1990 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 34th 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, MAY 29, 1990

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

9895 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 39). Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 9895

Forest Amendment Act, 1990 (Bill 35). Hon. Mr. Richmond

Introduction and first reading –– 9895

Tabling Documents –– 9896

Oral Questions

Abortion services. Ms. Marzari –– 9896

Travel expenses. Mr. Clark –– 9896

Alleged abuses of medical system. Mr. Perry –– 9897

Teaching excellence awards program. Mr. Peterson –– 9897

Chilcotin forest industry. Mr. Zirnhelt –– 9897

Presenting Petitions –– 9898

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Social Services and Housing estimates.

(Hon. Mr. Dueck)

On vote 59: minister's office –– 9898

Ms. Smallwood

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. G. Hanson

Mr. Barnes

Mr. Rabbitt

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Ms. Marzari

Ms. Cull

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we have in the House two gentlemen from down under —

from the Commonwealth of Australia. These two gentlemen are meeting

with Ron Willems of our ministry to learn more about our income

assistance division. They have been taken on a tour of one of our

income assistance offices to see how everything is run and to perhaps

take some information back to their respective offices.

With

us today is Mr. Brian Wraith, national manager, field services. He is

one of the three deputy level officers assisting a secretary and the

executive management of the department. He is directly responsible for

service delivery operations. He recently oversaw the development and

implementation of the department's devolved area office network. Mr.

Wraith has been head of the department's administrations in the states

of Victoria, Western Australia and Northern Territory.

Mr.

John Powlay is the manager of the southeast area, which encompasses

some of the southern metropolitan offices of Sydney and coastal

Wollongong in New South Wales. Would this House please make them

welcome.

I would like to make one more introduction. I see

in the gallery today Dr. John Anderson and some of his colleagues.

Would the House please make them welcome.

MR. PERRY :

I'm rising to introduce a number of physicians in the public gallery

who have attended a study session here in Victoria this morning,

followed by an address by some members of the Legislature and a

question session in front of the Legislature.

I'll spare

the House the time it would take to introduce all of these people, and

simply introduce Dr. John Anderson, president of the B.C. Medical

Association, and Dr. John McCaw, president of the Victoria Medical

Society, on behalf of doctors who are here today all the way from Oak

Bay to Comox. Will the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER :

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, in the galleries today are two special

guests of mine, Dr. and Mrs. Ed Hauptmann — Ed is president of the

Association of Professional Engineers of B.C. — and Mr. and Mrs.

Harry Gray. Mr. Gray is the managing director of the association. Would

the House please make them welcome.

MR. GABELMANN : Mr. Speaker, it's not often that students from Surge

Narrows Elementary have an opportunity to attend the Legislature. While it may

be a little unusual I'd like to read into the record the names of a number

of students, teachers and parents who are here with us this afternoon. They

are Eileen O'Reilly, George Mann, Gary Gagnon, Gail Johnson, Jim Chaichin,

Aaron Bruce, Marci Flager, Howie Brown, Jenny Stoppard and Marney Sewell. I'd

ask all members of the House to make these people very welcome.

MR. REID :

Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to offer a special welcome to a very

special friend of mine and of the province of British Columbia. Fr.

Nunzio Defoe is in the precincts. Would the House make him especially

welcome.

MR. PETERSON : Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

is a good friend of mine and fellow Rotarian from the Langley Central

Rotary Club. Would the House please join me in welcoming Dr. Peter

Stockdill.

HON. MR. PARKER : Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today is a member of your class, the class of '75. Would the House please welcome Howard Lloyd.

MR. SPEAKER : An ever-diminishing group.

MR. BARNES :

In the galleries are about 70 students from Britannia Secondary School

in the riding of Vancouver Centre. I'd like the House to welcome these

students, along with Mr. Walker, one of the teachers, Mr.

Gordon-Hansen — not this one — Mr. Terry Lanning and Mr. Ed

MacAulay. On behalf of the Leader of the Opposition and myself, I'd

like the House to join us in making them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

TAXATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

This bill contains a number of amendments to a number of taxation

statutes, including the Mining Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the

Property Purchase Tax Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco

Tax Act.

These amendments contain many of what we

bean-counters call housekeeping adjustments and a few other initiatives

which we can get into during second reading and committee stages.

Bill

39 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Hon. Mr. Richmond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1990.

HON. MR. RICHMOND :

Mr. Speaker, the Forest Amendment Act, 1990, is Bill 35. It amends the

Forest Act to make spiking of timber an offence. It addresses the

concerns of many workers in our forest industry that their health and

even their lives are endangered by the actions of a few individuals who

hope to save

[ Page 9896 ]

few trees with such actions. The bill makes it an offence to spike

timber, including all trees, whether living or dead, standing or fallen.

Bill

35 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Fraser tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Solicitor-General for the period ending March 31, 1989.

Oral Questions

ABORTION SERVICES

MS. MARZARI :

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. Today in the federal House an

abortion bill was passed which basically and tragically removes choice

from women. In this province the Canadian federation of women

physicians, B.C. branch, has expressed concern that doctors will be

withdrawing their services from abortion because of fear of

intimidation and harassment. I'm asking you, Mr. Premier, what position

will you take now that this bill has gone through, now that women and

their doctors might be deemed criminal, to ensure that abortion

services will be made available with our hospitals, in every hospital

equally, across this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, I'm surprised at the question. Obviously we all know that

there are various views on this bill, which is why it was so close in

the House, I guess. All political parties had varying views on it. The

vote was almost even. So you can well appreciate it was very split.

I'm

surprised at the member's question. Is she expecting something other

than the law to be the law? If we don't like the law, then obviously

you can work towards changing it through your Members of Parliament.

You may have a difficult time doing that, because most of them are NDP,

and they don't respond very well. But certainly that opportunity is

available to everyone.

MS. MARZARI : The Premier did

not understand my question, Mr. Speaker. What is the Premier going to

do with hospital boards in this province? Abortion services might well

be cut back. How are you going to make them available according to the

law of this land across this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Speaker, again there is no problem, of course, in that we all have

to abide with the law. As far as how they deal with these situations,

that's been a decision for the hospitals. The Minister of Health (Hon.

J. Jansen) has dealt with hospitals, and I intend to keep it that way.

This is for the Minister of Health, and he can work with these local

boards.

TRAVEL EXPENSES

MR. CLARK :

A question to the Minister of Finance. He's had a day to think about

this, and I wonder if he could answer this question. Does the

government have a policy with respect to private companies that supply

equipment or services to the government paying for the expenses of

cabinet ministers and deputies on official government travel?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

The fact of the matter is that we've had a system in place to monitor

many expenditures as it affects officials of government. It has been in

place for many years, and it has had many refinements over the years,

not the least of which is the process by which members can examine

expenditures in Public Accounts .

I know the members opposite are well familiar with that system,

availing themselves of it at every opportunity. So quite clearly

there's a system in place, and quite clearly it works effectively.

[2:15]

MR. CLARK :

I'd like to quote the comptroller-general's report that the minister

received a few days ago. Mr. Dubas and his wife availed themselves of

the many meals provided by Siemens and other host organizations. He has

claimed full-day meal allowances for the entire 17 days he was on

travel status. The question is: did the Minister of Health and his wife

avail themselves of the many meals provided by Siemens and other host

organizations?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : As I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the report is a confidential document — confidential

in the interests of the employee or ex-employee and in the interests of

preserving the integrity of the justice system, so that natural justice

can be followed if individuals named have a desire to further their

position and explain and develop their position through the

long-established judicial process.

It is for that reason — and it has been a longstanding, valid reason —

that the integrity of the system be protected, and that reports dealing

with those matters that might well be the subject of subsequent options

of those individuals named should be held in confidence until that

matter is resolved.

The member is fully aware of the

process, and I trust he knows full well that further discussion on the

issue as it relates to the ex-employee would be inappropriate at this

point in time, as I said yesterday. I developed that theme at length

yesterday, and I thought that the member opposite clearly understood

it. It is obvious from his question today that he doesn't, and that's

unfortunate.

In my judgment, Mr. Speaker, we shouldn't be

playing political games with the reputation of individuals. They should

have every option that the system allows them to ensure that their

interests are protected to the maximum. We should not be using this

House or these opportunities to destroy the system.

[ Page

9897 ]

A second question was put, if I understood it, which related to the

role of the minister. In that respect, I will refer any such questions

to the minister. I want to make it very clear to the hon. member that

this side of the House will not disclose the details of that report as

it relates to the employee until that person has developed the options

that might be available to him or that he may choose to develop in the

fullness of time.

MR. SPEAKER : The minister doesn't

have the option to direct questions. The Chair is the only one with the

option to direct the question. A question cannot be directed to the

minister about an issue that took place during the time the minister

was involved in a previous portfolio.

MR. CLARK : I

have a question to the Minister of Finance. I'd like to remind the

minister that the use or abuse of public money is the public's

business. These kinds of things ought rightly to be discussed in this

House. Does the government have a policy with respect to entertainment

expenses of ministers and their deputies while on government

business — say, for example, theatre tickets?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

As I mentioned in my previous answer, there is a policy. It has been

developed over the years. Members of both sides of the House have

contributed to its formulation, and it is longstanding and

acknowledged. The hon. member knows the answer to the question before

he puts it.

MR. CLARK : Will the minister confirm that neither Mr. Dubas nor his wife paid for tickets to the matinee performance of Les Misrables in London, England; rather, they were obtained from the agent-general of British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER :

I have said repeatedly that I will not discuss the contents of a

confidential document until the individual named in that document has

had every opportunity to deal with the data. That opportunity is one

which, of necessity, requires time to be explored and examined. I am

unable to speed that process up, but in my judgment it is critically

important that all of us on both sides of the House understand that

individuals who are so affected must have the right and protection of

the law. I think that to suggest otherwise, hon. member, is totally

inappropriate.

The fact is that I cannot and should not

discuss publicly the contents of that confidential document at this

point in time; and I will not.

ALLEGED ABUSES OF MEDICAL SYSTEM

MR. PERRY : I have a question for the Minister of Finance. When the minister

met with editors and reporters from the Vancouver Sun last month, he spoke about

doctors and patients abusing the medical system, citing the case of a woman

whom he claimed had her blood pressure checked by her doctor every day. The

Minister of Finance also said there was nothing wrong with that woman; she was

just lonely. Has the minister reported this situation to the joint government-BCMA

patterns-of-practice committee for investigation?

HON. MR. COUVELIER : I can advise the hon. member that the BCMA is familiar with the situation and aware of the allegation.

MR. PERRY :

Supplementary. The minister is well aware that he has been challenged

to substantiate his assertion and that it would be his responsibility

as a public official responsible for public funds to bring forward any

allegation to that committee, which accepts questions from any

competent observer in the province. Has the minister fulfilled his

responsibility, Mr. Speaker?

TEACHING EXCELLENCE AWARDS PROGRAM

MR. PETERSON :

To the Minister of Education. I have a question about the teaching

excellence awards program announced by his ministry on April 24, in

direct response to the Royal Commission on Education. I understand that

the B.C. Teachers' Federation has refused to join with the ministry in

celebrating excellence in teaching. Could the minister please explain

why the BCTF has refused to participate?

HON. MR. BRUMMET :

The Sullivan royal commission recommended that we take steps to enhance

the teaching profession and recognize the commitment of some of the

professionals in the teaching profession. We developed a plan to

recognize 100 to 110 teachers for their excellence — at least one

in each district, and in increasing numbers in some of the larger

districts. That was discussed at a special committee of representatives

involving superintendents, principals, the BCTF, school trustees and

others at the Education Advisory Council. These people basically agreed

that there should be something done to recognize excellence in

teaching, as excellence is acknowledged and recognized in any

profession.

However, because some of those people said that

it would be better if the BCTF were involved in the process, somehow or

other, the BCTF has translated that into saying all of the people at

the meeting were against the presentation of these awards. Yet I have

every indication that they recognized it as — and I think it should be —

an opportunity to recognize excellence in teaching, as determined at

the district level. As to why the B.C. Teachers' Federation refuses to

recognize them, I don't really know, other than that they're working on

the common denominator. Their attitude seems to be that the only way

you can recognize excellence in teaching is everyone or nobody.

CHILCOTIN FOREST INDUSTRY

MR. ZIRNHELT : I have a question for the Minister of Native Affairs. Yesterday the Minister of Forests

[ Page 9898 ]

(Hon.

Mr. Richmond) told this House that his ministry struck a committee to

work with a very few militant native Indians, as he calls them, who are

responsible for these protests. Since the Chilcotin chiefs know nothing

about such an initiative, could the minister please advise this House

who is on this committee and what it has done to this point?

HON. MR. WEISGERBER : I think probably it would be wiser to ask the question of the Minister of Forests.

MR. ZIRNHELT :

A supplementary to the Minister of Native Affairs. Events during this

last weekend make it clear that the people of the Cariboo know the only

way to resolve the threats of blockades and so on is to get down to

negotiations on native land claims. Now that the native people of the

Chilcotin have agreed to hold off on these blockades, will the minister

advise the House whether he and his cabinet colleagues have decided to

get their heads out of the sand and their butts to the table?

MR. SPEAKER : The question is out of order.

HON. MR. WEISGERBER :

First of all, I want to recognize that we do believe the situation is a

serious one; however, the position the cabinet members take at the

table— whether it be in relationship to their heads or their

butts — is something we will deal with and is one for which we

don't particularly need any advice from the member for Cariboo.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PERRY :

I rise to present a petition that was handed to me a few moments ago on

the steps of the Legislature, which is signed by about 350 British

Columbia physicians and surgeons and states the following: "We, the

undersigned, demand that the current fee dispute between the government

of British Columbia and the British Columbia Medical Association be

referred to neutral binding arbitration as provided under the Canada

Health Act."

Although the sentiments are genuine, I am

uncertain as to the correctness of the petition's form, and I therefore

request leave to submit it to the Clerks for a ruling.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. RICHMOND : Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

SOCIAL SERVICES AND HOUSING

On vote 59: minister's office, $331,553 (continued).

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I asked several questions of the minister, and I more or less assumed

that he would have some kind of statement in opening today on the

questions I asked of him, although I see he is busy, perhaps on

business other than his estimates.

A question to the minister: have you been able to provide some of the information I requested of you at the end of last session?

MR. CHAIRMAN : The member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley continues.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm disappointed that the minister hasn't got some answers for me, but

I'll go on to another topic while, I hope, he digs up some information

concerning children in care in this province.

What I wanted

to talk about today and hopefully get some answers on is the infant

development program that has just closed down in the riding of the

member for Surrey-White Rock-Cloverdale (Mr. Reid). This program

provides support for some 150 to 190 families with infants needing

assistance from the province. For some time there were negotiations

between the Health Sciences Association and the umbrella group that was

providing this program for the ministry. There was a strike situation,

and I was reluctant to get involved until all avenues had been

exhausted. But it would seem that the decision has been made today to

lay off the workers and close down the program altogether.

[2:30]

I'd like to read into the record a letter I just had faxed to me

from one of the parents, and I think the minister will agree with me

that it is very touching and reflective of the work that this program

provides. The letter is written by Elaine Diamond, who says that she is

writing to express her concerns about the infant development workers'

strike.

"Nolen Diamond was born August 24,

1988, at 24 weeks' gestation, and weighed one pound 13 ounces. The

second day the doctors told my husband and I that it was doubtful that

he would make it through the night, due to the high level of potassium

in his system. We had him baptized that night and only left his side

when it was requested by the doctors.

"He's

our miracle baby. The following five months were like a roller-coaster

of emotions, never knowing what was going to happen next — two

steps forward and five steps back. Nolen is now 21 months old —

corrected age of 17 months in developmental stage — and weighs 24

pounds.

"After

arriving home with him almost eight pounds in January 1989, it was a

very difficult adjustment for the whole family. Nolen also has a

brother aged 14 years and a sister almost four.

"After

Nolen's being looked after by top specialists and nurses in the

special-care nursery at Children's for five months, it was a concern

whether we could handle a baby that had been through so much. Then the

infant development worker called me to say that she was coming to see

Nolen. We were relieved to know that we would get assistance at home

for some of his problems. Marianne Moseley came to the house to assess

Nolen's development so far and tell us what the program could do for

Nolen.

[ Page 9899 ]

"Nolen would go stiff when picked up. He'd arch his

back, so we could hardly handle him. This apparently is quite typical of a baby

that has spent such a long time in an incubator on his back, because of the

amount of equipment that was attached to him.

"It has been over a year

that the infant development program has been an asset to the growth and development

of our miracle son. Without the dedication of Marianne and parent support for

us, we would still be struggling. This program has to continue. It's very

important to Nolen's growth."

She

goes on to talk about her daughter and says that had this program been

in place when her daughter was born, they wouldn't have had to suffer

trying to bring her up. The daughter has mild cerebral palsy.

The

fact is that because of the way this ministry has support programs like

this set up, at arm's length, these programs are very vulnerable. My

understanding is that we now have about 190 families completely without

this very support. I would like the minister to comment on what plans

have been made to make certain that there will be support in our

catchment region for families with developmentally delayed children.

HON. MR. DUECK :

You raise, of course, a very sad story. Any time children are involved,

especially sick children, it touches everyone on both sides of the

House.

I have to tell you, though, that we contract

services of those kinds of societies, as we did in this case. There was

a labour problem. We don't get involved in a labour dispute. It's

strictly between the employee and the employer, the same as it would be

if our employees went on strike.

However, we have in the

contract a 30-days' notice clause. We did offer increased remuneration

to these people. We did offer an increase, but apparently it was not

acceptable. Therefore they have indicated that they will close this

service, if they have not already done so.

But we will

provide alternate care. We will not see those people out on a limb,

without service. We will provide services to compensate, or to replace,

the services that we lose if we lose them

MS. SMALLWOOD :

The program has been shut down; the employees have been laid off. I

want to be able to aid these parents in some way. They're feeling very

frightened. Many of them have to deal with considerable problems with

their children and need this kind of ongoing, daily support. So I'd

like to be able to advise those parents as to whom they can approach to

take advantage of the commitment you've just made.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, the information I have is that the contract expires June

30. If I'm wrong, I haven't got that information as yet. However, I can

assure the member that we will make every effort to provide alternative

services for those people.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Mr.

Chairman, I realize that the Premier has been absent for a while, but

this is a very serious issue that 190 parents and children are

interested in. I think the Premier calling the vote before the minister

has an opportunity to answer is in the poorest possible taste.

would like to again stress the fact that this program has been shut

down, whether the contract runs out at the end of the month or not.

They have laid off the employees, and these families want answers now.

you are unable to give us a local person, the families will be

contacting your office for some answers, Mr. Minister, and I'm hoping

that with this notice, you'll be a little better prepared to help them

deal with the needs of their children.

I'll go on from here

to talk a little bit more about some of the questions that I raised

with the minister at the end of last session. This is with regard to

children in the care of the ministry. I asked yesterday whether you

could provide information with regard to the number of foster homes

that a child in care can expect to live in, the number of social

workers that that child can expect to interface with during their stay

with the ministry and basic questions with regard to the quality of

life that the kids in care can expect.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, the member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley was critical of

my calling for the vote on this particular topic. Frankly, I have the

minister sitting behind me so I wasn't able to see whether he was

getting up or not to answer the question. I'd just like to speak to

this for a moment.

It seems to me that we're here to do the

people's business. If it's wrong to try and move on the people's

business, then I've missed something somewhere. I thought perhaps we

might attempt to move through all these debates in order that other

things might be attended to as well. If you don't believe that, then

obviously, like the Leader of the Opposition, you're never here. I'm

always here unless I'm called away on something very urgent. I'm not

going around the province politicking at the people's expense. So any

remarks about my not having been here, I would refer you back to the

records and you'll see that I miss very, very few days.

believe in the process enough that I'm not like the Leader of the

Opposition, traveling around the province, politicking, attending

lunches and teas at the people's expense.

Thank you for

that opportunity which you have given me just now. And furthermore, in

speaking to these estimates.... I have been in the Ministry of Social

Services for a time, and I came in at a very difficult time. I came in

immediately after the NDP had occupied the ministry between '72 and

'75, and I'll tell you there's nothing in my life that I can recall

which was more challenging than following the NDP after their

mismanagement of social services in this province.

[ Page 9900 ]

was the greatest disaster that ever was. People were feeling terribly

insecure, because they saw money falling off the back of a truck. They

were attempting to hand it out every which way; it didn't matter.

Just

prior to my becoming Minister of Social Services In 1975, I was the

mayor in Surrey, I can remember how there used to be young people

traveling through, stopping at every welfare office all the way through

— from when they crossed into B.C. until they left it again. It was a freebie at the people's expense.

But most importantly, good programs —

such as were subsequently introduced by me when I was minister and

which have subsequently been introduced by following Social Credit

ministers — were being denied people because of the horrendous waste during the NDP years. Good programs —

like the infant development program that you make reference to and that

was introduced by Social Credit, and many other good social programs

introduced by Social Credit — could not be available during those

NDP years, because of the horrendous, shameful, criminal waste that was

happening during those years.

We will remind the people time and time again....

MR. WILLIAMS : Point of order. The reference to criminality is not acceptable, Mr. Chairman. You might rule on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN : I am sure the Premier would withdraw that reference.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : Mr. Chairman, I agree, and I withdraw that.

But,

Mr. Minister, I commend you and your hardworking staff. You have an

excellent ministry, and they have a very difficult task in working with

very difficult problems. I commend the ministry for the work it's

doing, and I stand here only to encourage you to continue the good job

of managing on behalf of the people of the province the social services

programs for those in need. As long as they're managed well — such

as Social Credit has consistently done — I am sure that we will

see these programs available for many more years to come.

Mr.

Chairman, I did not want this to be partisan. I didn't want to get up

and talk of the great job Social Credit has done and the terrible

experience during the NDP years. I didn't want to say that. But when

the member for Whalley-Guildford stands up and says, "Oh, the Premier

is back, and he hasn't been here much, " I take exception to that.

Because

I am sitting directly across from where once every 10 days or 12 or 15

days, I forget what, there is a chair filled by the leader of the

Opposition, so I am constantly being reminded of his absence in this

House. I am here to see it, and for this member to try and throw it

onto me.... Her leader's absence, of which I am sure she is very much

ashamed.... I am sure that you leave here every day and you are much

ashamed of that. To try and deflect it by throwing it on the Premier is

terribly unfair, and I would ask that this member withdraw that

comment. Failing that, she should consider a resignation.

[2:45]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I am so glad to hear the Premier's contributions. I would like to share

a little bit more about this government's record and in particular this

Premier's participation in the issue of social services.

would like to remind the House of a couple of quotes. The Premier said,

when he was talking about women on welfare, that if we can somehow get

them to know Jesus Christ — if we can help them to get involved in

religion, in worshipping — then they will be much happier and

their problems will be resolved much quicker.

The

Premier on another occasion said that if one of these single mothers on

welfare finds herself pregnant with an unwanted child, she could find

relief by going to any one of our freestanding churches and ridding

herself of her un-Christian feelings of depression. "More things are

wrought by prayer than the NDP could dream of." That's the contribution

that you bring to the system of support and assistance to children and

families in this province.

You talk about the comparison

between the years of Social Credit and the years of NDP in this

particular area. Well, I'd like you to check the numbers, Mr. Premier,

because there are more people on welfare by population now than there

were during the NDP government in '72-75. You've got a lot to account

for with your mean-spirited, narrow view. Calling the question, when we

are trying to deal with the needs of children and families in this

province, is not appropriate.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please debate through the Chair, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the Premier would like to respond, I'll give him that opportunity. Come on.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM :

Mr. Chairman, I didn't know that we would draw comments into this

debate that might have been made at various meetings. Yes, the comment

you made reference to was made, but perhaps not quite as you say it,

because you tend to take things out of context, which we have become

accustomed to with the NDP. There tends to be a degree of dishonesty in

some of these statements when they're taken out of context. We know

about that, and we won't quarrel with that point.

But yes, you're quite right that I do not fear going to — as was the case in the event of which you quote —

a Christian prayer breakfast meeting. I don't have too much trouble

with that, because I frankly don't believe that it's fair to

discriminate against any particular group or any particular people,

whether they are a large part or a small part of the population, and

whether they're powerful or weak in numbers.

[ Page 9901 ]

think it's fair that we treat them equitably, and that we address all

groups without fear or favour, and I have done so consistently.

You,

hon. member and others in the NDP group, somehow have this idea that

when anyone addresses a Christian group, this is in some way offensive,

antisocial or anti what we ought to be doing, and that this is a bad

reflection on the individual or on this particular party, which happens

to believe that we must duly and fairly recognize all groups and

religions.

You take exception — I know the hon. member

for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley in particular has mentioned this a lot of

times, but she's not alone on the NDP side — to anything

Christian. If it's Christian, you tend to somehow label it, and this is

what you've done again. You're consistently doing this, and I think

that's totally unfair. Frankly, I despise that attitude.

No, I'm not.... I want to finish. You want me to sit down, but I'd like to finish.

I'd

like to repeat that this ministry is not only in the business of

providing welfare to people. Certainly there are those in our society

who need the help. I don't think we should worry so much about the

numbers as getting the help to where it is deserved and needed. If the

ministry— as they've certainly done from time to time — reviews

the programs in order to see if there might be those who are not

deserving and ought to be out working or looking for employment.... If

they have a process of sorting this through in order to make sure that

the help goes mostly — and more if need be and can be — to

those who are deserving, that's healthy; that's good. That's

accountability, and that's what keeps your programs intact, Mr.

Minister.

That's what says to British Columbians that

they're dealing with the whole Social Services program, including

welfare, in a responsible manner. Therefore we can feel secure with

this ministry, this minister and this government, and that's good.

reiterate that there's more to Social Services than welfare. There are

many wonderful social programs being provided through this ministry.

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud of those programs. I think a part of the

Ministry of Social Services is also to reach out to groups and people

and to determine — perhaps through this reaching-out process — what

the needs are, or how we might assist, because we're trying to make the

community, the province and society in general a better place, in that

we care for people.

Again, I take exception to you singling

out a statement out of context, given to a Christian group and

therefore discriminating indirectly — as I've heard so often — against these Christian groups.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

Once again the Premier doesn't seem to be on topic. The issue is not

the group he was approaching, but a matter of a remedy to poverty in

this province and whether or not, as the Premier would indicate, prayer

is the way out. I would suggest that your Ministry of Social Services

has— and indeed you as the first minister of the province have —

a direct responsibility to the families that we're talking about here.

I would remind the Premier again that it was your calling of the

question, when we are trying to get some answers to the provision of

programs in this province, that created this exchange in the first

place.

I'd like to also remind the Premier — when he talks about quotes out of context — of

a couple of other quotes where the minister referred to the good

programs that your government is providing at a time last year when

your Ministry of Social Services cut back $50 to women on welfare and

single parents. Your comments were that this is a challenge or an

opportunity for those families.

At another time you

said.... This was to do with the $50 welfare cut. Again, this was at a

prayer meeting. You might like to take that out of context if you like.

You said that they could turn to Christ, and that was for free. You

further said — this is to do with single welfare moms and your strengthening-the-family program — that

this is as much a part of strengthening families as anything else that

we have done. If your view of providing support and assistance to

families, in particular single mothers, is to cut welfare as an

encouragement to get back to work, as you say, then I would suggest to

you, sir, that your policies — if indeed they are reflected in your government — are wrong-minded and cruel.

I'd

like to go on to the Minister of Social Services and ask him if he does

have the numbers I requested of him at the end of last session.

HON. MR. DUECK : There's been so much ground covered, I'm not quite sure where we left off and where we should start.

You

mentioned that the income assistance roll has increased. I have to tell

you that it has dramatically decreased, at least the figures I have

from 1985 to 1990. I will just get this into the record if you don't

mind: single men, a decrease of 31.2 percent; single women, 13.2

percent; couples, 39.6 percent; two-parent families, 45.8 percent; and

one-parent families, 1.7 percent. That is the decrease in income

assistance clients.

You

also mentioned foster parents, how

often children moved, and how many are placed with foster parents or in

care of the provincial government. Since you were involved in this type

of work, it should be no news to you, but I will put it on the record:

the primary purpose and the objective of the ministry is and always has

been, I understand — even in the years the opposition was in

power — to return foster children to their own families as soon as

reasonably possible.

Most

foster children in our care experience only one foster home. I want

this very clear for the record. In 1989-90, 97 percent of all children

discharged from care had experienced only one foster placement. Of

these children, 71 percent had been in care for less than one year.

Policy

provides that every child in our care must have an approved life plan;

in other words, a plan of what we expect to happen, the time for

placement

[ Page 9902 ]

and

where the child will be placed. These children tend to remain in care

and require life-skills training as well as community supports to reach

independence. That is our objective. We believe in this. We want to be

sure that this happens. It's not always perfect, and I think I've

mentioned it in many other areas, but it is certainly our objective and

we are very conscientious about it.

Even though the

population of children in the province is increasing, the number of

children in care is dropping. I want you to understand that. This is

the first time these trends have diverged in over 25 years. We may not

be doing everything correctly, and I am the first one to admit that,

but certainly you must say it is going in the right direction.

Since

1972, the child-in-care population has decreased 40 percent. More

importantly, it has decreased relative to the provincial child

population. In 1972, some 10,274 children were in care; by 1990 the

number had declined to 6,224. Furthermore, children now remain in care

for shorter periods of time; 71.2 percent are returned home within nine

months. I think that is good; not necessarily for the government, but

for those families and children. Really, that's our objective; not to

find fault with the system and run with a piece of paper and say: "Oh

gosh, goody. I just found some bad news." That's what bothers me. It's

not the care....

[3:00]

HON. MR. BRUMMET : That's the only way she operates.

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm not saying it personally. I don't mean this personally at all, but

very often when the people on that side have a bad news story, they

come and say with glee: "I found something. It's bad; please listen."

Terrible. Here's some good news. Now shouldn't we all be happy? Should

you not be getting up and saying: "Thank God we are looking after

people"?

HON. MR. BRUMMET No, that would be prayer. She's against that.

HON. MR. DUECK : No. Be serious now.

The

impact of the decrease, in my opinion, is due to the services that are

provided by Social Services — no

question about it. We have many dedicated, conscientious people who

don't just work for the Ministry of Social Services because they think

it is a great place to work — they probably do; they probably

don't — but because they feel a certain commitment, a certain urge

to work with people in distress and with children.

When

I travel around the province and talk to some of these people, I am

always amazed at the commitment that they have, the work that they do

and how they care for people in distress.

MR. G. HANSON :

I would like to shift the topic back to housing. I want to make a few

comments and specific recommendations, because I gather there has been

some reference to lands that could be of assistance in my own community

here in Victoria.

There's

something obscene, really, about a housing crisis situation in a

city —

taking James Bay, for example, which is in crisis itself, and where the

0.2 percent vacancy rate is the lowest in the city — and having

large tracts of parking lots under provincial jurisdiction in the

precinct that have been sitting dormant for years.

he is responsible for housing, I would like to know what the minister

has done in consultation with the Provincial Secretary — who I understand would be responsible for the precinct —

about some of those areas which are presently just acres and acres of

parking lots in the Legislative precinct in James Bay. What has he

suggested to his colleagues regarding making some of that available for

mixed-use housing?

The situation we're having.... Let me

use James Bay as an example. Two full classrooms of children have been

lost in the last two years in James Bay. What is occurring is a

conversion situation where seniors are moving in. Developers are

creating expensive seniors' condominiums and so on, and the families

that provide the life in the community, the vigour and overall health

of a neighbourhood, are gradually diminishing. So it must be stopped.

is apparent to anyone going up Menzies and along Michigan or Superior

that there are tracts of provincial land. The city has asked to work in

consultation with the province to have mixed uses of those properties.

Currently

there are parking agreements for government employees, and so on. I

have discussed that with union officials who said they would be quite

willing to work that situation out amicably, because they recognize it

is totally unacceptable for people not to have a place to live, and to

have hundreds of vehicles sitting on precious land in neighbourhoods

that could be utilized and developed properly for families, mixed uses

for seniors, co-op housing and so on in James Bay.

In a

draft policy for the city issued April 17, 1990 - "James Bay 1990" -

there is a series of objectives around housing. I would like to read

them to the minister:

"To provide a variety

of good-quality housing at various costs to meet the needs of existing

and future residents; to conserve an established family housing area

within the neighbourhood; to maintain family housing levels at or

greater than the 1986 levels; to encourage relocation of older housing

from redevelopment sites to appropriate infill areas, where

practicable, to sustain the existing family housing stock; to support

public and private housing initiatives for housing the elderly,

handicapped, disadvantaged and needy; to encourage a population mix

which reinforces the use of existing public facilities such as schools,

parks and utility services; to encourage residents to improve

deteriorating homes; to encourage a visual harmony of form and scale

between new apartment buildings and adjacent single-family-style units;

to encourage high design standards for new residential developments; to

permit small-lot infill development for single-family and duplex units

[ Page 9903 ]

where appropriate, pursuant to the rezoning process; to seek

to establish incentives or cost-sharing programs for restoration, rehabilitation

and revitalization of heritage clusters, including streetscapes — for example,

private front-yard areas, fencing, boulevard landscaping and street lighting;

and to permit bed-and-breakfast establishments as home occupations or, alternatively,

as transient occupation development pursuant to the rezoning process and according

to established city policy."

think the objectives outlined here, in consultation with the

community.... The community has its own James Bay–authored plan that

they're trying to develop for the kind of community that they want to

develop there. The province holds so much of this land. To have the

greatest crisis in an area where the province is a dominant

landlord.... The federal government is a major player, but they're a

major player along the foreshore, deep-sea-port, industrial zoned land

and so on, around Ogden Point.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON : Yes, they have other properties as well.

But

the time has come. Those properties have been sitting there for 15

years. If you're not going to do it, we're going to do it. But you

might as well get things started, because we intend to do it. We intend

to have a mix.

Clearly the province has interests in terms

of Victoria as the seat of government. There may be allocations

required for growth for administrative purposes; but at the same time,

there's no reason why there couldn't be plans in place for a mix of

things, to make it a vital.... We don't want everyone commuting out of

an office. Perhaps there could be some residences located right in

government buildings There's no reason why housing couldn't be an

inherent part of government development, as a way of offsetting costs

and so on.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that

this crisis we have is no more apparent than in the neighbourhood of

James Bay, where the province particularly now has these large tracts

that are used as parking lots. The government employees involved that

have parking and so on have indicated they would be more than willing

to work out some mutually agreeable solution to allow for housing to be

created. I'm not talking about the $350,000 or $450,000 condominium;

I'm talking about affordable mixed housing for families that can

provide a vigorous, healthy community.

Again I say a mix;

I'm referring to age mixes and income mixes. Allow the province to

protect its own interest in terms of guaranteeing future needs for

public service and public activity. But properly zoned. Those tracts

provide a tremendous opportunity to zone with some creativity, to have

the kind of housing that could insulate this community from the troughs

and peaks of housing chaos we've experienced here. Young families,

single parents, middle-income earners, pensioners, and so on, are

really in crisis, and the only way, as the minister has pointed out in

this House.... We must have supply; we must have more stock.

The province has those lands. They've been stored and protected for a time, and the time is right.

I'd

like to ask the minister if he would consider working with the city.

The city has asked to work with the province on this, and has had no

response. I checked on that today. They have made initiatives, and

requested.... Whether they're dealing with the Provincial Secretary in

the precincts or with the minister responsible for housing.... I would

like to ask, on behalf of the people within my constituency who are

desperate for housing: would the minister consider opening up a

planning process, in consultation with the city, to make some of those

hectares of land available for mixed housing? Not expensive,

top-of-the-line condominiums — we've got enough of that happening

on its own. The leadership that's required is to put in place zoning

regulations and funding, and working with the federal government —

CMHC and so on, co-op housing — to provide a beautiful, enhanced

neighbourhood, to meet the objectives that I outlined from this

planning report.

Would the minister respond?

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, that is the first positive, constructive report I've

heard from that side since my estimates started. I agree wholeheartedly

with what you're saying. I'm only too willing to work with the city.

I've never heard from them. Where that information is I don't know.

That aside — I don't want to be negative on this — that

is the approach that I've asked for, and that's the approach I've been

talking about. Let's do it together, all of us, wherever we can. Good

points you made, and I think it's absolutely valid. And we are working

on that. As a matter of fact, I've been in this ministry — what? —

four months, five months, and that's exactly the tack I've been taking.

Why have we got these vacant lands? I've written a letter to every

Crown corporation, to schools if they've got vacant lands, to churches.

I met with some clergy the other day, and they are identifying some

church property they may have that's excess.

AN HON. MEMBER : Christian?

HON. MR. DUECK : Various churches. It's an interministry organization or committee.

We're

even looking at SkyTrain stations, where we perhaps could get the air

rights and build units above that. We're thinking about Crown land and

BCBC land. We have a bit of a problem with some of them, because

they're very protective of what they own, but I think in these times,

we're insisting that they release them.

I've got authority

from cabinet to go and identify these lands, then see if we can come to

some resolution on how we can use them. So I cannot argue with the

comments you made. As a matter of fact, I am most pleased. It's not

going to happen overnight, but what you're saying is true: it should

have perhaps been done a year earlier or the process started a year

[ Page 9904 ]

earlier.

The crisis wasn't as great as it is now, although we started with a lot

of these programs then. But we're just coming now into a situation

where some of these things are happening.

Yes, I agree with

you; I can't find fault with it. I will get back to the city and say:

"By all means, we will cooperate with you." If we can work on a joint

project, by all means.

MR. BARNES : Mr. Chairman, I

wonder if the minister could inform the committee if he is aware of the

SOS Children's Village in Richmond and their request for endorsement in

principle of their program to provide homes for disadvantaged

youngsters above the age of two, up to adolescence— an area where

there seems to be a great need. I raise this question because I'd like

to hear, first of all, what the minister's policy would be on that

particular society's program for this age group.

[3:15]

Also, could the minister answer some of the questions raised

yesterday by the member for Surrey Guildford-Whalley with respect to

the foster care numbers? How many homes are there? How many foster

parents are there? What tracking system is in place concerning the

length of time that these youngsters spend at each foster home? In

other words, over the lifetime of any particular youngster, how many

times does that youngster shift from one foster home to another? This

profile seems to be missing when we discuss the available services and

try to assess the effectiveness of the foster care program.

think the critic was also asking for an assessment of the effectiveness

of the government's $1.8 million campaign to elicit more registrations

by foster parents in the foster care program, to make more homes

available. It is a considerable amount of money for an advertising

campaign to encourage people to participate in a program.

How

successful is the program? What are the numbers? I understand that

there are something like 3,000 foster homes. Is that current? One of

the ads suggested that the situation was critical and urgent,

indicating that far more foster homes were required. How many more are

required? Are we talking about 20 percent more, 30 percent more, 100

percent more? If there are 3,000, do we need 6,000? What's happening to

those youngsters who should be in foster homes, if the homes aren't

available? How are they surviving?

The question that I

think the critic was asking yesterday was that we need a report on the

status of the foster care system. How is it working? Is it meeting the

expectations of the government?

That being considered, how

is the government rationalizing its refusal to endorse in principle the

SOS Children's Village program, which states that its objective is to

provide homes for youngsters who are difficult to place, those who are

generally regarded as unadoptable, who are physically disadvantaged in

various ways — mentally, psychologically? Their parents have

abandoned them. They're very difficult to place, and many families will

not accept these youngsters.

They are talking about a

category of very young people that are difficult for the ministry to

find homes for. They want to provide this service, as I understand it,

for about 100 such individuals. Certainly this is a very small

number — 100 people in terms of the 3,000-plus spaces needed.

he is able to, I would like the minister to respond to that so that we

can get a sense of what the foster care situation is like before

proceeding with some of the other questions I would like to raise with

respect to the government's decision in principle not to support the

request of the SOS Children's Village.

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, we've had contact with the SOS Society since the early eighties, I believe — '82

or something like that. At this time I should introduce Leslie Arnold,

who is the superintendent of the family and child service. She visited

the one in Nova Scotia, and I have to tell you that the reports that

came back are that they are certainly very much involved with children

and that they do the very best they can for children in that

circumstance. However, our philosophy of providing homes for children

in the most natural family setting as possible.... It is against our

philosophy. The SOS Children's Village is not providing that; it is

really an orphanage.

If we can provide a home setting, it

is certainly the ideal way to go, and I have to say in that respect

that we cannot agree with their philosophy at all. We are committed to

planning for children on an individual basis, not to maybe putting them

in a big group just with a woman supervisor for every five or six

children. We want a family setting, as close to a natural family unit

as is possible, and we believe that children have the right to a

permanent family home.

Every effort is made to return a

child in care to his family or extended family whenever possible.

Adopted placements in individual family homes located in the child's

own community are preferable. The SOS would perhaps be one facility. It

could be miles away, or in another town or city, and I don't think

that's appropriate. So we've gone away from the model of an orphanage,

if I can use that term, and provided instead a natural setting as close

to a family unit as possible. This is why we have not gone in that

direction, and I'm still not convinced that we should change.

don't think too many people would argue with our approach. I could be

wrong, and we're certainly not opposed to what they're trying to do. I

believe that particular concept could perhaps work very well in certain

countries — for example, Mexico, or some of those places where

children really are not looked after. I think that would be a very

valid concept to use in that situation, but in this province, where we

have sufficient foster homes, I cannot agree with your concept that

perhaps it would be a good way to have our children looked after.

We currently have 2,580 children in foster homes. We have roughly 3,000 foster homes, so we have a

[ Page 9905 ]

surplus.

The reason we have a surplus and have advertised consistently is to

have foster parents in the community where the need is. If we haven't

got a surplus, that is not possible. For example, if we have a child

who comes from my area, we don't want to send that child to, let's say,

Chilliwack, Surrey or Penticton. We'd like children to be in their own

community for a short time and, because the statistics I just quoted

show that most of them are back with their family within one year, not

to leave that school, that community and their friends; not to sever

those relationships. I think that is good. I think we're on the right

track. It's worked well.

I've visited foster homes and

foster parents at various functions, and I'm impressed with what they

do. The surplus, of course, is for that very reason. We need more homes

so we can have a selection of them to meet specific needs. Not all are

suited. For example, we may have foster homes that are willing to take

in children with special needs; and maybe we have foster homes that do

not wish to have a child with special needs. So we have to have that

surplus, and that's the reason to keep on advertising: to get more

foster homes and more people willing to serve in that capacity.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the response of the minister on

this question. I am still not sure, though, if I've got the full

picture with respect to the health of the foster care system, because I

was asking as well about the extent of movement, for instance, from one

foster home to another. There is the impression that youngsters find

themselves shifted from one foster home to another. Do you care to

respond on that? How real is that? In other words, what's the length of

stay on average of a youngster in a foster home? And how many times is

a particular youngster likely to find himself in a different setting?

HON. MR. DUECK : I just went through that a few minutes ago. It's all in the Blues: percentages, numbers, the whole thing.

MR. BARNES :

If he did.... I don't wish to quarrel with you, but I certainly didn't

hear you say, for instance, that a youngster might find himself, say,

in a period of five years having lived in five, six or seven different

foster homes. I didn't hear numbers such as those.

Would you care to repeat them? I apologize for not having heard them

HON. MR. DUECK : I said, I believe — and we can look it up in the Blues tomorrow —

that most foster children experience only one foster home. I also said

that in 1989-90, 97 percent of children who were in a foster placement

at time of discharge from care had experienced only one foster home.

Ninety-seven percent — I can't be much more specific.

MR. BARNES : How long a period of time?

HON. MR. DUECK : Well, again.... Where have I got those figures? I think I mentioned that too.

Of the 6,238 children discharged during the fiscal year, 3,987 — 63 percent — were

in care for six months or less. So that even narrows it down more. I

think I mentioned all those figures just a few minutes ago.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I think the difficulty some of the members have on this side with those

numbers in particular is that they don't reflect the people we have to

deal with. We may be dealing through our constituency office— and certainly are —

with people who have particular problems with the system. However, to

have confidence in those numbers, we have to better understand how you

come to those numbers.

I would like to refer you back to

some earlier comments about the system in Ontario where by legislation

there is an automatic reporting-out of the children in care, and I

would ask you whether you would consider that as an option.

MR. RABBITT :

I know it is rather difficult for the minister to keep on a tack when

various members throughout the House are asking questions of different

parts of his vast ministry. But I've got a subject which I feel I have

to canvass with the minister, since he's relatively new in the role,

and I want to bring him up to date on what I consider are a couple of

important small items in my riding.

I have in my riding

three facilities which are non-profit organizations that work very

closely with handicapped people. Of course, in the small communities of

Merritt, Hope and Princeton, these facilities are very successful and

are doing a very good job. I wanted to let the minister know that they

were in a good state of health. They appreciate the support the

ministry has given over the years, but I wish to pin the minister down

here and make sure we're going to have that continued support in the

next fiscal year.

[3:30]

It sometimes becomes a little bit of a problem when the bureaucracy

is trying to centralize and organize and sometimes makes changes within

the organization that may be beneficial on a bottom line, but certainly

the application within the riding itself finds that it's not a workable

item.

With regards to the three facilities, I wanted to

ask the minister if he would have continued support for those

operations in Merritt, Hope and Princeton.

The other question I would like to extend to the minister — and get some clarification if possible —

concerns two of these facilities, which have projects where handicapped

people are able to come and work throughout the day. One workshop

creates woodwork products, and the other workshop is what we call "the

little mini-chef."

The ministry has indicated that the

handicapped people working in these workshops are going to have to be

paid minimum wage. I think there is a glitch in the system, because if

this is the case, then I am going to suggest to you that you're going

to have to address

[ Page 9906 ]

the

funding that goes to each of these organizations so it can be passed

on. In the small communities such as the three I have mentioned —

and the two in particular — it's not possible for them to continue

to go out and raise additional funds.

Those are the two items I would like the minister to address. Then I'll let him move on to other items in his estimates.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, on that first question of support, I can tell you that

you will continue to have support from this ministry — from all the people and myself personally.

The

other one, the minimum wage: there was a challenge. I don't think it

has been resolved yet. We have a concern, of course. It remains to be

seen whether, in fact, that challenge will succeed or whether we will

have a law that will determine that these individuals must be paid the

minimum wage.

I have no qualms with minimum wage, but the

whole concept was to give them some therapeutic opportunities, and at

the same time they got all the other necessities of life. Maybe the

whole thing has to shift and change. We'll have to face that when the

time comes. We may have to budget for that. I haven't got an answer for

you, because it's not yet law, and it's being challenged.

MR. BARNES :

I believe the critic was hoping that the minister might want to respond

to her question just before the previous speaker was up. I'll yield the

floor if you wanted to address her question.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Was that the Ontario question? A comparison with Ontario? Again, I

think I went through that yesterday; I think it's on the record. I

think I quoted why we couldn't compare with Ontario.

Interjection.

HON. MR. DUECK : I'll let the member ask the question again.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

We'll go back to the question about the funding per child. That was the

one you answered yesterday. The question I asked today was: in

comparison with the Ontario legislation where, by statute, they are

required to report on the status of children in care, the number of

visits and the progress of their plans....

While the

minister has said that foster children in the system provided by this

province experience only one home, it's very difficult for us on this

side to be comfortable with those figures, given the reality as we hear

it from foster parents and professionals in the field.

that people in the province can have confidence in your figures, I'm

asking if you had considered the Ontario legislation as an option for

B.C.

HON. MR. DUECK : As was stated, we haven't got

that legislation, but it allows the superintendent of family and child

services to do, in fact, exactly that. They have it in legislation,

whereas we in British Columbia monitor the services provided to

families and children through our inspections and standards unit and

review individual cases. Also, proactive audits of all files in

district offices are completed on an annual basis. British Columbia has

seven individuals in the inspections and standards unit to review 6,224

children in care.

A monthly computer printout is provided

to our district offices stating what the plan in place is for every

child. In other words, each individual child is on a computer printout.

The policy requires the plan be reviewed by both the supervisor and the

manager.

We've looked at the Ontario model. We're well

aware of it, and it could be that in the future we'll have to go in

that direction. It may have some merits. Currently we have not got that

in place.

1981 we established the inspections and

standards unit, which I just spoke about. That has been in place ever

since. I think that, by and large, our record — especially with

Leslie Arnold as superintendent of family and child services —

is actually very good. When the Child Welfare League of America came

out, we spent a lot of time with them, and they spent a lot of time

with Leslie Arnold. They were most impressed with what we do in the

area of family and children's services.

Again, we want to

learn. If anyone has a better mousetrap, we'd like to have it. We're

looking at it closely. It could be that in the future we might even

change our policy to that of Ontario.

MR. BARNES : I

wanted to get back briefly to the SOS Children's Village to determine

if the minister was saying that in his ministry's view, the SOS Society

as a movement creates orphanages — or that it is an orphanage —

and this is the sole reason why you have not approved their request for

endorsation in principle. It's simply because you believe....

think in one of the quotes they received when they applied to the

Gaming Commission for the right to run a casino game to raise funds to

promote their program, they were rejected because apparently the

ministry's policy is that they are an orphanage and that such programs

are a retrograde step with respect to the government's policies for the

care of children. Is that the reason their application has been

rejected — the fact that they are an orphanage? Could you perhaps

also say what an orphanage is, as opposed to what they say? Because

they are differing with the view that they are an orphanage. I think

we're talking about

definitions. I just want to at least satisfy myself

that if we're talking about an orphanage, we define what an orphanage

is.

HON. MR. DUECK : Maybe the word is used loosely.

I think of an orphanage as where there are many children looked after

by certain people in one area. Using that model, then it's not

acceptable. We believe that perhaps 100 children in one place like that

is not unlike an orphanage, perhaps in another country. We feel that

every child has the right to be

[ Page 9907 ]

close

to other children in their placement when they're in the care of the

government; that is, with either a foster parent or, if they're very

disturbed people, perhaps for a period of time in a group home.

Again,

with this model that the SOS has, they are not really too interested in

having those children, once they're there, move back to a family

setting or to their own families. They want to keep those children

until they come of age. I find that somewhat unacceptable, because we

certainly believe.... We have evidence that most children do go back to

either their natural family, their adoptive family or at least their

community. The member opposite must certainly agree that the

involvement of a natural family is not possible when you move children

to one centre. All the models we've seen, read about and heard about so

far are generally located out of town, and there is generally one

complex for a fairly large region. To me, that isolates those children

from the community. They're driven to school and taken back.

There

are two points I want to make very clear: they are separated, and their

environment is not the same as for a child who is adopted or in a

foster home. Most children in a foster home become quite attached to

the foster parents, and the foster parents to the child, so the

relationship is quite healthy. That is our goal and our aim.

The

SOS concept.... I'm surprised that the member would bring this up,

because I didn't think any of us really agreed with that concept. I

think we all agree they should be in a family unit.

I hope I've made myself clear. That's where we stand at this point in time, and I certainly believe we're correct.

MR. BARNES :

Just to answer your last comment first, it may be a surprise to you

that I brought the matter up, but the matter was raised to me as a

member of the Legislature. On those grounds alone, in light of the fact

that there are many youngsters who are displaced and unadoptable for

various reasons— due to handicaps or no one being willing to accept them —

and the reality of the situation with respect to young people in

society today, I raised the matter. It's not that I am opposed to it or

for it. The point is that it's a matter to be discussed. If we can

become more enlightened about the resources available and about

people's motives with respect to providing services, I think we'll all

be better off.

I don't know if the minister has had an

opportunity to meet with these people. Many times? I have certainly met

with some of the principals of the one in Richmond, which is of course

the only

chapter here in British Columbia. I was impressed with their

sincerity, their motivation, their dedication and their desire to

provide a service for youngsters who have so far been unadoptable by

others. In other words, they are saying that there is a need for

certain youngsters in society.

I'm not an expert on how

they operate, but from what I've seen, they take exception to the

designation, for instance, of being called an orphanage, because they

say they are anything but an orphanage.

can split hairs over what an orphanage is, but I could share with you

that in their submission to the Gaming Commission —

when they tried to make their case for qualifying as a non-profit

society, as a charity, and not experiencing discrimination because they

couldn't get a permit to operate a casino — they stated that an

orphanage is "an institution for the care of orphans or other abandoned

children." They went on to talk about what an institution is:

[3:45]

corporate body organized to perform some particular function, often in

education, research or charity. (Euphemistically, we are familiar with

the word as it relates to a mental hospital, a prison or some other

place of confinement, often forgetting that "institution" also refers

to the family, the school, the church, etc.) "

They go on to state the case as follows:

"Now let us follow it with a question. Are children in the care of an SOS Children's Village living in an orphanage — a

confining institution? The answer is: decidedly not! Ironically, SOS

founder Dr. Gmeiner established the children's villages to counteract

the negative model of the pre-1950s orphanages, where dormitories,

dining halls, segregation by age and sex were the norm. All too often

they were staffed by stem, impersonal and oft-times brutal masters or

matrons. Education was not emphasized. Many were, indeed, institutions

of the most negative connotation. Even in those where some kindness

might be found, children had little or no opportunity to experience the

social womb of the family, nor were many given any vocational

opportunities or support to prepare them for a productive adult life.

When they left the orphanage, they had no home, no family to return to.

"How

different the life of an SOS Village child! SOS provides the children

with a bridge to the larger community, the world in which they must

live and in which they are encouraged to participate fully. As adults,

many former SOS children retain the ties with their SOS families in the

same way as children of typical families do."

They go on to

talk about their commitment to the individual, to the individual's

needs, to integrating them into the community and the school system in

as normal a way as possible. They also talk about the adults there who

provide that role model. You have visited with them, but when you say

that they're going to alienate youngsters and hang on to them, I wonder

if that is an accurate characterization of what they are doing.

is true that they are asking for youngsters who are young enough and

impressionable enough that they can save them from the trauma of going

from one foster home to another. In other words, they are trying to

help those youngsters at an early age to avoid the trauma of being

abandoned due to lack of interest and continuity in later years. I

would ask that at the very least you would want to ensure that we're

not losing a resource, where there really is a vacuum. Surely there are

groups of youngsters who could benefit from such a program.

You

need a diverse approach to providing services for children; it's not

all one thing or the other. I am sure that your ministry recognizes

that these select

[ Page 9908 ]

numbers of youngsters being asked for may have a place in this facility, where they couldn't fit anywhere else.

I'm

not saying that the SOS program is going to be successful or not,

because I don't know. But I feel that it is our duty, in light of the

problems that families are having today — the abandonment of children and the neglect —

and where there is an organization prepared to provide assistance in a

very consistent, meaningful way for a group of youngsters that they

themselves say are failing to be placed anywhere else in the system....

In other words, this is after they have been turned down just about

everywhere else. They want to provide a service, so why wouldn't they

be given an opportunity to do so?

The only thing I can say

is that if there's no place for the Children's Village in British

Columbia, then the minister should certainly be prepared to stand in

the Legislature and say that he has an absolutely ironclad system that

leaves no stone unturned, that no youngster is being abandoned or

neglected, whether able or disabled or whatever the need may be, and

that we have no need for this program.

I am impressed that there may be a need — small though it may be —

to at least give them the benefit of the doubt and the chance to answer

those questions in a public forum. If they are saying that they're not

an orphanage but a modern, up-to-date, sensitive group of people who

will provide needs just the same as this ministry is trying to provide,

then why should we stereotype them as an orphanage? Let's make sure

that we are not categorizing them improperly or unfairly. That's really

the issue I'm raising, because we don't want that to happen.

The

bottom line is what the best thing for the youngsters is. They claim

that what they're doing is good for the youngsters. I probably don't

know any more than you do about what would happen, because the

facility's never been in place. But we want to be sure that before we

say, "No, thumbs down, " it's not just a prejudicial attitude of

"you're an orphanage, so you're out." They themselves are saying that

they denounce orphanages as they used to be, and that they are

different today. Why not be sure that we're not closing the door on a

good program?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I want

to say very emphatically that we don't shut our eyes to anything. We

have certainly investigated this thoroughly on many occasions. I don't

know how many times I have met with them. I think I know that program

quite well.

It does not fit our model. They are villages;

they are separated from the rest of the population. As a matter of

fact, some of them bring teachers in to teach rather than have the

children go to school. They do not wish for the child to be put back in

the family setting after nine months. Once they get children, they

prefer to keep them until they are old enough to leave. Philosophically

that is not our goal.

We believe — and the statistics show this —

that most of the children go back to their own home, the adoptive home

or whatever. We also believe that with support systems every child can

be adopted. We have assistance programs of various kinds. Recently we

announced the adoption assistance program, wherein if they are

special-needs children and they are not adoptable.... We believe that

every child is adoptable into a natural setting. What we think of as a

family unit may be different than some other people. Whether it's a

single mom or whatever, it's still a family unit rather than a village

up on a hill where there are perhaps five to a cottage, and maybe ten

or 15 cottages, with a house mother in every cottage and perhaps one

male supervisor.

I have nothing against those people. I

think they're doing a fantastic job, and they're very sincere. But I do

not believe that they meet the role and the model we have set out. With

the assisted adoption program, we will pay a family to look after a

special-needs child who cannot be adopted. In other words, let's say

somebody wants to adopt a special-needs child; you know very well that

it's going to cost a lot of money. We say, "Okay, fine; if you adopt

this child, we will assist you in certain ways, " and they do. There

are still cases where an individual's behaviour is such that they must

go into a group home.

I should mention that we also have

the at-home program, which was started last year about this time or a

bit earlier. It is very successful. I have to give credit to the member

for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley (Ms. Smallwood), who brought this to our

attention, although we had given much thought to it before. We have

approximately 450 children in that program now. It's very costly, but

it's probably less costly than the hospital — although the

unfortunate thing is that every time we free up a hospital bed, it gets

filled too. In that sense, perhaps it's a dual cost.

It's

certainly a better life for that individual, and we find that it's had

tremendous acceptance in the families that have had one of their

children — who can now be at home — in care in a hospital.

The annual cost per child is roughly $8,500, so if we equate that to a

hospital bed, it's still a lot less. We've had tremendous results with

it, and we're still taking applications. We believe that there are

perhaps 1,500 children in the province who require that type of

assistance. In the budget this year we have $14.7 million for it.

[Mr. De Jong in the chair.]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I wanted to go back to the minister around the business of reporting.

While I appreciated his comments with regard to looking at the Ontario

system, I'm struck by some of the information provided in the Globe and Mail article.

Back

in 1984 legislation actually came in that required the ongoing

monitoring we were talking about. Part of the reason was the issue of

public confidence in the system — people knowing that their tax

dollars were going to the care they wanted it to go to; that the

children in care were getting the quality service they deserved; and

indeed, that there was a real need for some public scrutiny, as the

system was too closed.

[ Page 9909 ]

In this document that the Globe and Mail

is writing on, they were talking about the wards of the Crown. It says

an average of three homes and three different social workers in a

five-year period for children in care; that they moved an average of

seven times in five years; and that in the 1989 review of 1,361

children's files, they found 473 violations of the mandatory 90-day

review by social workers. It goes on to talk about the fact that they

found 542 violations of the 90-day mandatory review plan by the social

workers' supervisors — and violations were recorded only when the work was over a month late.

Several

different items were identified as needing review and to confirm that

the checks had been done. Many of the areas you talked about are

covered by your policy now, but not by any legislation. It's merely a

matter of policy with the ministry that there be plans in place and

that the plans be reviewed.

Many of the children in foster homes are not receiving visits from social workers every 90 days — as

required, again, by the Ontario law. In 1989 the unit found 304

violations of the requirement that annual medical and dental

examinations be recorded. These are all areas that basically talk about

the standards and quality of care provided by the province and

taxpayers of British Columbia.

[4:00]

I don't really think, despite the fact that the ministry says that

children only stay an average of nine months and that there's only one

foster family involved in that stay, that the people of the province

can credibly accept those numbers. I think we have to take a look at

Ontario as an example. Quite frankly, I find it very hard to believe

that Ontario is that much different than British Columbia as far as

providing services goes. And with the kinds of things that we have seen

happen, with the demonstration of social workers and financial aid

workers not too long ago here in this province, talking about the

tremendous caseload and their inability to provide the services they

want to provide, I don't feel particularly confident that the system is

very much different. I wonder, if we had legal requirements for this

kind of review and reporting, whether we wouldn't find the same thing

going on here in British Columbia.

So while the minister

says it's his policy to have a plan, that there are those visits, I

wonder how often those kids in care see a social worker. I wonder how

often the foster parents are provided the kind of support they need.

And I wonder very much about the stability that is offered by the

system to those children, stability that is very important in any young

person's life. I think that some of your staff know of examples — examples that I have asked for information on —

where foster children have been in five and more foster homes in a very

short period of time. I wonder if the minister would comment on that. I

see that his staff is providing him with some information. Perhaps he

has more to put in.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : I guess I have

some sympathy for the Minister of Social Services, because I believe

his efforts to provide the good news are futile with respect to that

member. The member is a cynic, and therefore, when she has just

asked the minister what....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. minister, I suggest you speak to the subject at hand.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Chairman, you pre-empted my point of order; you're ahead of me. I

was going to ask you to bring that member to order, because I think the

word "cynic" attributed to my hon. colleague is unparliamentary, and

the minister should withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN : A point of order?

MR. REID :

No, I ask leave to make an introduction, Mr. Chairman. I've been trying

to make it for a long time, but the member just sat down.

Leave granted.

MR. REID :

We have in the precincts today a representation group from the Living

Word Christian Academy in Cloverdale, and I know that the member for

Surrey-Guildford-Whalley would be anxious to recognize this group and

join with me and the rest of the members in the House in welcoming them

to Victoria and hoping that their visit to our precincts is productive.

Would the House make them specially welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

On the point of order, I would just like to say that the word "cynic"

may not be unparliamentary; however, I would urge the members to

refrain from using it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr.

Chairman, I guess if "cynic" has become an unparliamentary term, then

it may be fairly difficult to express an impression of views. Am I

being asked to withdraw the word?

MR. CHAIRMAN : No, I have not asked you to withdraw. However, I would ask you to speak to the vote, hon. minister.

MR. BARNES :

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, it's customary in this House that if a

member finds an expression unparliamentary, the member who made the

offensive remark is asked if he would please withdraw. I think that's

appropriate. The minister should withdraw, because I find it offensive.

MR. CHAIRMAN :

I have previously stated that it's not an unparliamentary use of

language. I have asked the minister or any member to refrain from using

it, and I would ask the Minister of Education to proceed on the vote

before us.

HON. MR. BRUMMET : Mr. Chairman, if it

offends the member, I'll withdraw the term "cynic." I have used it

because I felt that the member had some difficulty accepting good news

rather than focusing

[ Page 9910 ]

on bad news, and I guess I tried to be more concise in my terms rather than explain the difficulty.

think it's important to note that the minister has said, when asked the

question about adoption and how many of the children have been in more

than one home or different foster homes.... The minister answered the

question several times. The member said: "I find it difficult to

believe the statistics." I was going to point out the analogy that,

yes, I was a junior secondary school principal and had 600 pupils, and

during the course of a week perhaps 25 of them would be sent to the

office because of some misbehaviour in the school. I could have assumed

from that that because those were the pupils I was seeing in the

office, students were like that. But I also had a little bit of skill

with arithmetic, so I could tell myself that 575 of the 600 were not

being sent to the office. That's what I was trying to suggest: that the

member, in using the examples of the difficult cases, might well

remember that it's the complaints that come rather than the situation

that is fine.

The member, I believe, asked the minister:

"How many times does the social worker see each situation?" If

everything is going well for the family and for the child, should the

social worker be dropping around every week anyway, or should the

social worker concentrate on the situations that require his or her

attention?

I would just like to support the minister in

putting out some of the positive story of the good things that do

happen so that we don't focus all our attention on the aberrations that

come to our attention as complaints.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Mr. Chairman, it's been a while since I got on my feet, and now I've

forgotten — we're discussing my estimates, are we not?

Back

to the Ontario model. It's interesting to note that Ontario has four

individuals to monitor 9,967 children. We have seven to monitor and

review 6,224. So in that respect we actually have more people

monitoring.

The other point I'd like to make, which I think

is very important: we are increasing our number of FTEs, because we

feel there is a need. I think it was mentioned that they are

overworked. Agreed — we need more people. We were able to get

another 119 FTEs this year, which I'm very pleased about because we had

some problems last year in certain areas. Of course, when you go to the

budgeting process, when you ask for FTEs, when you ask for money, you

never get enough. I'm not pointing at anyone, but you never get enough.

You always want more and need more. I think I can very conscientiously

go and say we haven't got enough.

Back to the Ontario model. I don't want to close my eyes to anything that's better —

surely not. It must be remembered that the courts play a key role in

our system,

whereas the decisions affecting children who come into our

care...and the superintendent of family and child services is very

closely scrutinized on a case-by-case basis by the courts.

Our

system may not be perfect, and maybe we can learn from other systems.

We are aware of that system, and we are looking at it. The ministry is

examining the confidentiality, for example, and public accountability

practices and laws of not just that jurisdiction but of any

jurisdiction that would have something to offer that is perhaps better,

and maybe not even costly; it may be less costly. So I have no argument

whatsoever with that. I think that's a good comment. We're aware of it,

and we're looking at it.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I'm tempted

to respond to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet), but the

reality is that he spends most of his time in this House with a

furrowed brow, and his contribution to the debate was not particularly

constructive and is not worth spending very much time on.

would, however, like to thank the minister for his thoughtfulness in

dealing with these suggestions, because I believe quite sincerely that

many people who are interested, in particular, in the welfare of

children in this province are very interested in looking at other

jurisdictions and at the quality of care that is delivered.

don't want anyone to misconstrue what I am saying. I think the

professionals in the field — people who are working for the

ministry — are

doing an incredible job under very difficult circumstances. Foster

parents do yeomen's work. As a parent myself, I am always struck, when

I have the opportunity of speaking to foster parents, by the impossible

task they are faced with. So anything that we can do here in this

province as taxpayers or as politicians to shed any light on what is

happening and come to grips with the system can only help. I'm sure

they would welcome that as well.

You talk about the

department here in British Columbia that has seven people to monitor

children in care. I'd like to ask some specific questions.

What

is it that mandates whether or not an audit is to be carried out? Could

you give us a definition of what an audit is, what is contained in an

audit, and then how a decision is made to carry out that audit?

[4:15]

HON. MR. DUECK :

I'm not only supposed to have every answer; I'm supposed to be an

administrator too. It would take me a little time to find out exactly

how they do an audit, after having spent four or five months in the

ministry. But I can get some notes here very soon.

Mr.

Chairman, we conduct audits in areas of finances, in the case practice

of that particular individual in child-in-care planning. These audits

are all done. We do a file review, a selection of 25 percent of all

files. A printout is provided to the auditor, and files are randomly

selected. So these are the various ways that audits are done, I am

told. I have never personally been aware of an audit, and I have not

personally conducted an audit, but this is the information I receive

from very reliable people who have been in this business for some time.

[ Page 9911 ]

Can

I go back just a little bit about foster parents? I was struck when you

said they set themselves an impossible task. Just this year we have

begun a new initiative to honour foster parents. Ten foster parents

will be honoured by a Lieutenant-Governor's award, a reception with the

Lieutenant-Governor and a dinner thereafter. I think it's appropriate

that these people.... They were chosen by their groups and by the

communities, and then they were brought forward and a final short-list

was made. I'm looking forward to it. It's going to happen at the end of

June, I believe. I think it's just one way to tell these foster

parents: "Thank you. You deserve a hand from us." It's nothing big or

elaborate, but at least it's an award from the Lieutenant-Governor

saying they've done an excellent job.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm again tempted to get off on the issue of awards for foster parents.

Maybe we'll deal with that a little later on. But I do want to

understand more clearly the process of review.

Now if I

heard you correctly, you said that the files are selected at random. I

am wondering if you can tell me how many audits are done in a year, and

if you can clarify what would initiate an audit — or is that just an ongoing process of review?

HON. MR. DUECK : It is my understanding: 30-plus in a year.

MS. SMALLWOOD : So you have over 2,500 children in care, but there are 30 audits done in a year. Is that right?

Can you explain why you would do those 30? What would the reason be that you would conduct that audit?

HON. MR. DUECK : These are not reviews; these are actual audits — 30-plus audits —

that are done, and they are 25 percent of all files. In other words, we

go through files, and we choose 25 percent of them. That's what it

means, does it not? Printout is provided to the auditor, and files are

randomly selected. That's how they arrive at the 30-plus.

But

I don't want the member to misunderstand — that no reviews are

done. This is an actual audit on finances and various other

areas —

specifically a regular audit, which is more than just a review or a

check or a visit. Sometimes they are requested by staff, and sometimes

they are randomly selected by area. But last year was 30-plus— perhaps

32, Mr. Chairman.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I wonder if the minister could explain what exactly is entailed in an audit. Is it just a matter of looking at the books?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Through the Chair, hon. member.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Yes, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister.

the minister could explain — through you, Mr. Chairman — what

exactly is entailed in an audit. Is it just purely the accounting of

money, or is it services provided as well?

HON. MR. DUECK : We will give you that information. I've got it....

really don't know. I'm going to get that information. Better still, if

you want to meet with Leslie Arnold some time and go into detail —

for your information — we would be only too glad to do that too.

can get it for you, but I am not in the administration. I am not an

auditor, and I don't think I am expected to know exactly the steps

taken. But I will have it for you in a few minutes; or better still I

will give you what I've got here, and you can meet with the

superintendent at your pleasure and go into detail. You could have had

that information for any time in the past year or whenever.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'm not trying to catch the minister out. The ministry is a very

complex ministry. There's an awful lot that one needs to know, and I

don't imagine that even working full-time in the ministry for a year

you could hope to understand it in total.

That's part of

the problem; that's part of what we're trying to grapple with here.

We're looking for levers; we're looking for ways of understanding the

accountability that is in the system. It's not a matter of being an

administrator to understand the auditing process or the review process,

but instead — like Ontario — of trying to get a handle on

what's really going on. Indeed, all the systems are in place. To be

able to have an accurate accounting of what's going on out there is

very difficult.

Over the year and a half that I have been

responsible for Social Services, I have asked time and again for

statistics, and they have not been forthcoming. Sometimes what I'll do

is go through my file with the previous minister — and I'm glad he's in the House —

and look at the specifics that I asked of him. We'll try again with

you, Mr. Minister, and we'll see if we get a little better cooperation.

don't want to put this on a partisan level either. I don't think I have

said that more than once in this House, because, quite frankly, I don't

think that a partisan level is something negative. I happen to like and

believe in partisan politics. However, I want to stress that

professionals — people that are involved in social planning in this province —

also express the same frustration that I express in trying to get the

information necessary for that social-planning exercise — to really understand what's going on and to contribute.

The

minister talks about trying to make the system better. Well, unless you

have all the information, you can't contribute in a meaningful way. I'm

sure you would agree with that.

On the issue of audit and review, the minister says audits are different from reviews. Perhaps you can

[ Page 9912 ]

indicate to this House what the process of review is and what your findings in those reviews have been.

MS. PULLINGER : May I have leave of the House to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

MS. PULLINGER :

It's with a great deal of pleasure that I introduce to the Legislature

June and Bob White, who are sitting in the members' gallery today.

These people are from Duncan. They are friends, supporters and good

party members who are going to help us win the next election. Will the

House help me make them welcome.

HON. MR. DUECK :

Audit process. I've got some information for the member who asked the

question. Offices are notified. There is a random selection of offices

and of file types. They select 25 percent of all file types with a

minimum of three files per worker per type. Each office would have a

number of file types. They look at 1,800 intake forms, discuss

community issues with the staff and set out responses from district

offices to correct issues.

Audit looks at issues of

compliance with policy and looks to ensure that an appropriate plan is

in place and at adherence to legislation. Response is reviewed by

senior committee to determine policy needs, training needs, staff

performance, etc.

District office audits are positive.

There's a good response from staff about audit process. I think our

system is really not that different from Ontario's. We do what Ontario

does, except theirs is legislated and ours is by a different method.

Also, I think — if I'm correct — Ontario does everything with

non-profit societies. It's all done by societies. Obviously it's

arm's-length government. By legislation they look at societies, while

we operate with district offices and our own people.

there is a difference in the total makeup of the delivery of services,

but I think I made it very clear that we look at anything that's

better. If the Ontario model does appear better in our opinion, we will

look at it very closely and perhaps adopt it.

MS. SMALLWOOD : The task — like every other task, it would seem — in

the ministry is an onerous one. Not only are the reviews and audits

dealing specifically with children in care, but they are dealing with

the whole system. Indeed, the whole system needs to have that kind of

quality control, but it's a huge job for seven people.

You

indicated that some of the audits are instigated by workers or by the

regional offices. I can only assume that there are occasions that the

audits are instigated when there's a problem or a significant question

about the provision of service or about an employee. I'm wondering how

many of those 30 audits have been instigated around a concern for an

employee's conduct and indeed, if the audit is the tool that

investigates that kind of problem. If not, could the minister indicate

what the tool is?

HON. MR. DUECK : Our goal is to

audit all district offices, so it isn't by complaint and that some

don't get audited. We do that review for all of them. Auditors are not

the only group of staff monitoring worker case review. In other words,

there are many more. Don't isolate seven who now do all the reviews and

look after the whole operation of the Ministry of Social Services and

Housing.

We do as many as we can with the auditors

available. We have a full report done. Reviews by supervisors and

managers also take place. I think our system is about as good as can be

expected. As a matter of fact, I think the supervisory methods in place

are very good, not only by district supervisors, but by the audits. We

actually find that when we do the audit, the operations are in very

good shape. I think the credit is due to our staff and the supervisor

of family and child services.

[4:30]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I asked specifically about review of an employee's conduct, and whether

or not the audit is a tool for reviewing that if there has been a

problem with the delivery of service or an employee's conduct.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Shall vote 59 pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Aye.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Cute!

Mr.

Chairman, I guess I would ask for a little bit of leniency here, in

that I have asked the minister a question. The minister is consulting

his staff. In the interest of doing the people's business, I would like

to give the minister that opportunity. If that becomes a problem, then

perhaps I too can try pressure — to pressure the minister a little bit more — if that's the wish of the Chair.

HON. MR. DUECK :

The employees would be supervised by the regional director or the

supervisor in that particular area. So it's not all done by the

superintendent of family and child service; there's also a

responsibility on the regional director. In other words, the system in

place is one where a certain individual has responsibility for a

certain number of people. Surely that is the way to go, rather than

have everything done from Victoria. So that is in place, and it's

working well.

MS. SMALLWOOD : Can the minister

indicate the number of people...? First of all, a couple of questions

about regular staff turnover. What is the turnover rate for front-line

workers who are social workers and financial aid workers?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I am told that it's 6 percent for social workers.

MS. SMALLWOOD : For financial aid workers?

HON. MR. DUECK : About 10 percent.

[ Page 9913 ]

MS. SMALLWOOD :

I'd like to ask a specific question about the number of people in those

two categories that have been fired by the ministry in the past year.

HON. MR. DUECK : I didn't get that question.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

My first question was on the turnover of social workers and financial

aid workers. My follow-up question was: of that percentage, how many

staff in those two areas have been fired or let go by the ministry?

HON. MR. DUECK : I haven't got that information, but we can certainly get it for you.

MS. SMALLWOOD :

What I'm specifically interested in, Mr. Chairman, is the number of

child welfare workers that have been fired in the ministry in, say, the

past year, or the average over a longer period of time, just to get a

handle on how often that does happen.

I want to continue to

explore this area, and will do so as the estimates continue. But I know

there are other members that want to ask the minister some questions as

well. If the minister will make that commitment to provide information

about the number of workers let go, then I'm prepared to let one of my

other colleagues take the floor.

HON. MR. DUECK : I believe I answered that question by saying that that information will be forthcoming.

MS. MARZARI :

I rise today to try to piece together a program around child sex abuse.

I also rise on the day care issue, which looms large in our province.

In fact, day care is an increasing need in our province. I also rise to

talk about women and the fact that they are regularly, almost on an

epidemic level, abused in our community — physically, by assaulting husbands or boyfriends or strangers.

also want to talk right now, for a very few minutes, about the SOS

Children's Village concept. In doing this, I'm trying to frame an

overall theme for this attempt of mine to bring to your attention these

various issues. The theme around which I want to bind these various

seemingly disparate topics together is basically the theme of the fact

that we have aspirations for our children and for ourselves in our

community. We shoot for the stars, and we want the best for our kids

and we want the best for ourselves and we want the best for women. We

want to see unified programs. We want to see appropriate tracks between

programs, and appropriate coordination and follow-up. We want to see

professionals properly involved with our kids, and when there are women

in trouble. We want to see places for kids to be and for women to go

when the home does not seem safe.

We have very strong and

well-thought-through aspirations, and I am sure that at the

aspirational level there might not be a lot of difference, if we

actually sat down to talk between sides in this House

However, where we seem to fall down is in the actual operating norms —

the day-to-day business of running our services. What seems to happen

is that planning, communication and the financing break down. When we

get involved with complicated financial formulas between federal,

provincial and municipal governments and non-profit agencies, very

often we just don't seem to get what we are paying for. The ideas that

we have at the aspirational level just don't seem to pan out when you

get down to the normative day-to-day business of trying to deal with

kids in trouble, women in trouble and communities in trouble.

First,

let me say that I think it might be worthwhile for the minister to pay

attention to some of the things that my colleague for Vancouver Centre

was talking about a few minutes ago. We cannot constantly go around

saying— around the SOS village.... The minister said that we really

believe that we want the kids to go home. We really believe that the

home is the best place for the kids we take care of. We really believe

that there are 500 children who are adoptable right now, and we want to

give them the security of finding a home if they don't have one now.

From

the material that I've seen and the evidence that has come forward over

the last number of years, it strikes me that many children have gone

through six, ten, maybe even 15 foster home placements. We hear about

them through the newspapers when it's too late, or we hear about them

in our communities and constituencies when we hear about difficulties

with kids who are acting out.

We often find that home is

not necessarily the best place for these kids if the home is an abusive

one, and we now know enough about many homes. If we are talking about

one in four kids being sexually abused, we can only assume that there's

at least that many who are being emotionally abused, and we are talking

about 77 percent of abuse cases occurring within the child's home.

We're not talking about one or two random problems here and there in

the community. We are talking about a pretty substantial problem.

For

that reason alone, I would suggest that the minister take a closer look

at perhaps developing, at least on a demonstration basis, the idea of

the SOS Children's Village in British Columbia and perhaps maintaining

it at a very small level — perhaps three to six cottages — and

monitoring it to see if it might provide a better model or an

equivalent model to the foster care situation that we offer now, which

I cannot complain about. But I am suggesting that it might be in the

minister's interest to look at a small community setting for a few

children who might otherwise be shunted between foster homes.

That

having been said, let me go on to the larger picture of child sexual

abuse. A few weeks ago I gave a statement in the House trying to pull

together four months of research that I've done over the spring around

child sex abuse, and I came up with many of the numbers I was quoting

earlier. There are amazing epidemic proportions in our society, and in

a newspa-

[ Page 9914 ]

per

article just two days ago in the Province, Americans too are talking

about the statistics of one in three children being sexually abused

before the age of 18 in the United States.

When we are

dealing with numbers of that magnitude, we are not dealing with random

problems that can be effectively dealt with by a couple of social

workers planted here and there in our communities. We are dealing with

the need for a large-scale assault on the problem itself and on the

root causes of that problem. We are talking about the need for in

intensity of effort, research and treatment that, we can only begin to

think about here in this chamber.

I suggested in my

statement that we needed a railroad track that runs between ministries

and connects the Ministry of Social Services, the Attorney-General, the

Solicitor-General and the Ministry of Health. It would basically bind

those ministries together with the agencies that they contract with or

the deputy ministers and the systems that they develop.

AN HON. MEMBER : They have a track, but there is no engine on it.

MS. MARZARI : The minister — well, I gave my statement —

did talk about various services and ideas that had come to him, but

those ideas were in fact engines with no track. The engines and the

track do not jibe, and they do not coincide with each other, so we have

some trouble with our metaphor, just as the ministries have trouble

developing the larger concept.

I suggested in my statement

that the Ministry of Social Services and Housing might be the logical

ministry with which to vest the business of child sexual abuse, the

Attorney-General should be responsible for women and violence, and the

Ministry of Health should be responsible for women in violence, and the

Ministry of Health should be given the ultimate responsibility for

elder abuse. That seems to be the system that could best deal with the

three elements of violence in our community. But as I said before, the

track between them must be carefully built.

If we are to

say that your ministry, Mr. Minister, is going to deal with child sex

abuse, your problem then becomes: how do you build the machine, how do

you build the track, how do you build the individual units on that

track to make sure...? In fact, for every case disclosed in this

province, when a child is abused or remembers that he or she has been

abused, how do you develop the system that's going to make sure that

the child is properly heard, properly treated and properly taken

through court, if that is the route to go?

You've made some

suggestions. I think you alluded to the interministerial committee

that's presently looking at this very problem, and you suggested that

you would be building perhaps or funding a program, possibly in

Vancouver or other programs throughout the province.

[4:45]

I'll

put my questions together, so that perhaps you can answer them

together. They are as follows. To what extent does your budget reflect

the building — in human terms; not bricks and mortar — of

these new coordinated systems to deal with child abuse in our province?

How much money do you actually see being set aside by your ministry to

plug into the IMCC report which is coming to you? How are you, in turn,

plugging into the women's ministry on this issue — if you are?

Fourth

and perhaps most important: before you can build anything, whether it

be an engine or a track to link you to other ministries, you first have

to have the information at your disposal. In all my researches and

dealings with friends, colleagues and professionals who have helped me

pull together my material, I have found a number of federal statistics

on child abuse in the country. I have yet to find anything in your

ministry, Mr. Minister, which basically outlines the magnitude of the

problem as we face it in British Columbia. How are we to determine what

machine needs to be built and what track needs to be laid if we don't

really know how many kids are in trouble or whether we're dealing with

one in four children before the age of 18 or one in seven children

before the age of 9?

We don't know. We have left it almost

as an afterthought. We'll build transition houses, because we know

mothers are being hurt. We'll take children into care, because we know

they're in trouble. What numbers do we have to work with, Mr. Minister?

Are we to assume that the number of children in care in this province

is basically the number of children that have been sexually abused?

Because I know that you don't take a child into care until something

very serious has happened in the home. Is this a number that we can go

on? Do you feel reasonably confident that you have the numbers at your

disposal with which you can build a track and a system, or are we just

putting in new programs because the media and the courts are drawing

our attention to it?

Those are my questions then. What

relationships do you have with other ministries to build the track? How

much money are you putting into it? And most important, what's our

database now for British Columbia?

HON. MR. DUECK : Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. DUECK :

In the precincts today are a number of people from the Fraser Valley

Adventist Academy in Aldergrove. On behalf of yourself, as first member

for Central Fraser Valley, and myself, I would like this House to

please make them welcome.

Mr.

Chairman, first of all, I

think I would have to give a little background on what we are doing

today and what we are planning for the future. When we talk about

budgets — and, of course, so much of this is always dependent on

budgets and the dollars you have available — for programs strictly

for children in

[ Page 9915 ]

care,

there is $107.95 million. That's related only to children in care. For

family support prevention-type programs, which are in place to prevent

some of these things from happening, it's $52.69 million, not including

salaries.

I should also mention what we do currently in the

Ministry of Social Services and Housing in the area of children at

risk. Of all children assessed for problems, I understand that 22

percent were there because of sexual abuse.

The

Ministry of

Social Services' role in cases of sexual abuse of children is to

investigate the circumstances of the particular case and to ensure that

protection services are provided for children in need of protection.

Our main goal, of course, is that the child is protected.

The

ministry funds non-profit agencies that provide victim services through

the community projects funding program. As well, services to victims

are available through the Ministry of Attorney-General — and that is

the other thing that you perhaps want to follow up on later.

Furthermore,

an interministry committee has been set up — I think you touched on

that. The protocol for it is an interministry child abuse handbook that

we printed some time back. Continuing that process, we worked through

the Cabinet Committee on Social Policy, and then instructed them to

have coordination between various ministries. I think I've named them

before: Attorney-General, Education, Health, Solicitor-General and us;

I believe that is all.

They will be meeting again. They've

come to a resolution on the direction they wish to go in, and we will

jointly fund it. We have offered $1 million for this service, and the

interministry contribution will be just over $3 million. So there's $3

million for start-up of this interministry program.

The

Interministerial Children's Committee has been established locally and

regionally to coordinate planning for children with special needs — in

other words, children in that situation. So I think that more than ever

before we are doing it on an interministry basis rather than by saying.

"This is my area; that's yours. Don't touch my turf and I won't touch

yours." There is more coordination in government than there has ever

been before, because I truly believe it is the only way you can

actually address some of those problems. It cannot be done in

isolation, and that's the direction we're going in.

You

touched again on the SOS Children's Village. I think I've said just

about everything I can say. We haven't closed our eyes to it. But I

think the points I raised are quite valid. If we take the attitude that

no child is unadoptable, then our model is certainly superior to that

one. That's not to say that we may not try in the future. We have

actually asked the SOS Society whether they would like to start a group

home, and they do not wish to do that. They want the village concept.

Thus far we have not come to a place and time where we think that is

the model we want to pursue.

MS. SMALLWOOD : I would

like to make a few comments on the issue of child abuse in this

province. I am sure the minister wants to continue, but.... First of

all, I think there are some things that we can look at right now

without a lot of studies and investigation of the ministry's response.

One of those things is plain and simply the fact that under the Family

and Child Service Act you have the power to apprehend a child whose

welfare is threatened. Yet under the act there is no provision for

service; there is no mandated service for the child.

Basically

you are looking at an issue of identifying a child who is at risk and

apprehending them — but I'm emphasizing that there is no mandate to

provide service for that child or for their family. Moreover — and this

goes back to the issue we were talking about earlier — the act does not

mandate a review of the cases concerning those children. So without a

requirement to deal with the abuse, without a mandate to monitor the

care given to those children, one has to ask about quality of life and,

indeed, whether the ministry is a partner in continuing abuse in this

society.

I know that those are very harsh words, but given

that a large number of abusers were themselves abused as children.... I

refer the minist