1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th 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)

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 11, Number 20

[ Page 10041 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I want to introduce a person who played Louis Riel on the stage 50 years ago. Maybe the opposition could have used him last night. Mr. Mavor Moore has spent his entire life in pursuit of artistic excellence and support for the arts and culture community. Mr. Moore is, of course, an accomplished writer, director, producer, actor, composer, critic, journalist and professor. He is now writing an opera. In 1979 Mavor became the first artist to chair the Canada Council. He has just retired as the chair of the B.C. Arts Council, and we are honouring him for that today.

He brought to the Arts Council high standards of excellence, his love of the arts and a real contribution to our beloved province. Even in retirement, I expect his voice will continue to be heard. Thank you, Mavor. I would ask the House to please welcome Mavor Moore.

G. Abbott: It is my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today Dr. Richard Kerekes, who is the director of the Pulp and Paper Centre at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kerekes was visiting with, among others, opposition members this morning to inform us of some of the important work they're doing at UBC. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have three individuals I would ask the House to help me make welcome. The first is my nephew Patrick Frieze, who is visiting here from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. The second is Erin Hockstein, who is visiting the Legislature for the first time. The third, whom I noticed in the gallery, is Nini Baird, who I know from the Knowledge Network and also from the party. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Dr. Kerekes has been introduced already, but I think we would be remiss in not introducing his son Joey, who has travelled here with his father to follow along to some of the meetings here with the various caucuses of the House.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce a friend and constituent, a young man whose family is no stranger to this House. His name is Jim Bennett, and he is the executive director of South Fraser Community Services. He does tremendous work in the Whalley community. They have a free medical clinic, a needle exchange and services for street youth, just to name a few. I'd like the House to join me in making Jim welcome and in congratulating him for all of his good work.

R. Masi: On behalf of the member for Surrey-White Rock, I'd like to introduce Steven and Nathan Christie. I might note that Nathan is 15 years old, and one of his major interests is watching the legislative channel on television. He's here today to see us in action. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted that I have a constituent, friend and supporter visiting here today for the first time. He is here to watch question period and also to take in the IMAX Theatre across the street. I'm meeting with him later. I'd ask the House to please welcome Lex Rutherford to the gallery.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome a friend to the gallery. She's someone whom I met in my previous portfolio: Mayor Corinne Lonsdale of Squamish. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, we too would like to extend our very sincere thanks to Mavor Moore for his tremendous contributions to the arts and culture community of Canada and for his contributions to the B.C. Arts Council. We look forward to continuing to receive your advice and guidance in developing the arts community in British Columbia. Thank you very much.

Also, hon. Speaker, some 25 years ago today, on the islands of Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, I had the pleasure of marrying a very beautiful young lady. Today on Vancouver Island, here in Victoria, we celebrate our twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. I would ask the House to please make my wife Yasmin welcome.

Oral Questions

FRBC HIRING OF MLA'S CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANT

R. Neufeld: Can the Minister of Forests please inform the House if he thinks it's appropriate for a member of the Select Standing Committee on Forests to be actively lobbying FRBC in support of a job for her fired constituency assistant?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think members of the House can make judgments about what all hon. members can do in their roles as members of committees.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: It's amazing, but this is the minister responsible for FRBC. The member for Comox Valley is a member of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, which examines the operating budgets of FRBC. This is the same member who acted, in her words, as a referee to get her fired constituency assistant a $26,000 six-month contract. Again, will the Minister of Forests please tell this House if he thinks it's appropriate for the member for Comox Valley -- a member of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, who examines all aspects of FRBC -- to be actively lobbying for her fired ex-constituency assistant to work for FRBC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The select standing committee does not make any operational decisions on FRBC -- no budget decisions, no personnel decisions.

M. de Jong: Yesterday in question period was one of those days that you're really glad they keep a Hansard record, because without re-reading the transcript, I wouldn't have believed the Forest minister's explanation for how a disgraced NDP ex-constituency assistant could be awarded a communications contract for a job the minister said didn't exist. Hon. Speaker, listen to what he said: "In virtually every community we have people who are there and who will do jobs for us, should we need their services." They're out there.

My question to the minister is: how many of these contracts are there? How many NDP agents are spread out across the province just waiting for the code word from headquarters to launch into action defending this NDP government? How many of those contracts are there?

[ Page 10042 ]

The Speaker: The Minister of Forests.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said yesterday, hon. Speaker, there are people from all political stripes working in communities. Some of those . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members . . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . stripes are Liberal . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment, minister. I'll let you continue in a moment. Order, hon. members.

First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please, hon. members, come to order.

[2:15]

M. de Jong: The minister may have been on the line with one of those agents. But you know, there is . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: The House will come to order. I'm not sure who's heckling who here, but a little order would be helpful.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Sadly . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I think enough is enough. Ministers of the Crown, please come to order.

First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I don't think there's anything funny, quite frankly, about the member for Comox Valley misleading FRBC and her constituents about the credentials of her disgraced constituency assistant. But I'm probably at least as concerned about the involvement of the Premier's Office in this. I want to ask the Minister of Forests if he can tell us whether he thinks it was appropriate for the Premier's Office to make representations and hide from FRBC the fact that this job applicant was a disgraced ex-constituency assistant who had engaged in unethical conduct.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that what's important is that FRBC accounts for their hiring practices, their contract management practices. The bottom line here is that the person never got a job, there was never any work assigned, and there was never any pay advanced for this.

CARDIAC SURGERY WAIT-LISTS

G. Abbott: Two months ago this government was forced to admit that its cardiac surgery list was the longest it had ever been, but they promised to fix it. Well, they failed. Exactly one year ago today my constituent, 54-year-old Jane Nicholson from Sicamous, was put on the wait-list for life-saving cardiac surgery. That surgery was promised for this week. Yesterday she was told she'd been bumped. Will the Health minister tell us why, despite promise after empty promise, patients are still forced to wait over a year for life-saving surgery in this province?

Hon. P. Priddy: As I believe people know, we have put almost nine million new dollars into reducing cardiac wait times. That is not an empty promise; that will be over 1,000 new cardiac surgeries in this province this coming year.

In the circumstance that the member refers to . . . . I don't know the circumstances, but what we do all know is that if this is life-threatening, then that patient's physician has the ability to designate that patient as being in an emergency, life-threatening situation, and the patient will be served.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I'll tell the Health minister about the circumstances of Mrs. Nicholson. Mrs. Nicholson was told that she would have to wait six to eight months for her surgery. She was also told to wait by the phone every Thursday to hear from the hospital what her date would be. After suffering through 51 Thursdays, she finally got that call, only to be cancelled five days later. Can the minister confirm that this government's idea of managing wait-lists is to force patients to become critical before they get their life-saving surgery?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, that is not this government's management. However, this government's commitment is to serve critical patients and emergency patients first, because that is what must happen. Again, I don't know the circumstances. If the member wants to call my office, we will get back to the family.

On occasion, we have seen . . . . This will not remove all of the wait times, but our wait times are now longer as a result of the reduced activity days and the surgeries that have been cancelled as a result of surgeons not being there and places like Children's Hospital having to close down all but one of their operating rooms on the last strike day, if you will, of physicians.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHIEF CORONER'S REPORT

G. Wilson: In the first six months of this year, 201 British Columbians have died as a result of drug overdoses. That's more than one a day. To the Minister of Health: can the Minister of Health explain why not one of the substantive recommendations of the chief coroner's 1994 report has been implemented since that date and that that's the reason British Columbia will have a record number of drug-overdose deaths this year?

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, there are recommendations of the Cain report that have been implemented. But I think that

[ Page 10043 ]

the recommendations that the member refers to, which people do when they talk about substantive recommendations, are the legalization of heroin and now, more recently recommended, the legalization of cocaine. I think that those have not been acted on because there's a large public debate that would have to precede anything like that.

What has expanded and what has made a difference in this province is the methadone program for heroin users, which has expanded significantly. What we do know -- although yes, there is certainly a rise in drug deaths, and it is a tragedy that continues to need work -- is that for people with heroin addiction being treated with methadone, the percentage annually of people dying is 1 percent. For those heroin addicts who are not treated by methadone, it goes up to almost 10 percent. As we expand the methadone program for heroin addicts, we significantly bring down the death percentage for those people.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I have the report from the chief coroner, and I would challenge the Minister of Health to go through, recommendation by recommendation, and show me where those recommendations have been implemented.

To the Attorney General: that 1994 report made specific recommendations to the Attorney General with respect to taking action that would assist police and the justice system to get people out of this cycle so that these kinds of deaths do not occur. These are people who do not belong to political parties. They don't vote, and frankly, I think this government has simply forgotten about them. Can the Attorney General tell us why he has not implemented one recommendation that came out of the Vince Cain report of 1994?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. members remember, last year I took this issue to the Attorneys General conference. I believe that what we require is a national strategy on drugs in Canada. I believe that what we require is the will of the Ministers of Health and the Attorneys General from across the country to sit together, and I placed that resolution before the Attorneys General. They agreed with me, and we have a discussion paper that I am taking back to the Attorneys General conference in the next few months.

Here is what I stand for; here's what I have been saying. What we need is tougher sentences for big drug smugglers and traffickers. What we need is more education and prevention for children across the country, not just in one part of the country. What we need is some will and determination on the part of the federal government to change some laws, so we can have some additional availability of these drugs that are under controlled circumstances and can deal with the carnage on the streets in British Columbia.

The federal government refuses to move. If you talk to the Minister of Health, he says it's a justice issue. If you talk to the Minister of Justice, she says it's a health issue. They need to wake up. We are working on this issue; they need to work with us. Perhaps they can be called upon to work with us.

PREFERENTIAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WCB PATIENTS

S. Hawkins: On June 15, I specifically asked the Labour minister about the number of WCB patients who were being sent to Alberta for treatment, and he dismissed that question by saying that only 69 patients had been sent to Alberta so far this year. Today we discover that over the last four months, an average of 30 patients a week have been sent to Alberta for treatment. That's close to 500 patients. I want to know how this Labour minister can justify his June 15 statement, when we now know that hundreds of WCB patients are being sent to Alberta for treatment.

Hon. D. Lovick: When I made that statement, I gave the information that was available; indeed, it was the case that 69 people had been sent. I would again point out the fact that 69 people was the correct figure at that time. I have subsequently been advised that the amount has now increased significantly. The reasons for the increase are precisely the same as they were last time I spoke: there is a dispute with the . . . . I'm trying to remember what kinds of doctors we're talking about at this point. In any event, there is a dispute with the specialists.

An Hon. Member: Orthopedic surgeons.

Hon. D. Lovick: The orthopedics -- thank you very much. Sleep deprivation will do this to one, I guess. In any event, what happened was that there was a deal. A protocol was made with the B.C. Medical Association regarding the rate of payment for that specialized service to be performed by the doctors. Then what occurred was that the doctors, for reasons known to them, decided that that wasn't sufficient money. They are no longer performing that service. Therefore, for all those good reasons, the WCB, acting independently of government -- as it should -- decided to send patients to Alberta.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Speaker, perhaps the minister could get the correct information. The information we got was that there have been hundreds of patients as of April. The minister should check his information; twice in the House he has said that. Not only are these hundreds of patients going straight to the front of the line, but the NDP has been using taxpayers' money to pay private clinics in Alberta. That's what the vice-president of the WCB says. He says that $360,000 of taxpayers' money has been paid to private clinics in Calgary.

And we just heard about a heart patient waiting over a year for cardiac surgery and then getting bumped. I want to know from this minister: how can he deny that there is two-tiered health care when taxpayers' money is being paid to a private clinic in Alberta so that some B.C. patients can get faster treatment than others?

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, Madam Speaker, to the end of April, it is indeed the case that 69 injured workers were referred to Alberta health care centres for outpatient treatment and/or consultation. Since that time, the numbers have increased, for the reasons I pointed out. However, what the member needs to know, and what her colleagues need to know, is that this expenditure is not paid for by the public health care system. WCB is paid for by the employers. All the employers . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The minister finishes his remarks.

[ Page 10044 ]

Hon. D. Lovick: The calculus used by employers and doctors alike is that the most important thing is to get workers back to work as quickly as possible, because if you don't, the likelihood of them not returning to work increases hugely. It is a good policy that is good for health care, good for workers and good for employers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

[2:30]

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Walsh in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

(continued)

On vote 24: minister's office, $448,000 (continued).

G. Wilson: I'd like to alert the minister that I am going to focus my questions somewhat specifically on aboriginal children in care. I would also like to then move to a corollary of the question that I asked of the Minister of Health and the Attorney General with respect to some of the issues that are relevant to this ministry, with respect to narcotic addiction and drug overdose and the effect on families, in particular.

Let me begin by saying that it was a year ago in estimates that I raised with the minister of the day the matter of the number of aboriginal children in care. At that time, it wasn't clear to the government what the absolute numbers were. There was going to be some work done, I was told, in identifying the number of aboriginal children in care. I wonder if we might just start by setting out some baseline information, so that we're both working from the same information.

If the minister might tell us: how many aboriginal children are in care at the moment, and what is that as a percentage of the total number of children in care for the province?

Hon. L. Boone: The number of aboriginal children with the Ministry for Children and Families is 2,865, and the number of aboriginal children with aboriginal children and families service agencies is 440.

G. Wilson: Could the minister tell us what that is as a percentage of the total number of children in care in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: It's 31 percent.

G. Wilson: It's 31 percent, and the minister will know that as a percentage of the population, people of first nations ancestry are substantially lower than 31 percent. I think the minister would agree that the statistics that we're dealing with here are entirely and completely unacceptable. I wonder if the minister might confirm that. I'm certain, knowing the minister as I do, that she would agree that those numbers are unacceptable.

Might the minister tell us specifically what steps are now being taken, with respect to aboriginal children in care, to make sure that there is proper placement and to make sure that there are policies that are running concurrently with the policies set out by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to address this situation?

Hon. L. Boone: We agreed during the debate on the special warrant that this number was entirely inappropriate and unacceptable, and I have reiterated that numerous times over the past few months that I've been minister. Clearly, the percentages don't jibe. We have 8 percent of the population in the province who are aboriginal children, and 31 percent being in care is not acceptable.

We do have an aboriginal strategy that we're working on, and that includes delegation agreements. Firstly, it includes working on more protocol agreements with those first nations who do not have protocol agreements already signed. Secondly, we're working towards delegation agreements for those areas that are interested in doing them, so that they in fact can assume control of their own child policies and services. That has already taken place in a number of different communities -- 12 first nations agencies have already delegated authorities. So we are working towards those things.

In addition to that, you are probably aware that when we announced the contract and program restructuring last week, one of the main goals of this ministry is to deal with the aboriginal issue and to work as hard as we can to move those off onto their delegated authorities and to reduce those numbers. So we do have a plan with regards to getting more foster parents, more aboriginal adoptive parents. Those are things that we are very actively doing, and we'll continue to do so, because it is an issue that is very close to my heart. I think most members in this House would agree that we need to address the inequities in that system.

G. Wilson: There have recently been comments made by a number of first nations spokespeople. There were two comments, and I'd like to address them both separately. The first is that there is a separate standard applied to aboriginal children, that this standard is different from that applied to non-aboriginal children and that this separate standard specifically and more directly applies to young aboriginal single mothers. It is assumed, they say, that young aboriginal mothers are less likely to be able to look after their child than a non-aboriginal single mother is. They cite three primary reasons for this.

The first is that it is considered or assumed -- all of these are assumptions -- that a non-aboriginal family would have a broader base of support, which I think is questionable and which I'd like the minister to comment on.

The second is that the opportunities for education, training and, therefore, future employment opportunities for a non-aboriginal single mother are greater. That may or may not be true, but I'd like the minister to comment on that.

The third is that there is a greater opportunity with respect to placement of aboriginal children into foster care provisions because of moneys that are provided for foster parents and supplementary income as a result of the joint jurisdictions -- the jurisdiction of the federal government versus the provincial government -- which does not apply for non-aboriginal children -- in short, that foster parents get resources far greater than the single mother herself would to look after the child of a first nations single mother.

Those are three charges that have recently been levelled, with some considerable support of documentation. I wonder if the minister might comment on those three, because I think that they are important for us to consider.

Hon. L. Boone: You're talking about an issue that I hope doesn't happen, but I'm not going to say it doesn't -- that is, that people are treated differently. I'm talking very clearly here, because all of our workers are extremely dedicated

[ Page 10045 ]

people who want what's best for the children. There may be occasions when they come into these positions from a background where they project their expectations onto the aboriginal community. We are trying to overcome this. Through the aboriginal peoples' council and the friendship centres, we are making sure that our staff undergo cultural sensitivity training so that they are aware of some of the differences in cultures, so that they don't project their expectations onto the aboriginal community. I am very hopeful that this will change some of those attitudes.

As I said, I hope that this doesn't happen, but I'm not going to say that it doesn't, because we are all individuals, and we all come from different backgrounds. I think it would be very difficult for us to have the number of staff we have without having some of them bring expectations to their decision-making. But I don't think they do so in a malicious way; I think they do so because they want what's best for the child, and their expectations are different. Having said that, though, it's important that we deal with that. That's why we are doing cultural sensitivity training.

It's also important that we move towards the delegation of authority to aboriginal communities, so that they are responsible for delivering these services in the manner that they want to see it done.

We are actively recruiting foster parents. It's our goal, of course, to put aboriginal children in aboriginal homes. Again, we need to look at some of those issues around the expectations of foster parents, the expectations of the foster parent home. Do they fit in terms of what the aboriginal communities can provide? If you're saying that a foster parent may get more than a single parent on welfare, then that's true. But that's true across the board; that has nothing to do with whether you are an aboriginal single mom or not.

G. Wilson: I suppose ethnocentricity is something that is learned. All of us learn it, and it's not necessarily desirable behaviour, especially when you're trying to deal in a cross-cultural kind of context. Nevertheless, ethnocentricity can be unlearned, and I would be supportive of any program that would try to do that -- to a degree, obviously. There's a certain amount of inherent . . . . I don't want to get into a long academic debate on the levels of anthropology here, because I've learned over the years, in having to teach along the lines of those sorts of things, that that can sometimes be a fruitless endeavour.

Nevertheless -- and I see the Minister of Education smiling, because he knows how fruitless some of those debates can be -- I think it is critically important in this set of estimates for us to recognize that that perception exists. It exists, and it is strongly held by a number of first nations who are . . . . Especially dealing with young single mothers who are being administered by this ministry, who are non-aboriginal -- the people in the field . . . . The perception exists, whether it's real or not real, or whether it's only in some cases; that perception is there.

And we know how the perception of that level of bias can often aggravate a situation where we are trying -- this is my expectation, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- wherever possible to allow the mother to raise her child, if she should choose to, regardless of what her age may be and provided that there are some support mechanisms in place, and keep the child with the mother as long as is practically possible.

[2:45]

I'm assuming that that's this minister's position. And yet I know from case files that I'm currently working on that that has not always been the case. In fact, a young single mother had her child removed -- not only did she have her child removed; she was removed from the custody of her own mother -- because it was perceived by the ministry that her room was untidy -- that she was not keeping her room to the level of tidiness that the worker expected. I don't know what the lives of a lot of young children are like at the age of 12, 13 and 14, in terms of keeping their room tidy, but I surely wouldn't want to have somebody wander into . . . .

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Did the minister ask if I kept my room tidy? Well, I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't want to be judged on whether or not my room was tidy, as to whether or not I would be fit as a parent. Yet that's the explanation provided in this particular case. As a result, not only has the child been taken but the mother has been taken out of the custody of her mother, because she is a 14-year-old. I'd like the minister to comment on that, because I find that to be really quite unacceptable, as the facts are presented.

Hon. L. Boone: I too wouldn't want to be judged on my room, or in my children's rooms. So please don't go into my house.

As I said, I'm not saying that this doesn't happen; I'm saying that it shouldn't happen. We have a risk assessment tool that does not deal with those types of lifestyle issues; it deals with the safety of that particular child. We have a number of programs in place to assist aboriginal families and single moms in keeping their children. The total amount for support services to aboriginal families is $13.6 million, to assist them in keeping their children at home. We do want to keep children with their mothers, if those children are safe. That has to be the bottom line: we must be assured that the child is safe and not at risk.

If you know of a situation where children have been removed from a home because of an untidy room, I would suggest that you bring that to the director's attention. We can deal with that and review that whole case, because truly, that's not a reason for removing a child.

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to reference that and let action be taken as it needs to be.

I want to come back to what the minister said with respect to the dollars. I didn't actually write down the numbers, because I think that becomes somewhat irrelevant. Whether you've got $10 million, $12 million, $20 million or $50 million, I think, becomes less relevant than what we as a society have to face up to with respect to a long history of interrelationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

We have not had a particularly proud history. In fact, I would argue that our history is not that proud at all. I have long said that we cannot be, nor should we be, judged and tried for the sins of our forefathers -- but only if we do nothing to correct them in our life. I believe that to be true. Many first nations people who I have spent time with and have spent many hours listening to talk about what is a systemic problem within many of the bands around the province.

It has to do with the breaking up of families, the forced movement of children into residential schools and a lot of the abuses that occurred in residential schools. These people have returned in some cases; in other cases they have not. Nevertheless, their lives had been shattered; their parents' and their grandparents' lives had been shattered. As a family -- in

[ Page 10046 ]

their ability to work and bond in the normal course of events -- they are now struggling with what are generational problems with respect to their ability to identify self, their ability to feel pride, or their ability to cope with and deal with day-to-day problems.

I'd like to ask the minister what I hope is not a controversial question, but it's one that I would like an honest answer to. I am of the opinion -- and I hope to introduce a private member's bill at some point in this session -- that British Columbia needs to embark upon a truth-and-reconciliation process, where there can be a full recognition of the problems that have been faced with respect to first nations people as a result of the residential schools and some of the abuses that occurred.

It's my belief -- and I'd like the minister's comment on this -- that many of the problems that her ministry deals with now, with respect to first nations children, come as a result of our lack of willingness to put in place a process that allows for full healing to take place around these issues and that we now must move that one step forward. I don't believe that first nations getting self-government or settling land claims is going to address that very, very problematic and difficult social question.

I would like the minister's comment on that. I think that otherwise we would put millions upon millions and solve nothing, because we have not provided a forum for expression -- for them to be heard, for them to be understood and for a sense of healing to take place so that they can rightfully take their equal place in society. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. L. Boone: I really appreciate the comments that the member makes. As someone from an area . . . . I'm well aware of the difficulties that the aboriginal community has had, and I am certainly aware of the problems we are facing now and how they relate to the problems that took place in the residential schools. It is not surprising that we have a group of people who don't know how to parent, when in fact they received no parenting skills because their parents were taken away, and they were placed in schools where they were beaten and abused and all of these things.

It is part of our aboriginal strategy to do some reconciliation, to deal with each and every community on its own basis and in a manner that is sensitive to their particular needs -- the needs of their particular area.

We are well aware of the situations that aboriginal communities have been in, and we're well aware of the need for us to move and to assist those communities in getting beyond that and to help them achieve some equality. It is not an easy situation to get over. We constantly see, whether it be the numbers that are dropping out of my colleague's system . . . .

We met with the Carrier-Sekani tribal council just recently. They want to keep their children in the school system; I don't want them in my system. We've got far too many aboriginal children in our youth detention centres and in our jails, and far too many that have substance abuse problems -- all of these things. I think you're right; they can trace it back to what occurred to them in those residential schools. So we have, as part of our strategy, a plan to deal with the reconciliation on a community-by-community basis.

G. Wilson: I'd be curious, and would welcome the opportunity, to explore with the minister in more detail how that is going to proceed. We are told -- if we can believe reports in the media, and sometimes they're right -- that we're about to see a historic signing of the Nisga'a treaty, which has been ongoing for 20-plus years.

Having read the AIP and been fairly involved in the negotiation process, one of the issues that I know was central to Nisga'a discussions -- and I don't want to get on too detailed a tangent here or to get on the tangent for too long -- and that was very critical there was the recognition of the role that the Nisga'a people would play with respect to Nisga'a living off reserve.

For those Nisga'a who are not on their lands or traditional territories, as they will become known and called, to what extent will the government have a role to play for citizens, members or whatever term you want to use for people who hold Nisga'a status and who do not live there but live in Vancouver, Victoria or wherever?

The reason I'm concerned with respect to this truth-and-reconciliation process happening on a community-by-community basis is that it strikes me -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- that the very heart of our problem will not be upon the landed first nations who develop self-government but will be among urban aboriginal people, the people who traditionally would be within the UNN -- the United Native Nations -- or some other organization and who live in the urban centres, and who live without identity.

You know, when the Sechelt first entered into their self-government, they had a circle of first nations totems that were carved faceless because they believed they had no identity as Sechelt people, because they had not been given that opportunity. Through their self-government, they then had their totems unveiled, which showed the full face and characteristic of who they were. It was a tremendously proud moment for every single person there, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. I think it was a good thing that we felt that, as a community, we were doing good things.

I don't see that happening in the urban centres. Yes, it is happening more and more as we look out into the rural areas, where there are land-based aboriginal people who have a process now in place that's going to evolve, that will allow the evolution of aboriginal self-government and that will then fit into the overall context of governance. But what about those people who don't? Where do we pick up those pieces?

It strikes me that when you talk about substance abuse and drug addiction -- and I want to move at some point to get to the coroner's report -- it is absolutely tragic what is happening in our inner cities. If the statistics that were included in this report -- I've managed to get them right up to 1997, and we've got projections for 1998 -- were calculated on a percentage basis in Ontario, it would be a national news story. But because it happens in good old Lotusland, out here in British Columbia, nobody seems to care. It is a tragedy what is going on in our inner cities.

Yes, truth and reconciliation on a community-by-community basis is important. But where in this process do we capture those urban people who are for the most part homeless, often faceless, often nameless; who don't fit any pattern and yet are people just like every one of us in this room; who deserve to have somebody care? Where do we pick up those people in our system? Maybe the minister can tell me that.

Hon. L. Boone: You've put your finger on a very difficult situation, one that is hard to manage but one that we are working very hard to deal with. We have not ignored the urban aboriginal communities. The urban aboriginal communities along with the Métis communities are very concerned about how those services are delivered.

[3:00]

[ Page 10047 ]

I'll just talk about my own community of Prince George. I have a particular group that wants to deliver all services to aboriginal people in the urban centre. However, they do not have the agreement of the Métis, the UNN, the Lheidli T'enneh band or some of the other nations. We are working within those groups to try to find a manner in which to deliver those services that is acceptable to all of them. To have us mandate that a particular group that was not acceptable to the aboriginal communities should deliver services to them would be no better than to have us maintain and keep delivering the services.

We have a strategy in Vancouver where we're working with the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society and the Métis family services to develop some plans around the delivery of services. So this is something we've been working on. It is something we have to deal with, recognizing that there is no united view as to who should provide those services or how they should be provided. But we are very hopeful that we will get some agreements and that we will see the delivery of those services in the hands of the aboriginal and Métis communities in a very short period of time.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get unnecessarily argumentative. So if it becomes necessary, I'll get argumentative.

We've heard this before. I've been elected to this chamber since 1991, and I heard it in 1992, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97. Here we are in 1998 and I'm hearing it again. Nothing is changing except that the numbers of aboriginal people in care are going up. The number of people who are from broken families and who now suffer as a result of drugs and alcohol is going up. The number of deaths is going up. That's what all of the statistics that I have tell me.

Can minister outline where, for example -- this goes back to 1994 . . . . The recommendations were for her ministry to establish the development of safe facilities, safe homes, within the urban communities. Do we have safe houses that were funded and that are now operating within the urban communities to bring people in? Maybe she could tell us yes or no, and if so, how many. Have we set up the educational programs that were recommended in 1994 for first nations people who are urban based? Has that happened? Yes or no, and if so, how many and where have we put them.

With respect to children and caretakers and the provision of mentors, have we established a mentors' program now? All of these were recommended years ago. Is there a mentors' program now for first nations people, where they can have somebody assigned as a mentor -- a big sister, a big brother or somebody who can assist them -- from the aboriginal community? Has the mentors' program been established? Does such a thing exist?

These are the kinds of things that we hear in this chamber over and over again, and they just never seem to happen. Maybe the minister can enlighten us as to exactly what's been put in place and how effective it has been.

Hon. L. Boone: It really is not correct to say that things haven't changed. We have 120 of 197 reserve-based first nations in British Columbia that have developed or are in the formal planning process to develop . . . . In the urban centres, agencies are in development that will serve urban aboriginal communities in their area when they become operational.

There are five groups representing five aboriginal communities: the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society, Many Generous Hands in Victoria, the Prince George urban child and family services task force, the Interior Indian Friendship Society in Kamloops and Tillicum House Society in Nanaimo. We have Métis agencies in development which will serve the Métis community when they become operational. We are actually working with the Métis council to develop a provincewide protocol.

We're working very hard. These things are taking place, but they are issues that one cannot deal with . . . . They don't happen quickly because of the complexity of the issues. There is a tremendous amount of diversity of opinion out there. For example, I had a group that came into Prince George and wanted me to mandate that they should provide the services for the urban-based aboriginal communities, despite the fact that there was a whole slew of other aboriginal organizations that were opposed to this. I refused to do so. I said: "I am not going to mandate those things.

We have to work this out to decide what is best and what is acceptable to all of those." So because there are such diverse opinions as to who should deliver those services, it is not an easy thing to do. As a ministry, I think we've come a long way. We've got a long way to go, but we have not been sitting idly by in this past year.

G. Wilson: If you go and talk to an aboriginal mother, I'm sure she has a very clear opinion as to how her child should be looked after -- as does the grandmother; as do many of the family members who are trying very hard to make sure that services for these young children are available today, not when some group of societies that can't figure out who's going to get the pot get together -- that is, the pot of money.

What I'm hearing the minister say is that you've got all of these services -- and I jotted down four; that's as many as I got, because she was reading them rather quickly -- "when they become available," "when they're set up," "when they become operational." Well, when? When will they do that? When will these services become operational? When will this happen?

To be quite honest, there is no pressure brought to bear upon this government, because these are people who traditionally do not have the social clout that, say, a group of displaced cannery workers in Prince Rupert have when they lose their jobs and all of a sudden the Premier's up there, the member's up there, the minister's up there. Bang! A cheque is cut, and they've got their money, their eight million bucks. I mean, that happened right now, overnight.

I'm not necessarily saying that we shouldn't look for bridge financing to get the fisheries industry back on its feet, because, good Lord, I'm in support of the fisheries industry. But it took all of a couple of days to get the Premier up there. I wonder when was the last time the Premier walked among the people of east Vancouver -- the first nations people in the downtown area -- and committed to a promise and kept the promise that we are going to see these funds in place.

You know, the problem -- without being too cynical, I hope -- is that the cannery workers are likely to wage a pretty effective campaign come the next election. A lot of them are going to go out and support this government, and that's their power. There's big political clout there and a big political bill to be paid. But you're not going to get that from the poor people in the inner city. They're not going to be out there campaigning for anybody. They're going to be simply grasping on to life. That's their challenge -- just to stay alive. That's why we don't pay any attention to them.

I think that's true, and I'm not sitting up here trying to be holier than the rest of the people in this chamber. I think that's true of all of us. All of us must be mindful of those who are least able to look after themselves. That's part of our mandate in this chamber. In fact that's a huge part of our mandate. They are the ones who truly need our help.

[ Page 10048 ]

When I hear the list the minister just read out about how these will -- when they get going, when they become operational . . . . You know, I've heard it before. Is the minister aware of the 201 people in British Columbia who, in the first six months of this year, died as a result of drug overdose? That's more than one a day. Is the minister aware of how many of those are first nations people?

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have that information. The coroner will be reporting that to the provincial health officer. We don't have those details.

G. Wilson: That may be a little homework for the minister.

The next question is: is the minister aware of how many of the 201 people who died of drug overdose in the first six months of this year are parents? Is the minister aware of how many of them have children somewhere in the system? Is the minister aware of how difficult it is going to be for us to care for those children, many of whom -- and the coroners' reports are pretty specific -- are born drug-addicted because of the cycle that goes on?

It is estimated that this endemic problem will cost us over $1 billion in this fiscal year. And do you know what? That's not the worst part of it. The worst part of it is in the human tragedy that exists as a result. I really do question the minister on the list of those agencies that she has read out. Could the minister tell us how many are up and running, how they are funded, and how much money they get?

Hon. L. Boone: There's a number of different agencies and different programs. Rather than read all this out, I will give you the commitment that we will get the information to you so that you've got the information as to what programs there are.

I recognize that we need to do more, and we will continue to do more. We have a number of initiatives that are extremely important ones. There's the Building Blocks program. I was at the announcement of a Building Blocks program in New Westminster that was specifically for aboriginal moms, to connect them up to do some parenting so that they do work with other parents to give them the assistance that is required. Many of these are people who have FAS children or NAS children -- all of these various things -- so we are putting in place programs to assist families and young moms. Could there be more?

Of course there could be more. We will continue to work with our organizations to give that assistance.

We have in the Prince George region a safe house that is run by the friendship centre. We have a number of different programs that are run by the friendship centre there, and they receive dollars from government -- from Education, from Health . . . . The needle exchange program in Prince George is run by the native health centre. It's not just this ministry that is responsible for programs. There are programs throughout . . . . We will continue to work to develop those programs and to make sure that those programs are delivered and put in the hands of those communities to deliver them.

But as I stated, it's not something that one can do easily in some cases, and quite frankly, I'm not willing to stand up and say that this organization should take preference over another organization in the delivery of those services. We need to work with those organizations. We will continue to do so, and we will continue to work toward delegation of authority to the bands.

[3:15]

G. Wilson: I'll take up the minister's invitation to send me that information; I would like to get it. I mean, obviously we're not going to solve all of these problems in this round of estimates. In the absence of getting that information, I'll sort of yield in a moment to one of the other members who, I know, are waiting to get into this debate.

I guess I have just two other direct questions. One of the suggestions that has been made, both in the Cain report . . . . It came out as a result of the annual report that came out with respect to the child, youth and family advocate. A number of independent groups have recommended that there be an establishment of adequate day care facilities and travel and financial support for mothers who are attending registered substance abuse programs in the urban centres so that they can in fact accommodate their travel to be able to get the services they need without having to have their child removed.

Coupled with the provision of adequate day care facilities is the provision of safe houses for these people in order for them to be able to detach themselves from what is often an abusive situation as a result of those people who prey upon them. I am speaking particularly of people who are addicted and involved in the illicit drug trade in the urban centres by virtue of their connection to a partner. Whether it is formally or informally is irrelevant: the fact is that they are preyed upon.

I am told, in looking at the recent document I have that comes from police reports as well as from the current coroner and the child, youth and family advocate, that we have been negligent in getting these up and running, and that this is a big, big part of the problem. These young people -- not always, but often young mothers -- really are caught in an absolutely untenable situation. They can't get off the drugs. If they are lucky enough to, they do so at the expense of losing their children.

They've got the problem associated with losing their kids, and that frequently is enough to push them over the limit, and they go right back to abusing drugs again. So it's a cycle that goes on and on. The police I've spoken with say that they are tired of picking up these young kids, that we've got to have somewhere for them to go and that we simply have not done that. Can the minister comment on why?

Hon. L. Boone: We're trying to figure out exactly what your question was. It sort of went on for awhile there, so we kind of lost it a bit. You were talking about alcohol and drug programs. Alcohol and drug services funds 27 aboriginal programs, including prevention, treatment and residential treatment programs. The Ministry of Health also funds a number of AIDS prevention and education programs for this population. Strategies for addressing injection drug use will be a collaborative effort between MCF and the Ministry of Health and aboriginal health policy. We are trying to address the significant problem that is out there.

When you talk about safe houses for adults, those are transition houses that are funded through the Ministry of Women's Equality. I'm not quite sure if you're asking me a question about the transition houses, which, of course, I don't have the information on, or whether you're talking about safe houses for youth. We do have some safe houses out there for youth. There is one in Prince George, as I mentioned, and we earlier announced and will be putting in some safe houses for sexually exploited youth, so that they can in fact get themselves off the street and into a safe area. Many of those individuals, of course, also have some drug problems.

[ Page 10049 ]

If there was something else that you asked in there . . . . Maybe you could make your questions a little shorter, then I can answer them a little faster.

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to make my questions shorter, and I would also be happy to receive a speedier response.

I'm talking about child care facilities for young single mothers who are often sexually exploited youth and are drug-addicted. Can the minister tell us how many of those facilities, let's say in greater Vancouver, are up, funded and operating?

Hon. L. Boone: Day care is included in day, evening and weekend addiction programs. If you are talking about a specific day care centre attached to an addiction centre -- if that is your question -- please tell me.

G. Wilson: No, I'm talking about the recommendation that came out of the Vince Cain report -- the coroner's report -- as well as the recommendations that came out from the child, youth and family advocate, that talked about the need to establish child care facilities -- not just day care, but child care facilities for young, single mothers who are sexually exploited and are drug-addicted, so that they can have an opportunity to care long-term for their children while they are in treatment.

I'm not talking about when you're in the methadone program or something like that, and you've got somewhere to put your child for two hours. I'm talking about child care facilities that are connected to safe houses. Now, that's not transition houses as per the Ministry of Women's Equality. These are what were recommended to be put in place so that young women who are sexually exploited and/or drug-addicted don't have, as the first avenue open, the removal of their child. That's what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering if, after four years, we've actually done any of what we said we were going to do.

Hon. L. Boone: We have one mom-and-kids program in Abbotsford, and that's what you're talking about. It's a facility where the children actually have a child care centre there. There's one in Abbotsford, and one is planned for the Prince George region.

G. Wilson: Can the minister tell me why we're putting one in Abbotsford and one in Prince George, when the overwhelming statistical information in front of us is that greater Vancouver -- and in fact downtown Vancouver -- is the place we need it?

Hon. L. Boone: There is one already in Abbotsford. As for Prince George, there's a tremendous need. We have a tremendous need for alcohol and drug services in Prince George; that goes without question. There are practically no services in the north of the province, and we're talking about servicing the whole northern region, which is what the Prince George region does. Clearly it's appropriate to have a service there. We are working at developing other services around . . . . I don't know why Abbotsford was chosen, but it is there, and I'm glad that we do have some services. We could use more of them, as we can always use more, but we are limited in our dollars.

G. Wilson: That speaks to a second problem. I do want to yield, because I know that others want to get in. In reading through all this material recently -- and I spent some time with it -- one of the problems identified is that we tend to think that by setting up a program in Abbotsford, somehow that's going to work in the downtown Vancouver core. It isn't. We've known that for many, many years. In fact, one of the concerns was the cost of travel, the difficulty of travel, the ability to even get travel.

If you're poor, drug-addicted, sexually exploited, a single mother in downtown Vancouver, how on earth are you going to go and take advantage of what's going on in Abbotsford? How do you even get out to Abbotsford?

We need to have one in Vancouver -- in fact, more than one, I would argue. They have to be managed and run, if we're dealing with first nations people, by those first nations societies -- by the UNN Society or some other organization that is there to make sure that there are peer counselling services available.

Let me ask two more questions, and I promise I will then yield to my colleagues. Why don't we have one in Vancouver? Are there plans to establish one in Vancouver? If so, when? That's three questions, but I'll pose it as one.

Hon. L. Boone: We transport people to the residential facility. In fact, when I met with a number of the service providers in the downtown east side in the Vancouver region, they didn't have an objection to us putting services in the outer regions. They believe that people are being attracted to Vancouver, and they would very much like to see them go back to their home communities, go elsewhere to receive the services. The downtown east side is not a particularly good place to be clean and sober.

So those people that I spoke to in the downtown east side, while they want more services -- and I won't deny that -- they also do not object to services going outside the centre of Vancouver, because they would like to see the people who have come into that centre go back out of that area and have an opportunity for a clean and sober life in a different community.

G. Wilson: I'm taking it that the minister's answer . . . . The minister said that if you can make your questions shorter, then you get shorter answers. I made mine shorter, and I got a longer answer. In fact, I didn't get an answer; I just got a longer comment. So presumably the answer from the minister . . . . The minister is saying that there are no facilities in Vancouver, and there are no plans for facilities in Vancouver; but that's okay, because people who live in Vancouver who are involved in this work think that it's a good thing for people to go back to Abbotsford and not come to Vancouver.

Well, my question is: what do you do with the people who were born, raised and live in Vancouver? That is their home; that is what they know -- all they know -- because they have been born there, they were raised there. And they are caught in a systemic cycle of poverty, sexual abuse and drug abuse. They are simply going to continue that cycle through another generation if we don't capture them and do something to help give them a hand up and out of that situation. So what do we do with the people in Vancouver who don't access Abbotsford? What's their hope? Maybe the minister can tell me.

[3:30]

Hon. L. Boone: I would hate for you to think that there is no money going into Vancouver, because there is money going into Vancouver. We just don't have this type of facility there. Well, we can't do everything at once; we have a limited number of dollars. Three million dollars did go from the Ministry of Health into the Vancouver regional health board there to develop a strategy around drug addictions. They are

[ Page 10050 ]

working, and they have a number of different proposal ideas that they are implementing and starting. But that's $3 million that has gone into that area. Our regional people are working very closely with the other people in that area, be it the city . . . . I talked to the regional operating officer just yesterday, and he's working with the city, with the regional health board, so that we can develop a coordinated response.

As to why we put the first one into Abbotsford, I don't have a problem with that. I think that's a good place for it. Anywhere we can put in that kind of facility is great. The next one is planned for the Prince George region. As I said, this northern region has a tremendous void in services. I make no apologies for services going in there, because they do serve the entire northern half of the province.

So we're working at this. Could we have more? Of course we could have more. If you can find a pot of money for us, hon. member, we'll be glad to spend it.

G. Wilson: The government just found $8 million for an on-shore fish processing plant in a matter of a couple of days. Now, I'm not opposed to giving assistance or bridge financing to try and keep the fish industry going, but I do think you have to ask a question about priorities on spending. I come back to what I said before. I don't want to get into a protracted debate, although maybe I do. Maybe I really do want to get into a protracted debate.

I do want to really hold this minister responsible, because I have to tell you, I have respect for this minister. I believe that this minister genuinely does care; I do think that's true. And I believe that this minister can be effective. I know that this minister was effective with respect to a certain number of highway projects when she was Minister of Highways, and I saw how that could be done. I know this minister has some clout in that cabinet. I know that's true, because I've watched what goes on over there in that cabinet. So I know that this minister has an opportunity now to really leave a mark before this government is retired in a couple of years.

I would say that the mark this minister has to leave is to start to move money into the provision of services for the poor, because they're being completely left out of this government's set of spending priorities. There are more of them, and they are becoming more and more caught up in this cycle of drug addiction, violence and systemic poverty that is causing tremendous human loss. The provision of police services is telling us that we've got to do something. The caseworkers in the field are saying that we've got to do something. The coroner is telling us that we've got to do something.

The coroner is saying: "Do something." The child, youth and family advocate is saying that we've got to do something. So if a member of this cabinet can come up with $8 million to help a fish processing plant in the north . . . . It seems to me that if we've only got $3 million going in to deal with these issues and crises in Vancouver, perhaps we've got our priorities a little bit mixed up. I know this minister can make a difference, and I challenge her to do so.

Let me finish my questions by returning to the matter of first nations and aboriginal people. I talked earlier about the establishment of a truth and reconciliation process for first nations people in British Columbia, and the minister said that, yes, we were going to try to do this on a community-by-community basis. I've expressed my concern for that, because a huge portion of the people we're trying to capture in this process do not live on the land. They live in the urban centres, and they will not be captured in that community-by-community process.

I am asking the minister, in recognizing the need to do something and knowing that this minister has the ability to weave some magic in that little cabinet over there, if she will push for this, because the systemic problems that we face today are only going to be worse next year and worse the year after.

The number of people who are affected -- especially young aboriginal youth, who are going to be caught up in a system that will terminate their lives mostly before they are 30 years old -- is absolutely tragic and unacceptable. I hope this minister will agree that one of the ways we can start is by dealing with this truth and reconciliation process, so that we can address some of the systemic problems. I'd like the minister to confirm that she's prepared to work with this member and any other member of this chamber who is interested in actually doing something tangible on that question.

Hon. L. Boone: Certainly. I don't question that every member in this House is as concerned as I am about the aboriginal situation -- what took place in the past and how we can reconcile that. I'd be more than happy to work with you in your communities. If you have any ideas as to how we can deal with some of the urban issues, we'd be happy to hear them as well.

B. McKinnon: I'm going to be asking questions on child protection training. Are you prepared for that?

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: I'm going to start out by asking the minister: what is the total budget for training this year, and has it increased over last year? If it has, how much has it increased by?

Hon. L. Boone: The budget for this year is $9 million; last year, it was $8.6 million.

B. McKinnon: What is the total budget for training child protection workers specifically? How much has that increased over last year?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year we spent $3.8 million for child protection workers; this year we are spending $2.4 million, but we are removing the concentrated BSW, which was a very costly program that we initiated last year.

B. McKinnon: This removal of that costly program . . . . Are you doing away with it completely, or do you still have it? What is happening to that program?

Hon. L. Boone: We are not doing that. That was the program that saw us paying for our staff to upgrade to the BSW.

B. McKinnon: You spent $9 million in your training budget this year and $8.6 million last year. Where was the difference in spending specifically put? Do you keep track of where that money is kept?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll just read through the $9 million, which will probably save us some time: child protection workers, $2.45 million; youth workers, $0.9 million; multidisciplinary, $1.3 million; aboriginal strategy, $0.9 million; adult services, alcohol and drug and CLS, $0.7 million; management administrative training, $0.65 million; curriculum

[ Page 10051 ]

development, $0.55 million; and training unit operating costs, $1.55 million. Those are the costs that come out to be $9 million.

B. McKinnon: Each new child protection worker will have to go through a 20-week training program. Is that correct? Does that 20-week training program include all of the risk assessment training?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. McKinnon: Does the 20-week program vary at all, depending on the social worker's experience? Do some get more or less training in this program?

Hon. L. Boone: We do an assessment of individuals who come in with some previous training or experience, and we may determine that they don't have to do all of the modules of the training process.

B. McKinnon: Do the support staff for the child protection workers get any of the risk assessment training?

Hon. L. Boone: We train other community partners but not the support staff.

B. McKinnon: Does the social worker have full training before she is put in the field? Are front-line workers fully trained in risk assessment before they actually start any work in the field?

Hon. L. Boone: They go out on a practicum after they have completed part of their training, and they work under another social worker. They don't get complete delegation until they've completed everything.

B. McKinnon: The child, youth and family advocate said that she supported the development and use of risk assessment tools to help make tough child protection decisions, but I'm not satisfied that sufficient training, supervision or staff time is available to carry this out in most instances. How many staff are dedicated to carrying out the 20-week training program that the social workers take for risk assessment?

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry has five staff that are within our training staff. But then we contract with other agencies or bring in other people from within the ministry to do different modules. So there could be up to perhaps 30 people, depending on what they are going to be teaching. They vary according to where they're at and who's going to be teaching different things.

[3:45]

B. McKinnon: Has there been an evaluation of your training program to ensure that workers have been following the ministry guidelines? Do you have an evaluation?

Hon. L. Boone: There is a test at the end of the process to make sure that they understand it -- that they understand it's up to the supervisors and the child protection managers to monitor them once they're in the field. We also have the audits that are going on; those are new. In the past we've done audits on a sporadic basis. We now have audits that take place once every three years. We will have all of our offices audited within three years.

B. McKinnon: In the field, then, how do the supervisors do this evaluation if everybody is so busy with such a large number of caseloads? How do they find the time to evaluate? Is there a certain procedure that they go through that makes sure it's done?

Hon. L. Boone: There are many decision points that they have to sign off, which gives them an opportunity to check what is happening on those particular cases.

B. McKinnon: So you find that, the way these checkpoints work . . . . Does it work well to make sure that the social workers are following the risk assessment rules and that they're not just going off on their own, so to speak?

Hon. L. Boone: The supervisors must sign off on the risk assessment, so that would give them a pretty good idea as to how closely those employees were following the risk assessment tool. There are other checkpoints -- you know, just being in the field and seeing what's going on -- that would monitor it. In addition, the audits would recognize any problems that were there.

B. McKinnon: In the 20 regions around British Columbia, how many front-line risk assessment workers would you say there are in each region? Or do they differ quite a bit?

Hon. L. Boone: We have 1,247 child protection workers. Most of those would be using the risk assessment tool at some point in time. We have consultants that work within each region to assist them in operating with the risk assessment tool.

B. McKinnon: Actually, I was wondering if there was a specific number of risk assessment workers assigned to each specific region or if the number depended on the region itself.

Hon. L. Boone: They're all trained in risk assessment, and the numbers of child protection workers depend on the size of the region. There are large regions and there are smaller regions, depending on the population base.

B. McKinnon: The ministry has indicated that it will hire child protection workers with degrees other than a BA. So my question is: what level of education is now required for front-line workers?

Hon. L. Boone: We're not exactly moving away from a bachelor or an MSW, which would be our preferred degree. However, we also recognize that there are many educational degrees out there that could be comparable and adequate in terms of our needs. As I said, our first priority would be to have an MSW or a BSW, and then a BA in child and youth care or a master of education in counselling or master of psychology, having completed a practicum in family and child welfare. We are not by any means reducing the level of standards out there. We're just saying that there are other degrees that are comparable and that could, in fact, with the necessary practicum, provide us with experienced personnel.

B. McKinnon: Well, then, would the 20-week training course be the same, regardless of the worker's level of education, or does it depend on how well-educated they are?

Hon. L. Boone: It would remain the same. However, we are working with our various institutions to try to get them to

[ Page 10052 ]

provide some of the child protection training before they actually come out with a degree. I don't know whether we'll be successful or not, but it would certainly be nice to know that we are having somebody being graduated who was able to step into the job without us having to provide the training.

B. McKinnon: Other than the ombudsman, what sources have indicated that it would be safe practice to open the field of front-line workers? I guess you've really answered that -- other than a bachelor of social work -- so I shouldn't even be asking that. It's lack of sleep, I think.

Of the hundred child protection workers that you said have been brought on staff since February, how many of them have their BSWs? If none do, then do the hundred have any degrees at all?

Hon. L. Boone: All of them have their BSWs.

B. McKinnon: How much does it cost to put one worker through the 20-week training program? Does this include a worker's wage, and if not, what is the total cost of bringing a new worker into the system?

Hon. L. Boone: It's approximately $24,000 to $25,000. If we find there's any discrepancy in that number, we'll get that to you.

B. McKinnon: In that amount, when workers go for training . . . . Do they get a wage while they are training? If they do get a wage, how much is it?

Hon. L. Boone: It's their regular social work wage that they would be receiving.

V. Anderson: I'd like to follow up, for just a few minutes first of all, on the aboriginal discussion generally, without specific details. One of the concerns that we've had over the years is that with many programs -- aboriginal being one of them -- there seem to be many agencies of government working with aboriginal people across a variety of ministries. When we come particularly to Children and Families, which involves both adults and children, what is the process whereby the government ministries have come together on consistent policies and principles for working with the aboriginal community?

Hon. L. Boone: We are currently working with the Ministry of Health, for example, on some of their strategies. Each ministry liaises with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs on the policies, and we try to coordinate efforts as much as we can. For example, we just recently met with representatives of Big Brothers and Big Sisters with regard to a proposal that they had for an aboriginal arm of that organization and support for that. I think four different ministries came together to meet on that issue.

We do try to coordinate our efforts as much as we can, recognizing, of course, that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has a real role in trying to coordinate and make sure that we're not duplicating services and that we are working together.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Has there been developed a statement of principles for the government in total through its different ministries working with the aboriginal community? If so, is that available?

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously I can't comment on what government has . . . . You should ask the Premier on a cross-government basis, but in our aboriginal strategy we have a series of goals. Goal number one is to strengthen the capacity and authority of aboriginal communities to develop and deliver child and family services of a nature and extent comparable to those available to any residents in North America. Number two is to strengthen the capacity of the ministry to appropriately respond to the ongoing need for aboriginal services while aboriginal communities acquire such capacities.

Number three is to coordinate federal obligations within provincial jurisdictions to address outstanding issues of federal fiduciary responsibility for resources delivered to status Indians, where they may choose to live in British Columbia. Number four is to advocate within government for the development of viable aboriginal economies and economic opportunities to address this primary determinant of the health and well-being of aboriginal people and communities.

[4:00]

Those are the goals of this ministry. And maybe it's not the Premier . . . . It would be the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs that would have been dealing with a governmentwide goal, and you may want to talk to that minister with regards to that.

V. Anderson: Since I don't have those five goals in front of me, all of which sounded great, I'm wondering if the minister might go over them a little slower, one by one, and make a comment about what has happened significantly or is planned to happen significantly in each one of those goals, so that we can get an idea of where we've been and where we're going in this coming year on each of those goals.

Hon. L. Boone: Goal number one -- I would hate to actually read this -- has to do with the strategy to deliver services in the aboriginal communities. As I said earlier, we are working very hard in delegating the director's authority under CFCSA on an adoption act to first nations, Métis and urban aboriginal agencies. We're exploring the criteria for designating the heads of aboriginal agencies as directors under the CFCSA. So those are some of the issues that we are dealing with.

Under goal number two, which is to strengthen the capacity to respond to the need for aboriginal services before and while the aboriginal communities develop that capacity, we are developing cultural sensitivity and awareness training. I mentioned that earlier. We are developing protocol agreements with every aboriginal community and providing an ongoing forum to educate and assist regional aboriginal service managers to provide leadership in the development and implementation of regional aboriginal strategic plans.

Goal number three: we are coordinating federal obligations in those areas. We are developing pilot projects with the federal government which temporarily set aside existing jurisdictional issues in the pursuit of better methods of meeting the needs of aboriginal children and families. Two projects are currently in discussion stage with first nations communities. Systematically identifying gaps between the Ministry for Children and Families and federal services to status Indians is the first step in developing policy to ensure equity of service access and strategies for maximizing potential recovery from the federal government.

Goal number four: we're implementing pilot projects to advocate within government. We are implementing pilot projects for small isolated communities, coordination of the Ministry for Children and Families strategic plan with planning of

[ Page 10053 ]

other ministries to collaboratively address social and economic issues and investigate partnerships with Canada and other ministries to establish a western diversification project for British Columbia. Those are the issues and what we are doing with them in trying to reach our goals.

V. Anderson: One of the realities that I find in dealing with people of many backgrounds, including aboriginal, is the necessity of learning to operate in different cultures and between the cultures. Aboriginal persons are no different in that regard, in that many of them need to recover their own culture. At the same time, they need to learn the non-aboriginal culture in which we live in Canada and know how to operate between them.

Have there been studies done by your ministry with respect to the training of workers who are working with aboriginal people in intercultural cross-polarization -- moving from one culture to the other within your own person -- as well as in working with people between the cultures?

Hon. L. Boone: We are working on this. The ministry's aboriginal training strategy provides for sensitization of ministry and contract staff to ensure that more culturally appropriate services are provided or supported. We are moving in that direction and will continue to do so.

V. Anderson: Are there some studies or some experiences that have come from the aboriginal community which can help us understand how aboriginal people relate to non-aboriginal culture, which we can learn from and which can be beneficial to all of us?

Hon. L. Boone: We have done a great deal of work, and the aboriginal community has worked with us in training our people to recognize their cultural sensitivities and also to train their workers. But I do not believe that there has been any information coming from the aboriginal community sensitizing them to our culture. I think they're immersed in our culture whether they want to be or not. The problem we have as a society is our lack of recognition of the aboriginal cultural differences.

V. Anderson: To follow this for a moment, it seems to me that -- we're talking about Children and Families here -- recognizing that they particularly have to live in two cultures, our whole preparation and interaction with them should have an in-depth understanding of that reality. In our educational system we should have an understanding of what it is to be able to operate in two cultures independently, which not many of us have had the opportunity to do.

It seems to me that in order to help and actually be of assistance to our children in their education as they develop and grow, they have to be aware that health regulations may be different in the two cultures, that evaluations of health may be different and that ideas of success or failure may be quite different in the two cultures. They have to be able to operate in both to be successful and to have the same respect in different cultures. What is called formal education and education by your historical culture are two different ways of looking at education.

There are so many aspects, and it seems to me that one of the reasons that in the past we haven't really been able to solve aboriginal problems, which are really not problems but aboriginal opportunities . . . . They are two sides of that same ledger. Between ourselves and aboriginal people, we haven't gone deep enough to understand who is teaching whom and who is bringing what strengths to us.

We talk about aboriginal problems, but the aboriginal people have their basic problems with us, the non-aboriginal people, because we try to impose upon them standards, societies, experiences and evaluations which are not necessary to their culture, except when they have to live with us. If they were able to live independently from us, they would be fine, but having to live with us is another circumstance.

So I think it's fundamental that we delve deeper into understanding what we're about, because when we talk about programs without proper presuppositions, we're going to continue making the same mistakes over and over again.

As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast expressed earlier, for at least the last seven years that we've been here, we've been asking the same questions and getting the same answers. Therefore it seems to me that the questions we've been asking are not the right questions or the answers are not the right answers -- or both. I think we have to begin to look again and say: "What are the questions that we should be asking?" What I had to learn from the aboriginal people was that I was having wrong expectations, asking the wrong questions and therefore getting the wrong answers.

So I'm asking the minister just one more time if there could be some research into what it is like to live in two cultures and to express that we have as much to learn, if not more, from the aboriginal culture as they have to learn from the non-aboriginal culture. How do we go about that?

Hon. L. Boone: The member sort of worked his way around there. Originally I tried to advise you that we are doing cultural sensitivity with our workers to make them culturally aware and to make them aware of what we have to learn from the aboriginal community. I recognize that yes, many of their problems do have to do with us, so we are doing that. But I'm not sure what you're asking in terms of us doing some study in the aboriginal community to make them culturally sensitive to the white culture. I think they've been immersed in the white culture whether they want to be or not.

They are not the ones that need to be sensitized to what the differences are. It's our community that needs to be sensitized to the cultural differences in the aboriginal community, and we are doing that.

V. Anderson: Just one more comment on this particular vein of questioning. Can the minister provide us with some principles or ideas -- or lessons, if you like -- that have come from the aboriginal community, which have altered and changed the programs we are giving? Or can you list things that the aboriginal community has asked for which were not part of our planning or programming, which we have initiated with their guidance to fulfil their needs?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I'll give you three. There are others, but I'll give you three that are important ones. They've asked for some input into the risk assessment tool, so we're working with them to develop their own risk assessment tool. They reviewed our 20-week training program, and we made some changes to that program to make it sensitive to their communities. We will be funding an aboriginal foster parent association. We are working with them, and we will continue to work with them to make the changes that are required to make our organization as culturally sensitive as possible.

[4:15]

V. Anderson: I want to commend you and thank you very much for that response, because that's exactly what I was hoping to hear and what I think we need to hear a great deal

[ Page 10054 ]

more of. What we may realize is that as a result of what they do for us, we will end up changing our programs. They will be better as a result. Let me give you one illustration.

When I was teaching at the Vancouver School of Theology, one of the things, when it came to the exams -- the evaluation process -- was that for generations we had had a formal written examination/evaluation process. The adult aboriginal persons, who were 40 and 50 years of age, had never used these kinds of processes. Their general comment on it was: "If the professor already knows the answer, why would I tell him?" In desperation, the professors finally had to give oral exams to the aboriginal people, and they were great.

The upshot was that within three years' time, all of the students were doing oral examinations. We learned a new way to look at things and be part of society, which we share together, from them. When that begins to happen, then we are really beginning to relate or to interrelate with them in a way that our processes change as a result of what they teach us. When we have accomplished that, then I think we're all going to be better off for it. So I thank you for indications that we are moving in that direction, because I think that down the road that will be extremely important.

I want to move to looking at the reports of the children's commissioner. I'm not tempted to go through all the recommendations.

An Hon. Member: I am.

V. Anderson: You're tempted.

It's interesting that as I go through the recommendations on aboriginal services, on training, on education and on youth, there is a pattern to them. The pattern is that in almost every case, there is a plan in place to deal with the question that was raised; the plan is forthcoming and underway. If I move from that to the comment in the report of the office of the child, youth and family advocate -- and I would like to deal with that directly for a few minutes: "creating a New Service Delivery System . . . . These are excellent plans. But now we must ask: is the progress to date sufficient? Are children safer?

Are services available when needed and easy to get? Things did not get better for many children, youth and families needing services in 1997." So here's an independent person, non-partisan, listening to the community and saying that the plans are there, yet the services are not better.

It goes on to say: "The number of calls to the advocate's office increased by 38 percent from 1996." It then lists the three top concerns: " . . . how decisions are made about children in care . . . [the] government's response to complaints of child abuse and neglect, [and] the difficulties faced by youth between 15 and 18 in trying to receive either basic support, such as income assistance, or foster care."

I wonder if we might briefly take a moment for each one of those, one at a time, and if the minister could comment on how the ministry is responding to these concerns which have been summarized by the advocate from her knowledge and experience with people working in the field. First, how decisions are made about children in care . . . . There's been some discussion on that, but what has changed? Or what is being put into effect in 1998 that will make that different from 1997?

Hon. L. Boone: You're correct that the child advocate's report did indicate that there were a number of things that were coming, but I want to point out that the child advocate's report dealt with the years up to 1997, which went to January 1. She also pointed out that this year would be the year that would prove what was happening.

I think it's fair to say that when I met with her, she recognized that a new ministry bringing five ministries together is not an easy thing to do, that in fact there is a lot of turmoil and difficulty out there both in the community sector and in the service sector. They are dealing with it within the ministry, as they try to pull themselves together and work as one. I'm not surprised, and I don't think she was surprised, that that took place during that period of time.

She also recognized that this year would be the year that we would see the implementation of the changes that she was concerned about. This year we do have additional dollars coming into the ministry, so we will see the decisions about children being made in a different manner. We recognize that there were some staff pressures out there.

We have a workload assessment tool now to assess where the staff should be going. We have the risk assessment tool; we have our staff that have been through the training. I think we're starting to work together as a ministry, but I don't want to underestimate the difficulties of pulling together a brand-new ministry of this magnitude in a little over a year. When I met with her, I know that she certainly acknowledged that although she had some concerns, we had come a long way. She also recognized that the calls that come to her office do increase when there is a particular problem.

If there is a high-profile case that comes up, then calls suddenly start to come in. Of course, we had the Quesnel issue -- very high-profile. Calls started to come in at that point as well. That is the answer as to how things are going to be changing and what we are doing to make them change this year.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that and in a sense getting it on the record at this point, because what I hear the minister saying and us saying along with her is that the evaluation of the change starts from January 1 of this year, if you like, or at least from April 1, if you like, until next year. So next time we come back, we'll be having a standard from which to work -- kind of where we start now as to where we were then. I think we want to grant her that opportunity and hope that we are able to do that year better than we have the previous years when the same things happened but the standards hadn't been met for a variety of reasons.

When we're looking at, then . . . . I want, just in passing, to congratulate the ministry. We'll come back to contract and restructuring later on, in detail. But in many ways, I want to congratulate the minister for saying: "Things are not working. Let's stop and review it. Let's do it better." I want to thank her for that.

Following up with the child, youth and family advocate, she had specific recommendations which came out of this recognition of how things might be done better. The area that I would like to focus on particularly at this moment is the one that she focused on, which is the area of early intervention. Early intervention must be available to all children who need it as soon as they need it.

Probably the minister and all of us agree wholeheartedly that how children are raised from the time they're born, or even prior, and the opportunities they have in the first months and years of their lives are fundamental and will indicate where they go from there. Theoretically at least, I think the community at large is now willing to accept the necessity of giving that priority to the youngest of our children so that they have the fullest opportunity in life and we have fewer negative results to deal with later on, which is an advantage to them as well as to us as a society.

So I want to ask what the stance is on her recommendation: "I recommend that government create a separate, dedicated early intervention fund for the children of tomorrow."

[ Page 10055 ]

Hon. L. Boone: That goes beyond what this ministry can deal with. That would be a measure taken by the Ministry of Finance, and I doubt very much whether the Ministry of Finance would implement a dedicated fund similar to Pharmacare, as there would be literally no controls put on that. Now is not the time, when we have tight budgets and financial constraints on the province, to introduce any fund that has no controls over it. So I would doubt that, but I think you would have to talk to the Minister of Finance to find out if she was supportive of such a program.

V. Anderson: Let me rephrase the question then, having you put it that way. What is the priority of the ministry in its present programming in dealing with the prevention of difficulties that children might have or in giving children the opportunity to meet any of their physical or mental needs in order to be a well and healthy and wholly developed person? What is the priority for that in the ministry, and what is the process to give that priority?

Hon. L. Boone: Within the ministry, we recognize the importance of early intervention, and we do have considerable dollars that go into intervention: public health services, speech, audiology, nutrition, dental -- that's $72.85 million. Child care -- I don't think anybody would say that a good child care program is not an early intervention program. Certainly the provincial health officer, Dr. Millar, recognizes that, and that's $188.53 million. General family support programs -- that's $110 million. School-based programs, are extremely important and something that I support a long ways.

That's the lunch programs, the tremendous early intervention and prevention program: $43.96 million. Healthy Kids: $10.66 million. Building Blocks programs are within that area, as well as new programs coming on that are early intervention, helping new moms dealing with FAS children to recognize various things. Those are developed at the community level to meet the various community needs. So yes, we recognize that intervention is extremely important. As a ministry and as a government, we have certainly funded those things.

V. Anderson: I'm encouraged by the list as it goes out. What I'm wondering is whether there is a way in which these early intervention programs can be packaged and, say, promoted by a public education program, which brings the public involved in doing early intervention as communities. That goes beyond and supplements and complements our programs, because it seems to me that if the public and the ministry can be seen to be working together and can undertake a common understanding of what is involved, we'll be further ahead.

The government is not expected to pick up all the problems and deal with them with programs. A lot of this could be undertaken by public education and a public process where there is seen to be cooperation between community agencies, individual families and the programs of the ministry. What I'm asking is: is there a public education program in the ministry that concentrates on the early years of life, which all of us can participate in and feel that we're working together with?

[4:30]

Hon. L. Boone: If you're asking me what the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Education has, I'm not too much aware of those unless they are programs that are funded by us. I mentioned the school-based lunch program. In my communities, they also have an early breakfast program.

You talk about working with the community. It's extremely important. We're trying to do it on an ongoing basis. Just yesterday I announced some provincial funding to assist SPOC, which is street-proofing our children in the Vancouver area, to help provide the young kids in our schools and our communities with the tools to protect themselves when they're out and not under the protection of their parents. Those are some of the things we are doing, and we will continue to do that with the money that we've got. The SPOC program is a very important one, because it is cost-shared.

UFCW is supporting it; the RCMP is supporting it. We're supporting it, as are the community organizations. If there are other ways that we can work with community organizations to cost-share and to develop things at the local level, then we're more than happy to do so.

V. Anderson: What I'm asking about is some leadership from the government not just in providing programs but in providing vision and an opportunity to the adults of the community to take on responsibility for children from zero to five years of age, before they get to school. We have accepted that a large part of a child's education once they become school age is between school and the community. I'm not sure we've accepted that there's an educational role that we have together until they get to school.

I'm asking if the ministry, with the package of what they're doing and the opportunities and tools that are available to them, can help to bring together a vision of the community to provide the basic fundamentals that children should have prior to becoming school age.

Hon. L. Boone: I think our regions are doing this on an ongoing basis, working within the communities. Some may be doing it more so than others, but if we can work with communities, we will do that.

V. Anderson: I'll move to another area of discussion, which has long been a concern. That is whether the ministry has done any study in the area of child apprehension, whether it's in foster care or whatever, or of the process by which families and children are dealt with through the courts. It's been my experience again and again, and for many others that I've talked to, that there is an imbalance in arriving at just decisions regarding children because of the imbalance once we get into the confrontational basis of the court system.

On one side, you have the government system, the social services and the child and family system, which has in place lawyers and processes which are well defined, but they totally overbalance those independent persons on the other side in our confrontational system of courts, who speak for the children and their families. It's the reality of that imbalance in the use of our court systems that has led us to do a great deal of harm to children and their families and has led to a great deal of cost -- financially, in time and in every other way -- in the use of our system.

It has not got the kind of results needed when we are moving into a very important part of the decisions that need to be made.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that and on whether there have been any studies or evaluations done of the harm that is being done by the way the system operates. I'm not talking about the decisions at this point, but about the way the decisions operate. Are there any processes in place to correct and make that work more effectively?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the study is that you would like to see. I must take issue a little bit with what you're saying, in that it's a lopsided system where you've got the Ministry for Children and Families on one side and the children and their families on the other. We are here to protect

[ Page 10056 ]

the child, so I would question whether you've got the children and their families on the one side. Our mandate is to put the best interests of the child foremost. We go to the courts in order to do that. I don't know what it is that you would like to see us study. I'm not quite sure what it is.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly that the intention of everyone involved is the best interests of the child. The system, as it has developed, has developed on adult thinking -- on one process. It's a system that's developed on a right-wrong, good-bad, black-white system. It's not the system that operates in most families. It's the system that gives a certain weight to how clean a place is, to how a person talks and to evaluations. Those evaluations, once they're entrenched, are there forever.

It's a system that goes back into the record and says that if you made a mistake at one point, then that will be held against you and your children forever. The difficulty of dealing with that is overweighted. It's a system where the children are in the middle, and there are different groups. One side, the government side, has one, two, three, four, five, six or ten lawyers. The government side has access to all of the court records and documents. The other side does not have any of that, in giving the other position, so the presentations are imbalanced. A person comes and tries to make a presentation.

Their court case is on Wednesday. On Monday they ask, "Can we get a copy of what's coming up on Wednesday?" and they're told by the system: "No, we don't have to give you that until Tuesday." And they've taken time off work. Illustration after illustration of the imbalance of the system . . . .

Where it works against children is that in our experience there are hundreds of people in our community who will turn to Human Resources or Children and Families only when there is absolutely nothing else to be done. Their conviction at this moment is that if they turn to Children and Families for any help whatsoever, even if it's short-term, it will automatically mean that the greatest probability is that their children will be taken away from them. So the help is not given at the beginning when it's needed most, and that's because of the way the system is operating.

What I'm asking is that this crucial juncture in decision-making, which decides whether children have parents anymore or children have a history or a background, whether they are together with their own siblings . . . . The system is imbalanced. I'm asking if a study has been done or if a study could be done on these issues, because they're real. If a study has not been done, and if the minister is not aware of this situation, would she undertake to look at these circumstances -- to have someone study it?

I'd be happy to tell them my experiences over many years not just with this government but over many -- some 40 years in ministry not only in this province but in other provinces as well. We're not going to get to the right answers and the right solutions with the right costs until we look at it and review it. Would the minister be willing to undertake an initiation of the beginning of that review?

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: "An initiation of the beginning of that review . . . . " No, I'm not going to commit to that today, thank you.

Gove was all about us trying to make sure that we put the child at the centre of the decisions that are made. If you look at the information that comes from the ministry with regard to cases, 18.7 percent of the investigations are physical abuse; 5.7 percent are sexual abuse; 15.8 percent are neglect; others -- which include health, emotional abuse, etc., -- are 31.7 percent; and multiple, meaning some of all of those things, is 28 percent. I don't make any apologies for utilizing the resources of the ministry to protect those children. I think that's what our job is.

At this point in time, I do not intend to spend a lot of money studying the system again. Gove did that. He made recommendations; we've changed the system to make the child the centre and to make all our decisions around the child. We will move forward on that.

The risk assessment tool is there . . . so that our workers can recognize when a child is at risk. I think that is helping them to make the best decisions. We are working with the aboriginal community to reassess that risk assessment tool, to make it culturally sensitive. I think that will assist us. But no, I do not intend to restudy the system after Gove did an extensive study.

V. Anderson: My final comment at this point is that I appreciate the minister's honesty and her clarity of response when she said no. I'm terribly disappointed. As a result, I will predict that we will continue to have families in disarray, because any system, no matter how good it is, has to continue to review the system that it's dealing with.

[4:45]

If the minister is satisfied that the Gove report dealt with all of the problems of the system and its relationship to families, she's dreadfully mistaken. Gove did not intend to deal with all of the problems in the system. I'm very disappointed that the minister is not ready to look at this and is not willing to acknowledge that there may be improvements that could be made.

There are hundreds and thousands of children and their families -- their grandparents, their parents and themselves -- in this province that are being victimized by the way the system is being used -- not consciously, but because it's blind to what it's doing, and it's not willing, like the minister, to look at it. I'm extremely disappointed. But I do thank her for her clarity and honesty, because now we can look somewhere else and not expect a change from her.

C. Clark: Before I start, I do want to note the presence in the gallery of Delphine Charmley, who's come to join us again with her son -- one of her adopted special needs children. I want to welcome her. I've taken the time to introduce her already, so I won't go through that again.

I want to move to the contracted sector -- not the foster care sector specifically -- which was affected by restructuring the ministry. First, though, I'd like to get a sense from the minister of what she means when she says that the ministry is undertaking another 24-month process of restructuring to replace the old process of restructuring. What will that entail? What changes does the ministry envision as a result of that process?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be working at the provincial level, with provincial organizations, to develop an overall umbrella policy with regard to how we should be proceeding and what we can do within the parameters. We'll be working at the regional and community levels with tables -- or groups, or whatever you want to call them -- to consult with those organizations as to how we can better deliver services and how we can restructure our services in those areas, keeping in mind the concerns of individuals -- parents, service organizations -- and also recognizing the needs of the aboriginal community and, as a separate table there, the community living sector.

[ Page 10057 ]

Within the next short period of time, we will be working to assess those that have already got some plans, which were supposed to be restructured and to be collapsing services. We'll be working with them to see how we proceed in those areas, and that will be done immediately. The longer-term goal will be to develop at the community level, working with all of those groups, to decide how we can best deliver services in an integrated manner.

C. Clark: Clearly the minister sees that there's a problem in the contracted sector. Could she articulate for us what problem she sees in that sector that needs to be fixed by her ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: The Gove commission recommended the integration of services in the child and youth program area, due to the need for us to share information. We want to do this. We are committed to doing this, because we think it is very important that we do so, but we want to do so in a manner that recognizes all those concerns that were brought out during the original contracting program restructuring move. We're working very closely . . . . We'll be working with all of those organizations, and with the families, to make sure that we take in their concerns.

We also have plans for transition, if there should be a collapsing of services into organizations, but we will not be mandating. We will not be putting out an RFP saying: "We want you to come together, and we are going to have only one organization here." We will be doing so with the cooperation of all the organizations there.

C. Clark: What's the problem out there that the minister is trying to fix, then? Judge Gove made reference to it, and she's mentioned that. But what is the problem she is trying to address with this restructuring program? The first restructuring came along, and now it's been replaced by restructuring mark II. When she announced the mark II restructuring, she said that she accepted that the goals of the first restructuring were valid, and that's why there should be a mark II of this program. What are the specific problems she's hoping to address by continuing with her restructuring program?

Hon. L. Boone: Gove clearly identified the problems that took place with a lack of information-sharing, with organizations not talking to each other about one client -- two or three organizations providing services to one family perhaps, and nobody actually coming together to talk about how those services are delivered, what services they are delivering and what they're finding out about that particular child or family. We need to integrate those services so that those individuals and those people are talking to each other, so that they're working together and basically providing the best services possible for that family or that child.

C. Clark: My recollection of the Gove report and the problems that were pointed out by Judge Gove is that there was a lack of communication between service providers, but that this was happening partly because the ministry wasn't doing its job. The ministry is supposed to be the information hub for all the contracted service providers out there, and the ministry wasn't doing its job in that respect. Certainly other service providers -- doctors and hospitals -- need to put protocols in place to ensure that they're going to share the information with the ministry when there's a child in care.

But the ministry needs to have some kind of system to ensure that it's communicating with all the people that are providing services to the client on its behalf. Short of amalgamation of services, I don't know how the ministry can hope to ensure that there are good communication links built between these agencies, unless it's the ministry itself that intends to provide that service and be the hub for the information-sharing. What I'm trying to find out from the minister is what her vision is of integration and what exactly she means by that.

The only way I can interpret it, based on what she said she wants to achieve, is amalgamation.

Hon. L. Boone: I said very clearly that amalgamation may occur. As my colleague the Minister of Education said: "Amalgamation but not necessarily amalgamation." Amalgamation may occur if the communities decide that that's the best way to deliver those services. If amalgamation doesn't occur, yes, the ministry will act as the hub, and the ministry will be pulling these organizations together to make sure that those individuals are talking.

One of the good things that came about from the CPR process -- I heard this in areas that were having problems -- was that for the first time ever, organizations were talking to each other. They were amazed. They were sitting around one table -- 20 organizations in various communities that never spoke to each other, that never talked about where there was an overlap of services or where they could combine or enhance their services. This way, we will be pulling those people together, and we will be discussing and deciding at the community and the regional levels how we can best achieve that.

There may or may not be some amalgamations taking place, but that will be decided at the community level, working with all our partners out there.

C. Clark: I still don't understand why the ministry appears to be fixated on restructuring. I still cannot get from the minister a sense of what the big problem is that her ministry is so focused on trying to fix. Maybe it would help if she could give us an example of the problems that are occurring out there. It's my recollection that the focus of Judge Gove's recommendations was that the ministries weren't talking to each other. That was the biggest problem. The creation of the Ministry for Children and Families was supposed to resolve that.

We know that there are still problems in the ministry, but Judge Gove was not nearly so focused on fixing problems in the contracted sector as the ministry appears to be. It seems to me that the ministry would be better off to focus a little more of its energy on trying to resolve the problems of integration that it's still experiencing -- I think the child and family advocate certainly alluded to that in her report -- rather than focusing on the contracted sector.

Can the minister tell us, or maybe give us some examples so that we can understand, exactly what the problems are in the contracted sector that need to be fixed so urgently by a restructuring process?

Hon. L. Boone: If you look at Cynthia Morton's report, in some cases she indicates where there is a lack of information-sharing between agencies, which may not have necessarily caused a child's death but certainly didn't prevent it. If that information could have been shared, perhaps that could have prevented the death of a child. Agencies are telling us they are extremely happy that we are pulling them together, that they are working with us and that they have an opportunity to pull together so that they can decide how they can best share information. They recognize that they can provide better services to the children and families out there by working together and sharing information.

Yes, we recognize that as a ministry we've got a role to play, and we will be doing that. We will be working on those

[ Page 10058 ]

things as well, but we're convinced, and the agencies out there are convinced, that we can provide better service by having individual agencies coming together and talking. As I said, it may not necessarily mean a collapsing or amalgamation of those services, but we will have an integration of those services with service providers talking to each other so that those services that are delivered to children and families are done in an integrated manner, with everybody being aware of the situations and the information being shared.

C. Clark: Before I get to my question, I just want to correct the record about something. The minister suggests that service providers were happy with the restructuring process because they got to sit down and talk to each other. Well, I can give the minister a specific example of where that happened. It happened in the South Fraser region. Agencies sat down and talked to each other and tried to figure out how they could best integrate their services.

Then, after six months of them doing that, the ministry came in and essentially kicked them in the teeth and said: "Sorry, everything that you've planned, everything that you've discussed, all the conclusions that you've come to based on your experience and your goodwill . . . . Throw 'em out the window, because as far as we're concerned, we'd like to see one service provider in this whole region."

The bureaucrats in that region didn't end up getting their way with just one service provider, but they sure went far down the road of trying to destroy community agencies that have had their roots in that community for 25 or 35 years. They did the best they could to destroy the goodwill that's out there. What happened as a result of that is not that the service providers are out there happily sharing information.

What happened in the South Fraser region, the Simon Fraser region and the other regions where the ministry has botched reorganization -- got so far that they essentially destroyed organizations -- is that the goodwill between those organizations has been shattered. The trust between those organizations and the ministry has been betrayed, probably permanently. I think the ministry is now asking those agencies to go back to the table with the same civil servants that tried to destroy them six months ago and renegotiate some kind of new restructuring.

They're telling me that they still do not understand from the minister or from the civil servants at the front-line level what that restructuring will entail.

I am trying to get from the minister some clarification of what integration is envisioned by the ministry. Is she simply talking about building better lines of communication between those agencies? Is that the extent of the reorganization that is currently envisioned? If that's the case, I imagine that what the ministry will do is set up regional tables where all the service providers in South Fraser can get together, for example, and talk about what services they're providing and how they might better do it. Maybe they can make it every three months; maybe they can have a retreat. Is that the extent of the restructuring that the minister envisions in this new CPR mark II?

[5:00]

Hon. L. Boone: I think I've said this three times now, so I'm not quite sure how many more times I have to say it. But I'll do it once more so that you . . . . I recognize that you've been up all night, so it may be a little hard for you to take this in.

We intend to work at the community level. If the community decides that those services are better delivered on an amalgamated basis -- if they say, "Hey, we want to come together, and we want to amalgamate our services and have one service provider" -- then that will in fact happen, recognizing that there should be some services delivered by the aboriginal communities.

If they say, "No, we don't think we should be doing this; we believe that we can integrate our services and find a means of talking and communicating with each other, but not by amalgamating all our services into one service provider," then that's what will happen. But I am not going to stand here and tell you that this is going to be one-size-fits-all. Across this province we will see different ways that people work towards providing integrated services in their communities. Those will be decided at the community level, with the help of everybody.

The member likes to say that the community organizations feel like they've been kicked in the teeth and all this sort of stuff. Well, you know, hon. member, it's just not true. Right now the community organizations are extremely happy. You heard them at the announcement. I went to their AGM in Penticton, the same as you did. They believe that we're on the right track. They want to be at the table. They want the re-establishment of a provincial table, which is what we have done. They want to have a voi