2006 Legislative Session: Second Session, 38th 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)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Tributes

Prince George hockey champions

Hon. S. Bond

Dirk Meissner

Hon. M. de

Jong

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Frank Calder

Hon. M. de

Jong

M. Farnworth

Introduction and First Reading of

Bills

Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006 (Bill

M209)

C. James

Workers Compensation Amendment Act,

2006 (Bill M210)

G. Gentner

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Global Centre for Pluralism

J. Nuraney

Value-added and remanufacturing sectors

in forest industry

B. Simpson

Dawson Creek Fall Fair and Exhibition

B. Lekstrom

Investigation into Sullivan mine

accident

N. Macdonald

Cypress Mountain Olympic venue

J. McIntyre

Workplace deaths and injuries

C. Puchmayr

Oral Questions

Health Minister action on private

health care services

C. James

Hon. G. Abbott

A. Dix

K. Conroy

Funding for limits to class size and

composition

D. Cubberley

Hon. S. Bond

Potential school closings in Cariboo

area

C. Wyse

Hon. S. Bond

Funding for northern and rural schools

B. Simpson

Hon. S. Bond

Alcan power sales to B.C. Hydro

J. Horgan

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Petitions

M. Sather

Standing Order 35

C. James

Hon. M. de Jong

Motions on Notice

Adoption of report of Special Committee

to Appoint a Representative for Children

and Youth (Motion 72)

J. Rustad

C. James

M. Karagianis

N. Simons

D. Thorne

A. Dix

J. Rustad

Appointment of Representative for

Children and Youth (Motion 73)

J. Rustad

On the Motion to Adjourn

M. Farnworth

N. Macdonald

D. Chudnovsky

C. Trevena

G. Robertson

L. Krog

J. Brar

G. Gentner

R. Austin

M. Sather

On the Motion to Recess

M. Farnworth

A. Dix

D. Routley

B. Ralston

G. Coons

B. Simpson

Standing Order 35 (Speaker's

Ruling)

On the Motion to Recess

(continued)

R. Chouhan

S. Simpson

H. Lali

J. Kwan

On the Motion to Adjourn

(continued)

M. Sather

D. Routley

B. Ralston

G. Coons

R. Chouhan

H. Lali

D. Thorne

C. Evans

C. Puchmayr

J. Horgan

J. Kwan

C. Wyse

S. Hammell

H. Bains

N. Simons

B. Simpson

S. Simpson

D. Cubberley

M. Karagianis

K. Conroy

A. Dix

Hon. M. de Jong

[ Page 5115 ]

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 2006

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Tributes

PRINCE GEORGE HOCKEY CHAMPIONS

Hon. S. Bond: Today I would like the House to just recognize a significant accomplishment by a Prince George hockey team that recently spent Thanksgiving in the United States. The midget team there won. They were one of two Canadian teams at that tournament in Denver, Colorado. Under the head coach, Jason Garneau, they actually brought home the gold to Prince George. We're very excited and very proud of the team, and I hope the Legislature will recognize them today.

[1405]

DIRK MEISSNER

Hon. M. de Jong: Two submissions to the House today — one happy, one not so happy.

Dirk Meissner from the Canadian Press was in Vancouver on Thursday night, where the Vancouver firefighters presented him with the International Association of Fire Fighters award for the best column or editorial in North America. He received the prestigious honour for his piece on amendments to the Workers Compensation Act to recognize the increased cancer risk faced by professional firefighters.

The International Association of Fire Fighters Media Awards Contest is conducted annually. It honours reporting and photography that best portray the professional and dangerous work of firefighters and emergency personnel in the United States and Canada. There were, I am told, over 225 entries in the 2006 media awards contest. I know that all members of the House would want to congratulate Mr. Meissner on his most impressive achievement.

Introductions by Members

J. Horgan: Not in the gallery today, but certainly in our hearts and our minds, is the MLA for Victoria-Hillside, who was father to Rory Fleming this past weekend. Would the House please welcome Rory to the world.

Tributes

FRANK CALDER

Hon. M. de Jong: The fact that all members of the House would know this does not, I think, negate the possibility of taking a moment to remember the fact that a 26-year servant of this House passed away on November

4. Of course, I'm referring to Dr. Frank Calder. Members of the chamber, some of them here, were in attendance for his memorial service.

British Columbia and Canada lost a true giant in the passing of Dr. Frank Calder. He was a member of the Order of Canada and the Order of British Columbia. His life really was characterized by a series of firsts. He was the first status Indian, as the term is used, to be admitted to the University of British Columbia. He was the first aboriginal person in the country to be elected to a legislature, and remarkably, he served in this chamber for 26 years — a fact that I was not aware of.

He was the first aboriginal person to enter the Canadian Parliament and the first to be appointed as a minister of the Crown in British Columbia. He was a founder of the Nisga'a Tribal Council and served as its president for 20 years. He was later named chief of chiefs by the clans that comprise the Nisga'a Tribal Council. He was a guiding spirit for British Columbians, Canadians — aboriginal and non-aboriginal.

Mr. Speaker, he truly was a pioneer, a giant amongst men and women, and I hope that you, on behalf of all members of this chamber, will convey to his family our sincerest condolences and our great thanks for their having shared Dr. Frank Calder with all of us.

M. Farnworth: This side of the House would like to join with the government side in recognizing the tremendous contribution that Frank Calder made, not only to aboriginal people in British Columbia but aboriginal people right across this country, and the contribution that he made to the people of British Columbia and to redressing the grievances of the past, fighting to ensure that those injustices are corrected and rectified, but more importantly, helping to build and make reconciliation the framework with which we proceed in the future.

I think it is only fitting that this House take the time to do that, and we send our condolences as well.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PARLIAMENTARY CALENDAR ACT, 2006

C. James presented a bill intituled Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006.

C. James: I move that the bill be introduced and read now a first time.

Motion approved.

C. James: The Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006, establishes a set parliamentary

schedule for the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Many members of this House will recall that when the significant amendments to standing orders were introduced in the last parliament, the government stated that in order to maintain a balance between the will of government and the necessity of adequate accountability, and in exchange for granting government the authority to in-

[ Page 5116 ]

voke closure on business by a fixed date in the spring, a fall session was added to the calendar.

[1410]

Somewhere along the way that principle was abandoned, much to the detriment of the effectiveness of this place and, more importantly, the interests of the people of this province. This act establishes permanently a fall session that would not be at the will of the Premier or the government but at the will of the members of this place, as it should be.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at a sitting after today.

Bill M209, Parliamentary Calendar Act, 2006, 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.

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2006

G. Gentner presented a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2006.

G. Gentner: I move the Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2006, be read a first time today.

Motion approved.

G. Gentner: As you all know, the Workers Compensation Act went through some drastic changes in 2002. There were changes made to the benefit levels, the average earnings, pensions after 65, inflation adjustment and the receipt of CPP disability benefits. These are just some of the changes that were made to the act.

The government would have you believe that the purpose of the Workers Compensation Amendment Act was to restore the system's financial sustainability and modernize how benefits for injured workers would be calculated. Modernize? What exactly is modernization? I'll tell you what it means, Mr. Speaker. It means to deny the rights of injured workers.

The number-one case that walks into my office is workers compensation cases. I'm talking about hard-working, honest and proud individuals who have had the misfortune to suffer a work-related injury or disease.

However, it is my understanding that there is one particular change that was not based on the recommendations of the Winter report of 2001. I'm talking about the change to the basis for determining permanent partial disability pension levels. Under the previous legislation, there was a dual system in place. The injured worker would receive compensation based on either loss of function or loss of earnings, whichever was higher and more equitable for the injured worker.

The current legislation has been changed so the compensation is now based solely on loss of function, except in exceptional cases which are very rare. The Winter report even recommended that the dual system remain in place.

It is the right of injured workers to have their compensation based on fair legislative rules and fair policy and practices, but the current Workers Compensation Act and the current policies of WCB are hardly fair. I propose a private member's bill so that we can start bringing back fairness and equity to the injured worker, which is what he or she rightfully deserved.

I move the bill be tabled to the next sitting of the House.

Bill M210, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2006, 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.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) GLOBAL CENTRE FOR PLURALISM

J. Nuraney: I had the honour and the privilege to attend a signing ceremony between the Prime Minister, Hon. Stephen Harper, and His Highness the Aga Khan for the creation of the Global Centre for Pluralism in Ottawa. The Global Centre for Pluralism will be a major new international centre for research, education and exchange about the values, practices and policies that underpin pluralistic societies.

[1415]

Drawing inspiration from the Canadian experience, the centre will function as a global repository. The centre will function also as a source of information for knowledge about fostering pluralistic values, policies and practices. It will work with the countries to nurture successful civil societies in which every citizen — irrespective of cultural, religious or ethnic differences — is able to realize his or her full potential. In his remarks His Highness the Aga Khan described the Canadian practice of seeking unity in diversity as Canada's gift to the world.

This new institution will play a significant role in promoting democracy, good governance, a more equitable sharing of world resources between the developed and developing countries, and the projection of Canadian values such as the rule of law, human rights and respect for diversity.

I am very proud to be a member of the Shia Ismaili Muslim community, which is partnering this lofty project, a true tribute to Canada and its values.

VALUE-ADDED AND REMANUFACTURING

SECTORS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

B. Simpson: I had the pleasure of spending some time with the president of the Independent Lumber

[ Page 5117 ]

Remanufacturers Association a few weeks ago. The members of this association employ approximately 4,000 workers and ship four billion board feet of wood products per year, with a value in excess of $2.5 billion, making the association one of the biggest employers in B.C.'s forest products industry and a vital contributor to the B.C. economy. A similar association exists on Vancouver Island, the Vancouver Island Association of Wood Processors, which represents 57 businesses, employing more than 600 workers in communities from Victoria to Port McNeill and Parksville to Port Alberni.

The individual member companies of these two associations and others like them represent the future of our forest industry because, by necessity, the future of the industry lies in extracting full value from every tree harvested in this province. However, the sector cannot thrive if the entrepreneurs who run these companies must struggle every day simply to survive.

They cannot put their creative energies towards growth if they have to fight every day to secure fibre supply. They cannot grow if they are not given assistance to secure the financial capital required to expand their operations. Without security of fibre, banking institutions are very reluctant to underwrite the expansion of this sector. Finally, they cannot expand to their full capacity unless a forest policy framework recognizes their particular needs and circumstances and takes into account the punitive impact that the softwood lumber agreement will have on them.

If the forest industry is to continue to contribute to B.C.'s economy in the future, the entrepreneurs in the value-added and remanufacturing sectors must be given every opportunity to grow and to contribute as fully as possible to the B.C. economy, both now and in the future. This House owes these entrepreneurs our utmost respect and our support.

DAWSON CREEK FALL FAIR

AND EXHIBITION

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to stand in this House and speak about an outstanding event in my riding of Peace River South. This event is the Dawson Creek Fall Fair and Exhibition, which is held annually in Dawson Creek but encompasses all of our surrounding area in the entire Peace region with their participation. In 2007 we will mark the 85th birthday of this fair and exhibition, one that we're all very proud of and one I encourage each and every member in this House and all British Columbians to make an effort to attend if it is at all possible.

This event showcases agriculture and the importance of it, not just to the Peace region or our province and our country but to the entire world. We have people that travel the Alaska Highway and, during their tour, attend this fair if they happen to be travelling through our region during the time that it's put on. All, without exception, are truly amazed at the quality of this exhibition.

[1420]

It takes a thousand volunteers to put this together, including the service sector, which contributes time and equipment to host this event. My thanks go out to each and every one of those people. It encompasses cattle shows, horse shows, a world-class rodeo that rivals the Calgary Stampede. The World Professional Chuckwagon Association run their wagons there as well. One of the highlights is the heavy involvement of the 4-H Club in the entire region. They're actually the future for agriculture in our great province, so it is tremendous.

This year 25,000 people attended our fair and exhibition. For a community of roughly 12,000 people, that's quite a turnout. But as I said, this is about more than Dawson Creek. This is truly about the Peace country coming together to host this. This year they received the award of excellence as the number-one fair in British Columbia from the B.C. Association of Agricultural Fairs. As well, they won the committee of the year award from the Professional Chuckwagon Association as the best committee and best organization that has put these together.

In closing, my heartfelt thanks go out again to all of the volunteers that put this together, with special mention to Ms. Connie Patterson, who has been involved in agriculture her entire life but really is the backbone of this event. Please visit.

INVESTIGATION INTO

SULLIVAN MINE ACCIDENT

N. Macdonald: On Monday, May 15 of this year a contractor, as this House knows, was killed in a small shed at the Sullivan mine reclamation site. It would be two days before he was missed, and on the morning of May 17 three other people died in that shed. In the six months that have followed, the families of those killed have tried to deal with the tragic loss of their loved ones.

Kimberley and surrounding communities turned out in massive numbers for a memorial service attended by the Lieutenant-Governor and ministers of government as well as paramedics, police and fire personnel not only from across the province but from across North America. Kimberley has since dedicated an ambulance to the memory of the two lost paramedics.

A commitment was made repeatedly by government that they would find out what happened and that they would work to see that it would not happen again. We know that is what is needed for the families to allow closure; we know that is what is needed for the community to allow closure. I wanted members to know where we are, because so many of you very graciously offered condolences to the community in the spring.

The first report of the accident was presented on Monday, October 30 in Cranbrook by the chief mine inspector. Families were given a presentation the night before. What has been very clear from the family members is that they need much more. They were in no way

[ Page 5118 ]

satisfied with the report and raised a number of issues that they felt needed to be dealt with.

At this time there is a coroner's report being prepared, and it is hoped that it will do more to answer questions that are still outstanding. If not, the community and family will need a coroner's inquest, and the commitments made by members of this House on behalf of all of us on May 17 and at the memorial service will be tested. We simply cannot let them down. Kimberley is a wonderful community that stands together in good times and hard times. It has and will continue to support those within the community that are grieving.

CYPRESS MOUNTAIN

OLYMPIC VENUE

J. McIntyre: I am very excited to report today that Olympic fever is hitting British Columbia. Our first completed Olympic venue was just opened on November 16 for everyone to use, and it is well over three years before the games are set to begin and only six or seven months after construction began.

Our government is committed to leaving lasting legacies of the 2010 Winter Games, leading up to and beyond the Olympics. At Cypress Mountain in West Vancouver–Garibaldi athletes and teams can now come to train and participate in sport and become familiar with the facilities and the courses before the Olympics arrive.

Cypress Mountain will play host to ten events, including men's and women's aerials and moguls as well as the snowboard half-pipe and snowboard cross. Thanks to the recent additions and upgrades, such as an in-ground half-pipe, a new freestyle site and a regraded parallel giant slalom course, we'll have the chance to experience world-class Olympic facilities right in our own back yard.

As the host province, we want to see as many B.C. athletes as possible competing in our games. By completing the Cypress Bowl venue so early, the advance training time should give B.C.'s athletes an advantage when it comes to showing their stuff to the world in 2010.

[1425]

But the 2010 Olympics are more than just games. They're about opportunity — opportunities for tourism, opportunities for athletics, opportunities for businesses and opportunities for volunteerism. It's our opportunity as a community, as a province and as a country to highlight to the hundreds of thousands of athletes, visitors, media and spectators worldwide exactly why British Columbia is the best place on earth.

All levels of government have been working together collaboratively to ensure we're prepared, to ensure everyone is ready. We will be ready, but the question is: is the world ready for the competition they're going to face from our athletes at this venue? I can't wait.

WORKPLACE DEATHS AND INJURIES

C. Puchmayr: There have been 11 deaths so far this year in the B.C. forest sector. Some will say it has improved since the senseless carnage of last year, but I remind this House that one death is unacceptable. So are the serious workplace injuries that continue to permanently maim men and women, young and old.

We need to understand that this was a year when we saw significant reductions in log harvest due to summer drought and unprecedented autumn rains. As we head towards the season where many of us share and reflect on the past year, a season where we gather with our family and friends, we should not forget those who will not be coming home to their loved ones because they were a victim of an industrial work-related accident.

This is a time that should be a festive season for all, yet it is one filled with heartache and pain for those who have lost a loved one — a time of heartache and pain for the families of the 188 fatalities that we remembered on the day of mourning this year, a time of heartache and pain for those who have died this year because of the work that they did, a time of heartache and pain for the families of the Sullivan mine disaster. This is also a time when injured workers suffer from reductions in pension benefits and rehabilitation premiums from the new directives of WorkSafe B.C.

Yet this is a time of great prosperity. Many large multinational corporations that operate in our province benefit from the toil of our citizens' labour — a prosperous time for the global resource markets as they bring in record profits due to our global commodity prices; a prosperous time for shareholders and investors; a prosperous time for government coffers, both provincial and federal, as these global commodities enter into our general revenues.

Let's work together to ensure that profit is not put ahead of people. Let's work together to ensure that the pendulum swings a balance that creates a fairness in how our resources are extracted in a manner that protects our workers and our environment. That, Mr. Speaker, is what I want for Christmas.

Oral Questions

HEALTH MINISTER ACTION

ON PRIVATE HEALTH CARE SERVICES

C. James: Over the weekend British Columbians learned more about the Minister of Health's inability and refusal to protect B.C.'s public health care system. We heard that the minister was once again surprised at another credit-card-for-medicine scheme — this time a private for-profit emergency room — a scheme that, according to Dr. Godley, "lets us go back to the old days when people bartered for medical services."

The minister tried to blame his former deputy, Penny Ballem, for his ignorance. To the Minister of Health: can he explain why he was caught so uninformed? And will he agree that he should have known about this issue before the media contacted him?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The use of sanctimony as a political weapon can

[ Page 5119 ]

certainly be, in some circumstances, a powerful one. When it's used as this opposition likes to use it, it does invite the stench of hypocrisy to overwhelm it.

[1430]

I'd like to know from the Leader of the Opposition where she was in March 1999 when the False Creek Surgical Centre was formed. Where was she? I know where the federal Health critic was. She was the Minister of Health of British Columbia — didn't say a word. I know where the opposition Health critic was. He was a chief political adviser to the government of British Columbia — didn't say a word. I know where the Opposition House Leader was. He was a member of executive council along with several other members of the opposition.

None of them spoke up to say a word against False Creek Surgical. They should keep that in perspective.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplemental.

C. James: It's clear that the Minister of Health doesn't know anything about his own ministry, including the fact that he has been the minister for the last year, and that's what we're talking about here. This isn't an isolated incident. It's another example of this minister's pattern of surprise and complete ignorance.

Emergency room crises — we heard the minister call doctors alarmist, and he denied the story. Separated seniors — the minister actually dismissed this story as fearmongering. MRI scandals — the minister said it couldn't happen, and it did. Extra billing and queue-jumping — the minister was caught once again unaware and uninformed.

This new credit card ER wants to charge patients $200 to get in the door, and the minister claims he had no idea that it was in the works. Will the Minister of Health please explain to this House why he is repeatedly in the dark when it comes to our health care system?

Hon. G. Abbott: When we talk about the False Creek Surgical Centre, I think we also have to remember that there were a few other centres that had some things in common with them: Boardwalk Surgery Centre, Delbrook Surgical Centre, Broadmead Surgery Centre, Metrotown Surgical Centre, Parklane Surgical Centre, Seafield Surgical Centre, Okanagan Surgical Centre, Valley Surgery Centre and about 20 other private surgery centres that were put in place during the tenure of the NDP during the 1990s.

I noted with some interest the Leader of the Opposition calling for my resignation last Friday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: If that were the case, there would be 26 desk-beaters across the way that would be tendering their resignations as well.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplemental.

C. James: If the Health Minister spent a little less time researching the past and spent more time paying attention to the Health Ministry, we might not have the system in chaos right now.

In March in North Vancouver, a doctor informed patients he was going to start charging an annual user fee. The minister promised us a review. We've not heard anything back. We're still waiting for the minister to take action about user fees at Copeman and at Options Clinic. Now we have a Kamloops surgeon setting up queue-jumping schemes, and now we have a credit card emergency room. I expect there are more.

Again, my question is to the Minister of Health. What specific steps has he taken to make sure that he and his office are actually better informed about our health care system in the future?

[1435]

Hon. G. Abbott: What we do is observe the rule of law on this side of the House. We observe the rule of law. When we receive a complaint, we forward it to the appropriate body for adjudication.

I know the Leader of the Opposition would be the first to leap up, were I to interfere in any of those appropriate processes. She would say that is an outrage. She does not, however, appear to want to see those due processes take place. Would she feel it appropriate, for example, were I to launch an investigation into why her federal leader decided, when he had a pain in the Shouldice, that he would go to a private clinic to get it? Would that be appropriate?

Every time, in every case…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let's listen to the answer.

Minister, continue.

Hon. G. Abbott: …where we have received a complaint, we have followed up that complaint appropriately, thoroughly and properly.

A. Dix: Well, in this case, the Ministry of Health was informed in January about this very serious issue, which the minister himself has acknowledged is serious, and the minister claims he was ignorant that it was going on as of last Thursday.

The minister also claimed on Friday that he has launched an internal

review to explain why he was kept in the dark. I'd like to ask him how it's

going. In particular, can the minister tell this House whether his office, his

ministerial assistant Alex Dutton, received a request from Dr. Godley earlier

this year seeking a meeting to discuss False Creek Surgical Centre's private

emergency room or "urgent care" proposal?

[ Page 5120 ]

Hon. G. Abbott: The letter of January 18 was from the executive assistant to Dr. Godley, who I believe is Sherry Wiebe, and her letter was to Alex Dutton, executive assistant at the Ministry of Health. The request contained in the letter was to offer me what was termed a courtesy briefing in regard to exciting innovations that were proposed — their words — by False Creek Surgical. They did go to some pains to assure that what was being proposed was within the bounds of the Canada Health Act. I understand that request for a meeting was forwarded to the deputy minister, and that is what we know at this point.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: Let me get this straight. The Minister of Health was kept in the dark by his own staff about what was going on at False Creek Surgical Centre.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

A. Dix: The letter went to the Minister of Health about a serious issue like this, and he is so committed to defending the Medicare Protection Act, so committed to defending the Canada Health Act and so committed to defending patients in British Columbia that it took him…. Well, in fact, he didn't take any action, any steps on this question.

My question to the Minister of Health is: will his office be part of his so-called investigation into what happened, and can he explain why the letter from Dr. Godley's office to his office wasn't followed up by him in January of this year?

Hon. G. Abbott: We receive thousands of requests to meet annually. Some of those we're able to oblige; others we are not. I'm certainly still looking into it. We've reviewed the correspondence files a couple of times, and we'll continue to do that to see if there's further we discover.

Perhaps the member can tell me, as the chief political adviser when he was…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. G. Abbott: …the former Rasputin to the court of the chronically misguided back in 1999, what his advice was to his government. Did he keep that secret? Did he keep it secret from his ministers?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, when there's quiet, you can continue. Government members, please.

[1440]

Hon. G. Abbott: What was his advice as chief political adviser around the False Creek Surgical Centre? Was it a great and perilous threat to the province, as the member might suggest today, or was it not?

K. Conroy: Let's bring it back to 2006. Last week the minister was informed about a surgeon in Kamloops who had set up his own queue-jumping scheme. A patient was told that $350 would get her to the front of the line. The minister once again pleaded ignorance. He said it was an isolated case.

On Friday the opposition received an e-mail from another concerned British Columbian. Colleen Abbott was told she would have to wait three years to see a foot specialist, or she could pay the fee and get in to see the same doctor in a private clinic in 30 days. Three years or 30 days.

How many other cases does the minister need to see before he admits that credit card medicine is becoming the new reality in B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: In fact, what we have seen during the last five years is far more timely attention to surgical procedures than was ever the case back in the 1990s.

Today, for example, in British Columbia we are doing 86 percent more knee replacements than we did back in 2001 — 86 percent more knee replacements; we've almost doubled the number — and 47 percent more hip replacements than back in 2001. Surgery is more timely than it ever was under the NDP.

If the member has a concern, I'm surprised she has not forwarded the information to my office. I hope she has forwarded it to my office. It's great to raise these things in question period and to make a political stunt around them, but if she wants something done, she should forward the information to my office.

I would gladly receive it. I can assure the member I will take the case to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, who are the appropriate adjudicative body in this matter, as we did last Thursday when the information was forwarded to us.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker. It's interesting. You'll get public health care in this province if you have money or if the opposition brings the case to the attention of the minister.

In fact, the opposition did know about this case, but so has the minister because we got the e-mail the same day as the minister was sent the e-mail.

Ms. Abbott was referred by Dr. Alistair Younger out of the public system into his own private practice at the Cambie Surgery Centre. It's another example of doctors referring their own patients to the private system and then making a profit. For $500 she can jump to the front of the line.

What is the minister going to do about this to put an end to this blatant queue-jumping?

Hon. G. Abbott: Whenever we receive information which suggests that physicians, or indeed any other

[ Page 5121 ]

health practitioners, are conducting themselves inappropriately in relation to the statutes of this province and the code of conduct which is expected by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, we will forward all of the information we have to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for follow-up on that.

We did that last Friday. We did that with another case today, which the members may wish to raise here shortly. I don't know.

Whenever we get information about an apprehended or suggested breach of statute or code of conduct, we follow up on it with the appropriate bodies. In this case, it will be with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. I invite the member to submit whatever information she has with respect to Ms. Abbott, and we will ensure that it is taken forward to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for their attention.

[1445]

FUNDING FOR LIMITS TO

CLASS SIZE AND COMPOSITION

D. Cubberley: Bill 33, Education (Learning Enhancement) Statutes Amendment Act, 2006, places restrictions on class size and composition in B.C. classrooms. The Minister of Education has directed school districts to absorb any new costs associated with class size and composition requirements. At the same time, she's told school districts to absorb all the costs of lost revenues due to the school fees decision. For good measure, this summer she quietly withheld the annual facilities grants owed to school districts for work already done.

My question to the minister: can she tell us just how many classes across British Columbia exceed the cap of three, and whether she still believes the convenient fiction that school districts have enough money to meet all of their obligations?

Hon. S. Bond: Bill 33…. We came to the conclusion that we did need to respond to some of the challenges in classrooms today, and by bringing together partners at the education round table, we created a bill that began to address those issues. School startup went very, very well this year, despite the member opposite's comments. In fact, let's look at the record. Funding for education in British Columbia is at the highest level it has ever been at, and we continue to add funds.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The member has a supplemental.

D. Cubberley: The minister has a very elastic concept of school funding. Elastic money — one allocation fits all needs.

The figures that I have seen — and I notice the minister didn't give us any figures on how many classes — show that some 7,577 classes are above the cap of three. That's only a partial count — 49 out of 60 school districts. In Sooke school district alone, 130 classes have five or more children with IEPs. Some have as many as ten, and one has 14. Can the minister tell us how many of these classrooms have not received additional resources and which school districts are reporting implementation issues that cannot be met with existing funding?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this is the first government that actually made an effort to ask every single class-size number in the entire province. We also know this. Even at a time of record-level funding in this province, we believe that the people that are best designed and best trained and best equipped to make decisions about classroom size are at the school level, with principals and parents and administrators working together. We have excellent educators and teachers in this province, who are working to make sure that our class size is reasonable, appropriate and fair to all students.

POTENTIAL SCHOOL CLOSINGS

IN CARIBOO AREA

C. Wyse: Is the minister aware of the Trillium report of school district 27, in which it's proposed to close eight more schools in order to balance its budget?

Hon. S. Bond: You know, it's simple to stand up and say all the time, as the members opposite do, that it's all about the money. Well, has the member opposite done his homework? If we look around the world, enrolment in schools is declining not just in British Columbia but in Saskatchewan, Australia, Ireland — all across the world. Schools have to adjust to that.

Yes, I'm aware of that report. Closing a school is never an easy decision. It's difficult; it's painful. But the demographics in this province continue to show decline in enrolment not just today — 37,000 students less — but that will continue for at least another decade.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1450]

C. Wyse: In fairness, it being question period, the answer is that I have done my homework. Is the minister aware that the Trillium report as well as school district 27's financial report show that the projected nearly $1 million budget shortfall arises from the inadequate funding of mandated provincial programs and the lack of funding to implement Bill 33, which alone is close to $400,000?

My question is: what will the minister do to intervene to prevent the closure of eight schools in Cariboo South?

Hon. S. Bond: It is always difficult to make decisions about school closures. In fact, we believe that locally elected school trustees actually work hard to use the resources that they're given. What is this government going to do? It's going to continue to make education a priority. We are at record levels of funding.

[ Page 5122 ]

We're going to continue to fund schools appropriately and make sure our children have the best opportunities possible.

FUNDING FOR NORTHERN

AND RURAL SCHOOLS

B. Simpson: I'm glad to hear the Minister of Education say that she was committed to funding school districts and school boards appropriately. In '04-05 school district 27 did a significant restructure in order to meet the ministry's funding constraints and in order to avoid school closures. Subsequent to that, Bill 33 costs, distributed learning costs, contractual obligations and other provincially mandated programs and policies have created the deficit situation in school district 27.

My question to the minister: if she's talking about funding school boards appropriately, will she address this shortfall so that eight schools do not have to close because of this minister's inadequate, inappropriate funding of provincially mandated programs?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it's ironic that the member opposite stands up and talks about funding levels. How simple is it? Let's look at the answer. We have 37,000 fewer children in the school system. We are projected to continue to see that decline take place — another 30,000 fewer students over the next number of years. In fact, funding — let's remember — during this government's mandate is at the highest level despite that rapid decline.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

B. Simpson: I do, and it intrigues me that the minister starts talking about how simple it is, because that captures this government's idea about educational funding. In fact, it is not simple. One size does not fit all. Rural communities and remote rural schools need different funding formulas in this province.

If the minister had done her homework, she would have read the Trillium report, which states explicitly that the education funding system in this province now encourages fewer schools with larger enrolments. And in the case of school district 27, the first targeted schools to close are rural, remote schools where the funding formula does not work.

My question is to the Minister of Education. A few years ago, the community of Wells had to go on a hunger strike to get this government's attention to the fact that if they lost their school, they lost their community.

The community of Likely in my riding is one of the first targeted schools to close. Are they going to have to go on a hunger strike in order to get this minister to pay attention to their needs and to keep that school open? Eight school closures. To the minister: what is she going to do to keep those schools open?

[1455]

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, a tutorial is necessary for the member opposite. In fact, the current funding formula actually has recognition factors for northern and rural communities, including geography, dispersion, climate, all those things that matter in northern communities where we live.

In fact, this government has provided a buffer grant for those districts who are losing enrolment at a rate more rapid than expected. So it's time for the member opposite to go back to school, to do his homework and to recognize that this government has placed funding at an all-time high in this province.

ALCAN POWER SALES TO B.C. HYDRO

J. Horgan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Recently B.C. Hydro issued a call for power. Secret and separate from that was a deal cooked up between the government of British Columbia and the Aluminum Company of Canada, also known as Alcan. That deal commits B.C. Hydro to purchasing power and providing profits to Alcan of over 1,000 percent.

My question is a very, very simple one to the Minister of Energy. Can he advise this House at what time price gouging became the main pillar of the B.C. energy policy? Can he tell this House why this deal is being rammed through the B.C. Utilities Commission without adequate public consultation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, again, we see that the opposition now are opposed to actually getting electricity from clean power generation. They named it in the House. One day they're against one type of generation. Next day they're against another type of generation. It's pretty simple. You just have to go to the website, to www.bcuc.com. Have a look, and the deal is there. That's all they have to do.

I'll help you with the research, Member.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Horgan: I thank the hon. Minister of Energy, but what we object to is profits from a public resource….

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Profits….

Wait for it. Bring it on. Bring it on.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

J. Horgan: When the knuckle-draggers are finished, hon. Speaker.

What we object to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member, just wait.

Members from the government side, let's listen to the question.

[ Page 5123 ]

J. Horgan: What we object to is profits from a public resource being reinvested in South Africa, in India and not in Kitimat where the Industrial Development Act says it should be.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, just wait. Just take your seat.

Government members, please. Let's listen to the question.

Member, proceed.

J. Horgan: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

That 1,000-percent profit that's going to a company based in Montreal is going to produce new aluminium smelters to compete with Alcan in other jurisdictions around the world. I don't know why that won't get into the thick skulls on the other side.

My specific question on a supplemental speaks to the agreement that the minister just spoke to. In a letter dated November 10, the B.C. Utilities Commission wrote to B.C. Hydro and said the following: "Given the complexity of the agreements filed in this proceeding, B.C. Hydro ought to have provided more than 60 days to review the energy supply contracts." Ought to have provided more than 60 days.

My question is to the minister. You signed an order-in-council on the tenth of November jamming this through. The people in Kitimat, the people of British Columbia have no say in money going offshore to compete with our own smelter in Kitimat. What's the deal?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Government members, we want to listen to the answer now.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I guess the reality is starting to show through to the public. I've heard other MLAs on the opposite side of the House say that private industry doesn't create jobs and wealth. Now we have the Energy critic saying that profit is not acceptable in British Columbia. Well, I tell him: that's the difference between that side of the House and this side of the House.

[1500]

Secondly, I look at a map in my mind, and I don't know about profits going offshore when they're going to Quebec. Interesting.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The other thing that we're well aware of on this side of the House is that we actually use the BCUC. We actually empowered the BCUC, unlike the member over there, when he was an adviser, who actually bypassed the BCUC at all times.

I want to tell you that what has happened is that there is a deal between Alcan and B.C. Hydro to purchase electricity for use inside of British Columbia borders and for British Columbians which is clean, green electricity — something we should all be proud of, not talking about profit.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

M. Sather: I have a petition from 1,259 residents calling on government to move the Abernathy connector and Formosa Nursery in my constituency a mere 35 metres to save this viable organic blueberry farm.

Standing Order 35

Debate of this issue is of immediate concern. The declaration is scheduled to be voted on by the third committee of the United Nations tomorrow. Sadly, our federal government has decided to join a small minority among world nations who will vote against the declaration. Our country was one of the driving forces that led to the drafting of this declaration, and now, to our collective shame, Canada has become the driving force against it.

This declaration is enormously important to first nations people — a sign that the government finally gets it. British Columbia's aboriginal leaders have spoken strongly in favour of the declaration. According to Ed John: "This is a historic document for all indigenous people, and there is tremendous support for the adoption of the declaration. However, there is a real sense of betrayal with Canada's complete reversal of their historic leadership position of support."

Shawn Atleo: "Canada's position is not substantiated nor supported by international or domestic law. Canada is going against the grain, as many states are providing solid support for the declaration."

Stewart Phillip: "Since the federal election, Canada's discriminatory actions against indigenous people at the national and international level have been shameful and disgraceful. As a member of the Human Rights Council, Canada accepted responsibility to uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights."

In light of the Premier's very public declarations of support for a change in attitude towards first nations and in light of the declaration's importance, I call on this House to unanimously endorse a motion of support for the UN declaration. I'm providing you with a written statement of this matter and now do therefore move the following motion.

[ Page 5124 ]

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me make the following submissions in reply to the Leader of the Opposition's submissions to the House and thank her for her comments earlier.

First of all, I must make this observation that there is a certain irony in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition would make the comments she has today, some 48 or 72 hours after essentially criticizing the Premier for fulfilling a commitment to meet with the Assembly of First Nations today, as he is in Vancouver.

It was that very Leader of the Opposition and her caucus who were chastising the Premier and playing politics with his….

Interjections.

[1505]

Mr. Speaker: Members, members.

To the motion.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yeah, thanks, Mr. Speaker, and I know the truth hurts. We are all bound by comments that we have made earlier. In any event, the Premier is meeting with the Assembly of First Nations.

The question for the Speaker to consider today is whether or not the application that the Leader of the Opposition has made falls within the ambit of the rules in Standing Order 35. I will make the same observation today that I have made on two previous occasions. It is not simply a matter of deeming something to be of importance and of interest, which the question undoubtedly is. What the Leader of the Opposition is saying, by virtue of her commentary and submission to the House today, is, "I don't want to deal firstly with the matter that has brought the House back" — that is, the appointment of the commissioner, the child and youth commissioner.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

Hon. M. de Jong : The submissions from Yale-Lillooet are always helpful, even when they contradict themselves.

It is implicit in the submission that the Leader of the Opposition has made today that she believes this is of more importance than the matter which actually precipitated the House being called together. I disagree, and I would urge the Speaker to disagree as well. It does not displace the matter which has brought us here, and that is the adoption of the unanimous recommendation, which the government does intend to call in short order.

Beyond that, I would call…. Having done this now three days in a row, I actually expected someone within the opposition research department to assist folks like the Leader of the Opposition, who make these submissions, to point out to the Chair how it is that the application fits within Standing Order 35, because clearly it doesn't. The reason they don't make those submissions is that it doesn't.

The question is not the urgency of the matter. It is the urgency of debate in this chamber. That principle has been enumerated in the Parliamentary Practice s time and time again, and the Leader of the Opposition simply chooses to ignore that fact.

I am not in any way disputing, as I did on previous days, the importance of the matter and the interest that people have in the matter. But the question is whether or not it should displace what we have been scheduled to discuss. As I say, the test is not the urgency of the matter but the urgency of debate.

I would suggest to you, hon. Speaker, that a matter that falls outside of the jurisdiction of this chamber — insofar as it is a matter engaging the federal government via our relationship with the United Nations — is also something that you may wish to take into consideration when presenting your ruling.

So whilst, as I said previously, I appreciate the fact that members have interest in these matters and that they are of importance, in this case it does not take precedence, in our view, over the matter that has brought us to this House today. By the way, Mr. Speaker, this government and this Premier do not need to be lectured to by anyone about the importance we attach to our relationship with our first nations. We stand….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. M. de Jong: This Premier stands at the hallmark of having led this province to a new relationship with its first nations, having embraced and acted in a tangible way to enshrine the principle of reconciliation and mutual respect. Mr. Speaker, for the reasons that I've enumerated and enunciated today, I would submit to you that the application from the opposition leader should fail.

Mr. Speaker: I'll take it under advisement.

[1510]

C. James: It's very clear in listening to the House Leader in his close that, in fact, he was making the case for the urgent debate of this motion, Mr. Speaker, because the vote tomorrow is at the United Nations. I think it's very important that we're actually on record in British Columbia as having a position on this critical issue to show our support. I'm very disappointed that the House Leader chose this opportunity to play politics with a very important issue that in fact…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

C. James: …was raised because of the urgency and because of the importance of taking this on. There is more than ample time in the legislative calendar to be

[ Page 5125 ]

able to debate this and the motion that's important on the children's advocate.

Mr. Speaker: I'll take the motion under advisement.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 72, the adoption of the report from the Special Committee to Appoint the Representative for Children and Youth.

Motions on Notice

ADOPTION OF REPORT OF

SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO APPOINT

A REPRESENTATIVE FOR

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

J. Rustad: I move:

[That the Report of the Special Committee to Appoint a Representative for Children and Youth for the Second Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament be adopted.]

I'd like to start by thanking the Clerk of Committees, Craig James, as well as our research analyst, Wynne MacAlpine. The work of the Clerk's office and the work of those individuals, in terms of moving this committee forward and the other three committees that I've had the honour to chair, have been outstanding. I just wanted to start by thanking them for that work and for that support.

I'd also like to thank the committee members for their hard work in helping to bring forward this recommendation and making this exciting opportunity in the province become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, this report constitutes the unanimous recommendation for the appointment of the first Representative for Children and Youth of British Columbia. The committee is very pleased to recommend Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond to the House.

The committee thanks the many individuals who applied for the position of the Representative for Children and Youth. As we have noted in a report to the House, those individuals serve children and youth in almost every sector — in education, social work, medicine, law and public administration, just to name a few. The range of their experience has reminded us that it does take all of society to support the children and their families. We are especially grateful to the committee of professionals who have dedicated themselves to this work.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is a leader in that community. For more than 24 years she has worked to address the problems facing the child welfare system at the root causes. As a lawyer, professor of law and author she has worked to strengthen the self-determination rights of the aboriginal people and to restore the strength of aboriginal women and their families and communities.

As a judge she has been an outspoken advocate for services to assist youth in the justice system, particularly sexually exploited youth and youth disabled by fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. In every capacity Ms. Lafond has welcomed the responsibility that comes by default to people in authority. That is the responsibility to set an example for young people.

I'd like to close by taking this opportunity to quote a line from the report about Ms. Lafond, because it summarizes why this appointment is so important: "What became evident in our discussions was that Ms. Lafond also meets a need that we didn't explicitly identify — hope."

Unfortunately, Ms. Lafond cannot be here with us today. Weather problems have kept her grounded in Saskatchewan, but I look forward to introducing her in the House at a later time.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to stand in support of this motion today. The motion today appoints, as we've heard, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as the Representative for Children and Youth for the province of British Columbia.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is a noted aboriginal lawyer and respected legal scholar, whose distinguished career broke new ground for aboriginal people and for aboriginal women in this country. Ms. Turpel-Lafond holds a bachelor's degree from Carleton University, a law degree from Osgoode Law School, a master's in international law from the University of Cambridge and a doctor of law from Harvard Law School.

[1515]

She was the first tenured law professor of aboriginal heritage in Canada. She was also the first aboriginal woman to serve as a Provincial Court judge in Saskatchewan. In 2006 Ms. Turpel-Lafond was awarded the C. Willy Hodgson Award for her work in building bridges between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples in Canada.

Ms. Turpel-Lafond's efforts to advance the principles of equity and diversity in the areas of law and justice set her apart from so many. Her passion for justice, her work to bring communities together in the spirit of kindness and respect, and her tireless advocacy for diversity and quality make her the ideal candidate for this position, and I am very proud to support her.

I'm also incredibly proud to see once again an independent officer of the Legislature, a position that will oversee B.C.'s child protection system, and advocate on behalf of our province's most vulnerable children, to correct what many view as this government's biggest mistake. The opposition will be unanimously supporting this motion today, because having a representative for children and youth in our province is the right thing to do, and this position is a huge victory for children in B.C.

This position is a step forward in rebuilding our child protection system, which was wilfully dismantled by this government over the past five years. It's also a strong reminder of the arrogance that has come to characterize this Premier and his government — a government that refused to listen; a government that refused to heed the warning signs; a government that refused to back down, despite mounting evidence that

[ Page 5126 ]

their approach was just plain wrong; a government that changed course only after the political fire became too hot for them to ignore.

I bring this up because one of our responsibilities as legislators is to examine our history, to look closely at the choices we have made, identify what went wrong and how to fix it, because we can't begin to learn from our mistakes until we acknowledge that what happened was wrong and that it never, ever should be allowed to happen again.

Much of what informs today's motion came long, long before the election of this government. Members on both sides of this House will remember the story of Matthew Vaudreuil, a five-year-old child who died at the hands of his caregiver in 1992. His tragic death prompted a public outcry, followed by a judicial inquiry by Justice Thomas Gove. In his report Judge Gove spoke of Matthew's legacy, of the changes needed in B.C.'s child protection system so that tragedies like Matthew's would never, ever happen again. Chief among them was the need for an independent children's commission.

"Children who are affected by administrative decisions need easy access to independent advocacy," he said, "especially when their interests and the interests of their parents or other caregivers differ."

Judge Gove reminded us that protecting vulnerable children is not a partisan issue. It's a fundamental issue of justice. These children deserve an advocate. They deserve a voice. He also reminded us that that advocate must be distinctly independent from government. That advocate must be free to represent the interests of children at risk, to speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.

Some of the members of this House were also sitting members when Judge Gove's recommendations were first debated and implemented. The Premier was one of them. He was the Leader of the Opposition at the time, and he supported every one of the recommendations in the Gove report. He supported the creation of an independent children's commissioner. He demanded that the government of the day act immediately to appoint one. In fact, he spoke passionately about the need to put more resources in the system and to help children at risk.

[1520]

The government of the day implemented Judge Gove's recommendations. They agreed that there needed to be an independent advocate in place to represent the interests of the most vulnerable, and in 1996 the Children's Commission was created. It was an independent body empowered to review all child deaths and critical injuries of children in care in the province of British Columbia. Now — 14 years after that terrible tragedy, 11 years after Judge Gove brought forward his recommendations and ten years after the Children's Commission was created — we stand here today debating a motion to appoint a representative for children and youth to protect B.C.'s most vulnerable.

If that important lesson was learned more than ten years ago, then why are we standing here today? Because the Premier did not keep his commitment to British Columbians. His actions betrayed the voters of this province and betrayed the children of this province.

The Premier promised to end the chaos and bureaucratic restructuring of the Ministry for Children and Families. He promised to introduce accountability into the child protection system, and he promised to enhance training for front-line workers to protect children at risk. But he didn't follow through on those commitments. If he had, we wouldn't be standing here debating this motion today.

This government, in June 2002, shut down the office of the children's commissioner — one of this government's biggest mistakes. In doing so, the Premier went back on his word and the spirit of the Gove report, which he embraced when he was in opposition. The changes brought forward by this Premier and this government have created a crisis in our child welfare system.

No case better illustrates the severity of that crisis than the case of a 19-month-old girl from Port Alberni who died at the hands of her caregiver. If any case illustrates the need for an independent children's officer, this is it. It showed the systematic crisis and the extreme pressure faced by front-line workers. It showed the serious failing of this government's handling of the Children and Families portfolio, and it showed the dire need to restore an independent watchdog for children. It showed the human impact, most importantly, of this government's reckless cuts and severe mismanagement.

It also showed us, sadly, that the government was more concerned about covering up than getting to the bottom of the problem. It was only after months and months of questioning, of denial, of blaming individuals and social workers, of denying responsibility that this government finally admitted that its choices resulted in chaos for the most vulnerable children — which brings me to the Hughes report and the reason that we're standing here today.

The hon. Ted Hughes conducted an independent review of B.C.'s child welfare system, one of nine reviews launched in this tragic case. Mr. Hughes laid the ultimate responsibility for the problems plaguing our system squarely at the feet of the Premier, because it was the Premier's budget cuts and the Premier's reckless dismantling of our child protection system that was at the heart of the contributing factors that led to this tragic case. Mr. Hughes's number-one recommendation was to restore an independent officer of the Legislature to provide independent oversight to our child welfare system, to provide a voice for children at risk.

While this motion is a huge victory for children, as I said, it was sadly only political expediency that brought us to this point today. It has taken far too long for this government to admit its failure, and their choices put children at risk.

[1525]

The Premier wants British Columbians to believe he's learned his lesson, but when you look at everything that has taken us to this point — relentless ques-

[ Page 5127 ]

tioning from social workers, from advocates, from the opposition, from the media — British Columbians are really wondering what this government has learned. After five long years of denial, British Columbians don't have a lot of faith that this government can be trusted to do the right thing on their own. This is a government that wants to avoid the tough questions, avoid debate, avoid accountability.

I'd like to reiterate that this appointment is a wonderful victory for children and families in our province. The opposition is incredibly proud of the work that has led to this report and this appointment, and we are going to do everything to ensure the success of this office and of this representative. We will continue to work to address what is left to be done, because there are many other recommendations from the Hughes report that still have to be implemented, including addressing the urgent problems in the Coroners Service.

The opposition will continue to hold the government to account for its cuts to these vital services and supports that have left vulnerable children behind. We will continue to ask the tough questions about this government's record, and we will continue to stand up for the issues facing children in this province: growing child poverty; a lack of affordable, accessible quality child care; growing wait-lists for children with special needs and developmental disabilities.

We will hold this government to account for their choices, because all children in this province deserve an opportunity to thrive. All children in this province deserve a voice. No child should be left behind, and we will fight every single day to ensure that doesn't happen.

M. Karagianis: As Deputy Chair of the hiring committee, I stand today to speak in favour of this motion. I'd first like to echo the comments made by the member for Prince George–Omineca in thanking all of those who participated in the committee and all of the staff support on that. It was a very professional process, and staff was excellent in that.

I think that the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has talked a little bit about the history of how we got there, and I'd like to touch on that briefly before I talk about the really superior candidate that we are appointing today.

In 1992, as the previous speaker said, Matthew Vaudreuil and the case around his tragic death launched us into the Gove report and, in fact, the inception of the Children's Commission here for British Columbia. The Gove report called on the provincial government to appoint an independent children's commissioner. In fact, the New Democrat government of the day did just that. They set up an independent, open and publicly accountable Children's Commission.

Premier Campbell, then in opposition, said: "Equally importantly, we should have the dollars for children in need in this province. Instead of having a government that continues to try and protect politicians first and bureaucrats second and maybe kids third, if they even get on the list…." I think it's important to remember those words, especially as subsequent events unfolded over time.

In the 2001 election Gordon Campbell made the promises to the citizens of British Columbia….

Mr. Speaker: Member, no names, please.

M. Karagianis: I beg your pardon. Premier Campbell made these promises to the citizens of British Columbia. He said: "It's time we put real accountability into the system and devote the resources to the job needed to put the interests of kids first." He said: "We need to make children the number-one priority and devote adequate resources." But the Campbell government did the complete opposite.

[1530]

Mr. Speaker: Member, please take your seat. Just to remind you of using the right parliamentary language and not to reference names in any way, shape or form.

Continue.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker. I will guard my language.

In fact, the provincial government did the very opposite of those things. Once in government, the promise-breaking began early, and it was rigorous. It has continued to affect the lives of families and children in British Columbia until this very day. First came the core review, and the Premier said that all British Columbians would benefit and that there would be better services for children, families and first nations.

In truth, this government laid off hundreds of front-line child protection workers, eliminated internal child protection audits and attempted a vast reconstruction of the system that created chaos in the ministry. In 2001 the Premier said: "The changes may be unsettling for staff and people who rely on government programs, but all British Columbians are going to benefit from an examination of government and government services to determine what government can do best and what government should be doing."

With that, this government launched massive budget cuts and full-scale restructuring, after promising the very opposite and flying in the face of the advice of all experts who warned against trying to do both at the same time. By January 2002 the Premier said that he had no hesitation about cutting jobs, eliminating programs and closing jails and courthouses. A month later the government announced a 23-percent cut to the Ministry of Children and Family Development — $360 million.

The Premier said he had a better plan to reduce children in care and to save money. Instead, the axe fell on the Children's Commission and the act and the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act as well. The minister responsible at the time called the elimination of the Children's Commission a good-news day for protection of kids at risk. I'll repeat that, actually. The minister of the day in government said the elimination of the children's commissioner was a good-news day

[ Page 5128 ]

for the protection of children at risk in British Columbia.

The commission had made public more than 769 child and youth fatality reports during the six-year period in which it operated. The coroner's office, staggering under its own budget cuts of 15 percent, was handed responsibility for child death reviews, despite the Premier's comments in opposition in 1996 that the coroner is no substitute for reviews. In truth, since that transfer in September of 2002 the Coroners Service has released just one public report. The B.C. Liberals' child and youth officer was mandated to investigate deaths only when asked to do so by the Attorney General.

Next, the Premier turned his focus on aboriginal services. He announced a historic plan to reduce the number of native youths in foster care, but he admitted there would be no new money allocated to accomplish that. We'll talk more about that promise shortly as well.

[H. Bloy in the chair.]

A year later, this government had to admit that their planned cuts would put vulnerable children at risk, so the government only cut the budget by 11 percent, eliminating 525 employees, including 130 front-line workers. As the Premier reminded reporters in his year-end interviews, the cuts made in 2002 were just the first round of a three-year plan. There seemed to be little connection between the government's budget objective and its child care policy. When the cuts added up, people could see that one would not support the other.

The tragedy of the child's death in Port Alberni would shine a light on just how deplorable this situation had become. As the story unfolded, the government failings spoke volumes: the budget cuts, the chaotic restructuring, the lack of resources and guidelines, the complete lack of government leadership. In the fall of 2005 both the opposition and Gove himself called for the Children's Commission to be reinstated in the wake of the Port Alberni child's death.

[1535]

In addition, the discovery of hundreds of unfinished child death reviews, shoved into storage and forgotten by the Coroners Service forced the Premier to admit there clearly had been a bit of a problem. But the Premier blamed it on systemic breakdown and denied that his budget cuts or restructuring had anything to do with it.

The NDP opposition and the Leader of the Opposition continued to call on the government to reinstate the Children's Commission and to provide adequate funding for child services. Under the onslaught of the opposition, the government eventually, after dodging and dancing and attempting in every possible way to avoid admitting responsibility for the chaos in MCFD, had to announce a total of nine reviews to try and mitigate the situation. At the end, Judge Ted Hughes was finally appointed to investigate the circumstances around the Port Alberni child's death.

The Hughes report, released in April of 2006, was openly critical of the way the Liberal government handled the Ministry of Children and Family Development over the past five years. As Mr. Hughes said: "I cannot agree with the Premier's earlier assessment that budget cuts did not contribute to the failure of the transition process or that the transition provisions of the new act constituted a clear plan for the transfer of death review functions."

The report by Mr. Ted Hughes makes 62 recommendations to the government, many of them directly reflecting the briefing note that was sent to the Hughes commission by the New Democrats.

The number-one recommendation of the Hughes report is for the establishment of an independent children's representative for B.C. So here we are all these years later — five years of cuts and chaos, public outcry, cover-ups — and we have come full circle right back to where we were at the beginning — same recommendations, same criteria for a children's representative.

But in the past five years many other things have changed. Now every month in this province over 2,400 children access a food bank. Homelessness has become epidemic. In 2005 in the GVRD the total number of homeless people almost doubled and included 40 families with children. In Victoria more than 700 were homeless in 2005, including 41 families and 78 children. Those numbers have grown considerably, even in the last year.

In Penticton recently I spent two days going to the Liberal convention. Standing in front of the convention centre was a young woman and her son. It was a bitterly cold morning. I approached the woman because she had a huge placard that talked about the fact that she was going to be homeless in a few days, without help. As it turned out, I was the only person attending that convention that stopped to talk to that woman. Her name was Carmen Caruso, and she and her three children were in fear of being homeless. But no one would stop to talk to that woman except me, the observer at that convention.

British Columbia has nearly one of every four children in the province living in poverty. Census figures show that aboriginal children have a poverty rate that is almost twice as large as that of non-aboriginal children. The vast majority of poor children in British Columbia live in families with an income — children of the working poor, also a new demographic here in British Columbia in the last number of years. In a time of economic prosperity many children and families are clearly being left behind.

Against this new reality, this backdrop, a candidate has come forward who so exemplifies the Hughes vision and who so epitomizes the committee's expectations that unanimity from our committee was quick and fairly painless, considering it's an all-party committee. Judge Turpel-Lafond not only brings remarkable credentials and extraordinary life experience, she demonstrated throughout the interviews her own compelling vision of what she saw happening with the children's representative position. In fact, I have great confidence that in British Columbia we are about to experience a profound change.

[1540]

[ Page 5129 ]

But where do we go from here? What can we hope for from this new position? What wish list can we in the opposition offer? Well, I think we can offer a few wishes.

First, I'd like to actually talk about a young woman from Quesnel by the name of Kayla O'Flynn. In January of 2002 Kayla O'Flynn, a young teen, was diagnosed with a progressive neuromuscular disorder. Her condition began to deteriorate, and eventually her family had to go to the Children and Families Ministry looking for support. But in fact, their timing could not have been worse because against the unfolding events of the Campbell government cuts…

K. Krueger: Here we go again.

M. Karagianis: Sorry, I beg your pardon.

…against the unfolding events of the government's cuts and restructuring, this child and her family were let down by the system.

Kayla was age 14 at the time. She was denied at-home services because she could feed herself despite her condition. Kayla couldn't actually walk to the table to get her food, but she could lift a spoon to her mouth so she was considered not qualified for at-home services.

What Kayla actually needed, and what her therapist recommended as her condition deteriorated, was a power wheelchair so that she could get around, so she could get to the table to get the food to feed herself. But that was denied to her.

Her condition continued to deteriorate, and over the next three years Kayla's family continued to appeal and sought time after time to get a power wheelchair for their daughter. But of course, this was all being played out at a time when government was restructuring and there were budget cuts. In early 2005 the Ministry of Children and Families did grant her medical benefits and therapy but no power wheelchair.

Then in June of 2005 she received a letter saying that all responsibilities for the developmentally challenged were being shifted to CLBC, a new entity created by the government. She applied there, but still got no power wheelchair. In June of 2005 Kayla ended up in the hospital as her health continued to deteriorate, still with no power wheelchair.

Eighteen months after requests, appeals and therapist recommendations that this is what she needed, this young woman died from her condition without ever receiving a power wheelchair. Several weeks after her death the family received confirmation that their request had finally been approved. This young woman and her family lived in Quesnel.

If there had been a children's representative in place for Kayla, well, I think we can all guess that she might have got her power wheelchair so that the last 18 months of her life would have been better. She would have had more dignity, and she would have been able to get to the table to feed herself.

CLBC was started under a cloud and has been plagued with problems ever since.

Jan Morrison-Hines is a young mother who lives in Smithers. She has a 14-year-old son, non-verbal, who suffers from autism. Jan Morrison-Hines does not access any services from government other than some diapers for her son through the at-home program. Her son requires up to 16 diapers a day, and she is his sole caregiver.

When the budget cuts came, Jan was told that her son could only have eight diapers a day. Of course, her son broke out in a rash. Her doctor went with the mother and appealed this decision by the government, and then Jan was told that her son could have 12 diapers a day. But in fact, every three months Jan Morrison-Hines has to reappeal with a letter from her doctor or else she'll have her number of diapers reduced to eight a day.

[1545]

I would say to you and to the new children's commissioner: what kind of mean-spirited government restricts the number of diapers that you can put on your child every day? I would hope that this is a case that our new children's representative will take on, and I will certainly be urging her to do that.

Kathleen Moore is another mother who has been denied adequate services for her daughter because her condition does not fit within a fairly narrow description of the kind of autism that's supported. She only receives half the funding that an autistic child would get. Kathleen Moore is very concerned because her daughter could end up in the justice system without adequate supports and care. So I'm hoping that Kathleen Moore and her daughter will be a case that the new children's representative will take on.

Deputy Speaker: Member, please make all your comments through the Chair.

M. Karagianis: Yes, I will.

Those are only a couple of many, many stories right now of families being told to come up with a plan under Community Living B.C. They sit down and do a plan for their children, and then they are being told that there's no funding. There's no respite care for their children. There are no intakes being done. They can't have enough diapers for their children.

Community Living B.C., a huge responsibility under the Ministry of Children and Family Development, appears to have no funding left only partway through their fiscal year. I will certainly be talking with the new children's representative to look into that, to find out why this aspect of ministry care has been so vastly underfunded that they are telling people they can't have diapers when they need them.

I'd like to go back to earlier in my speech when I commented about the Premier's comments and promise about aboriginal services. He said he had a historical plan to reduce the number of native youths in foster care, but he said there was no money allocated to accomplish that and that there would be better services for children, families and first nations.

Unfortunately, absent today in the gallery because of the weather are a number of representatives from

[ Page 5130 ]

the Stó:lô tribal council who were here last week. They meant to be here today, but certainly the weather has prevented them from doing that. This community has been pleading with government to address their issues and to provide leadership to them because the transition of authority has not gone well for the Stó:lô community, and the funding has not gone smoothly for the Stó:lô community. A schism has resulted in their community, which is leaving their children and families at great risk.

It is an unacceptable situation. It is my sincere hope that the new children's representative will see their case and will take it on and that she will urge government to take the leadership that's required there to help mend the rift in that community and to help provide the adequate services they so justly deserve and want.

It's foster care inequities, underfunding, recruitment and retention problems from a government that cut birthday and Christmas gifts to foster children, thereby discouraging foster parents who want to build a quality of life for the children in their care and are being denied by a mean-spirited and unkind government the kind of quality service that they would like to provide for those children.

Children in the home of a relative. Now, in fact, that's excluded from the mandate of the Representative for Children and Youth. That's too bad, because they will be unable to turn to this new representative for advice, for advocacy, for support, because children who live in the home of a relative are not paid to the same degree as children who live in other kinds of foster care. So while families struggle to provide adequate care while fostering members of their own family, they are treated unfairly and differently by this government.

[1550]

I know for a fact that Ms. Turpel-Lafond has a particular interest in children with FASD. I know that that will be one area where she is going to concentrate. In fact, currently there is a huge inadequacy in the system and in the support services for those with FASD. There is an abnormally large impact on the youth justice system of young people — young aboriginal people often — with FASD, who are being treated as criminals when they should be given support systems for their health conditions.

I also have faith that Ms. Turpel-Lafond is going to look into issues around justice for girls, ongoing concerns that they have about the safety of young girls within the judicial system. I recently toured the youth facility in Prince George, and, in fact, as with many of the other facilities here, there is an overrepresentation of aboriginal youth in those facilities and an overrepresentation of children with FASD.

There's a high rate of aboriginal youth suicides here in British Columbia among aboriginal youth aged ten to 19 years. The suicide rate is five to six times higher than for non-aboriginal populations. I know that that will be a particular concern for the children's representative in finding ways to reach out and provide better services to those communities.

Youth agreements in this province have become a one-way ticket for young people to be sent living on their own at an early age, often with catastrophic results. Many of them end up on the streets. Many of them end up on the east side of Vancouver because, in fact, they are given inadequate funding, inadequate supports, and at a very early age of 15 or 16 are sent to live on their own. It's certainly more cost-effective for government but is tragic for the young people in this province who are experiencing youth agreements. I know for a fact that Ms. Turpel-Lafond will take that on as a special interest.

Transition to adulthood for all children with special needs, autism, the developmentally challenged. This government has a policy that you may have been autistic until you were 19, but the day you turn 19, you are now a consenting adult, free to make your own decisions. You are given funding and sent on your way. If you have an IQ over 70, all your other pre-existing conditions become immaterial, and you are often deemed to be capable of living on your own. All programs and supports are abandoned.

Parents with grave concerns are complaining all over this province about children who continue to need supports. For the same reason they needed them before their 19th birthday, they need them after their 19th birthday.

We talked earlier about the Coroners Service. The Coroners Service was never funded to a level that would permit it to fulfil the responsibilities it was given in 2002 for the child death reviews. This is an important component of the new children's representative in their job. In fact, this is a significant part of the job. Perhaps one-third of their duties will be around child death reviews.

To this date the 955 lost files still have not been reviewed or released in this House. I realize this is not necessarily the job of the new child representative, but it is the job of this government and for the families who are still waiting to hear. I heard the Solicitor General say the other day that these reviews were going to be released. I sure hope so. I expect the new children's representative will probably have some curiosity around that as well.

The Morley report, released just weeks ago, shows a complete breakdown in communications between the Coroners Service, MCFD and aboriginal agencies. Although I do not expect the children's representative to dig back into history around either the 955 death review files or perhaps as far back as the case around the child's death in Port Alberni, I do hope and believe that this new person will want to closely examine all the reports and documents, like the Morley report of September 29, in order to solve some of the outstanding issues and seek answers to the questions arising from these reports, because of course in many ways that will shape where she goes in the future.

Of course, we have the Hughes recommendations. Again, I know that Ms. Turpel-Lafond's understanding and knowledgable approach to the report is such that she'll be moving forward on those recommendations. She spoke very eloquently of that during the interview.

[1555]

[ Page 5131 ]

I am thrilled that we have a strong, energetic visionary to take on these daunting challenges here in British Columbia. I believe from her credentials that Ms. Turpel-Lafond is more than capable and may in fact take us far beyond where we expected to go. You only need to spend a few minutes in the room listening to this woman talk to know that she is a very powerful presence. I suspect she's going to put British Columbia far beyond anything we might have expected or planned for.

In fact, there may be many surprises in this House in the days to come. I'm happy to offer my support and join with the Leader of the Opposition in saying that we unanimously support the motion to approve Ms. Turpel-Lafond.

N. Simons: It gives me great pleasure to stand and put my support behind this unanimous choice of the committee for Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as the first Representative for Children and Youth. When I heard her quoted as saying that this was the best job in Canada, I thought we picked the right person. I used to think that to be the Minister of Children and Family Development was the best job, but if it's the representative who chooses that to be the title of hers, I'm glad. She's obviously got the enthusiasm, the qualifications and the integrity that have been sorely lacking in the ministry and in this government.

I just have to say that on a personal note, this represents a day that is the end of a chapter, in a way. In fact, I think that the events of September 2002, culminating in today, are a sorry

chapter for the government, a sorry

chapter for the ministry and a very sad — in fact, tragic —

chapter for the people of Ahousat and Nuu-chah-nulth. My thoughts and feelings of goodwill are with them.

I think it would be important to remind ourselves why or how we got here. We did not get here because of government's great desire to have an independent representative oversee their ministry. We didn't get here just because Judge Hughes recommended we have an independent reviewer.

The committee made a selection. The committee made a good selection. We're here partly because of that selection. I'm glad to say that the Legislature is unanimous in the support of that selection.

But we're actually here because of what happened not just in 2001, with the core review, but the subsequent gutting of the programs for children and vulnerable children — aboriginal children included — which occurred in the months that followed. Budget cuts in the area of 23 percent were shocking to the employees and, I think, to the management of the ministry at the time.

When I got a phone call in September of 2002 saying, "Nick, we've had a tragedy, and we need someone to come and look into it," I said: "Why are you picking me?" They said: "Well, you're the first person on the list that both parties could agree to." I said: "Well, I hope it wasn't too far down the list."

As it turns out, I was chosen, perhaps, because of some brave person in the ministry who knew that I'd be objective, that I'd look at ways of improving the system and that I wouldn't simply say: "This individual made a mistake. That individual made a mistake. Ultimately, the uncle is the one who should be held responsible."

We're here partly because this government decided to offer an award to the ministry that could cut regulations as quickly as possible, and that included the Ministry of Children and Family Development — the proud winners of the deregulation sprint award. Cutting out regulations that make sure you check out a home before you place a vulnerable child in there, before you place a child who has absolutely no adult figure looking after their best interests….

When you cut rules about placing a child in a home like that, that's the wrong kind of deregulation. That's not red tape. That's protecting the vulnerable children of this province. This government failed.

[1600]

The kith-and-kin program was introduced — as you know, I said it was introduced rapidly and without adequate thought — ostensibly for the first nations and aboriginal communities of this province. Why, then, were they not consulted once on the implementation of this new piece of legislation?

The Premier said that it wasn't to save money and that it wasn't necessarily to reduce the number of children in care. The kith-and-kin program, as the public now knows, was purely an exercise in reducing costs to government and to make the number of children in care officially go down without really having an impact on children at all. As you know, children who are in kith and kin are not considered in care.

The Premier said: "I want child welfare decisions to be made openly so that you can see why those decisions are being made and can hold us to account." It took over four years to hold this government to account on its incredible failure of 2001 and 2002. That's not openness. That's not accountability.

I wrote a report that was ready in August of 2003 with 21 recommendations, including the 12 that were ultimately left in the report after the cutting that it underwent. We're here because the government could influence an internal review process so that important facts were deliberately held from the public.

There's another reason, besides the abject failure of this government to operate the ministry properly. We've realized that under this system, the current system — the best place to live since 2001 — government is in fact unable to look at itself objectively. This government's response to the report that was released, condemning it for the actions that it took, was itself taken to task.

Who did the government ask to review the reviewer? Somebody they hired, an officer for children and youth in B.C, held by a person who was primarily responsible for the core review of 2001. I would suggest that it's inappropriate for government to hire somebody in government to investigate itself, particularly when the "itself" was responsible for the cuts that took place in the ministry.

[ Page 5132 ]

The changes in the terms of reference were reviewed. The delay in the report was reviewed and every single time — surprise, surprise — had nothing really to do beyond little organizational problems due to some budget cuts.

They decided to change their focus and question the validity of the report. Well, the validity of the report stands for itself. Twelve recommendations out of 12 were implemented. Other ones came, emerging out of other reports that were subsequently released, almost verbatim from the original report of 2003. I don't think the public of British Columbia accepts that from a government that claims to be open and accountable.

This brings us to the question: how will having an independent representative actually help us? I think that if we had had one in 2001, they would have said: "Excuse me. Those kinds of cuts will have a serious negative impact on children in this province. Don't implement that program so quickly, because you haven't got guidelines. You haven't had training. You haven't figured out where that particular program stands in legislation. No social worker has ever done one of those."

It wouldn't have looked very good on this government to see that the first time they implement a kith-and-kin program, it results in the death of a child. They didn't foresee that, because they didn't plan ahead because they weren't managing properly. Child welfare deserves more than policy written on the side of a desk.

The representative will help children. The representative will be the voice those children can't have. The voices of social workers are stifled, but the voice of the independent representative will not be. The representative will say: "Don't cut programs that help families look after their own children. That would be inappropriate. We want children to stay with their families. We should be putting money into those programs."

[1605]

It will help youth who think that maybe after being in care for 16 years of their life, they should have more than just a handshake and a pat on the head, saying: "Good luck to you." It should be more than that. It'll help families. It'll help foster parents. It'll help grandmothers and grandfathers look after their kids. It's a special day. It's a good day. It's a good day that we are all here speaking in favour of the appointment of the person who will correct the many wrongs that have taken place since 2001.

Let me just end on what I would consider Ted Hughes's other most important recommendation, recommendation 12. Recommendation 12 reads that the provincial and federal governments, in collaboration with aboriginal communities, begin to work toward the fulfilment of the commitments of the Kelowna accord by assessing the health, economic and social needs of aboriginal communities, including the urban off-reserve population.

This comes right back down to the essential element which underscores all of this. That is the abject poverty into which first nations children are born and raised. We have all failed; we've all failed in the past. We have an opportunity to say, once and for all, that investment in child protection should be made at the beginning of the children's lives so that they're not going to school hungry after being kept up at night because of fighting, because of violence, because of alcohol and drug abuse. These are the children who would end up not doing well in school, dropping out of school.

I think the representative's role will be to advocate for those children. She knows them, I know them, and I am so pleased to say that I am thrilled that this sad

chapter in the history of British Columbia's child welfare system will be over and that we'll have a truly independent voice for children in B.C.

D. Thorne: I rise today to speak in favour of this motion. For the past year and a half I've had the pleasure of serving on the legislative committee that has been responsible for several appointments of independent officers of this Legislature. We have interviewed and hired many excellent candidates, and the appointment of the new children's representative is no exception.

Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond is of such a high calibre that I'm not only proud to be part of her appointment, but I feel very hopeful as well. I feel hopeful especially for the children of British Columbia, because this is a chance for a new beginning. It is a chance to reverse this government's legacy of cuts, chaos and harm to B.C.'s most vulnerable children and families — a chance to say for the first time in six years that vulnerable children and their families really do matter.

The NDP opposition opposed this government's elimination of the Children's Commission and the deep cuts to the ministry back in the early 2000s. When the minister responsible for eliminating the Children's Commission actually called the elimination of the independent office a good-news day for the protection of kids at risk, opposition MLAs warned this government that they were placing budget cutting above the safety of children and that the Premier and his government would live to regret eliminating independent oversight of this ministry.

The opposition MLAs called on the government to reinstate the children's commissioner and to provide adequate funding for children's services. During the 2005 election the NDP platform pledged additional resources for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and also the restoration of the office of the children's commissioner.

Since May 2005 the renewed NDP opposition has continually highlighted the serious failures in this government's handling of the Children and Families portfolio and the dire need to restore an independent watchdog and advocate for children, finally forcing an admission from the Premier and his government that first-term budget cuts did in fact hurt children, hurt child protection and especially hurt services to children and families.

[1610]

Now, because of this continued political heat, we finally can stand here today and unanimously recommend a new child representative. In spite of people

[ Page 5133 ]

maybe saying that we've had it before or whatever, this is indeed a huge step forward. I believe that we have finally, as a government — both sides of this Legislature now, which is really important — admitted that this is an office that must be filled and must be there for the children of British Columbia.

Even with this unanimous motion, I believe this government still can't fully be trusted when it comes to our vulnerable children and families in British Columbia. Just very briefly I'll mention a couple of things. B.C. has had the highest rate of child poverty in Canada for a couple of years now, and we can say that we still are winning today, because all the new statistics have just come out.

Families and children in this province, as we all know, face increasing risk of homelessness. Housing is at an all-time low. We are finding that we do not have any subsidized housing anymore. Our waiting list has grown to 14,000. Almost half of food bank recipients in British Columbia are children, and food banks are a really new growth industry, if we want to talk about growth industries.

Also, I would like to add that I believe this appointment and other key Hughes recommendations should have been and could have been implemented before today, almost the end of November. Just because we have this motion, I don't think it means that this opposition is finished looking at this government and holding it accountable for leaving vulnerable children and their families behind — and not letting that happen again in the future.

That being said, I want to rise above this and speak about my pride in being part of this unanimous decision and this wonderful candidate and in the fact that we are turning over a new leaf today in British Columbia. I think the future is hopeful not just for the vulnerable families but especially for the children. I think we should all be very proud that our work has led to this unanimous report and to this appointment.

I can tell you that my side of the House will work very hard to ensure the success of this office, and I hope that you can say the same, Mr. Speaker.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

A. Dix: It's a great honour to rise in this debate today, first of all, to express my appreciation to all the members of the special committee that worked this fall and made such an outstanding recommendation. Clearly, Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond will be an outstanding representative for children in British Columbia.

I want to acknowledge the work of my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville, the member for Prince George–Omineca and members on the other side of the House for their work on this committee. It is important work because it is an important role, and it's one that people in British Columbia have fought hard for over the last few years — to see this day arrive, a day when we have the appointment of a new Representative for Children and Youth in British Columbia, when we have an outstanding voice who will speak up independently on behalf of children, particularly those children who don't ordinarily have a voice in the debate.

The report of the committee emphasizes to me the importance of the work that's been done by many people in the last little while. We heard from the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, who spoke in this debate. He, like many other social workers, has shown remarkable courage and remarkable leadership in speaking out when he needed to speak out.

One of the reasons why we need independent voices and independent commissioners is the issue around confidentiality. It's why it's so important that we have such a distinguished legal scholar and fighter for children being appointed to this position. The importance of confidentiality in the case of children has been illustrated, in fact, by what's happened in British Columbia over the last few years.

[1615]

What's happened in British Columbia over the last few years is that children, particularly children in care and children known to the ministry — who are, it's fair to say, the most vulnerable people in society, who don't have a voice in public debate — have suffered some of the worst cuts and some of the worst actions by government that we have seen in decades in British Columbia.

At the same time, what we saw in this period was the elimination of just those independent voices who could access the confidential information, who could access the cases and who could in fact speak as a voice. What we had was the confidentiality designed to protect children used to protect those who cut services to children. That is why it is so important today that we are naming a new Representative for Children and Youth.

And you see this. If anyone has ever done a freedom-of-information request to the Ministry of Children and Families, you see this, even in issues where the Ministry of Children and Families has clearly failed. The confidentiality which is intended to protect children is in fact used to protect those who have not done what they needed to do.

The seriousness of this issue you can see in the recent report by the child and youth officer with respect to the case of Jamie Charlie. That case shows us very profoundly where you have individuals who have very senior places in this province not seemingly understanding their fundamental role — the fundamental role each citizen has to report threats to children. This is what happens. This is what happens when you don't have independent voices with access raising issues like this.

This is one of the things that we hope to change, and one of the things we have to do today as we approve this appointment is commit ourselves to providing the new representative with the resources and tools that she needs — for example, the resources and tools of her office, which we vote every year. We have to

[ Page 5134 ]

commit ourselves to providing adequate and appropriate resources. We have to commit ourselves to providing adequate and appropriate resources for social workers. We have to commit ourselves to address the challenges of transition facing many people in community living. We have to commit ourselves to providing resources to young people and youth on youth agreements. It's a forgotten fact that — serious as the cuts were to young children — the actual brunt, the monetary brunt of the cuts that this government brought forward to children and youth, happened to youth from 12 to 19.

I think we have a sense from the work that the new representative Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has done that she will be very much engaged in the issue of cuts to youth, because those are issues of great importance in our province.

Hon. Speaker, I think as we go forward, we have to commit ourselves to those things. We also have to commit ourselves because all of us know that in the debate on the legislation where we created this office in May — and now we're taking that legislation forward to the next logical step and appointing the representative — we acted very hastily in a sense. The ministry had to draft that legislation quickly and did draft that legislation quickly, but clearly there are significant areas where we have to ensure that the new representative has the appropriate tools to do the job properly.

I'm thinking, for example, of a program that the Minister of Children and Families, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Agriculture will know, which is the Child in the Home of a Relative program. With 4,719 children in that program, I think it's fair to say that the support we give to children in that program is completely inadequate. As of now that program, which is an important program that affects many people in the MCFD system, should be reviewed and should be under the purview of the child representative, and that program is not.

We have to commit as legislators to give the new representative the statutory authority and the financial authority to do her job. That's part of our commitment when we stand today, when we all stand today as members of this Legislature and approve this nomination, approve the new representative. We have to, when we stand, think about what we need to do next, which is provide her with the resources, provide the ministry with the resources and, most importantly, provide children with the resources they need — especially children in care and children known to the ministry. We have to do all of those things.

[1620]

Hon. Speaker, I just want to say, as we come close to wrapping up this debate, how proud I am of the people of British Columbia for fighting for children that they don't know. We have heard voices — and I have heard voices as I've gone around British Columbia — of ordinary people who may not know many of the children in care they've spoken out for but have said again and again and said to the government that it was wrong to get rid of an independent children's commissioner. They spoke out and said that they wanted this day to happen, and they were going to fight for it. We've heard their voices, and their voices have been heard.

I want to thank social workers who said that this day was an important day and stood up, sometimes at risk of their jobs, and said no to this government. They said that we must have an independent commissioner back, and we must reverse the cuts that were made to the Ministry of Children and Families. I want to thank them.

I want to thank courageous people who had so much at stake. I think of Harvey and Rose Charlie, who spoke up in this debate. They personally had a lot at stake. They had personal issues to expose, and they rose beyond that and spoke up for all the other children — not just the children in their family but all the children of British Columbia.

There is a huge weight on the new child representative, but that weight should not be just borne by her. It should be borne by every one of us. This action today has to be followed up by action every day. The fate and the future of children in care, of children known to the ministry, of children living in poverty, of children in this province who are, we often say, our future, but sometimes we neglect and we hide…. Their future is of paramount importance to us. As we act today, let's think of what we can do tomorrow to support the child representative — and the day after tomorrow and the day after that.

With that, I ask all members of this House to support this appointment but also to support all of the measures we all have to take every day to ensure that every child in this province — not just some, but every child — has all the opportunities they need to have a happy life.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Prince George–Omineca closes debate.

J. Rustad: For me, this is a very proud moment, and I'm very honoured. I'm proud that our government has initiated this process, that we took the report which was presented to us by Justice Hughes, that we implemented his recommendations, we accepted his recommendations, and we thanked him for his recommendations. We brought forward legislation as quickly as possible last spring, which then, of course, struck this committee. I have to say that I am very honoured to have had the opportunity to chair and to work with the colleagues on this committee. They worked very hard in terms of bringing forward this recommendation.

Today is the day that the work that had been undertaken more than a year ago comes to fruition, and I'm very pleased that we will be able to celebrate here today the appointment of an individual who I believe will truly put children and youth first. That, to me, is what is so important about this debate and about this position. It will bring forward the opportunity for hope, the opportunity for collaboration, to be able to work together to bring forward solutions that face us in this province and that have faced every province in this country, to bring forward the ideas and the concepts to

[ Page 5135 ]

work in a collaborative environment, to put politics aside so that the children and youth can truly come first.

There have been many speakers today, so far, that have talked at length of some of the challenges, some perhaps out of proportion. I would like to say that I will not taint this day of celebration by engaging in the political wrangling that has been presented in this House, because this truly is a day where both sides of the House should put aside any political perspectives to truly celebrate the opportunity to move forward an agenda, to move forward the ability to improve the system for children and youth.

I'd like to thank, once again, the members of the committee for their hard work. I look forward to the children and youth representative, to the work that that person will be doing in the coming months and years for the improvement of the system in general.

[1625]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Motion 73, standing in the name of the member for Prince George–Omineca.

APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE

FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH

J. Rustad: I move:

[That the Legislative Assembly appoint Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond as the Representative for Children and Youth for the province of British Columbia for a term of five years pursuant to

section 2 of the

Representative for Children and Youth Act (SBC 2006

Chapter 29 – Bill 34).]

Motion approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings .]

[1630]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until it appears to the satisfaction of the Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House shall meet or until the Speaker may be advised by the government that it is desired to prorogue this session of the 38th parliament of the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied or has been so advised, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice and, as the case may be, may transact its business as if it has been duly adjourned to that time and date, and in the event of the Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.

On the motion to adjourn.

M. Farnworth: Normally, we would be dealing with this motion on the last day of a session. In this case, going by the calendar….

Interjection.

M. Farnworth: I see the member opposite wants to interject even before I've started my remarks. I can see that I may be having to take some time in educating him.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. The Opposition House Leader has the floor.

M. Farnworth: Anyway, the reason we do this motion is because it signals that the business of government and the business of this House has been completed. After this motion passes, there would be another motion, and that is that the House do now adjourn. But this motion is debatable, and it's debatable for a reason: because the government believes that the business of the House is finished, but the opposition may have a different view.

[1635]

Were this motion being debated on the 30th of November, it would be passing unanimously, but it's not the 30th of November. It is a few days before that, and there is still business in this House that needs to be done.

This House is not just the government's House; it's not just the opposition's House. It belongs to all members. In fact, it belongs to the people of British Columbia who elected each and every one of us and sent us here as hon. members to do the people's business. It's incumbent upon us that we remember that.

At the beginning of October, when the calendar would normally call us back, when the Speaker would call us back — in this case, it would have been the second or third of October — we would have looked forward to a full legislative session that would have ended on the 30th of November.

That session would have given us the opportunity to raise questions in question period, to raise statements in our member statements, to take advantage of private member's bills, to take advantage of private member's statements, to take advantage of the orders of the day — all the opportunities that are afforded members of this House whether they are members of the executive council or not. It would have allowed each and every one of us to bring forward the issues that matter to the people in our constituencies and to the people in the province.

Unfortunately, that did not occur, because the government decided in its wisdom or lack thereof that the business of the House had been finished, that we did not need — in the words of my colleague across the way — busywork. Well, somebody else's busywork is another member's important piece of legislation that needs to be done.

You know, the Attorney General of this province tabled two pieces of legislation, the Public Inquiry Act and the Adult Guardianship Act. I'm quite sure that when his ministry prepared them, when he took them to cabinet committees and got the sign-off at those cabinet committees, when he took them to a cabinet meeting and had to convince his colleagues about the

[ Page 5136 ]

importance of why these pieces of legislation needed to be on the agenda and be part of the government's program, little did he expect that they would, in fact, become just busywork.

Two important pieces of legislation that, regardless of where you stand on them as members, deserved to be debated, deserved to have the opportunity to be amended, deserved to be scrutinized by an opposition and the media for the public to understand why the Attorney General of this province and his entire ministry would go to such efforts…. Getting legislation on the agenda is not an easy thing to do, having sat in executive council and knowing how difficult it is. I know the work that went into those two pieces of legislation within the Attorney General's ministry.

I know the work, the personal effort and the personal work, that the Attorney General would have had to do to get those two pieces of legislation on the cabinet table. And I know the disappointment that is felt within the ministry. I know the disappointment that would be felt by the Attorney General that his work is deemed busywork. That is not the way it's to be done.

There is time. There is time between now and the 30th of December — the 30th of November.

Interjections.

M. Farnworth: I know. I know I like sitting. I know I do like this House, but even the 30th of December is a bit long for me. By the 30th of November we could have had fulsome discussion, debate and question on those pieces of legislation, and they could have been dealt with in this House.

The government, for whatever reason, felt that that is busywork, which leads us to ask a question. When passing this motion, what assurance do we have in the future that legislation at the end of a session that is not passed and is scheduled for a fall session is even going to come to pass — that it will not once again be deemed busywork? It may well be legislation that the opposition is in favour of and thinks, with proper scrutiny and proper examination, would add to the security and to the well-being of the people of this province.

[1640]

The example that has been set in this session does not bode well. That's why it's important that we get on the record at this particula