met Spencer before he was born, because, of course, his
mother is a very good friend. Would you please make John and Jane very welcome.
Hon. C.
Hansen: A very important friend of my ministerial assistant is visiting in
the gallery today from Toronto. I hope that the House will make Morag Cleeveley
welcome to Victoria and welcome to the House.
Hon. J.
Murray: Today we have Mr. Peter Fograscher, president of the Probyn Group,
which is a quality firm in our very important forest industry; Mr. Bill
Markvoort, who is a manager at Probyn and on the board of directors of the Truck
Loggers Association; and Mr. Markvoort's daughter Eva, who is a student in
Victoria. Both of the Markvoorts are constituents of mine, and they're visiting
in the gallery today. Will the House please make them very welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25b)
NOROOZ CELEBRATION
Whittred: It's my privilege this afternoon to rise to acknowledge and pay
tribute to the many Persians who live in my community. They, over the last
couple of weeks, have been celebrating NoRooz, or their new year. Over the last
week or two, I have had the opportunity to share with my Persian constituents
many celebrations. So to all my constituents who are of Persian extraction, I
wish them a happy NoRooz.
[1410]
I'd like to
share just a little bit of information with the House about this celebration. In
harmony with the rebirth of nature, the Persian new year celebration, or NoRooz,
always begins on the first day of spring. The word NoRooz literally means
"new day" in the Persian language and brings hope, peace and
prosperity to the world. It is celebrated among peoples of various cultures and
ethnic backgrounds, political views and religions in many countries,
particularly Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Pakistan,
Georgia, Iraq, Syria, Armenia and India.
NoRooz
ceremonies are symbolic representations of two ancient concepts: the end and the
rebirth, or good and evil. A few weeks before the new year, Iranians clean and
rearrange their homes. They get new outfits, they bake pastry, and they
germinate seeds — all a sign of renewal. A ceremonial cloth is set up in each
household. Troubadours referred to as Haji Firouz disguise themselves
with makeup and wear brightly coloured outfits of shiny satin. These Haji
Firouz , singing and dancing, parade as a carnival through the streets to
spread good cheer and news of the coming new year.
On the eve
of the last Wednesday of the year, literally called the Eve of Red Wednesday or
the Eve of Celebration, bonfires are lit in public places. With the
[ Page 9732 ]
help of fire and light, symbols of good, celebrants hope to see their way
through this unlucky night and end the year to greet the arrival of spring's
longer days.
So to all
of my Persian constituents: NoRooz Mobarak — Happy NoRooz.
EDUCATION SYSTEM SEMINAR
FOR IMMIGRANT PARENTS
R. Lee: Today
I would like to bring to your attention an exciting event that is taking place
in my community, the city of Burnaby North. It's a seminar on the education
system in British Columbia. This seminar is intended to help new immigrants
understand and take full advantage of our amazing school system. Parents are a
very important part of our education system. They can play a significant role in
the growth and success of their children in school. They understand what their
children are facing and what they can get out of our school system.
As you can
imagine, for many new immigrants to this country our education system can be
very different and overwhelming. By offering this seminar, we are hoping that
they will be able to help their children through their schooling and raise the
achievement level of students across British Columbia. The seminar will be
people. It will be facilitated by Andy Tse, a member of the school planning
council of a Burnaby secondary school.
Throughout
the seminar Mr. Tse will be covering an overview of the education system in
B.C., the
interpretation of letter grades and marks, parents' perspective on
secondary school course selection and what parents should know about the new
graduation requirements. We believe these topics will give the parents a good
understanding of how to support and help their children through what could be a
very intimidating and confusing time.
The seminar
will occur on two occasions. The first, on Saturday, March 27, will be in
seminars will take place in the Willingdon church in the city of Burnaby.
If you know
someone who should attend or would like any additional information, please
contact my constituency office.
POST-POLIO SYNDROME
S. Orr: When
I was a child growing up, the word "polio" would send a shudder down
the spine of parents, adults and children. This disease, which has had a
profound effect on its victims, has for the most part now been stamped out, and
it is not something that we have to worry about today. However, today the
victims of that disease still have to deal with its aftermath. As a result of
contracting polio as children, nearly 13,000 adults in British Columbia suffer
with what is known as post-polio syndrome. This is a progressive disorder that
causes pain and failure of the arms and legs, slowness of movement, breathing
difficulties and extreme fatigue. Think about it. Not only was their childhood
cut short with this horrible disease, but these victims now have to suffer
again. This time, to date, there is no cure.
[1415]
I want to
remind all members of this House that this month is Post-Polio Awareness Month.
The organization called Post-Polio Awareness and Support Society of British
Columbia is hosting special educational sessions throughout the province so
people with post-polio syndrome, their families, health care professionals and
the general public can learn and understand more about this extremely
debilitating disorder and perhaps help others to recognize and give support to
those people in our province that had to suffer — suffer again, as I said —
not only as a child but also now in their adult years. Let's thank our lucky
stars that our children today do not have to suffer the way many of our senior
British Columbians had to and still are.
Mr.
Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Speaker's Statement
RULES FOR QUESTIONS
IN QUESTION PERIOD
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, there seems to be some uncertainty in the House
relating to permissible areas of questioning during question period. Let me
firstly say we have been drifting away from the original intent of standing
order 47(a), to which I refer all members.
Broadly
speaking, oral questions may be asked of ministers of the Crown relating to
their responsibilities within their respective ministries. Matters relating to
caucus activity are well outside the administrative responsibility of any
ministers of the Crown. In any event, once the Minister of Finance has made it
clear — which he has — that there are no financial implications arising from
caucus activities referred to, that ends the matter. In the decision which the
Deputy Speaker read on my behalf on Wednesday, March 10 in this House, the
matter was fully canvassed, and in the result, bearing in mind the Minister of
Finance's assurance that there were no financial implications, the foundation
for the questions posed by the opposition and independent members relating to
caucus matters has been removed.
There is
another ground upon which yesterday's line of questioning offends basic
parliamentary rules, and that is that a member's character and personal conduct
cannot be debated or challenged save upon a substantive motion, which must be
brought before the House in the normal way with notice. In this regard, I refer
hon. members to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , twentieth edition,
pages 338 and 378.
One of the
difficulties the Chair encounters is that until the question is heard, it is
difficult to judge its propriety. But should a question or remarks in debate
[ Page 9733 ]
canvass the personal conduct or character of individual members of this
House, the Chair will take immediate action against the offending member. I
would also advise members that when a question is ruled out of order,
supplementaries will not be permitted.
Members on
both sides have offended. I would ask all members of the House to restrain their
enthusiasm and conform to the rules of this House, which are binding on all
members, so that members and the general public who are watching the proceedings
will be able to hear both questions and answers during question period.
Oral Questions
CHILDREN IN GOVERNMENT CARE
J. Kwan:
From the beginning, critics warned the government that chaos would result if
big budget cuts were combined with a massive restructuring of the Ministry of
Children and Family Development. But the government refused to listen, insisting
that all was on track — nothing to worry about. The minister continues to
insist that because fewer children are in care, the cuts to her ministry won't
impact services. Not so, say her officials. Can she, the Minister of Children
and Family Development, tell this House how many more children are coming into
her ministry's care as a result of welfare cuts and rate reductions?
Hon. C.
Clark: I can tell the member this: the number of children who are coming
into the care of the government is going down. That is a piece of good news
because it means that we are finding ways to support children better in their
families. I think, as a matter of basic principle, it's always better to try and
make sure that we can build supports around a family, if possible, to try and
prevent crises, to try and keep kids in their families rather than taking them
away.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
[1420]
J. Kwan:
According to internal government e-mails obtained by the opposition, the
Ministry of Children and Family Development is now tracking all children coming
into the care of the ministry as a result of rate reductions and cuts in the
Ministry of Human Resources. Why? Because the ministry wants to take this
information to Treasury Board to beg for more money.
Instead of
pretending everything is fine, like the minister did just now, will the minister
admit what her own officials are saying — and here's the e-mail associated
with it, Mr. Speaker — that more, not fewer, kids are coming into care, and
with continued cuts, the government cannot afford to take care of them.
Hon. C.
Clark: The number of children who are coming into the care of the government
is dropping. That means that more families are staying together. It means that
we are supporting children better in their families, finding ways to make them
safe in their homes with their families where they should be if they can be, and
that's a piece of good news. That is a result of the fact that our government
has worked very, very hard over the last two and a half years to try and make it
possible for social workers to use the broad range of skills that they've
developed and they've been trained to use. Rather than just taking a child out
of a home as a first resort, make it a last resort. Go and see how you can
support the family. See if you can support parent training. See if you can try
and make sure that those places are safe and secure and predictable places for
those children so they can ultimately stay where they belong, and that's with
their families.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further
supplementary.
J. Kwan:
Well, here's part of the e-mail that I'm going to quote on the record. In fact,
ministry staff are concerned. They're concerned regarding kids being put in a
child protection position based on poverty and MHR policies. As a result,
they're now tracking this information, and they're going to be bringing that to
Treasury Board to ask for more money. That is the reality of what's going on
according to the government's own officials.
The
minister might not be worried about the effect of government policy on children
in need, but her officials are saying something different. They're telling the
minister that more kids are coming into care because of the government's cuts to
social assistance and that they need more money to handle the problem. Clearly,
the Minister of Children and Family Development doesn't have a clue on how many
kids are coming into care as a result of the cuts.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, time for the question, please.
J. Kwan:
And here's the question. Maybe whoever from the government side today will be
answering questions on the issues around Human Resources…. Maybe that minister
could help. Can this person, this minister — the backup for the Minister of
Human Resources — tell his colleague the Minister of Children and Family
Development how many more kids are coming into the care of the government as a
result of the ministry's cuts to social assistance?
Hon. C.
Clark: I am pleased that the member actually has a source to quote in the
accusations that she throws on the floor of this House. That's not always
present. But the facts that the member has are wrong. The number of children who
are coming into the care of the ministry is dropping. The reason it's dropping
is because social workers are using the full range of skills that are available
to them as a result of changes in government policy. There were parts of the act
which encourage social workers to make it possible to keep kids
[ Page 9734 ]
in their family if they can, which the previous government never even
bothered to proclaim. Part of the problem the previous government had is that
because they drove the system to encourage social workers to try and take
children out of their homes as a first resort, costs grew. That meant there was
less money to invest in things like parent training, parent support — those
kinds of very important supports that we try and build around families.
By lowering
the number of children who are coming into care of the government, by supporting
those families, we're lowering costs in that area, and we're making it possible
to be able to support families better, to make them safer, more caring, more
predictable places for kids at risk.
INFORMATION OF B.C. RESIDENTS
MacPhail: Earlier this month, the legal opinion….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Hon. members, let's hear the question.
MacPhail: I guess they had a good rehearsal at caucus too. Did Martyn Brown
tell them to do that too? The little seals.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition…. The
member for Kamloops–North Thompson, please come to order.
[1425]
Interjections.
MacPhail: You're telling me to apologize? You are?
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order.
MacPhail: Earlier this month….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the question.
MacPhail: Earlier this month, a legal opinion….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. All members, please come to order so we may hear the
questions and the answers.
MacPhail: Yeah, you wouldn't want the standards set too high.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
MacPhail: Earlier this month, a legal opinion was released raising concerns
about the privatization of B.C.'s Medical Services Plan and the impact of the
Bush administration's Patriot Act. The MSP decision could happen any day now.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: Under the Patriot Act, American secret service agencies can access
the private information of British Columbians held by American companies or
their subsidiaries without any of us knowing.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Government House
Leader, member for Kamloops–North Thompson, Minister of Government Revenue,
please come to order. Let us hear the question.
MacPhail: Mary Carlson, with the office of the privacy commissioner, is on
record saying: "This has the potential for being the biggest privacy issue
we have ever dealt with." With a decision on MSP privatization expected
soon, could the Minister of Management Services explain what she is doing to
prevent the Bush administration from accessing the private information of
British Columbians.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Hon. members, order, please.
Hon. C.
Hansen: Given the absolute disregard that the member for Vancouver-Hastings
showed for question period yesterday in this House, I will be pleased to answer
her question, but only after she has offered an apology to the member for
Coquitlam-Maillardville. [Applause.]
MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I would take direction of
conduct from this government at all — not at all.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: Here's the problem. Some deals are already done. In February last
year, the government announced it was privatizing a significant part of B.C.
Hydro. On February 28, 2003, a press release out of New York announced that
Accenture, a spinoff of what was once Arthur Andersen, had won the contract to
[ Page 9735 ]
privatize B.C. Hydro. The same press release stated that Accenture, which has
operations throughout the U.S., would develop "a new customer information
system."
Those
customers are all British Columbians who received bills from B.C. Hydro. That
customer information system has our private information on it. To the Minister
of Management Services. She says protecting our privacy from the Bush
administration is a priority. What assurances can she provide that the contract
between B.C. Hydro and Accenture protects the personal information of British
Columbians from the scrutiny of the FBI?
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, it appears that there is no member of the executive
council to take questions. Therefore, question period is now terminated.
[End
of question period.]
Mr.
Speaker: Mr. Clerk, it appears that there is no Government House Leader here
to take us to the next order of business. The member for Chilliwack-Kent.
[1430]
Penner: In this chamber, for the information of members, I call Committee of
Supply. We will be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Children and
Family Development. That's a resumption of debate. In Committee A, for the
information of members, we'll be resuming debate on the Ministry of Skills
Development and Labour.
Committee of Supply
The House
in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 2:31 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
On vote
16: ministry operations, $1,381,568,000 (continued) .
J. Kwan:
Just prior to the lunch break, I put on record the chronology of the Doug Walls
scandal. I asked the minister the question with respect to her knowledge about
this scandal prior to the government announcing the audit. The information that
I've received indicates that the government was notified of issues relating to
Doug Walls as far back as July 2002. Not only was the former Minister of
Children and Family Development aware of the situation and concerns arising from
it, but the Minister of Finance was also notified. Yet the government chose to
take no action.
I'd like
the minister's response to that specific issue. Why didn't the government take
action back in July 2002?
Hon. C.
Clark: All of those issues are being canvassed and worked on very thoroughly
by the auditor. They will be able to provide those answers, I think, very, very
shortly.
P. Wong:
I would like to seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
P. Wong:
In the gallery today there's a group of 70 grade 11 students from Sir Charles
Tupper Secondary School. This is the second group, together with the 70 students
yesterday, totalling 140 students, who are very active, hard-working and eager
to learn. They are led by Mr. Rob Ferguson, Mr. John Yetman, Mrs. Heather Paris
and Mr. Morgan Brendan. Would the House please make them welcome.
Debate Continued
J. Kwan:
I know members are eager to finish estimates so they don't have to face up to
the music, but I have many questions to ask the minister. Regarding the Doug
Walls issue, I'd like to go back to the questions. The minister keeps on
claiming that the audit will answer all these questions.
We know, as
we have established earlier, that the minister will not be releasing the Doug
Walls audit. In fact, the government will only release the conclusion from this
audit. So the public would actually have very little opportunity to see what
really happened with respect to that. The minister claims that these questions I
ask of her will be answered by the audit. As I said, if the conclusion does not
answer these questions, will the minister actually provide the information? Will
the minister provide the information afterwards?
[1435]
Hon. C.
Clark: She asked that question last night, but I'd be happy to answer it
again.
I'll
preface my comments, though, with an additional welcome to the school group from
Tupper. Tupper has been through some difficult challenges in the last little
while and has surmounted them. It's a great school. Great teachers, great
administration, great kids and great parents brought that school together
through a really difficult time. I want to join in saying welcome to those folks
who are here.
In answer
to the question, the audit is looking at the broad range of these issues. Our
government is going to be releasing the conclusions of the audit. In fact, we
are going to be expediting a freedom-of-information request. Contrary to the
member's regular assertions
[ Page 9736 ]
that someone is going to have to make an FOI request — not correct, not
accurate — we are going to be expediting an FOI request and making sure that
as much information comes out as is legally possible by doing that ourselves in
advance of any requests coming in.
There are
rules in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that govern
the protection of privacy. It's important that when government releases
information, we make sure that the individuals whose actions are commented on or
whose names are raised in audits are protected, if possible or if necessary. We
have to respect those parts of the act.
Perhaps I
could seek guidance from the member about where she sees the bounds of privacy
policy. Does she think that it is ever appropriate for government to hold back
information, if that information is being held back in order to protect the
privacy of individuals who might be unduly affected?
J. Kwan:
You know, the minister can continue to sidestep the questions. The reality is
this: they are only going to be prepared to release the conclusion of the audit.
I would suspect that the conclusion of the audit would not answer many of the
questions I've put to the minister to date. You know what? The minister can keep
on claiming that somehow those answers will magically be dealt with, but they
won't. I suspect they won't be.
Let me just
be clear about the Doug Walls situation. Earlier I put the chronology on the
record, but here's how Doug Walls, in terms of his involvement from his various
companies…. Doug Walls was a….
The
Chair: Hon. member, would you kindly take your seat, please. Your line of
questioning has become tedious and repetitious. I would suggest you move on to
some new material. You had commented that you have lots and lots of questions. I
would suggest you move on to a new subject. This has been well canvassed. You
spent almost the entire evening last night dealing with this subject. I would
suggest that now it's time to move on to another subject.
J. Kwan:
These are new questions. They have not been asked of the minister, and let me
put….
The
Chair: Member, this has been well canvassed. I would suggest that you move
on to a new subject.
J. Kwan:
It's a new question for the minister that I have not asked, so I would like to
put these new questions to the minister, if I may.
The
Chair: Take your seat, please. As I mentioned, your line of questioning has
become tedious and repetitious. You've spent a great deal of time on this
particular subject. It is now time to move on to another subject.
J. Kwan:
New questions, Mr. Chair. Here are new questions in the background relating to
this set of new questions I have for the minister.
The
Chair: Member, take your seat, please. I have said move on to a new subject.
This subject is well canvassed. It's time to move on to a different subject,
please.
J. Kwan:
I have to say that to date, the minister has not provided one answer to any of
my questions relating to the Doug Walls situation. It's a new question that has
nothing — nothing — to do with the internal audit of which only the
conclusions would be released. I would like answers from the minister and the
opportunity to ask the minister these questions.
Doug Walls
was involved with a whole host of companies….
The
Chair: Please take your seat. I have asked you to move on to a new subject.
If you can't find a new subject, I will call the question.
J. Kwan:
Well, I have to tell you that this is astounding in a day of democracy in this
very chamber….
The
Chair: Member, it's not your position…. Take your seat, please. It's not
your position to challenge the Chair. I have asked you to move on. You have
canvassed this subject thoroughly over a number of hours. I have asked you to
move on to a new subject, and I would suggest you do that. Proceed.
[1440]
J. Kwan:
Well, let me just put my thoughts about the operation of this government in
relation to this ministry in general terms then. According to the rules of the
House, I am able to put forward my thoughts and background before I put the
question. Isn't that right, Mr. Chair?
The
Chair: If you have a new subject you're dealing with, you're absolutely
correct. If you're dealing with the subject I've just spoken of, you are out of
order.
J. Kwan:
I am now putting questions to the minister generally about this government and
this ministry's operations. They're broad questions, but let me preface my
questions with these statements.
We have
democracy, so to speak, in Canada. We have democracy, so to speak, in British
Columbia. Elected members are elected in this House to ask questions of
ministers, executive council members — questions to which the public wants
answers. They have every right to do that, and I as an opposition member have
every right to do that. I am duly elected, just like anybody else in this
chamber.
The
government promised during the election campaign that they would be open and
accountable. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we have just seen right
now in this chamber. We see the government and the minister not wanting to
answer questions.
And it's
not just the issue around Doug Walls about which the minister won't answer.
Yesterday I can-
[ Page 9737 ]
vassed questions with the minister about budget dollars spending. The
minister refused to provide information in this chamber, with over $100 million
worth of spending, about what criteria applied to where the spending went. Who
got the moneys — these grants that supposedly went out to community groups?
The evaluation criteria that should have gone with these grants…. How much
money has gone out to these organizations? The minister refused to answer all of
those questions, Mr. Chair.
We now have
a pattern emerging from this government, and that is clear. The minister would
not answer questions that she claims will be dealt with in an audit that will
come later, of which only the conclusion portion will be subject to the public's
purview. She claims that all the questions I put to the minister would be
answered.
Now we have
a situation where I can't even put questions, with the exception that there is a
pattern that's been laid about this minister and this government about what it
is they're trying to hide. They try so very hard to hide everything. They try so
very hard to not answer questions on everything. They try so very hard to push
responsibility that is theirs to have…. It is their responsibility to own up
to, and they won't do that. They try to hide and stonewall every step of the
way. That's what we've been able to establish to date.
There are a
bunch of questions. You know what? These questions that I cannot ask about the
Doug Walls situation — we'll ask them to the Premier. We will put them in the
Premier's estimates. He is the head of the executive council who is ultimately
responsible, and he is the person who happens, in this case, to have his
relative involved in this situation. So we'll put these questions to the
Premier.
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
These are facts. You may not like the facts, but these are the facts as they
are.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: Say it out in the hall.
J. Kwan:
It's already been said, and it's been widely reported.
[1445]
I do find
it shocking, but you know what? In the rules of this House, I have no
opportunity to make the minister answer questions. I have no control over that
whatsoever. The minister will do whatever she likes and get away with it. These
are the rules of the House by which I must abide, so I will stand down those
questions and save them for the Premier's estimates. We'll be asking these
questions, every single one of them, of the Premier.
I'd like
now to go back to the issue around John Cargo. Last night I asked the minister
about John Cargo. She says she didn't have the information and that she will
have the information today. Here are the questions. My first question to the
minister: can she tell this House if a former MCFD area manager, somebody by the
name of John Cargo, is now contracted by the interim authority for the safeguard
and accountability management initiative?
Hon. C.
Clark: Further to the member's questions yesterday, I have inquired about
that information on her behalf. We are still seeking that information, though I
expect to have it by…. I will be able to provide it to her completely by the
end of estimates today, certainly.
J. Kwan:
Well, isn't that convenient? The day before yesterday I asked for information
for FTEs and the 40 percent cut that is going on in her ministry. That was in
the morning on Tuesday. She said I'd get them in the afternoon. By Wednesday
evening we still didn't have the information. Then, yesterday afternoon I asked
the minister the question about John Cargo. The minister says she'll have them
today. Today she says: "Well, we'll have them by the end of today."
Isn't that
convenient? So there's another set of questions which I'm not able to ask
because the minister consistently does not have the answers. Maybe the
minister's name, instead of being the Minister of Children and Family
Development, should be the minister of I don't know. The minister has no answers
for anything, it seems to me.
Then, let
me go to this set of questions. The minister says the strategic investments, as
she calls them, which are essentially the moneys that were unspent in the '02-03
budget cycle, which carry on to the '04-05 budget cycle because the government
is expecting reports on these grants that were not…. There was no tendering,
because there were no contracts. They were grants apparently. There were no
requests for proposals for these grant proposals, but over $100 million was
handed out to various organizations. I have a list of them.
I'd like to
ask the minister this question. The redirection of dollars within the ministry,
from one line item to another…. Normally, the procedure is such that you would
have to go to Treasury Board and ask for approval. These strategic investment
dollars that flowed out to community groups…. Did the ministry go back to
Treasury Board and ask for approval?
Hon. C.
Clark: Yeah. I think we've had a pretty extensive discussion about this for
a couple of hours already. The information that the member is seeking is from
the 2002-03 budget year. The debate today is about the 2004-05 budget year. If
she can make a question that connects the information she's seeking to the
2004-05 budget, it would certainly be easier for me to answer it while still
respecting the rules of this House.
J. Kwan:
You know, the minister keeps on hiding. Here's yet another effort of the
minister to not answer the question. There is a direct link, as she had admitted
yesterday. Where is that link? The minister is still expecting the evaluation
and the reports from these organizations about the moneys the government had
handed out at the end of the '02-03 fiscal year.
[ Page 9738 ]
[1450]
We're not
talking about a small amount of money here, Mr. Chair. We're talking about over
$100 million worth of grants that were given out. There is a direct link to the
'04-05 budget because the minister is still expecting these reports to come in
about the evaluation of how these grants helped the restructuring process, how
they helped serve children and families in our community today.
I would
expect her to answer the question. The more the minister hides, the more she
raises the suspicion of the government's mismanagement of this entire ministry
and this portfolio.
Hon. C.
Clark: I am unable to answer questions about the 2002-03 budget simply
because we don't…. I've got a lot of information in front of me here with
regard to just the '04-05 budget, which is what we're here to debate, but I
don't have information in front of me about the '02-03 budget. I offered the
other day — actually more than once, probably about ten times — to give the
member a full briefing on all the information about this, if she'd like it. We
could do that outside the context of this debate, where it would be appropriate
for that to happen and still respect the rules of the House. If she'd like to
have that briefing, I'm still waiting for her to take me up on the offer. We can
provide all the information she is seeking in that context, if that's what she'd
like.
J. Kwan:
It's interesting. The ADM who is responsible for financial matters in the
ministry is actually sitting right next to the minister. I'm sure that if she
wishes, the ADM would be able to advise her whether or not the government went
to Treasury Board on these matters, but she's not willing to do that. I suspect
she's trying to hide information. But you know what? As I said earlier, I have
no ability whatsoever to make the minister answer questions, even though it is
her responsibility to do so.
It is her
job to do so. British Columbians have the right to know what checks and balances
were in place. British Columbians have the right to know how government decided
$100 million could be spent, how it could be taken out of one line item and then
be thrown out there and spent. What kind of approvals were in place? The
minister won't answer these questions, and isn't that interesting?
I think it
just goes to show further this minister in her desperate attempt to hide
pertinent information from British Columbians. All right, I will take up the
minister's offer to do a briefing. In fact, I would like to set that time and
date now, because as is the historical practice in my experience with this
minister, when she promises she will do something with the opposition in terms
of providing information, she's often tardy in that — often tardy, and
sometimes it doesn't even materialize.
I'll give
an example, a case in point with my experience with the minister when she was in
her former capacity as the Minister of Education. She promised she would give a
briefing to the opposition on education issues, and that didn't happen. The
deputy had to actually take action….
The
Chair: Member, it's not appropriate to be referring to the minister's former
role. Keep with this Ministry of Children and Family Development.
J. Kwan:
Then I would like to set that time and date right here and now. How about
tomorrow? I would like to meet tomorrow and get this briefing from the ministry
staff. Tomorrow is Friday, and the House is not sitting. I would like to have
confirmation from the minister that we can have this briefing tomorrow and then
set it up for tomorrow.
Hon. C.
Clark: I'm not in Victoria tomorrow, because I'm in my constituency meeting
with my constituents and doing my work in representing the people I was elected
to represent. I plan — unlike the member opposite, I think — to run for
office again, and I want to be accountable to my constituents. I want to make
sure I'm listening to them, so I try and spend some days in my constituency
during the week. That means I don't spend every day in Victoria, so I'm afraid
I'm not here Friday.
I'm not
sure that for trying to make a date and time for a briefing, the best way to do
it is on the floor of the House of the Legislature. Perhaps what we could do is
have our staff arrange it, and then we could make sure the staff from the
ministry who need to be there also have some free time and are available — the
right people available at the right time. That would seem to me to be a better
way to arrange it. Perhaps they can get to work on that this afternoon.
J. Kwan:
The problem is this. Historically, the minister has never been at briefings with
the opposition, quite frankly. I actually don't need the minister's presence to
get this information. All I need is her staff to provide the information. The
minister says she needs to be in a constituency. To be frank with you, I need to
be in my constituency office as well, but I'm willing to delay those meetings
and get this pertinent information.
[1455]
We're
talking about $100 million of taxpayers' dollars. I don't know what happened to
it, where it went and how it was spent. There are critical issues around
accountability here, and I don't think it's something that we should push off.
Certainly, I would like to receive the information so we can actually debate
these matters, seeing as the minister is not prepared to provide the information
to this House.
Actually,
setting the time and date is quite critical because as I said, we have not been
successful to be able to get these meetings in a timely manner with the
minister. If tomorrow is no good, how about Monday? I would expect, then, if the
minister doesn't want to set the time in this House with me…. I would ask my
staff right now to establish that time with the minister's staff
[ Page 9739 ]
either for Friday or Monday — Monday before the House sits so that we can
get this information and move on.
Hon. C.
Clark: The issue isn't just about her and when she's available. It's about
staff too. I don't know. It's a little bit bizarre to try and…. In fact, I've
never in the entire time I've been elected watched a member of the Legislature
try and arrange a meeting on the floor of the Legislature during the time that
we have for debates. I think that's something that our staff can do. Remember
though, too: there are people in the ministry who will need to be present. I
don't know what their availability is and what their schedules are. I'm sure
that they will find time very soon to try and accommodate what the member needs.
It's a
little bit selfish to stand up and imagine that she and I can just make a date
on the floor of the Legislature and assume that everyone else is going to arrive
on some kind of command performance. We need to actually check with them, see
when they're available, make it a priority for them, of course, but make sure
that we're working with everybody else's needs as well as we can.
J. Kwan:
Isn't this fascinating, Mr. Chair? I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that a
meeting would not be able to be set up prior to estimates being over. I'll bet
you that the minister will direct her staff to not be available.
I think I
can understand why — the minister's logic in this. We're talking about over
$100 million of taxpayers' money that was handed out in the dying days of the
budget cycle of this government. These dollars were given out with no request
for proposal from the community. It is the normal practice when grants are given
out to the community that there are requests for proposals for consideration. No
requests for proposals were done. Then the government says….
Aside from
the fact that there were no requests for proposals, the government actually
didn't even make an announcement about these dollars, save and except for one.
One grant associated with it, and none of the others had announcements around
them. Much secrecy about that. Criteria as to what set up these grants for
evaluation? We don't know. How much were these grants? I have some information
which the minister would not confirm. Some grants are as big as $20 million for
one organization. The total amount is over 100 million bucks that is being given
out. These are substantive amounts of dollars. I don't know how many children
and families that are in need could use that money, how many meals it could pay
for in terms of these moneys. If it's not in the area of children and family
development, how many surgeries it could pay for in the health care system —
just to use some examples….
The
minister is refusing to provide a time and a date for this. This will probably
happen sometime in the fall maybe. I hope not. I'm asking my staff to phone the
ministry office right now to set up that time for this meeting. Maybe the
minister would be so kind as to provide this information as to who my staff
should be contacting right now to set up this meeting — from the ministry
staff's point of view and about the availability of the ministry staff. Who in
the ministry staff would have this knowledge that we should be contacting to see
about their availability for a meeting?
[1500]
Hon. C.
Clark: I hope that at some point we can get to talking about the issues as
opposed to booking the member's personal
schedule and trying to figure out how
she's going to be spending her time when she's not in the chamber. The purpose
of the time in the chamber is actually to debate the issues. If she'd like to
raise some issues and some questions, I'd be happy to continue to answer them as
best I can. Again, I don't think it's the best use of the House's time to try
and organize the member opposite's personal schedule.
The
Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, just to caution the member,
let's start dealing with some questions to the Ministry of Children and Family
Development.
J. Kwan:
Mr. Chair, you know, there are two opposition members. My goodness — two
opposition members, and the ministers and the government are stonewalling at
every turn to not provide information that is not just important for the
opposition….
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
The minister goes: "Oh, poor you." Well, no, poor British Columbians,
who have the right to know what happened to the $100 million. They have the
right to know what checks and balances were in place about the spending of these
moneys. They have the right to know what organizations got these moneys, and
they have the right to know that from this minister in an open and accountable
manner.
The
minister couldn't even say who the staff persons are that are responsible for
these moneys or have knowledge about these moneys. She says it has nothing to do
with the '04-05 budget. It's not true. Evaluation of these grants will be
undertaken in the '04-05 budget cycle by her staff, funded out of the '04-05
budget cycle, so it is directly linked.
Furthermore,
the minister claims these programs would yield savings for the ministry for the
long term for the purposes of restructuring, as restructuring is an ongoing
process that the minister claims will go beyond '04-05. If that is the case,
there is no question — and there should be no question in anybody's mind —
that there is a direct link between these dollars and these grants into the
'04-05 budget. Her refusal to answer them, her refusal to even advise the House
who are the staff that would have this knowledge, is outrageous.
I would
like to ask the minister this question seeing she won't provide the names of the
people we could set up meetings with. Then who are the staff in the minis-
[ Page 9740 ]
try that will be reviewing the reports that come in from these grants? Who
are the staff members that will be doing that work?
Hon. C.
Clark: I, as minister, am responsible for all of these matters. If the
member wants information about it…. As I've said, I have offered it to her.
We're going to arrange a time to be able to accommodate her when we can provide
her with this information. I would be happy to do that.
Nebbeling: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
Nebbeling: Ten minutes ago I met with a group of grade 6 students from
Ridgeview Elementary School in the corridors. We had a quick little chat about
British Columbia, Victoria, the Royal British Columbia Museum and what we do in
the House. It was interesting, Mr. Chair. We did a few questions. One of the
questions was by one of the students: "How old do you have to be to be
elected?" I don't know if this was just a general question or if this young
man visiting today is already getting the taste of becoming a politician.
The second
question was: "How do you feel about the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter
Games?" I told him I think it's going to be one of the very best events
ever to happen in British Columbia. They clearly shared that sentiment, because
they had big smiles on their faces.
They are
accompanied by Mr. Tim Wooldridge, who is their teacher, and five adults. I hope
you can make the whole group extremely welcome.
[1505]
Debate Continued
J. Kwan:
The minister won't provide the names of the staff who will be reviewing
these evaluations and the reports that are coming in. She claims she is
responsible. She claims that she will live up to those responsibilities, yet she
will not answer any of the questions in this House.
You know
what? More and more, as the minister carries on in this fashion, it is becoming
clearer and clearer that the minister wants to hide deeper and deeper into a
hole so that perhaps by doing that, none of it — maybe, she hopes — will
ever see daylight. So the public will never know how badly this government had
mismanaged the restructuring of the Ministry of Children and Family Development,
and the public will never know the Doug Walls scandal in terms of how it has
impacted the community at large and how it has wasted taxpayers' dollars.
What we do
know, of course, is that the interim authority under the leadership of Doug
Walls, who had to resign, has spent millions of dollars in this process. I would
now like to ask the minister these questions around the interim authority under
the leadership of Doug Walls. How is it possible that over $1 million a month
was spent with the interim authority under the leadership of Doug Walls? How is
that possible? Where did the moneys go?
The
Chair: Member, I think we had this discussion earlier about this topic. The
minister is not standing to respond to your questions, and clearly she feels as
though she has responded to your questioning. So, once again, move on to
something other than that particular topic.
J. Kwan:
Mr. Chair, it is not about Doug Walls; it is about the interim authority.
The interim authority under the leadership….
The
Chair: If this isn't about Doug Walls, why is Doug Walls's name coming up?
The fact is that you are now getting back to the same subject we had a
discussion on earlier and that you are out of order. Move on to a new subject.
J. Kwan:
Let me ask this question, Mr. Chair. The interim authority managed to spend over
$1 million a month. Where did those moneys go?
Hon. C.
Clark: Mr. Chair, I take your direction as well. We've canvassed this
topic very extensively not just today but yesterday. I will tell the member
again that we are, as a government, looking very much forward to the results of
the audit that we initiated. We are going to make sure — we have made sure —
the audit is as fulsome and complete as possible, looks at the full scope of the
issues that are out there and answers most of the questions — I'm sure, all of
the questions, probably even more of the questions than the member has even
thought about.
We have
moved to make sure the conclusions of the auditor are made public — that is
not a normal practice of audits; it certainly wasn't a normal practice of audits
under her government — and we are expediting a freedom-of-information request
so we can get as much information out into the public as possible before anyone
even has to ask.
We want to
do that. The reason we are subjecting it to freedom-of-information rules is
because it is not just the Freedom of Information Act; it is also the Protection
of Privacy Act. Government has an obligation to protect people's privacy. That
is something the member, I would have thought, would have been aware of. It was
her government that passed that legislation. I assume she would have been part
of the debate that formulated the building blocks, the creation, of that
legislation.
We have
those obligations before us. Unless she is asking me to break the law, the law
that she introduced, I hope she would tell this House — put it on the record
at least — that she does expect that the government will respect the
principles of privacy that we are obligated to protect, and that she does
understand that
[ Page 9741 ]
the act is a statutory obligation that guides all members of the government
to protect individuals' privacy. People's privacy and people's reputations are
fragile things, and we need to make sure, in the course of doing business and in
the course of the heat of politics and partisanship, that we don't go out there
and damage reputations just so we can try and get ahead politically.
[1510]
That's not,
I'm sure, what the member wants to do. But if she does want to do that, if she
does think that we should ignore the rights of people to maintain their privacy,
perhaps she could tell me what the bounds of protecting privacy are in her view.
Where does she think government should stop in releasing information?
Does she
believe there should be limits on how much information the government releases
if there is reason to believe — good reason to believe — that the
information that is released could harm the reputation, irreparably, of innocent
individuals? If she believes those limits exist, where does she think those
limits are? And if she thinks there are limits, how does she know in advance of
this report even being done where she would draw that line? This report hasn't
even concluded its investigative phase, much less been completed and submitted,
so we don't know what the bounds of privacy would be in that report.
When she
stands up and says she wants the entire report to be released, what she is
saying is that she has absolutely no regard for the right to privacy of
individuals who might be affected. She has absolutely no regard for the statute
that she had a hand in creating, which is supposed to guide government, which
government is obligated to uphold to ensure we protect the privacy of
individuals. That is the statute that I am legally obligated under the law of
the land to uphold. I don't intend to violate that statute.
If that
member has suggestions about how we might change the law or how we might somehow
ensure that before this report is even finished we could protect the privacy of
individuals and release all of it, I would challenge her to stand up once and
for all and tell this House how she thinks that can be done. If she doesn't have
any regard for the privacy of individuals, I would be happy to have that debate
with her.
I would be
happy to stand in this House and debate with her any day of the week the rights
that every citizen of this province has to have their privacy protected, the
right that every individual in this province has to know that when their
information is in the possession of the government, it will not be shared
publicly to their harm. Every individual, every citizen in our province, has the
right to know that their privacy will be protected.
If this
member doesn't care about those principles, if this member doesn't have any
regard for the rights of people to protect their own privacy, she should stand
up and declare her views right now.
J. Kwan:
It seems to me that the minister has just opened the debate on Doug Walls all
over again. She went on and on about these issues, and it seems to me that she's
just opened the debate and is inviting questions. Of course, she actually didn't
answer my question that I put to her. It wasn't about Doug Walls, but it was
about the interim authority.
The interim
authority goes beyond Doug Walls. There were other people who were involved in
that interim authority. We know that over a million dollars was spent a month.
I'm asking the minister what work was accomplished out of that spending. The
minister wouldn't provide an answer.
You know
what? At that time, the interim authority didn't even have a bank account. They
didn't even have a bank account until February 2003, and by March 2003 they had
produced very little apart from a project management plan for the interim
authority, of which I have a copy. In fact, their operations were so chaotic
that the former minister claims he didn't even know at that point who the CEO
was. When the question came up in last year's estimates debate, he actually gave
the wrong answer.
The project
plan that the interim authority worked on — is that the only thing that was
delivered for $3.47 million? Is that the only thing that came out of the interim
authority?
Hon. C.
Clark: Well, the member made reference to a number of a million dollars a
month, which I think, according to the calendar I use, means $12 million a year.
Now she is saying that it was $3.47 million. I'm not sure which reference she
would like me to base my answer on. I know that the member does not have a great
deal of regard for protecting people's privacy. She doesn't have a great deal of
regard for ensuring that the facts she is using in the House are even accurate.
[1515]
The budget
for the interim authority for the entirety of last year was $3.5 million, and
I'm quite prepared to read into the record again some of the accomplishments of
the community living B.C. interim authority, which I did, I should note, read
into the record yesterday as well. But in order to refresh the member's memory,
I will do it again.
They
developed a project management plan for the work of the interim authority. They
developed a service delivery model for the new authority. They designed
infrastructure to support that service delivery model. They worked in
partnership with the ministry to develop an individualized funding policy and
implementation plan, budget plan and the approach. They developed a plan for the
provision of independent community-based planning support for individuals with
developmental disabilities and their families. They developed a risk management
plan, wait-list management options, outcomes and standards and self-reporting
mechanisms, safeguarding framework, information management plan, outcome
standards and a children with special needs policy framework.
That's a
list of some of the accomplishments of the board. The budget for the board last
year was not $12 million, as the member suggested. Again, it was $3.5
[ Page 9742 ]
million. I would hope that for the remainder of the debate, the member can
start showing some regard at least for the facts and start having this debate on
the basis of actual current information as opposed to rumours, suggestions and
baseless information, which she seems to be bringing forward so far.
J. Kwan:
The information that I've received was from somebody who was part of the
interim authority, who actually knew what was going on and minutes flowing from
that. The minister says: "Oh, they're wrong." Okay. Everybody else is
wrong, once again, except for the minister.
The
minister says there is a whole bunch of work that has been delivered out of this
authority — great. Has any of that been produced for the public's consumption?
Has the public been able to look at any of that work?
Hon. C.
Clark: Again, I'd refer the member to the website for the interim authority.
They have volumes and volumes of information available there about the progress
they have made on many of these projects.
J. Kwan:
Are those the reports that were delivered from the interim authority?
Hon. C.
Clark: The interim authority produced a huge amount of information for the
Collins panel. They considered that. That was reported out publicly. Some more
information, as I said, is available over the website if the member would care
to look it up.
J. Kwan:
Actually, we have looked at that website, and so have the people who have
been e-mailing with these questions to the minister. They have actually seen all
of the websites that the minister refers to. You know what? The information that
the minister claims is there is lacking in terms of substance, and people are
very concerned about that. If that's all that's been done under the interim
authority for the amount of money that has been spent, it does raise the
question once again on the issue around accountability and where this government
has spent taxpayers' dollars accordingly.
Are there
any other reports or documents flowing from the work of the interim authority
that are not posted on the website, which has not yet made it to the public for
the public's consumption?
Hon. C.
Clark: I think the member, as I recall, did spend some time in government.
I'm sure she's aware that government produces a lot of paper, a lot of reports.
Much of that is publicly available — not all of it. The interim authority, I
know, has endeavoured to make as much relevant information public as they can.
J. Kwan:
Well, lots of money has been spent in the interim authority. Lots of money
has been lost with the Doug Walls scandal. Lots of money has been lost or spent
on the restructuring process. The community has the right to know exactly what's
been done with all these dollars, and the minister won't come clean in terms of
providing that information to the public.
Aside from
the information that is posted on the website, what other reports were there
from the interim authority that arose out of the work they have done, and could
the public get access to this information? Will the minister release them
publicly?
[1520]
Hon. C.
Clark: The authority has been working very hard for the last couple of
years. They've produced a lot of paper, and they've made as much of that public
as I think is relevant for the public. They are also, it is important to note,
currently travelling around the province to consult the community and talk to
them about what's important and what's going on with the authority.
J. Kwan:
Let me just put this letter on the record, and I would like the minister's
response to it.
Interjections.
J. Kwan:
The minister says whenever I run out of questions, I read letters into the
record. No, Mr. Chair. Here is a full binder of questions I have regarding this
ministry. I have no hesitation in asking many questions. That's only one of the
binders, and here is the other one from which I'm canvassing questions with the
minister. So I have two binders of questions with this.
This letter
came in to the opposition. I do want the minister's response to it, because I
think she's trying to hide and not have to deal with these situations. It is a
letter, actually, from someone who was part of the transition committee on
community living. It is someone who has resigned from the transition committee
on community living, and the letter reads as follows:
"I'm
writing to request that you please accept my resignation from the Community
Living Transition Committee. I've written to you in the past expressing my many
concerns about the TSC process and about the vague and deficient nature of the
human resources and finance committee recommendations.
"On
September 13, I attended the committee meeting to review other
recommendations. These were also vague, incomplete and failed to deal with the
major challenges facing community living. After reading the recommendations and
listening to the reports, it is also evident there is no clear vision of the new
structure associated with the new provincial authority.
"Form
generally follows function, but many of the functions necessary in the
implementation of any service delivery system are ignored. Significant
limitations that will be encountered in implementation are also ignored. I was
speechless throughout the meeting.
"There
is really nothing more that I can say or do. I have repeatedly raised the
issues that I felt were of greatest significance to dealing with the challenges
imposed by the ministry's budget and service plans but was ignored, told not to
raise these issues again or accused of criticizing the good work of others.
"During
the past three months I've tried my best in spite of my belief that
families are being misled through a
[ Page 9743 ]
process that does not take the magnitude of your government's proposed
budget cuts into consideration. This is irresponsible at best and deceitful at
worst. Families of adults, children and infants yet unborn will be impacted by
the plan that is implemented to address your budget targets.
"They
have not yet been informed of the realities that they'll be facing, and
in the meantime government has spent $1.4 million on a plan that will not
deliver what you have clearly stated you need — a provincial authority and a
total of $120 million in funding reductions. To put this in a client-service
perspective, $1.4 million would have purchased the services of about 30 FTE
staff who could have supported at least 150 wait-listed clients for one full
year in supported living or day programs.
"The
coalition members of the transition steering committee seem to now be
aware of the budget limitations within which you must operate. They're denying
they were aware of them prior to this month, in spite of the fact the general
public was clear on government's intentions in February when all budget and
service plans were published and released by cabinet. They insist that you or
someone with equal authority assure them that community living would be exempt
and are now voicing their concerns publicly, asking families to demand that the
cuts not take place.
"I'm
also aware that in their core services proposal to you, the coalition
indicated that community living could withstand 20 percent budget cuts. I would
like to reinforce to you again that the Developmental Disabilities Association
and the Vancouver-Richmond region cannot withstand significant cuts without
closing programs and placing clients in jeopardy.
"As
you know, the Developmental Disabilities Association already launched a
campaign to protest the cuts, and we feel that additional funding, not less, is
required to meet the needs of people with developmental disabilities and their
families in the community. Your response to the campaign was that the budget
cuts were not negotiable. You were additionally against the concept of segregate
care, and you have gone on the public record stating that your government is not
supportive of any action that would result in reinstitutionalization.
[1525]
"Your
response to the issue of income testing and eligibility restrictions was that if
we could come up with a way to avoid a negative impact of these potential
policies and stay within budget limits, you would be supportive. I do not see
where the current recommendations proposed by the Community Living Transition
Steering Committee will meet your budget targets or create a provincial
authority that is practical in terms of implementation. I'm also extremely
concerned that the current community living structure will collapse in the face
of the chaos that will soon be upon us. I'm afraid that people with
developmental disabilities and their families will be in great peril.
"You
will also note that the human resources and finance report includes
income testing. You may also know that although the transition steering
committee is dealing with issues of tremendous import to your ministry and the
public at large and although the transition steering committee offers only vague
solutions, there is a solution that recommends government proceed with a $1.2
million technology project, in spite of the fact that we do not yet know what
data we need to collect and there is currently no RFP for this work.
"The
Developmental Disabilities Association agreed to contribute my expertise
for the creation of solutions in response to a new era of problems. I have not
been able to do so on the steering committee and am embarrassed to have my name
associated with this report.
"It
is now imperative that I focus my attention on the extent to which the
association and the communities in Vancouver and Richmond will be able to
respond positively to the dramatic challenges that will quickly be upon us. I'm
happy to assist with provincial issues as I'm able and happy to work with senior
bureaucrats to offer community input.
"Otherwise,
my recommendations to you are relatively unchanged since last March. You
must honestly inform individuals and families of imminent changes and request
their feedback and input, and we must create an atmosphere of cooperation with
the many other stakeholders in community living: the unions, municipal
governments, community groups, other ministries, health providers and so on.
Without the cooperation and focus of all parties on the special needs agenda,
people with developmental disabilities in this province will be unsupported and
vulnerable to all manner of potential disasters. Many will suffer and some may
die.
wish the coalition the best of success in negotiating increased funding
with you. Having accepted your reality of budget limitations a long time ago,
however, I believe that we must all get back to work so the people we support
are as safe as possible throughout the looming change in the service delivery
model and significant budget reductions. I'm envious of the work already
completed in the children's area of your ministry and wish that community living
had moved ahead in such an orderly, transparent fashion.
"Please
advise of your decision. As always, all free advice from you is welcome.
"Yours truly,
Alanna Hendren
Executive Director"
This is
coming from someone who was on the steering committee, who has resigned because
she felt — in my reading of her letter and my understanding of the situation
— that in spite of her best efforts, she was not able to get the government to
respond to the concerns she had raised. She was very fearful about the impacts
of the changes that were looming, the chaos, the disaster that is now upon the
communities with this restructuring situation. With that, she offered her letter
of resignation.
The
Developmental Disabilities Association of Vancouver has continued to raise other
matters, and they have written letter after letter to the Premier, to the former
minister, to the current minister — to basically anybody, I think, in
government that they hoped would listen. Now, with all of these changes and with
these budget cuts, people are saying disaster is coming and there are going to
be problems with them.
I would
like the minister, first of all, to respond to Alanna Hendren's letter.
Hon. C.
Clark: That letter was written in 2002 — two years ago — so the previous
minister did respond to that publicly, I think. I'm trying to track down whether
indeed there was correspondence that went in addition to that, but certainly,
publicly, the minister
[ Page 9744 ]
responded to that letter. I will let his comments stand. That's information
that's been in the public domain for a long time.
We had a
process that we worked through with the people who provide service, including
the DDA and other groups. I think it is no secret that all of the service
providers would like it if there was more money available in the kitty to spend.
Nonetheless, we worked with them to try and come up with some of the best
solutions, given the available amount of money. It was very hard work.
[1530]
You know, I
don't think there is any shying away from that. It was difficult, challenging
work. There were debates that happened. There were, I'm sure, tears that were
shed. It was a difficult, difficult process, but in the end we worked
cooperatively with the service providers to come up with these changes, to work
within the available budget in a way that doesn't put at risk people who depend
on us to provide those services.
This year
we are looking at a 4 percent budget cut, as I said — $70 million. More than
half of that is going to be coming out of lower demand for service, because
there are fewer children coming into government care, and out of compensation
that has been agreed to — or is currently being agreed to, I hope — in the
collective agreement that's on the floor for debate between the union and the
employer right now.
Those
aren't changes to service levels. For the member to stand and quote a letter
from 2002 and characterize that as current policy, as current activity of the
government, just isn't accurate. It is a year and a half, two years later now,
and we are reaching budget stability in this sector. We've done that with a lot
of work — a lot of blood, sweat and tears — from the people who deliver the
services in the sector. We did it cooperatively. It was difficult work, but
nonetheless we're certainly very, very close to our goal.
J. Kwan:
Well, the minister, on the one hand, just thanked the people who participated in
the interim authority and who did some of the work prior to this. Of course, now
I put on record a letter from a woman who in her heart and soul actually devoted
time and effort into that process. In her own conscience, she could not continue
on with it, because it was going nowhere and it was set up for failure, in her
mind. Chaos was looming, and she was particularly worried about the children and
adults and families that would be impacted in the community by this.
She
resigned, and all of a sudden, now, her letter is not relevant? Her letter is
every bit relevant to what is going on, because little has changed, save and
except that the scandal that has broken has become public. That's what's
changed. Everything else remained the same, quite frankly, Mr. Chair.
There is
actually a further e-mail about this entire restructuring process that's deeply
concerning — about the entire process of how untendered contracts took place,
the competitive process for hiring was disregarded, conflict of interest and
potential conflict of interest issues were ignored. These issues are now before
us. Of course, the fearful thing about all of that is that the children and the
people who need the services would be lost in the middle of this mismanagement
crisis created by this Liberal government.
I just want
to be clear as well…. The million dollars a month that was spent, which I
referenced earlier, is based on the $3.5 million, '02-03 budget being spent over
January to March 2003, because the interim authority wasn't even operational
before that. So these numbers are valid, and they are from people who were part
of that system. They weren't made up, Mr. Chair.
The
minister said yesterday that the report I referenced…. There was someone who
had e-mailed me and said the minister, in fact, actually had a report relating
to the restructuring process. The minister claims that there was no such report
and that she hadn't received such a report. I've now tracked down further
information regarding this report, which came out in a press release from the
government on February 14, 2004. The release is entitled Vision Reaffirmed
for Community-Based Governance . It goes on to cite a report that was agreed
to by the interim authority for a Bert Boyd to develop. I would like to ask the
minister: what is the status of that report, and is it public?
[1535]
Hon. C.
Clark: I answered this question a couple of days ago. I'm happy to refresh
the member, though. The report is…. We are working on it at the…. The author
is working on it still. We hope that it will be released sometime very, very
soon.
I want to
just clarify for her the budget for the community living transition; $3.47
million is the entire budget for '02-03, contrary to her information. That
included $1.8 million in operating and $1 million in capital that the interim
authority spent between November 2002 and March 2003.
J. Kwan:
Yesterday the minister claimed the report was not out, and the minister
continued to say that, but according to the minister's own release, it says the
transition plan will be delivered with the recommendations from Bert Boyd by
February 27, 2004. We're now into March. So the minister has to report,
according to her own press release, that the report was to be out on February
27. February 27 is well past. We're almost into April now, actually — close to
getting to April. Is the minister saying the report has been delayed?
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
If so, there is no public information about that. This release was sent out on
February 11, 2004. The minister, in less than 16 days, was expecting to receive
the report, and she is good enough to put it on a release to say that they
expect this report on February 27. Today, March 25, the minister, when I asked
her if the report has been delayed — there is no public information to let the
public know that is in fact the case — sits there and says: "What do you
think?"
[ Page 9745 ]
If it's
delayed, the public has the right to know. How could it be that less than 16
days before the report is due, the ministry was sending out a release dated
February 11 saying they expect the recommendations? What kind of show are we
running here? Good grief.
Interjections.
J. Kwan:
You know, Mr. Chair, I can tell you this. The minister says: "How many
reports have you guys delivered on time?" I will tell you this, Mr. Chair,
to the minister: I certainly as minister would not send out a press release 16
days before a report is expected saying that I'm expecting the report, if it is
to be delayed. I certainly would expect that the minister would have some
inkling it was going to be delayed. And if it is delayed, why didn't the
government send out a press release to tell everybody it was delayed?
Hon. C.
Clark: The press release the member refers to is a press release that
announced the commissioning of the report, and that was in the second week of
February. The time line was very ambitious. It was for the report to come back
within about two weeks. It was too ambitious. We do hope, though, to be able to
get this report out very quickly. Remember, too, that the board changed in the
interim while the report was being done, so that has had some impact on our
ability to deliver it in a timely way.
We do want
to deliver it very soon. We want to make sure it gets out there publicly as
quickly as possible. We don't want to rush it because we set an overly ambitious
time line at the very beginning, but we want to make sure it gets out there as
quickly as possible.
It is
ironic, I must say, to hear this member talk, condemning anyone else for being a
month late in finishing a report. I cannot remember, in the five years I sat in
opposition, even once that the government she served with in cabinet delivered
any report on time. In fact, I am sure there were times when there were reports
that didn't get delivered at all.
J. Kwan:
The minister can spew the nonsense if she wants, but it doesn't matter. It
doesn't matter, because the proof is in the pudding. The public will know, and
they can judge this government's performance — as they are judging this
government's performance to date.
Hon. J.
Les: May 17 next year. See you there.
[1540]
J. Kwan:
Actually, the latest poll shows some of that information. Keep it up. All I can
say is keep it up — you know? Good work. Good work as you trail behind. Keep
it up.
The
government says the information it receives on the plans that it does often
relies on expert advice. Has the minister looked into the expert advice of one
Dr. Jim Anglin?
Hon. C.
Clark: Professor Anglin is a professor at UVic, but if the member could
perhaps be more specific in her question, it would be helpful.
J. Kwan:
Dr. Jim Anglin is someone that the former minister often cited as someone to
whom he looked with expertise and advice. He often referred to the work of Dr.
Anglin. It's interesting that in spite of that, the government proceeded with
some of the plans they had, because Dr. Anglin actually came out with a book
that has been released which urges the retention of child residential care. The
book, by the University of Victoria child and youth care professor Dr. Jim
Anglin, says the provincial government should retain, not reduce,
community-based group homes as part of its child and youth care system.
"The government is shutting down a lot of these programs, so I felt I was
studying an endangered species," says Anglin. "I was prepared to learn
that maybe these services weren't good for young people."
However,
Anglin's research for the book Pain, Normality and the Struggle for
Congruence shows that residential care in a group home setting is sometimes
exactly what children need before they are ready to enter the intimacy of a
foster or family home. "Some children had such traumatic experiences living
in their own families or with other families that they're not prepared to live
in that intimidating environment," says Anglin. "They need something
like a group home that has staff who are professionally trained and can address
their needs primarily."
"The
conundrum for me is we create an artificial living environment to help children
learn to live more normally in natural settings," says Anglin. "My
research shows it can actually happen in the home if the home is well run."
part of the five-year research process that went into the book, Anglin spent 14
months studying the operations at ten group homes in British Columbia. Through
observations and interviews with staff and children, he developed a theoretical
framework of a good group home, which he defines as having a number of essential
characteristics, including having the best interests of children at its core.
"The framework is simply enough to carry with you as a guide," says
Anglin, who wrote the book for other researchers, educators, policy-makers and
practitioners. "These are insights I got from people doing the work and
from the children themselves."
Pain,
Normality and the Struggle for Congruence — that's the book I'm talking
about. Does the minister have any knowledge about this book? Does this ring a
bell now?
Hon. C.
Clark: No question, people worry about change. People raise concerns about
change whenever it happens, and I think that's quite a legitimate part of
transforming what we do in any organization. Of course concerns are raised, and
that's a legitimate part of public debate that we need to have, and we need to
listen to those voices.
I think,
though, that the proof in this case is really in the pudding. When you look at
the outcomes and
[ Page 9746 ]
the success that this ministry has had in the last two and a half years
compared to the work the member was responsible for when she was in government,
the number of children who have been adopted into permanent, stable homes has
doubled, which is an incredible story for all of those children. Most of them
are special needs kids.
[1545]
An even
better piece of good news, I think, is that the number of children who are
coming into contact with the criminal justice system is dropping. The number of
children who are coming into the care of the ministry who are in contact with
the Ministry of Human Resources is also dropping, contrary to the assertions the
member likes to make. The amount of group conferencing we're able to do to bring
families together, put them around a table and talk about the future of an
individual child is for the first time allowed under legislation. We are now,
under legislation, able to place children in what we call kith-and-kin
arrangements so the children are placed in their home community, if possible —
if they need to be taken away from their parents in the short term — so that
they can stay in touch with their cultural heritage. That's something that's so
important for aboriginal children.
The number
of cases that go to alternative dispute resolution as opposed to ending up
waiting for a court case to happen is also increasing. I will tell you what that
means — and specifically. For example, in Surrey, where often the ministry
would have to wait for up to 14 months to get a court decision about whether a
child could be permanently removed from the family…. So that means 14 months
for an infant, for example. That child would be in limbo without a permanent
caregiver to attach to while they waited in the lineup for the court to deal
with them so that the ministry could say this child was available to be adopted.
That's a tremendous loss for that child.
Through the
use of alternative dispute resolution, what we've done is lowered that court
wait time, and we've made it possible to move children through the court system
more quickly so they're available for adoption more quickly. You can't
underestimate what that means for a child. With little, little guys, you can't
talk in terms of months or years even. Let's talk in terms of weeks. There are
988 weeks of childhood before a kid turns six. We have to make sure that we
maximize every one of those opportunities, every one of those weeks, for a child
to be able to make contact with a permanent, stable, loving caregiver that will
be with them for the rest of their lives.
Those are
the results of some of the changes we've made. Not everything is perfect. We've
got more to do — absolutely. We can do some things better, but I think we are
on the right track. We are starting to see the results of the work that we're
doing. Although the member can stand up and talk about how things are getting
worse, the fact is the proof is in the pudding. If you look at the results,
you'll see the results for many, many children in British Columbia are better
than they would ever have been if the previous government had stayed in power.
J. Kwan:
I thought I was in the zoo for a minute, but I realized I'm in the Legislature,
and what I heard were not trained seals but people.
The
Chair: Member, that's not appropriate…
J. Kwan:
I realize that.
The
Chair: …to define this respected chamber as a zoo. I take personal offence
to that. I'd ask you to withdraw that.
J. Kwan:
Sorry, Mr. Chair. If I've offended you, I withdraw. I was just stating —
speaking out loud — in terms of where I thought I was for a minute.
Let me just
put this on the record for the minister as well. The minister says that there
are group homes, and they need to be phased out. This is what this government is
doing; they're shutting down group homes across British Columbia. Individualized
plans, foster homes…. And I'm not disputing the need for good foster homes for
children. There is no doubt about that. I'm not disputing that for one moment.
In question
period today we raised a matter that was actually brought to our attention by
staff within the ministry that said there is an increase in the children-in-need
numbers because of the policies of the Ministry of Human Resources, because of
the cuts in income assistance and the reductions in that ministry. That is
impacting children. As a result, poverty has also now become a central issue for
children protection areas.
In fact,
the ministry is collecting this information so that they could go back to
Treasury Board to ask for increased funding. That is what's happening. And you
know what? The information came from the ministry and from the staff that are
working very, very hard in the ministry in light of these difficult
circumstances.
[1550]
Let me say
this in terms of the work and the research that's been done and the book that's
been written called Pain, Normality and the Struggle for Congruence by
Dr. Anglin. There was a book review of this book, and let me just put part of
the review on record. It isn't just a good read, according to the book review
— from what I can glean from it. It's more than that. Here's what the book
review says:
"To
start with Jim Anglin's work, this is a brilliant book which will become one of
the standard texts on residential child care. Any criticisms in this review have
been seen against this overall judgment.
"Jim
is the director of the child and youth care course at the University of
Victoria in British Columbia, Canada. The course has developed an excellent
reputation, both in Canada and internationally, and in reading about Jim's
thinking, you understand why the course has achieved its standing.
"Jim
undertook a sabbatical and decided to try to get under the skin of
good-quality residential child care. He
[ Page 9747 ]
wanted to know what made it successful and adopted the grounded-theory
approach to his research. In essence, this meant that rather than collecting
masses of data and analyzing it before reaching conclusions or setting up a
hypothesis and testing it, Jim visited a sample of children's homes to observe
what was actually happening and to try to identify the main concepts that the
homes appear to be working with."
The
document goes on to say that Jim then goes on to his main conclusions, which are
the points that I want to bring forward.
"He
found that the homes were trying to achieve three things: to create
extra-familial living environments for the children, to respond to the
children's pain and pain-based behaviour, and to develop a sense of normality.
The book, at its best, analyzes the task of group homes for children where there
is a useful distinction in the differing roles of residential and foster care,
criticizing the comparisons often made as to which is better for children and
pointing out their prospective qualities."
This
is a critical component in this review. I'd like to repeat this paragraph.
"The
book, at its best, analyzes the task of group homes for children where there is
a useful distinction in the differing roles of residential and foster care,
criticizing the comparisons often made as to which is better for children and
pointing out their prospective qualities."
There
is much more in terms of what it says about this book in this book review, but
these are the main points that I want to bring forward to share with the members
of the House. In fact, there's one more piece I want to bring forward to share
with members of this House.
"The
essential chapters of this book should be read by anyone training to work in
residential child care and by those who have been critics of work in the
residential setting.
"Too
often residential care has been dismissed as institutional — for
example, in the Stockholm Declaration — and of course it can be, but Jim's
description of life in good group homes and its impact on the children and young
people shows that it can be a very powerful tool to enable the residents to cope
with the problems they face and to reorient themselves."
That's
the issue here. It isn't about what is better necessarily, and it isn't about
what the bottom line is in terms of government structures. It's about options.
It's about offering options to the people who need and have the right to choose
options. For some, residential group homes work very well, as has been
identified from experts in the field and as I have often heard from parents out
there with children who need this kind of care or with adults with developmental
disabilities.
I'm not
disputing the good work that foster parents do as well. They, too, have a role,
but the issue that is central here is about choice. It's not about one or the
other, yet the government is taking the approach, really, to say one or the
other as they move towards closing group homes. The ministers, in their research
— did they look at Dr. Anglin's work at all? Did they contact the University
of Victoria, which has a tremendous reputation, which is home-based in terms of
the child and youth care perspectives? Did the minister include them in their
research with respect to policies that the government should be undertaking?
[1555]
Hon. C.
Clark: I suspect that the member hasn't actually read the book, so basing
her
interpretation of Dr. Anglin's work, I think, on one book review is probably
not a very accurate way to try and describe the points he's making.
Now, I
haven't read the book either, but I do think it is quite possible to take a
different
interpretation from even what she has read into the record, and that's
this. What we need to do — and I think this is expressed in the book review
and is certainly something that we espouse as a ministry — is find a balance
between family care and group care. That's very much what we are focused on
doing as a ministry. For the member to stand up and suggest we are getting rid
of group care is just absolutely wrong. We are trying to find a balance between
the two. You know, that's in recognition of the fact that even as far back as
the 1930s, researchers recognized that putting children into family settings is
often a better way to support them than putting them into more
institutional-type settings.
There are a
whole bunch of other factors that will vary, depending on the child, as well.
Some children are better off without the kind of peer influence that they might
get in a group setting; some kids will need a group setting. It depends on the
child. But we have to make sure that we design a system that is balanced and
that meets the needs of children who should be in family-type settings and
children who should be in group-type settings. Both of them are necessary.
The
challenge for government is to make sure the mix we're providing is the right
one and to make sure the mix we're providing meets the changing demographics in
the population. The population we have today of children in care is different in
age and characteristics from even the population we had in care ten years ago,
so we have to make sure the services we're providing meet the needs of those
populations. We need to make sure there is a range of services we provide. We're
working on doing that, and I think we are very much moving toward a province
where the services we're providing do represent a better mix to meet the needs
of the children that depend on us to provide them their services.
J. Kwan:
The minister says they're trying to provide a mix and that they're not
shutting down group homes. The parents in the community are saying something
very different than what this minister is now saying. Let's put this on the
record. How many group homes have closed under this government's tenure, and how
many group homes are slated to be closed?
Hon. C.
Clark: Group homes are closing, and group homes are opening. I think the
statement the member made that I objected to was that we are phasing out group
homes. That is just simply not true, and it's irresponsible to say that. It is
irresponsible for a
[ Page 9748 ]
member who pretends to be a leader in this province to stand up and make
those kinds of statements because, first, they're totally, totally untrue; and
second, if anyone believes her, it could be tremendously frightening.
We are
talking about people in a very vulnerable population. I know the member likes to
play politics, and I know she loves to engage in partisanship. So do I. But it
is just not right to spew out that kind of inaccurate information that could so
seriously undermine the confidence of a very vulnerable population when we all
— not just people in government but people in the opposition too, people who
have taken on the mantle of leadership in our province, who have taken on the
responsibility of representing their constituents — have a responsibility to
care for their well-being.
J. Kwan:
You know, the minister can accuse me of providing misinformation all she wants,
but you know what? The information that I have received actually comes from
parents who experienced that their children have to be moved or are faced with a
situation where they have to move from a group home or residential care home
because it is being shut down. In fact, I received an e-mail from a woman, a
mother, who says exactly that. Here's what she had to say:
"Wait-lists
for group homes are 20 years in Vancouver, and people are desperate. The
minister closes homes and then pats herself on the back and says that's
deinstitutionalization. At a town hall meeting in Vancouver we heard adults with
developmental disabilities blasting the Premier for the devastating impact of
cuts on their lives. They know exactly what's being done to them."
[1600]
The
minister might like to say that she knows best, that she knows what's going on.
Is this mother wrong? Is this mother wrong, who actually has a loved one who is
in need of a group home, wrong — who actually sees that there's a wait-list 20
years long?
I'd like
the minister to provide specific information about the closure of group homes
and how many new group homes have opened. I'd like to actually do a comparison
to see whether or not there are more group homes or fewer since they took
government. I'd like to know from the government how much money they're funding
to group homes. I'd like this as a comparison so we know the baseline for group
homes for 2002-03 to this year's budget. How much has gone in versus what was in
there before?
Hon. C.
Clark: First, I just want to take a moment to correct the member on some of
the other inaccurate information she's presented to the House.
In June
2001, 46.7 percent of the children admitted to the care of the Ministry of
Children and Family Development came from families that were receiving income
assistance. By March 2003, which is our most current data match, the number of
children admitted to this ministry originating from income-assistance families
had fallen to 35.1. So, you know, I want to correct her on that. I know I've
done that a number of times, but I want to make sure she gets the point because
she keeps repeating that inaccurate information.
We are
making sure that the mix of services we provide meets the needs of the
population. The member knows…. I know she doesn't have a great deal of regard
for protecting people's personal privacy, but I do. She knows that I can't
discuss individual cases. Having said that, though, I don't know any of the
specifics about this individual case. I don't know the family's name, I don't
know where they are, and I don't know what the specifics of the circumstance
are. But having said that, even if I did have that information, it would not be
legal or morally right for me to discuss the specifics of any cases on the floor
of this House.
J. Kwan:
I'm not asking the minister about the specific situation. The woman actually
e-mailed me the information, and I have total regard for her privacy. I didn't
put her name on the record. I just read what she actually said and what this
government is doing and her views about this government.
As the
minister claims that they're doing more for group homes, that they're creating a
range of options for people in our community, then I would like to know…. I
would like for her to back up her statements with facts.
How many
group homes were there and how many beds were there when this government took
over? And then how many beds are there now? How many group homes are there now?
How many have shut, and how many have opened? Then we would actually have the
facts before us to back up her claim that she's not closing group homes, because
the reality is, as the parents consistently tell the opposition, the government
is closing group homes. So let's start with those numbers first.
Hon. C.
Clark: First of all, I don't know if the member is aware that the two
systems for community living are different. The system for community living care
is a different system from the services that we provide for children. I don't
know if she's aware of that. I should bring that to her attention, partly
because I think — based on the partial information she's provided — she is
talking about two different things. Nonetheless, if she can clarify which system
she's talking about. Is she talking about the community living system? Or is she
talking about the Ministry of Children and Family Development side of it, which
is really the side where we take children into care and…? You know, issues I
think the public would probably think about as child protection issues — those
kind of things. The community living side is largely — not entirely, but
largely — adults with developmental disabilities who require assistance.
[H.
Long in the chair.]
J. Kwan:
Let's start with adults, those with developmental disabilities.
Hon. C.
Clark: I think I'll be able to give her the number for adults in a few
minutes. Staff is joining me
[ Page 9749 ]
now to help me with that for the specifics, but I suspect the next question
will be: what about children?
[1605]
We are
estimating there will be about a 10 percent shift between group homes — group
care — and family care in the child system. That's an initiative that started
over 18 months ago. We want to make sure that shift meets the changing needs of
the population.
J. Kwan:
What does this 10 percent shift mean? Does she mean that there's a reduction of
10 percent of group homes?
Hon. C.
Clark: It means that there will be a shift in the mix of services that we
provide. If she imagines that as a continuum or as a pie chart, some of it will
be for group homes, some of it will be for family care, and there will be about
a 10 percent shift in that mix, we think, based on the change in the population
and the requirements of the population. The population ages, there are different
levels of acuity, and there are also probably instances where people can be
better served being in a family environment as opposed to a more institutional
environment.
J. Kwan:
Well, I would still like the specifics, because the minister actually likes to
use language that is not at all clear. She calls them shifts. "It's a 10
percent shift," she says. The community calls them 10 percent cuts. You
know, it's a big difference. I know she likes to hide behind this language so
that nobody can really tell what the government has actually done.
I would
like the specific number of beds. How many group homes have opened? How many
group homes have closed for developmentally disabled adults? How many have
closed? How many beds were started within the baseline year, in the '02-03 year,
and how many exist now?
Hon. C.
Clark: I can tell her this. On the community living side, when we're talking
about adults with developmental disabilities, the mix that we are hoping to
achieve is one of group homes, semi-independent living, family care. There is a
different kind of mix that we're hoping to achieve in that area. It's not as
simple a number as the one that I just gave her for the children's side.
We are
going to work on getting that information, but we don't have it here today for
the adult side, because it's not quite as simple a formula and quite as simple a
shift as the one I've described for the children's side.
J. Kwan:
I actually asked the minister for the adult side, and she just gave me the
children's side. You can check Hansard , in terms of what I asked the
minister. I think I quite remember, distinctively.
She says
she doesn't have that information, but I would like to have the information,
because the complaints, of course…. Well, I would like the specific
information about the group homes that existed and the number of beds that
existed, first for the adult side and then for the children side.
The
minister said there are different kinds of group homes for both categories. Then
if the minister would separate them out and say what they are so there's no
confusion there. I would like to have that information. I would also like to
have the information on the baseline number versus the current number in terms
of these group homes, and then where they are and how many have closed and how
many have opened.
In addition
to that, I would like the budget dollars associated with these group homes. How
much was allocated to them? And then the overall budget for the ministry, for
both the developmental disability side as well as the children's side — the
adult side and the children side.
Hon. C.
Clark: Mr. Chair, I answered that question already while the member was busy
reading her BlackBerry, I think, collecting her next question.
J. Kwan:
No. What the minister actually said was that she doesn't have the information
for the adult side. I specifically first asked her for that information, and
then she proceeded to give me the information about the children's side. But she
did not, at any point in time….
I can
actually sometimes multi-task, Mr. Chair. Yes, I was looking at my BlackBerry
because, as I said, as debates are going on, parents are writing to me on an
ongoing basis, and one of the new technologies that we have in this House —
which all members are able to use, including the Premier….
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, members, order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has
the floor.
J. Kwan:
The member for Vancouver-Kingsway….
Interjection.
[1610]
The
Chair: Order, members. Order, members.
J. Kwan:
Actually, I will. I will. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway….
Interjection.
The
Chair: Would the member please come to order. The member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor at this time.
J. Kwan:
Indeed, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is heckling me, accusing that these
good parents….
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
That's a bizarre outburst. St. Mary's Hospital that the member for
Vancouver-Kingsway is heckling me about, saying: "Who runs St.
Mary's?"
[ Page 9750 ]
Interjection.
The
Chair: Order, members. I think we should….
J. Kwan:
The last time I looked….
The
Chair: Order, order.
J. Kwan:
Sorry, Mr. Chair.
The
Chair: I think the whole House should come to order. The member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. If a member wants to seek the floor,
they may. Please continue.
J. Kwan:
The last time I looked, St. Mary's was actually run out of Providence. Now the
want-to-be minister, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, says it's run by the
NDP. I didn't realize that we owned a hospital that's being shut down by the
government. Wow.
Anyway, the
member for Vancouver-Kingsway is heckling me, suggesting that the e-mails sent
by these parents who are working hard in the community, trying to make ends meet
and trying to take care of their families, but who also have a deep concern
about these services in their community…. As they watch debate, they are
e-mailing me. It's true. They want me to ask questions. It's true. Part of that,
with this new technology in the system which the minister has and was using her
BlackBerry as well…. She has staff to assist her with that process; I don't. I
have to listen to debate, ask questions and at the same time check the e-mails
as well.
I'm sorry.
I don't have a host of staff to help me with those tasks, but that's life.
That's how it goes, and I accept that completely. But at no time did the
minister give me the answers that I asked of her. Those would be the names of
the group homes — the group homes that have closed and the group homes that
have opened for children or adults at all. For the minister to pretend that she
somehow answered my question and to accuse me of not paying attention is, well,
quite frankly, false. She'd be wise to just give the information. She now says
that she doesn't have the information before her and that she will perhaps send
it to us. Well, let me then ask the minister if she could provide that
information to us on Monday. I think that's reasonable. That's a few days from
now.
Jarvis: Permission to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
Jarvis: There are 20 students from Capilano College in North Vancouver
accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Cameron Sylvester and Jeanne Mikita. I wish
the House would make them welcome.
Debate Continued
Hon. C.
Clark: We are moving toward a system in community living that will be
governing the community. That will mean, I think, more people get more
appropriate care in the more appropriate places. That means more family care. It
means more semi-independent living arrangements. It means people are more
connected to their families and their communities. We're working with families
and service providers to make these changes happen and to make sure the services
we're providing are reflecting the needs of the community we are intending to
serve.
J. Kwan:
Well, that's the message box that the minister has that says that's what
she's doing. Well, here's some information from community groups, from parents
that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway claims don't exist — parents who
actually don't have any valid information about their views on what the
government is doing relating to this area.
The
minister said they are trying to provide appropriate care. She says they are
moving towards family care and semi-independent care, but in my view and in my
estimation, appropriate care should be decided by the families, not by the
government, and the range of options should be available for the families to
choose and not be driven by the government's own bottom-line agenda.
[1615]
Letters
from the community have this to say, as they drive…. The minister would like
to claim that she's not reducing group homes in the community. Here's a letter
as recent as February 24, 2004.
write to you on behalf of my sister" — names the person — "a Down
syndrome adult, 52 years old. She lives in a group home in Vancouver operated by
the Developmental Disabilities Association, the DDA. The DDA is facing funding
cuts that will impact their ability to support the costs of maintaining the
adult group homes of other 70 other people in the same position. The DDA already
uses a significant portion of their own fundraising and business centre dollars
to offset the costs of supporting adults in group homes.
"The
DDA serves some 2,000 clients in total, covering all age groups and a
variety of levels of care. I've watched the growth of the DDA over several
decades from a small organization in which my mother volunteered. I watched it
adapt to a different organizational style to meet the requirements of government
funding. It did not change its volunteer heart and continues to fundraise money
to meet the needs of its clients.
"In
a recent fundraising letter from Ronda Karliner, president of the DDA,
she points out that there haven't been any increases from the provincial
government in the food budget for group homes. These people must rely on the DDA
and donors to meet food requirements. Every dollar given to the DDA is used with
great thrift. Data provided to the provincial government proves the DDA's
cost-effectiveness. Therefore, every dollar taken away represents cuts to
programs.
"Now,
with the resignation of the former minister" — uses the minister's
name — "the dismissal of the former deputy and the resignation of the
consultant Doug Walls, there is left a temporary funding structure that
destabilizes the current one. The DDA cannot make fiscal predictions to set
staffing contracts in place. The proposed funding is 11 percent less, and the
DDA has shown that it already supports 18 percent of the province's population
with only 10 percent of the community living funding.
[ Page 9751 ]
"With
the funding cuts comes a proposed change to the method of funding whereby
the families will be responsible for providing care. The premise that families
will be able to provide a similar level of care as a professional health care
system seems to me to be false, particularly when the professionals are already
expressing concern to the ministry.
"The
inventors of this plan have shown less-than-acceptable business acumen in
the ministry's affairs already. I, for one, disagree with the plan. I hope that
new consideration is to be given to the care of my sister and all others in her
situation. I know that the staff of" — the person's — "the
residence are anxious about their future. I have not seen this reflected in my
sister, and I credit the staff's discretion in keeping it from her. However, the
Vancouver Sun has visited her home, and an
article was written in that
paper on January 29 about the state of affairs of the ministry. What must happen
before stability can be created in the lives of all these people?
"The
community living authority affects the lives of people in every riding of
Vancouver and Richmond, the area served by the DDA. Although it might not be a
large number in each riding, cumulatively it is a significant part of the
authority's responsibilities. I hope the input of all affected constituents of
the 13 MLAs of Vancouver and Richmond is forwarded to caucus before any further
action is taken. I hope that my letter increases your level of awareness and
concern for this issue. I hope that you will use your good name and position to
advance this cause on behalf of my sister and her friends. They need benevolent
representation.
"Regards…."
It's signed by the individual. This letter happens to be written to me from
my own constituent, who asked me to raise the matter, but that's not the only
one.
Interjection.
J. Kwan:
The minister says I'm being careful about that.
The
Chair: I ask the members to go through the Chair, if they possibly could.
Thank you.
J. Kwan:
Mr. Chair, all throughout these debates, unless the individual has said that I
should use their name — that it's okay and authorized that I use their
names…. I have never actually used people's names without that authorization.
It's not just my own constituents whose privacy I respect; it's others as well.
I have continuously been doing that for as long as I remember, actually, in
debates in the House.
[J.
Weisbeck in the chair.]
Here's one
perspective about group homes. Let me just start with this issue, with the DDA.
According to this letter, they're faced with significant cuts that will impact
residents of this association, the Developmental Disabilities Association. Let
me start with this: how much is the DDA's funding being cut by?
[1620]
Hon. C.
Clark: The DDA agreed in writing to a voluntary savings contribution —
that's finding money through efficiencies, which was a very difficult process,
and we went through it with a lot of service providers across the province —
of $500,000. Remember there's a $13 million contribution from government per
year for this organization for adult services alone, and $640,000 in
compensation overpayments that had been made, so that's not related to service
reductions at all.
It has been
hard work, no question about it, but we've been working in cooperation with the
agencies across the province for many months now. You know, she talks a little
bit about the fact that…. Well, in the letter she quoted, the individual who
wrote to her asked if she could use her good offices to advance the cause.
This member
is not doing anything to advance the cause when she stands up in the Legislature
and says that the government is phasing out group homes, because that's just not
true. It doesn't advance anyone's cause to try and scare them with false
information, to make things up on the fly. It doesn't serve anybody's cause when
a member of the government or the opposition — when any member of this chamber
— will demonstrate that they are capable of saying anything or doing anything
to advance their own political cause.
J. Kwan:
The minister likes to blame the opposition for their actions that are causing
great concern and deep consternation in the community. I didn't make up the
concern of this individual, whose sister has Down syndrome, is 52 years old, is
with an organization and has been there for many years, and that organization is
faced with budget cuts. The minister claims those budget cuts are voluntary, and
since that time I have received e-mails from individuals who say that is
completely untrue.
Here is
some information that has just come in about that. The minister claims that
people actually asked for these cuts, voluntarily went to give these cuts. Let's
put this information on the record. There was a conversation with the minister
about it, and people said this — the facts: "The children and family
agencies were never given an opportunity to talk about voluntary cuts or
planning. Cuts for children and family agencies were dictated and made
arbitrarily by contract managers or, in Vancouver, just put out for
tender."
She has
mixed up, of course, the issues that the minister would like to put forward. The
fact is that neither the community, the children and family agencies nor the
evidence supports this decimation of hundreds of group home beds around B.C. As
a matter of fact, Jim Anglin of UVic, who was often quoted by the former
minister for his writings on child welfare, recently published evidence that's
contrary to the MCFD closure of group homes for very troubled kids.
The
minister is closing group homes. She is cutting funding. The Developmental
Disabilities Association are saying they are faced with cuts. In fact, I
actually met with representatives from that organization, and they say they are
faced with cuts. She claims that I'm fearmongering.
[ Page 9752 ]
[1625]
What about
the parents who are saying this? This actually is a letter that came from the
Premier's riding, written to the Premier:
"As
an elderly parent with growing health issues of my own, I'm fearful of the
future of my developmentally disabled daughter. Just like you and everyone else,
she deserves to be treated in a respectful and responsible way. My fear is that
the proposed cuts by the provincial government will have a detrimental effect on
my daughter and many others like her.
"My
daughter is both mentally and physically challenged and needs 24-hour
care. She has lived under the care of the Developmental Disabilities Association
in Richmond for the past 15 years with the help of well-trained and experienced
staff who are able to deal with many different situations and health issues. She
and her three housemate