2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 23, Number 2

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act

(Bill 14)

Hon. J.

Les

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004

(Bill 24)

Hon. J.

Les

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Salmon aquaculture review

recommendations

MacPhail

Women's issues in Delta

V. Roddick

Life in Cranbrook

B. Bennett

Oral Questions

B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail

MacPhail

Hon. K.

Falcon

Police investigation and suspension

of Bob Virk

J. Kwan

Hon. K.

Falcon

Avian flu outbreak in Fraser Valley

B. Penner

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Use of B.C. Teachers Federation

funds

R. Masi

Hon. T.

Christensen

B.C. Rail agreement with CN Rail

Nettleton

Hon. G.

Campbell

Policy for west coast fish

processing plants

G. Trumper

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

J. Nuraney

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General (continued)

MacPhail

Hon. R.

Coleman

D. Hayer

V. Roddick

D. Jarvis

R. Sultan

R. Hawes

[ Page 9897 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 30, 2004

The House

met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Campbell: Mr. Speaker, we have with us today several members of our

international Olympic family. Our special guests are from the Piemonte region of

Italy where, in the city of Turin, they will host the 2006 Olympic and

Paralympic Winter Games. Yesterday we signed a memorandum of cooperation to work

together in planning both of our Olympic and Paralympic Games.

The

Piemonte region and the province of British Columbia share the bond of Olympism,

but they also have many other common features, including strategic economic

locations, burgeoning high-tech industries and a commitment to strengthening the

sporting legacies which the Olympics present to both of our communities. We want

to work together to maximize those and to strengthen the bonds between the

125,000 British Columbians who have Italy as their home and as part of their

tradition.

[1405]

There are

six elected officials on the floor with us today: President Enzo Ghigo, from the

region of Piemonte; Sergio Chiamparino, the mayor of Turin; President Mercedes

Bresso of the province of Turin; Giuliana Manica and Pierluigi Marengo, who are

both regional councillors from the Legislative Assembly of the region of

Piemonte; and Renato Montabone, who is a city councillor from Turin.

In our

gallery today we have Gen. Pasquale De Salvia; Giuseppe Pichetto, president of

the Torino Chamber of Commerce; Enzo Carnazza, who is the director of

communications for the chamber; Massimo Tesio, who is a spokesperson for

President Ghigo; Renato Cigliuti, who is the head of the Turin mayor's office;

and, of course, our own consul general, Giorgio Visetti, who is the consul

general at Vancouver.

To all of

them, I say with some trepidation: Ai membri italiana della nostra famiglia

olympica, il nostro benvenuto a British Columbia!

[To the

Italian members of our Olympic family, welcome to British Columbia.]

[Translation

provided by Hon. G. Campbell.]

Hon. J.

Les: I have a number of guests in the gallery this afternoon, mostly people

associated with the organization known as Tourism Vancouver. I will name them

quickly. They are Paul Tillbury, who is the vice-president of guest services

with Rocky Mountain Railtours; Allan Clogg, the general manager of Century Plaza

Hotel and Spa; Jim Storey, the president and CEO of the Vancouver Trolley

Company; Trudy Van Dop, the president of Art Guide to B.C.; Allan Baydala, the

president and CEO of West Coast Air; Al Thompson, who represents the Vancouver

Board of Trade; Gary Collinge, the chair of the Vancouver Hotel Association and

general manager of Hampton Inn and Suites in downtown Vancouver; and Scott

Mason, the owner and manager of Land Sea Tours; along with several other staff

members.

As well in

the gallery is a constituent from the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, Mr. Ian

Stewart, QC, who, amongst many other accomplishments, is a past president of the

B.C. Automobile Dealers Association. Would the House please bid all of these

folks a warm welcome.

MacPhail: I would ask the House to please give a warm welcome to Suzanne

Connell with the Georgia Strait Alliance and Lynn Hunter with the Coastal

Alliance for Aquaculture Reform. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Bray:

Joining us in the gallery today is a grade 5 class from Coquitlam, from Our Lady

of Fatima School. Although it's not in my riding, I have a bit of a vested

interest in this class because one of the students is my goddaughter, Nicole

Wilson. I'd ask the House to please welcome the students and their teachers

visiting today in Victoria.

Hon. S.

Santori: [The member spoke Italian.]

Hon. G.

Campbell: That's what I was going to say.

Hon. T.

Christensen: It's my pleasure to welcome to the precinct today a good number

of grade 6 and 7 students from Okanagan Landing School in my riding, in Vernon.

They're accompanied by two of their teachers, Mr. Dueck and Mr. Cecile, as well

as two additional adult chaperones. Would the House please make all of them very

welcome here in Victoria.

[1410]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

VANCOUVER TOURISM LEVY

ENABLING ACT

Hon. J. Les

presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act.

Hon. J.

Les: I move that Bill 14 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Les: I am pleased to introduce Bill 14, Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act.

Tourism Vancouver has requested that government enact legislation to enable them

to collect a levy from the Vancouver tourism industry.

The

Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act will allow for the generation of funds for

Tourism Vancouver to develop new incremental marketing programs that will expand

the tourism and convention industries

[ Page 9898 ]

in Vancouver and in the lower mainland. The funds will ensure that Vancouver

maintains its position as an international visitor gateway to the rest of

British Columbia and western Canada, as well as assist Tourism Vancouver in

delivering on new strategic and innovative marketing activities that will result

in long-term benefits to tourism.

As part of

the tourism industry contribution agreement made with Tourism Vancouver on

October 31, 2003, the province has a commitment to bring forward new legislation

to allow Tourism Vancouver to collect levies for its promotion and marketing

activities. This legislation will facilitate Vancouver's preparation for

welcoming the world as soon as possible before the Olympics to fully realize

economic benefits from the 2010 games.

The

proposed Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act is also consistent with

government's new-era commitment to stimulate tourism and improve operators'

ability to compete successfully for visitors from around the world.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14

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.

MOTOR DEALER AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. J. Les

presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled

Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. J.

Les: I move that Bill 24 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. J.

Les: I am pleased to introduce Bill 24, Motor Dealer Amendment Act, 2004.

Motor dealer legislation is being modernized through the Motor Dealer Amendment

Act. This provision will enable the delegated authority, the Motor Dealer

Council of B.C., to be responsible for administering the rules and regulations

governing the motor dealer industry in British Columbia.

The

proposed amendments are aimed at maintaining high levels of consumer protection

while stimulating a competitive market environment for the motor dealer

industry. The amendments do three things. They update the definition of motor

dealer, they delegate the administration of the motor dealer customer

compensation fund to the Motor Dealer Council of B.C., and they update the

definition of a motor vehicle under the act.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 24

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) SALMON AQUACULTURE

REVIEW RECOMMENDATIONS

MacPhail: Earlier today the Georgia Strait Alliance released a report card

on the B.C. government's progress in implementing the 49 recommendations made by

the environmental assessment office in 1997 following an eight-month-long

review.

The Salmon

Aquaculture Review and subsequent report represented the most comprehensive

study of its kind in B.C. The current Minister of Agriculture, Food and

Fisheries called that report in Hansard on March 27, 2002, "the most

exhaustive study, bar none, that has been done on this issue."

The Salmon

Aquaculture Review and the recommendations made by the environmental

assessment office highlighted critical steps the government needed to take to

create a balanced, safer, environmentally sound industry. It stressed

consultation, sensitive habitat preservation and adaptive management within its

49 recommendations. The previous government responded by implementing a

moratorium on fish farm expansion and moving poorly sited farms.

[1415]

The current

administration claims to have fully implemented 39 of the 49 recommendations.

However, today's 75-page report card, which represents a comprehensive study on

the issues, shows the government is not doing so well. In fact, only ten of the

recommendations have been implemented.

Some of the

problems are clear. Instead of consulting with first nations and communities,

the government stripped local governments of their say in siting decisions.

Instead of dealing with emerging issues like sea lice and migration routes, the

government put a fish farm in the middle of a pink salmon run in the Broughton

at Humphrey Rock. Instead of sending a clear message about compliance and

enforcement, the government gave $1.5 million of fines back to the industry.

Unfortunately, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries didn't even know

about it.

Today's

report card should remind all of us in this Legislature that there are issues

that must still be resolved. It also reminds us that there are people within the

industry and our communities working on creative solutions. We need to move

towards embracing those solutions.

WOMEN'S ISSUES IN DELTA

Roddick: I was involved in a very special forum held recently in Delta that

was sponsored to enable local women to have the chance to share their views on

the key issues affecting women in our community. A diverse group of 77 women

participated in a brainstorming session which included a Tsawwassen first

nations chief, a Deltassist family and community service coordinator, a Boys and

Girls Club youth services

[ Page 9899 ]

director, a Delta police officer and a church minister — to identify just a

few.

Delta women

of all ages were given the opportunity to dialogue locally and talk about issues

that mattered to them. Issues such as transportation, air quality and community

health are important to Delta women. But with so many of us these days juggling

career and family responsibilities, it's no wonder that results highlighting

issues dealing with families first and foremost topped the list. The need for

long-term vision to protect and support the family unit — the development of

parenting skills, marriage issues — was paramount.

The results

of this forum and the list of issues have already been shared with the women's

caucus here in Victoria and will be incorporated in the findings of the

Premier's round table engaging B.C. families in discussions about their hopes

for the future, which will be hosted throughout the province in the months to

come.

Families

are the foundation of our communities. We must nurture, encourage and enhance

their growth and thereby the growth and development of our incredible province.

LIFE IN CRANBROOK

Bennett: The title of my talk today is "Life in Small-Town B.C." I

was walking with my wife this past weekend in Cranbrook. It was a beautiful,

sunny day, and spring was in the air. I thought of something that my colleague

and roommate from the North Coast is fond of saying: "Life is good."

Life really is good in small-town B.C., not just in the Kootenays and in

Cranbrook where I come from but all over this province.

I wanted to

give the House just a slice of what it's like to live where I live. I get off

the airplane on Thursday nights, and the first thing you notice when you get off

the airplane at the Cranbrook Airport is that you've got all this space and

fresh air and these beautiful Rocky Mountains staring right at you. They're

close enough that you can go and play in them, but they're not so close that you

get a bit claustrophobic.

My wife and

I took a walk on Saturday after we went to a concert at our new recreation

complex in Cranbrook, which is a public-private partnership — a $23 million,

beautiful facility. We had the rock band Nickelback there. It took us about five

minutes to get into our seats. There were 4,500 people there. It took us about

five minutes to get out at the end of the concert and to get home and sitting in

our chair. We then went the next day, on Sunday, up to the ski hill at

Kimberley, which takes about 25 minutes to drive from where I live. I board and

my wife skis. We had some beautiful spring skiing. They're just a couple of

examples of what it's like to live in a town like Cranbrook.

[1420]

Cranbrook

has about 20,000 people with 10,000 people surrounding it. We have six flights

per day coming in from Vancouver and four flights a day coming in from Calgary,

so it's easy to get to. We have access to all of the mountains and the lakes

surrounding the beautiful city that I live in. If you fish or hunt or hike or

just like to wander around and get some fresh air and think a little bit, it's

the greatest place on the face of the earth to do that. I think sometimes as

British Columbians we forget how really fortunate we all are. There's not a bad

place to live in this blessed province. I guess we all should be very grateful

just to be British Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

MacPhail: As the government is aware, on Thursday the courts will decide

whether or not to release more information related to the warrants served on the

Legislature. The information in the last

summary material released showed that

the B.C. Rail deal was one of the subjects of those warrants. That's caused

concern and calls from many to cancel the deal with CN.

Last year

the former Minister of Transportation said the deal was before the federal

competition bureau and would be made available to the public once it was signed

off. To the Minister of Transportation: it's months later — still no deal.

We're ending the fiscal year. When are we going to see the deal to sell B.C.

Rail and its terms?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, the moment the competition bureau is finished its analysis.

You know,

once again, I just have to say that this member, along with all her friends that

have opposed this deal from the very beginning, continues to oppose it today, to

oppose a deal that is going to bring enormous benefits throughout British

Columbia — $135 million northern development initiative, $17 million

investment into containerization in Prince Rupert, millions of dollars in an

airport expansion in Prince George. Yet on and on, day in and day out, all you

hear is these members opposing what is going to be a tremendous deal for British

Columbians.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

MacPhail: Well, let me read from an open letter to the Premier sent last

week by more than a dozen mayors and councillors on the B.C. Rail line demanding

the Premier suspend the B.C. Rail deal. It is up to us to bring this to the

attention of the government caucus because they refuse to do so. A quote from

the letter: "A broken promise and a criminal investigation betray the trust

of British Columbia. The only responsible decision you and your government can

make is to suspend the sale of B.C. Rail until matters related to the raid on

the Legislature have been fully investigated by the police." The

signatories on that letter are from Fort St. James, Quesnel, North Vancouver,

Williams Lake,

[ Page 9900 ]

Prince George, Squamish. It goes on and on — and from companies.

In the

absence of any concrete information about the contract of sale to CN, will the

Premier assure this House that there are no renegotiation clauses extending the

sale of B.C. Rail beyond the original 90-year agreement?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Actually, I did hear one of the members ask where her leader stands.

That would actually be interesting to know, because it appears to be — like so

many other issues — a bit of a moving position. When she's up north,

apparently there are benefits in this deal. When she's down south, apparently we

should cancel this deal. It would actually be nice to get a straight answer out

of that leader of the opposition one of these days.

You know,

the fact of the matter is — I have to remind the Leader of the Opposition of

something — that it was the mayors that came to the government and said:

"We've got a problem with B.C. Rail." It was the mayors who identified

that we needed to do this better so that we could benefit the shippers of the

province and the residents of British Columbia. If that member would just stop

always being negative and recognize that the private sector can run a railway a

lot better than government, then perhaps she would understand why this is going

to be a great deal for British Columbia.

MacPhail: That's all very interesting, the bravado of that minister, but it

was this government that broke its promise to not sell B.C. Rail. No wonder

these more than a dozen city councillors and concerned business people are

writing this open letter. It's very interesting.

Interjections.

Mr.

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

[1425]

MacPhail: Because….

Interjections.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: Because the final negotiations are secret, that has raised

concerns that on top of the original 90-year sale, the government is granting CN

the right to extend the sale for virtually an indefinite period. Given these

concerns and the fact that the deal is caught up in a criminal investigation,

it's time the government came clean and told the public what, in fact, is in the

deal. In fact, the former Minister of Transportation said it would be done by

now. Will the Premier take a stand for openness and accountability and put the

proposed details of the contract of sale to CN before the public for full

scrutiny and debate?

Hon. K.

Falcon: Well, apparently I have to go over old territory again with the

Leader of the Opposition, which I'm quite happy to do.

You know,

the member keeps giving out false information, so I'll remind the member what I

said when I spoke. If the member would take a second to read the statement that

I read to the province of British Columbia — a statement that was approved by

the RCMP — which said there is no evidence whatsoever that there has been any

information shared with CN and the CN–B.C. Rail freight partnership…. This

member continues to try and raise doubts, to try and be negative about this.

Just for

once in the life, I would contrast how we behaved over the spur line with how

that member behaved with B.C. Ferries. You'll recall when the B.C. Ferries board

came to them and said: "We've got problems. We have cost overruns. There's

no business plan." What was the response of the Leader of the Opposition

and her party? They fired the board, and they put in a new board to continue to

waste hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of the taxpayers of British

Columbia. That's shameful.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

POLICE INVESTIGATION AND

SUSPENSION OF BOB VIRK

J. Kwan:

The criminal investigation involving the sale of B.C. Rail involves top Liberal

staff. When the Minister of Transportation said the Premier suspended Bob Virk

and fired Dave Basi because the evidence presented to the Premier's office in

each case was different, he also said that he was carrying Mr. Virk on his

payroll until the end of the fiscal year. Tomorrow is the end of the fiscal

year. Can the Premier tell this House what happens to Mr. Virk now that the

fiscal year has ended? Is his pay suspension being carried forward indefinitely?

Interjection.

Hon. K.

Falcon: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition might want to listen to the

question that her colleague asked, and we'll deal with that through the

Premier's office in cooperation with the Premier's office and make a decision.

We'll be sure to make sure the member knows.

Mr.

Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan:

Bob Virk gets paid over $63,000 a year on suspension. Given the nature of this

case involving raids on the Finance minister's office, which media reports say

involve young Liberal staff, wiretaps, organized crime and drugs, it could be a

very long time before this criminal mess comes to a conclusion. We

[ Page 9901 ]

may know more on Thursday when the courts decide whether or not to unseal

more warrants.

To the

Premier: can he explain again why taxpayers are being asked to pay Bob Virk's

$63,000 salary when the

summary of the police warrants makes no distinction

between the behaviour of any of the B.C. Liberal officials involved?

Hon. K.

Falcon: These members constantly try to canvass these kinds of personnel

issues. I say to the member that I'm not going to discuss personnel issues with

that member in this House.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

[1430]

AVIAN FLU OUTBREAK IN FRASER VALLEY

Penner: I have a meaningful question. The recent avian flu outbreak in the

Fraser Valley is a major concern for poultry producers and, indeed, for all

British Columbians. Yesterday we learned that a seventh farm, this one outside

of the designated hot zone, is now under quarantine. Today we learn that

Lilydale, which processes 20 percent of the chicken and turkeys consumed in

British Columbia, is now starting to lay off workers. Can the Minister of

Agriculture, Food and Fisheries explain what is being done to mitigate the

risks, both economic and in terms of potential health risks of this very serious

outbreak of avian flu?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: I do want to confirm this is a highly pathogenic avian flu that

is an animal health issue. It is not a human health issue.

Our

government continues to support and work cooperatively with the CFIA. We are

examining the science around the current restriction on product flow,

particularly for chicken and turkey, and we continue to believe that the science

supports the movement of these finished products not just in British Columbia,

not just in the control zone, but also in other parts of Canada. The economic

damage right now to farmers, processors and plant workers is very severe, and we

continue to work on ways to mitigate that.

Our

ministry is also involved in the logistics of bird disposal and manure disposal.

We do need everyone's cooperation in that regard. It's very urgent that we have

the cooperation of local authorities in dealing with these issues.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

USE OF B.C. TEACHERS

FEDERATION FUNDS

R. Masi:

My question is to the Minister of Education. I find it disturbing that the

British Columbia Teachers Federation is using $5 million from the teachers'

pockets to support a political attack on the government. The goal of this

government and, I'm sure, all teachers across this province is to make B.C.'s

public education system the best it can be. However, the teachers union seems

intent on furthering its own political agenda and pitting teachers, students and

parents against this government. To the minister: what recourse is available to

teachers who do not want to see their money being used to finance political

campaigns?

Hon. T.

Christensen: The member is, I think, finding the same thing that I have

found, and that is that many teachers are surprised that money that they paid

for legitimate collective bargaining purposes has now been moved over to what is

distinctly a political fund. I think it's unfortunate that the BCTF is more

interested, it would appear, in fighting the next election than it is in

focusing on student achievement.

I can tell

you that this government is focused on student achievement. I can also tell you

that as I'm out visiting school districts and schools around the province, the

teachers I talk to there are excited about many of the new things happening in

education, and they, most importantly, are focused on student achievement.

They're showing great dedication to their students.

I will

certainly continue to meet with teachers around the province and continue that

discussion on how we can improve the outcomes for students in our classroom.

Unfortunately, those teachers who are concerned about what their union is doing

with the funds they are required to pay to their union are left to take that up

with their union.

B.C. RAIL AGREEMENT WITH CN RAIL

Nettleton: In a community that I am fortunate enough to represent, Fort St.

James, the mayors and councillors have signed on March 11 the open letter to the

Premier calling upon him to halt the sale of B.C. Rail immediately. At the risk

of repeating questions that have been raised earlier by the members of the

opposition with respect to this letter, it reads in part: "Broken promises

in a criminal investigation betray the trust of the people of B.C. The only

responsible decision you and your government can make is to suspend the sale of

B.C. Rail until matters related to the raid on the Legislature have been fully

investigated by the police."

Will the

Premier do the right thing and call a halt to the sale of B.C. Rail?

Hon. G.

Campbell: The Premier and the government will do the right thing, for sure.

We will move forward with the B.C. Rail investment partnership. We'll get $135

million of the northern development initiative. We'll open up the port of Prince

Rupert. We'll solve problems for Peace River farmers which haven't been solved

for years. We'll open up tourism and investment opportunities up and down the

line

[ Page 9902 ]

and across the north, and we'll keep working for the people of the north, as

they asked us to.

[1435]

POLICY FOR WEST COAST

FISH PROCESSING PLANTS

Trumper: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

It's my understanding that the federal government is about to make a decision

with regard to the amount of hake quota that is available to the west coast

communities. For the past two years the entire catch was directed to onshore

processing plants, creating good jobs and good wages. Could the minister please

tell me what the situation is at this time as we work to keep these jobs in

Ucluelet and Port Alberni on the west coast?

Hon. J.

van Dongen: The federal and provincial policy and commitment regarding

giving priority access to onshore plants, which was put in place in 1990,

remains firmly in place. As the member knows, the expected run for this year is

significantly greater than average, but I did meet recently with the mayor of

Ucluelet and representatives of all of the processing plants. I've encouraged

them to work closely with the process that has been put in place to work out

this situation and all of the utilization, and I will work very closely with the

federal minister to ensure that we maximize utilization of the resource and

maximize the resource to our onshore plants.

[End

of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

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

members, we'll be continuing the discussions of the Ministry of Public Safety

and Solicitor General. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the

information of members, we'll be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of

Children and Family Development.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; K. Stewart in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF CHILDREN AND

FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 16:

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

J. Kwan:

Just prior to the adjournment of the House yesterday, I was asking the minister

about the categories in which claims of child abuse or neglect would be

investigated and the procedures that the ministry follows. Specifically, I asked

the minister about the notion of "assessed further" reports, and the

minister claims there's no such thing. But, of course, under the process in

which the government deals with these issues, there's a thing called

"further assessment required."

[1440]

Then under

the different categories…. Investigative report, family development response,

investigation after family development response, further assessment required,

offer support services, no further action, refer to community agency, forward to

section 16 worker, determine new support services, offer special needs day care,

return to parent in B.C., return to parent out of B.C., determine eligibility

for home and not coded are the various categories that the government utilizes

in dealing with these issues.

I would

like the minister to advise this House, first of all, how many reports or how

many cases fall under the investigative report category. I would like to have

the comparative numbers year over year so that we know whether or not the

numbers have gone up or down. Again, for the minister to claim that cases have

gone down…. It is important for us to get these numbers for the purposes of

comparison beginning 2001 to date.

Hon. C.

Clark: Sorry that took a minute. It took a minute to crunch the numbers on

this.

The total

numbers of children who are in need of protection — and this is as a

percentage of the total reports, not the total investigations…. I know where

the member is going with the question, if we want to just cut to the chase on

this.

I think the

point she's trying to illustrate is the thing that her mentor, Mr. Schreck,

tries to illustrate on his website regularly, which is that somehow there are

fewer children coming into care because there are fewer investigations being

done based on the reports that are coming out. That is just simply not true. It

is really the worst, lowest kind of…. Maybe I don't want to say that. It is

really the worst kind of politics there is. To sort of play politics with those

kinds of numbers is really…. Anyway, that may not be where the member is

going. I suspect, though, based on the questioning yesterday, that that's where

she's going with this.

[1445]

In order to

answer that question for her, I will give her these numbers. The total number of

reports in 2001-02 was 33,522. It was 31,780 in '02-03, and it was 27,361 in….

Sorry; I'll give you an estimated year to date. That's 29,848 for '03-04. The

number of children that have been determined to be in need of protection, based

not on the total number of investigations but the total number of reports, has

been pretty constant. That was 18.5 percent '01-02, 18.4 percent in '02-03 and

17.3 percent in '03-04.

J. Kwan:

The minister would like to create questions in her own mind and rationales for

why the opposition is asking questions. She's completely off base.

[ Page 9903 ]

Notwithstanding that, those are not the questions I asked of the minister.

Let me be

clear in terms of where the issues come from. The issues actually come from

front-line workers with respect to the minister's claim that somehow….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

The minister claims that these numbers and issues come from

StrategicThoughts.com. Well, actually, I have a letter before me from the B.C.

Association of Social Workers around these issues. They are the ones who raise

these issues. These are the ones on the front lines dealing with these issues.

The

arrogance of this minister to presume that somehow these questions are not

valid, that they actually have no standing and that they are not important to

front-line workers is completely incredible in terms of this minister's approach

to dealing with questions from the community. Social workers want to know, the

public wants to know, and the opposition wants to know. They're not asking for

the spin from the minister. They're asking these basic questions which the

minister should be able to answer. She should have no reason as to why she wants

to give some information other than the questions put to her.

I'll ask

the minister again. Investigative reports beginning '01 to today — what were

the numbers?

Hon. C.

Clark: I just gave the member the numbers. I just want to be clear. She's

trying to put words in my mouth. I didn't say that the questions were

unimportant, and I think any check of the Hansard record will demonstrate

that I didn't say that they were unimportant. What I did suggest, though, is

that the analysis the member is using is politically motivated. I don't think

there's any question about that. Certainly, all of these questions are open to

discussion on the floor of the House. That's why I'm providing her with answers.

J. Kwan:

You know, members of the public will be able to determine for themselves whether

or not the minister is answering the questions that I've put to her. Certainly,

it is my assertion that the minister is not answering questions. She only wants

to answer questions that she wants to give the spin on — the answers that I

know she has perhaps rehearsed with Martyn Brown, who says, "These are the

kinds of questions and the language you can put out," as opposed to what is

being asked by the opposition.

She says

that these questions are put to her for political reasons and political

motivation purposes. Well, you know, the B.C. Association of Social Workers

actually dedicate their time with front-line workers who do this important work,

this critical and difficult work for the ministry. They have actually written a

letter. They have issued an open statement around this. They have actually said: "When

the minister claims that the number of child abuse and neglect reports to the

ministry has fallen from 100 in 2001 to an average of 85 per day in 2003, the

implication is that the ministry social workers have less to do and staff

reductions are, therefore, acceptable. We take issue with the statement that the

number of child protection calls has decreased. What has changed is that many of

the reports are no longer being statistically recorded as investigations but are

instead being recorded as 'assess further.'

This minister will only answer questions if the terminology is

exactly right, and the terminology that is being used is "further

assessment required."

[1450]

"Each

'assess further' or 'further assessment required' report is received by an

investigating intake social worker who has the duty to conduct a professional

assessment to determine the safety of the child or children. The assessment

often involves the social worker talking to the parents, teachers and possibly

the child, and the time required to perform it can be variable. It is

labour-intensive child protection social work and cannot be discounted because

it is not classified as an 'investigation.'"

The answer

the minister gave does not answer the question in that there are issues with

respect to how the government does this work. The comparison that social

workers, the public and the opposition want to know would be on the basis of how

many cases are being investigated versus how many cases are being referred to as

"further assessment required," and to compare year over year so that

people can make the determination for themselves whether or not the cases and

the caseload are dropping and to what degree, but not what the minister says at

the end result. The end result of cases being completed through the

investigation may well vary. On that basis they would vary, maybe, because

investigations are not being done as often as they used to be.

Give the

facts for the public for their determination, not the minister's spin on what

her

interpretation of what the numbers are and what they represent and her

interpretation of what the questions are. Just answer the questions.

Hon. C.

Clark: I did answer the question that the member asked. I'm very

disappointed that suddenly she's so opposed to spin. She engages in a fair

amount of that herself. I'll try not to give her any spin on this. I'll just

give her the numbers that have been provided to me by our senior civil servants,

who she occasionally says she thinks are doing a very, very good job.

The number

of complaints — child protection reports, I should say specifically — in

2001-02 was 33,522. The number of children who were determined to be in need of

protection as a result of that total volume of reports was 18.5 percent. In

2002-03 that was 31,780 reports that the ministry received. I mean, that has

nothing to do with any changes in classification or any changes in behaviour.

This is just total number of reports, sort of the gross volume of reports that

the ministry gets.

Based on

that, about 18.4 percent of those were determined to be in need of protection.

In 2003-04 — and this is estimated to the end of the year based on the numbers

that we have — there were 29,848 total child

[ Page 9904 ]

protection reports. About 17.3 percent of those children will be in need of

protection by the ministry. What that demonstrates to us is that the total

numbers of protection reports that are coming in are shrinking.

There's a

good reason for that. The number of children in British Columbia is also

shrinking. That's a well-known demographic change. That's certainly something

we've seen in our education system. The number of children under six is really

dropping. Just go out and look outside your living room window. You won't see as

many kids playing street hockey as you used to, because the population is

shrinking. Families are smaller. Women are waiting longer to have their

children, so there just aren't as many children under six. That's a good reason

for that trend to be there. That's completely irrespective of behaviour of

front-line staff or anything like that.

Nonetheless,

as a percentage of the total reports, the number of children who are deemed to

be in need of protection is staying about constant. I know the member says she

doesn't care about results, but I think in this ministry we need to care about

results. We need to be conscious of the impact our policies are having and

whether or not we're doing better or things are getting worse out there. We pay

a great deal of attention to results. We make sure that the decisions we make

try…. We always try and make sure that they result in better outcomes.

J. Kwan:

It is not the case that the opposition doesn't care about the results. What we

don't care about is the minister's spin on the results. The opposition want to

judge for themselves what the numbers represent. We want to be able to determine

what those numbers mean in terms of results, not the minister's spin. That's

where I actually take issue with the minister's approach to things. In fact,

generally the government's spin on the concluding issues that they say is one

thing — how everything is wonderful and they're doing a great job. We would

want to interpret that on our own, based on facts and not just the government's

spin-doctoring message box.

[1455]

The

minister says the protection reports have actually dropped, in terms of

complaints, from 33,500 or so to 31,700 and then to 29,800 or so, year over

year. Those are the complaints, investigative reports. She says the drop is not

because there is less work being done within the ministry to investigate;

rather, there's a drop in population with children. What is the percentage as

well as the reduction in number in the population amongst children in these

years?

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't have exact numbers on hand for population growth and

shrinkage in British Columbia, but it is comparable to the numbers I've

described.

J. Kwan:

The minister doesn't have the information, but she claims that that is what it

is. Quite frankly, I would want to see the numbers and, again, make the judgment

for myself and not take the minister's word for it. As we've established time

and time again, the minister's word, in my view, is oftentimes questionable. It

is the opposition's job to hold the government to account.

The

Chair: Member, I think you're moving onto grounds that I would consider

unparliamentary. Could you please retract that comment, and we'll continue on

with estimates.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I'll retract the comment, but the minister's answers do not provide

the answers. The minister's answers and her facts are based on her spin and the

government spin. They're not based on facts as they relate to reality in terms

of what's going on in the community, so I cannot take her word for it when she

says: "Trust me." Quite frankly, there's been a pattern the minister

has established that causes me to be concerned about her statements.

Trust me

doesn't work. Trust me doesn't work with the opposition and, I dare say, with

many British Columbians and, I dare say, with many of the front-line workers who

have raised the issues with the opposition and to the attention of the

government as well.

The

Chair: Return to the estimates, please, member.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, the minister gave an answer. I think that as a member I have the

right, within the rules of this House, to respond to those answers on what my

thoughts are and to preface my questions on the basis of what the minister's

answers are. That's exactly what I'm doing, Mr. Chair. That's exactly what I'm

doing.

The

minister claims the corresponding number of children has decreased accordingly

with the number of cases that are being investigated for potential child abuse

and child neglect. What are the numbers, then? Another set of numbers that would

be critical in making a determination around this issue would be the cases that

fall under the "further assessment required" category. How many cases

were reported in the '01, '02, '03 and '04 years?

Hon. C.

Clark: We don't have a "further assessment required" category.

Certainly, in answer to the member's question, if she'd like me to do a little

piece of research for her about the exact numbers of the youth population under

six, we're endeavouring to get that for her as soon as we possibly can. She's

deliberately trying to cast aspersions on my truthfulness here, and that's

really not fair. The population trend for children under six is well known

across the country.

J. Kwan:

I will remind the minister that it is the front-line workers who raised these

issues. The open statement is actually out there for the public, for the

minister's attention as well as the opposition, which is why I raised these

questions. The front-line workers have a direct involvement with respect to what

the cases are and how they're being handled. Their inter-

[ Page 9905 ]

pretation of how these numbers reflect not because of need necessarily, but

because of the change in the approach of how workers are to determine what cases

need to be investigated and what cases fall under the "further assessment

required" category…. These numbers go hand in hand.

[1500]

For the

minister to say now that she doesn't have that information is really a little

bit much to take. In fact, these questions were asked of the minister. We began

to canvass some of this area just before the House rose yesterday, and the last

answer the minister put on record is this:

"Reports

are made under those categories that I described to the member. The question

the member asked me was what the categories for ministry action are, and

that's what I gave her. Reports come in, and then there are a number of

different actions the ministry takes. That's the list I described to her. I

can't give her year-over-year numbers in that kind of detail right offhand.

It's a long list of possible actions that the ministry could take."

The

minister then goes on to talk about something else. This is just before the

House adjourned. Then I said: "Well, okay. If the minister doesn't have it

right offhand, estimates debate will resume today." As we have resumed, the

minister should be able to get that information. Here we are. Here we are in

estimates debate asking the minister the information that she said she would

have, and she does not have the information.

Interjections.

The

Chair: Members, through the Chair, please.

J. Kwan:

She does not have the information.

You know

what? The more the minister refuses to provide information in this House based

on facts and not on her spin, the more she discredits her own government's

effort in this area. Credibility is based on facts and based on answers —

answers to questions put to the minister through this forum and through other

forums. The more the minister tries to hide the information, the more suspicion

she raises and the more concern she raises in the minds of the public and

amongst social workers.

Social

workers have said, Mr. Chair, that when these categories are looked into, you

will find that the "assessed further" or "assessment

required" category would be important to figure out relative to

investigative reports. They're important because in the front-line workers'

view, the numbers on claims around child abuse or neglect reports to the

ministry have fallen not necessarily because there's less need in the community

but because of the way in which the ministry does its work. That's what their

issues are, and the opposition shares those concerns, if in fact their concerns

are true. The only way to make that determination is for the minister to put

forward the information so that we can judge whether or not there's any

correlation between these two types of reports, what kind of correlation, and

arrive at the conclusion.

The B.C.

Association of Social Workers states that the assessed reports are

labour-intensive processes. Social workers are required to conduct a

professional assessment to determine the safety of the child. Assessments often

require considerable time and effort to do, and many involve talking to parents,

teachers and children.

Given that

the minister won't give the answer and she's hiding the information about the

"further assessment required" category — given that she won't give

that information, and she claims she doesn't have it at this time — will the

minister then commit to providing that information at a later time so that the

community can judge on their own? Then I have further questions following that.

Hon. C.

Clark: I can certainly assure the member we're living up not just to the

spirit but to the letter of the statute on this. I think our government has made

great progress in supporting families who are at risk and trying to make sure we

try and support whole families and give families the resources they need to try

and make stable, loving, caring homes for children. And I don't think there can

be any argument about whether or not that is a good vision and a good direction

to go in. That's certainly where we've been going.

The member,

I know, makes a point of being suspicious about every piece of information she's

offered — whether it is statistical information or not — but I can assure

her of this. The trends that I've demonstrated for her in our jurisdiction are

not unique in the world. They're trends that we see across the United States, in

New Zealand and Australia. Our numbers are consistent with all of the numbers

that we see in jurisdictions in similar kinds of places with similar sorts of

populations that we have.

[1505]

The fact

that the youth population is falling is a worldwide trend — in the western

world, anyway. I'm surprised the member is suspicious of those numbers.

I would

like to correct the member on this as well. The B.C. Association of Social

Workers is not a front-line worker organization. It is an advocacy organization.

It certainly has legitimate views just like the NDP has legitimate views.

Nonetheless, it isn't accurate to refer to statements that are made by the B.C.

Association of Social Workers as being the same as statements of social workers

who are on the front lines.

I can tell

her this. There is a very big divergence of views amongst the population of

social workers, just like there is amongst any population of people. I think

that if she wanted to, she could find some evidence of social workers who are

certainly supportive of the direction that government's taken — in particular,

the direction that we've taken to allow social workers to use the broad range of

skills they have, use the experience they have and apply that to try and support

families.

J. Kwan:

It is just the practice of this government — and we've actually just seen it

earlier in question period today — and it is the practice of this minister to

[ Page 9906 ]

discredit organizations as though somehow organizations that raise questions

of this minister and this government's actions are not legitimate organizations,

as though somehow they should not be counted towards the important work and

issues that we are faced with today in British Columbia, as though somehow their

legitimacy is lessened in the mind of this minister. It is absolutely appalling

in terms of this kind of approach.

The B.C.

Association of Social Workers. Yes, some of them are social workers, and some of

them are not social workers. That doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. Here, they

have taken issue with the minister's statement and the government's statement

about reduction of children in need of protection. They take issue with the

minister's claim and the government's claim that the number of reports to the

ministry has fallen from 100 per day in 2001 to an average of 85 per day in

2003. What we've seen so far — and what the minister gave the factual

information on — is the number of complaints that have been made in terms of

the investigation reports that have been made, and the numbers have dropped. She

has not given the pertinent information that you would need to correlate with

the other piece of information to draw some sort of conclusion.

The B.C.

Association of Social Workers are saying that they take issue with the

government's statement that the number of child protection calls has decreased.

They say that what has changed is that many of the reports are no longer being

statistically recorded as investigations but instead are being recorded as

"assessed further" or "further assessment required." Yet,

the minister won't give that piece of information.

Then she

goes on to say: "Well, we know what we're doing, and we're doing our work

of the legislation to a T." Well, that's the minister's own conclusion. It

is her own spin from her own government that says what a great job they're

doing. The public is questioning those conclusions. The questions that I put to

the minister would shed some light for the members of the public to arrive at

maybe the same conclusion. Who knows? Maybe they'll arrive at the same

conclusion if the facts are put before them, but the minister won't do that.

Then all she will say in this House is: "I don't have the information"

and "I'm not going to give it to you." Then to say: "But we're

doing everything just fine…." Thank you very much.

Again, I

put this question to the minister, which she did not answer. If she won't give

the information in this House…. She claims that she doesn't have it, although

I think her very competent staff do have the information. Having said that

aside, the minister claims she doesn't have the information.

[1510]

Well then,

let's get the information on all the different categories that apply with

respect to year-over-year comparisons for the category of investigative report,

family development response, investigation after family development response,

further assessment required, offer support services, no further action, refer to

community agency, forward to

section 16 worker, determine need support services,

offer special needs day care, return to parent in B.C., return to parents out of

B.C., determine eligibility for home and not coded. Let's get that information,

maybe not in this forum but from the minister in the next week or two weeks.

That would be, I think, a reasonable time frame for the minister to put that

information forward for the opposition, for the B.C. Association of Social

Workers and for others who might be interested — for them to make the judgment

on what is going on with the ministry around this issue.

Hon. C.

Clark: I think one of the assumptions the member makes in her questions is

that the ministry should be investigating every complaint that comes through the

door or comes over the phone, and that's just not my view of this at all. My

view is very much that we need to allow social workers to use their professional

judgment to decide whether or not they want to investigate. An investigation of

child protection is very, very disruptive to people's lives. It needs to be done

in many cases, but not in every single case for every possible phone call. I

think we could certainly be living in kind of a 1984 world if that was the

approach we were to take, just to investigate every complaint and go in. We

don't believe it is always justified to disrupt people's lives so significantly

based on a child protection complaint without necessarily any other

corroborating or supportive evidence that there may be an issue there.

I would

direct the member to some comments that have been made. I know she's very

suspicious of the role that all of us as politicians play in the process, so

this is a quote from Community Collaboration and Differential Response:

Canadian International Research and Emerging Models of Practice . It was

published by the Centre for Excellence on Child Welfare. This is a piece that

was written by all of the directors of child welfare who work for governments of

all different stripes across the country to talk about this very issue. It says: "Child

welfare workers must be allowed to use their highly tuned investigative and

assessment skills in appropriate circumstances. Families with significant family

child safety issues should receive a child protection response from a

professional worker. Staff with the expertise in investigation,

evidence-gathering and the court process must be allowed to focus their work on

high-risk cases. At the same time, there is no need to bring into the

adversarial child welfare system families for whom there is no immediate child

protection concern. These families should be provided with non-adversarial

support to assist them to deal with stress in difficult circumstances. This has

a preventive component and can help ensure that these families do not return

later as high-risk cases."

have made a tremendous cultural shift in this ministry since the decade of the

previous government. That's because we have tried to change the culture of child

protection so that our professional, highly trained social workers can go into a

situation and try and support a family instead of making as their first response

always to try and take a child away from their family.

[ Page 9907 ]

Sometimes that is necessary. Where it is necessary, it should be done, but it

isn't always necessary.

Equally, it

is not always necessary that the government go into a family and disrupt their

lives and investigate every single report that's come through the door. That's

just not equitable, I don't think, in our society. I think it is fundamentally

against the grain of what we want to stand for as a government, and I think even

her government would have suggested that that wasn't a reasonable expectation.

We need to try and do what we can to support families to make them healthy,

loving, whole, stable places for children, because that will be at the heart of

our success as a society.

J. Kwan:

The minister did not answer the question. No matter how she sidesteps the issue,

the fact is she did not answer the question. The minister once again has put

forward spin according to her own spin-doctoring about what message she wants

the public to believe is going on in this area. Once again I'm saying to the

minister, no, thank you very much. I don't need your spin. I need the facts so

that I can make my own determination with respect to these issues.

I don't

know why it is so difficult for the minister to provide this information. She

says that she doesn't have it in this House at hand. Yesterday, today, this

afternoon I asked for the information. She says she still doesn't have that

information. Okay. Well, I'll cut the minister some slack. She doesn't have the

information, in spite of the fact that I think her very competent staff around

her do have the information, but never mind that. I've asked for the

information, then, in writing at a later time — a week, two weeks from now —

so that we can make the judgments.

[1515]

If indeed

what the minister says she is doing in protecting children is working and the

numbers actually correspond to what they're saying and they also further

correspond to the requirement for the cuts in FTEs in social workers and in the

ministry, then that's more good news from the minister, isn't it? Isn't that the

ultimate test for the public to make that determination, but not for the

minister to say that is the determination: "I told you so, and you just

must accept it"? It doesn't make sense, the approach which the minister is

taking in dealing with this issue, at all.

All the

other ministers, when asked for information, readily offer the information to

back up their claim. That's accountability, Mr. Chair. So where is the

accountability from this minister? Why won't she commit to providing the

information so people can judge on their own. The information I'm seeking is

based on the categories that the minister herself has put out on how the

ministry's working on determining claims of abuse and neglect that are put into

the ministry.

Hon. C.

Clark: I have an answer to a question the member asked earlier. She didn't

believe me that the number of children under six, the population of children

under six, is falling, so I can give her that now. Since 1998-99, it's fallen by

13.4 percent. Just for her information — although she didn't ask this, I'm

happy to provide it — the difference in the number of protection reports that

we've received has fallen by 10.95 percent.

J. Kwan:

The numbers have actually come out and you know what? They don't correspond with

the number of reductions in terms of percentage with respect to complaints that

have come in to the minister. She first reported they were…. They actually

range from 18.5 percent to 17.3 percent from '01 to '04. She said the reduction

of these reports is the result of the reduction in the children population. The

children population that she just reported now falls far short of what she just

reported in terms of the number of reports and complaints that the ministry has

registered year over year.

There you

have it. It actually established my case that we can't take the minister's word

for it in terms of the information that she provides through this forum. Those

judgments of what she proclaims things to be at must be determined by the

community on their own. Why won't the minister answer the question about

providing information at a later time? Will she commit to provide that

information in this House?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member is, I think, very confused about the numbers I gave her.

If she would just pay attention for a second, I can give those numbers to her

again. Well, I can wait until the member has a minute of attention; then I can

provide her with this information.

The

Chair: Any further questions? Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan:

I'm waiting for the minister's answer.

Hon. C.

Clark: I would be happy to provide those numbers. I want to clarify a point

of confusion, though, that the member had. We have been throwing out a lot of

numbers here, so I do want to clarify it for her. I can't provide that

information for her if she's not going to be listening to the debate. When she

wants to tune in for the debate, I would be delighted to go through that

information, and we could have a further discussion about it.

J. Kwan:

Unlike the minister, actually, I can multitask, and I am certainly listening to

the minister's debate and answers, and I have written down the numbers that

she's put forward. In fact, the numbers don't correspond. I have actually just

put that information on record. Having said that, I still say that the

minister's numbers don't correspond with her claim, and that's what I'm putting

on record.

I have

actually put another question to the minister about providing the numbers under

the categories to which the minister says that they report and record neglect

claims and child abuse claims. I'm waiting for an answer from the minister about

whether or not

[ Page 9908 ]

she'll provide that information for the opposition so that we can make a

determination on how she's doing as the minister responsible for this area.

[1520]

Hon. C.

Clark: I'm not sure how the member could make a determination about what I'm

saying if she is not listening to me. Be that as it may, if the member can hear

this while she's working on her BlackBerry, I can provide this to her. I said

that the population of youth under six is falling, has fallen by 13.4 percent

since about 1998-99. The total drop in the number of complaints the ministry's

received in the last couple of years is 10.95 percent — so very comparable

sort of numbers there.

I think the

18 percent number she was referring to was…. She was mistaken about what that

referred to. What I was referencing when I gave her that number is 18.5 percent

in '01-02, 18.4 percent in '02-03 and 17.3 percent in '03-04. That refers to the

total percent of children determined to be in need of protection out of the

total number of complaints that have been received through the door.

Out of the

total number of complaints, that number has stayed very constant. We in British

Columbia are very consistent with other jurisdictions in that respect, although

I should point out that British Columbia is the only jurisdiction in the country

where we started to see some real success in dropping the number of children

that are coming into care. That's because we've worked really hard to expand the

range of skills that social workers have available that they can apply in their

jobs to try and keep families together, to try and support families in their

homes, to try and make sure that children are protected and cared for before

their family reaches a crisis point.

J. Kwan:

The minister's numbers, the way in which she has put them on record, actually

show they don't necessarily correspond. The minister claims they do. Well,

that's her prerogative. I disagree; that's my prerogative. The minister says

they're doing just fine, that British Columbia is a leader in terms of reducing

the number of children coming into care because they're expanding a range of

services and options and supports for families.

I'm asking

the minister for factual information so the community, the opposition and

anybody who is interested can look at the facts and arrive at a conclusion on

their own and not just what the minister says we must accept. It is a democracy,

last I checked. A place in which we live — a place called British Columbia,

Canada — has a thing called democracy, and each of us is entitled to think on

our own and arrive at conclusions on our own and not just take the minister's

word on what she says the conclusion is. Part of critical analysis, in fact, for

members of the public who are concerned about these issues is to do exactly

that, not just take the government's word for it.

The

minister won't answer the question on whether or not she will provide the

information on all the categories I have listed that the minister is using

within the ministry on claims of neglect and abuse in the province that come to

the attention of the ministry. I don't know why she's trying to hide that

information and why she won't provide that to the public and commit to provide

that to the public. She says she doesn't have all the numbers year over year.

Let me try this. Does the minister have the number, then, for the "further

assessment required" category for 2003 and 2002? Just the last two years.

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes. I have already told the member I don't know what that category

is that she refers to.

J. Kwan:

The category is listed by the minister herself, where she lists a range of

different categories that are being done or listed in the ministry around claims

of neglect and abuse. I put on the record the minister's own words — what she

said the categories were: investigative report, family development response,

investigation after family development response, further assessment required,

offer support services, no further action, refer to community agency, forward to

section 16 worker, determine new support services, offer special needs day care,

return to parent in B.C., return to parent out of B.C., determine eligibility

for home and not coded. These are the categories the minister herself had

listed. I didn't create the categories, so the minister should know exactly what

I'm talking about.

[1525]

Hon. C.

Clark: As I told the member, I don't have those numbers for her today.

J. Kwan:

Well, then, as I've asked the minister…. She doesn't have it for last year;

she doesn't have it for the year before. I asked the minister to provide that

information to the opposition in the next couple of weeks under these

categories. I'm asking the minister: will she commit to provide that information

to the opposition in writing in the next little while?

Hon. C.

Clark: I'll provide as much information as we're able to gather and is

appropriate to share.

J. Kwan:

That's not an answer that confirms the minister will provide the information. As

we know, I asked for a briefing about these slush moneys that went out in terms

of savings out of the ministry's previous budget cycles, where the dollars went

and so on. The minister promised that she would actually provide for a briefing.

A briefing was in fact set up with the deputy minister and the ministry's staff

for Monday morning. On Monday morning the ministerial assistant to the Minister

of Finance, who manages the House, actually came and told my staff that if we

don't agree to wrap up estimates by yesterday evening, then there would be no

briefing. We did not agree to shut down estimates debate because we still have

many questions to ask of the minister. The briefing was cancelled.

[ Page 9909 ]

The

minister says she'll provide the information on the basis of what she deems to

be important and what she can garner. That's not what I asked. I asked for very

specific information regarding the numbers of cases that follow with each of the

categories listed by the minister herself with respect to abuse and neglect

claims in British Columbia year over year, so that the community and the

opposition can make a determination on the claim that the minister is doing a

good job and that the reduction of FTEs is necessitated because cases are

decreasing and that the ministry in fact is seeing some good results with

respect to the requirement for taking children into care.

It's

simple. It's not complicated to get that information. These are fact-based. I

don't want the minister's opinion on what these facts are; I just want the

facts, Mr. Chair.

The

Chair: I just remind the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant that two of

the items she just talked about were items that were fully canvassed yesterday,

and a response was given by the minister. The other part of the question has

been asked six times so far. It's beginning to get a bit repetitive, so I would

suggest that unless the minister has some new information, we can canvass a new

set of questions and move on from this as it seems to be fully canvassed to this

point.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, hon. Chair. As always, the rules of this House that actually help to

speed things up and to get answers for the public…. That is that when an

opposition member puts a question to the minister and she refuses to answer it,

we actually have no way of making the minister accountable to her job. We simply

cannot ask the questions anymore because it is proven to be tedious.

I must

admit they are repetitive. I totally admit that. I wouldn't be asking the

question over and over and over again if the minister would just get up like

other ministers would, generally speaking, and say: "Yeah, I'll provide

that information to you."

We did part

of the estimates with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

about child care issues in terms of the funding, and so on and so forth, year

over year for comparison purposes. The minister agreed to provide that

information readily. The Minister of Health Services did exactly the same thing

around health funding issues. I don't know why — only with this minister, it

seems to me — there is such difficulty for her to provide information, factual

information, for people to judge and make a determination on how this minister

is doing and how this government is doing.

The rule of

the House is such that it disallows me from making the minister actually do her

job. Maybe her conscience will make her do her job. Maybe the constituents in

British Columbia will say, "I'm going to hold this government to

account," and that they need to be providing this information to the public

for their assessment. It's shameful. It's shameful that the minister simply

won't commit on record to provide this information to the public.

[1530]

What is the

estimated amount of time required for a social worker to undertake an assessment

or "further assessment required" report as compared to an

investigation?

Hon. C.

Clark: I can give her the number. It's 17½ hours for a child protection

investigation and risk management plan assessment and those kinds of things. For

that whole process, about 17½ hours is what our current workload management

model defines.

J. Kwan:

That time required to do that work is based on, I assume, information for this

fiscal year. Has that changed from year over year?

Hon. C.

Clark: No. That is based on the 1997-98 model that the previous member's

government created.

J. Kwan:

How many investigations and "further assessment required" reports is

the average social worker responsible for?

Hon. C.

Clark: We don't measure it by that method.

J. Kwan:

It's not a measurement. It's just a statement of factual information for the

minister to provide — that is, to say how many cases in these areas workers

are responsible for. It's not a measurement. It's just to get a better

understanding of what their workload is like.

Hon. C.

Clark: It varies from area to area and from worker to worker. Again, as I

said, we don't measure that in the kind of crude measurement the member is

looking for. We don't collect the numbers in that way, so that number isn't

available.

J. Kwan:

The minister says they vary from area to area. Well, we're talking about a

specific area here — the area around child neglect and child abuse claims.

Surely the minister has a sense of what kind of workload our ministry front-line

workers are faced with. If she doesn't even know that, how can she claim that

social workers have the ability to do the work they do — if she doesn't even

know what the average workload looks like?

[1535]

Hon. C.

Clark: We discussed this at length last week and, I think, yesterday too.

The workload model is a very complex model. It was created by the previous

government, so I had hoped that the member would be more familiar with it than

she appears to be. It is a very complex model, and the number the member is

seeking is a very crude

interpretation that's really not a relevant

interpretation. It doesn't tell us very much about the workload that social

workers are carrying. That's why

[ Page 9910 ]

her government chose to create a model that was much more complicated and

reflects, better than the measurement that the member is seeking, the actual

workload that social workers have.

J. Kwan:

The minister says she understands the pressures that social workers are faced

with. She understands they do an incredible job — and absolutely, they are.

You would think that as part of that process, the minister would take the time

and bother herself with finding out what the average workload for a social

worker looks like, Mr. Chair. It is fairly rudimentary. Sure, it's fair enough

to say that it is not exactly 100 percent in terms of describing the role and

the workload that falls under a social worker. Fair enough, and I accept that.

You'd think the minister, if she has sincerity about her answers and about the

values for social workers and understanding the pressures they are faced with,

might bother to find out what kind of pressures they are faced with in terms of

their workload.

No, she

hasn't done that. She hasn't provided collaborative information. She refused to

provide collaborative information on the different kinds of categories of cases

that workers are faced with. She is prepared, though, to claim that a

significant reduction in the number of social workers is warranted. She claims

that the conclusion is because there are fewer children in need of care.

In the

meantime, we actually have the Ministry of Human Resource's internal e-mail

being sent, requesting information and gathering information with respect to the

impact of cuts in the area of welfare on the caseload levels for the Ministry of

Children and Family Development. The e-mails are factual. They just came out

last week. The minister, of course, in her own spin claims that's not the case,

yet staff are being asked to gather this information so that they can go to

Treasury Board to ask for more money in the area of child protection and for the

ministry.

Once again

the information that has been gathered from the public does not collaborate with

what the minister claims to be happening in her own ministry. Short of the

information and the facts that the minister refuses to provide, it only further

raises questions about the minister's claims and her answers, Mr. Chair. What is

the minister trying to hide when she won't provide factual information?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member has widely canvassed this issue of Ministry of Human

Resources clients coming over to the Ministry of Children and Family

Development, and it is just not true. The member keeps repeating it. She keeps

saying it as though if she says it enough, the fact that she says it will make

it true. It is not true.

The number

of children coming into care whose families require income assistance or are on

the MHR caseload is decreasing. I don't know if I can tell her that any more

clearly than that. I have told her that a number of times, and she keeps

repeating it. I think that's the last time I will correct her on that. I suppose

if she wants to spread misinformation, there isn't a whole lot more I can do

about that. She appears to be quite determined to spread this kind of

misinformation. I have to, I suppose — if she won't be corrected on it —

live with that.

The issue

of caseload. The reason we don't measure caseload in the kind of crude measure

the member is proposing and the reason her government didn't do that either is

because a social worker can be carrying cases that are very active and very

labour-intensive and can be carrying cases that are not active at all at the

moment. It is not a very good measure. The unions recognize that. Jurisdictions

across the country have recognized that. In fact, her government recognized that

when they came up with the model in the first place. Since then, our

jurisdiction has sold the intellectual property rights — the right to be able

to use this workload model — to a number of other provinces across the

country. It has now become a best practice across the country.

[1540]

Again, it's

much more complex than the member suggests. The reason I'm pointing this out is

so that she can be clear about why I don't have the information. It's not

because we don't care about it. It is just simply because we don't measure it

that way, because it is not a relevant piece of information. Just measuring the

number of cases that a social worker is carrying — and if you use that as the

only measure — does not tell you very much about the workload that the social

worker is carrying. It's like any other profession. If a nurse is caring for ten

critically ill patients, that can be more work than a nurse who is caring for 20

people who have very mild symptoms that don't require a lot of intervention. We

need a much more complex model than that. We can't use kind of the crude, simple

model that the member suggested. It won't give us very much relevant

information. Ours isn't the first government to have discovered that. Her

government made that same decision.

J. Kwan:

The minister claims that there are no impacts from the Ministry of Human

Resources in terms of their changes in policy in cuts to welfare rates and

reduction in supports for people on income assistance, and she claims that there

is no impact whatsoever on the caseload for the Ministry of Children and Family

Development.

Well, it so

happens that the information received by the opposition came from an internal

government e-mail from ministry staff. It wasn't made up by the opposition that

this is the case. The internal e-mail actually stated it as the case. I stand by

the information that the e-mail actually provides, and the minister may not like

it. She may even continue to deny it, but again, those are the facts. They

exist. She might say, "Blah, blah, blah," or whatever she wants, but

the reality is that it doesn't change. It doesn't change what the minister would

like the spin to be and what her beliefs are when the facts dispute them.

The

minister says that it is far more complicated to evaluate social workers'

workload. Nor was I suggest-

[ Page 9911 ]

ing that the only measure to account for the social workers' workload is to

see how many cases they have under their belt; nor was I suggesting that at all

at any point in time.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

The fact is

this: the Minister of Children and Family Development reports that there are 14

percent fewer children in care than when the Liberal government came to power.

However, there is no real evidence that there has been a reduction in cases of

child abuse. We're trying to get that evidence; the minister won't provide it.

Worse yet, much of the reduction in caseloads actually means that the ministry

has returned more children back to the homes they were initially removed from

because of potential abuse issues.

The

community. I will give one example I know of where, again, a principal actually

told me they were worried about a particular student in their class because the

particular student hadn't surfaced in the class for some time. Teachers had

phoned, and so on and so forth, to no avail — couldn't find this particular

student, no contact with the family — and then phoned the ministry's office

and reported the situation out of genuine concern for the student's well-being.

The person who took the call basically said: "Well, you can file a report

if you want, and we can try to get to it. If we have time, we will, but if we

don't, we won't. Chances are we won't, because we're stretched to the max."

That's the

reality in terms of what people are saying is happening. If the case is true

that the minister says that we don't need more social workers, that we can

afford to actually reduce them and that FTEs are being cut within the ministry,

then it doesn't ring true with what is going on in the community. The facts I'm

requesting from the minister have not been provided to back up her claims.

Section 2

of the Child, Family and Community Service Act states that "the safety and

well-being of children are the paramount considerations" of the ministry.

Section 2(

a) states that children are entitled to be protected from abuse,

neglect and harm or threat of harm.

[1545]

We have

cuts in the staffing level. The minister won't report what the information is

around what the cases look like in terms of what the ministry's faced with. The

minister won't report what the workload is like for social workers. Then how are

cuts to staffing reflective of the guiding principle of the Child, Family and

Community Service Act?

I might

remind the minister that in January 1998 while in opposition, the minister said:

"I do not believe that the ministry provides adequate resources to

front-line workers in British Columbia. That is why I continue to support Judge

Gove's recommendation for a substantial increase in the number of front-line

workers in the ministry." That's what the minister said then, and her

actions completely contradict what she said when she was in opposition.

Hon. C.

Clark: It's important to note that the number of social workers was

increased. The previous government did increase the number of social workers

after that discussion occurred in the House. That was the process by which that

government came up with the workload model which we've been discussing, which

tells us a little bit about how heavy the workload is on social workers.

I will

enter into the record again — we've had this discussion a whole number of

times — and I know the member doesn't want to move on, so I will give her the

information again. The annual percentage change in the workload model indicates

that there has been a reduction of 15.46 percent in the actual amount. The way

the workload model determines the amount of total load for social workers —

that is a reduction of 15.46 percent. The total number of funded FTEs has been

reduced by 9.8 percent — so a much smaller percentage reduction than the

reduction in the amount of workload that we calculate based on this member's

government's model.

J. Kwan:

The minister claims her argument for increase in FTEs, social workers,

following the Gove report was just for then. It doesn't apply for subsequent

times. How convenient, Mr. Chair, because all throughout when she was in

opposition, she continuously criticized the previous government for not

increasing the number of social workers. She continuously criticized, along with

the Premier, cuts in budgets or lack of services in the Ministry for Children

and Families. Now that she is the minister, she has actually changed the

goalposts entirely for this minister. She has changed her tune altogether to

say: "Well, we don't need more social workers. We can actually lay off a

whole bunch of them, and we can actually reduce the budget, as well, in the area

of children and family development to the tune of $175 million over three

years."

How times

have changed, Mr. Chair. How times have changed — when the person is in

government, the tune that they now sing versus when a person is in opposition.

You know what? Again, it goes to credibility. It goes to credibility to measure

up on what this minister said then and what she is doing now.

freedom-of-information inquiry reviewed that the ministry statistics on the

numbers of children who have died under ministry care in the past four years

have recently been changed. Could the minister please advise how many children

have died in each of the past four years?

Hon. C.

Clark: The death of a child is always a tragedy, whether that child is in

care or not. I can give the member these numbers, and I hope that for this

portion of the debate we can keep it to a discussion of the facts. This is a

very serious issue and something I think that doesn't…. It needs to be handled

carefully, so I will give the member the numbers.

[1550]

For

non-aboriginal children in the year 2000…. Sorry, I will just give her the

total. In the year 2000

[ Page 9912 ]

seven children died of natural causes. These are children in care. Two were

accidental, and one was a suicide. That's a total of ten. In 2001 seven children

died of natural causes, one was an accident, and one was a suicide. That's a

total of nine. In 2002 six children died of natural causes, two of accidents and

one from a suicide. That's nine. In 2003 six children died of natural causes,

four died of accidents, and two died as a result of suicide. That's 12. In 2004

three children in care died of natural causes, for a total of three.

J. Kwan:

The information provided….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, I'm sitting here asking questions — and this is actually very

serious; these are very serious matters — about the situation involving our

children. Make no mistake about that. Somehow it is shameful for questions to be

asked around these issues, according to the member from the coast.

Do you know

what? What is shameful is if we as elected officials neglect to look at these

issues with care, to review what's happened and to make sure that we have the

proper information before us so that we can hopefully prevent these kinds of

incidents in the future. That, in my view, would be shameful. If we do not ask

these questions and let it pass, in my view that is what would be shameful.

There is no doubt, absolutely no doubt, that the death of any child for any

reason is more than tragic. In fact, the death of anyone for any reason is a

tragic thing.

Given that

we're dealing with the ministry who deals with children who need protection….

From time to time, as the numbers show, children do die, and it is incumbent on

us to ask some questions around what is going on or to try and shed some light

onto these matters.

The numbers

that the minister has provided correspond with the government's published

numbers around this issue. The original number that was published year over year

starting the year 1998 was 14, and then it was later revised to 14. Then in 1999

it was 16 and later on revised and remained at 16 for the year. For the year

2000 it was eight and then later on revised to ten. In 2001 it was seven and

then later on revised to nine. In 2002 it was seven and later on revised to

nine. Then in 2003 it was nine and later on revised to 12.

What is the

reason behind the changes in the figures in terms of the revisions?

Hon. C.

Clark: I've seen these questions also posed by Mr. Schreck on his website as

well. We've already, I think, answered them to him, so I can answer them to her

as well. There was an error in the way the ministry calculated the number of

deaths for children in care, so we went back and reassessed how we collected

those numbers and whether or not we had the information right. We corrected the

error as soon as we were aware there was one.

[1555]

J. Kwan:

It wasn't just one year where there was an error then, it appears. It is a

number of years in terms of that calculation. It's interesting to note it's year

over year that these numbers have changed. The error in terms of the calculation

— what error is that, exactly?

Hon. C.

Clark: There was a historical error that the ministry made. It goes back

into even this member's history in government. It's a long historical error that

was there, which our ministry discovered and moved to correct as soon as we

could. It was an error related to coding the cause of death and coordinating

data with the coroner's office, so we've worked very hard to try and correct

that.

The numbers

that I've described to the member, for example, for 2004…. It's important too.

Every child's death is a terrible tragedy, and before we carry on with this

debate — as I know the member is determined to do — I want to put it in

context. In 2004 three children in care died of natural causes. There are 9,189

children in the care of the government, so the numbers are small but tragic

nonetheless. We want to make sure the information we collect that supports our

research and supports our best practices is always accurate.

J. Kwan:

The number may be small, but I tell you, every death is…. Every life counts.

Therefore, every death is just as meaningful, no matter what the number is —

whether it's one or two or five or ten. That is not relevant to the debate that

we're having here.

Hon. C.

Clark: Why do you want to compare years?

J. Kwan:

The minister goes: "Well, why do you want to compare the years?" I

want to compare the years because the minister actually…. The government

provided information that had to be updated. I want to know why there was an

error in the calculation year over year. If it is a historical issue that was

identified, why do we continue to have this problem? It continues right up until

We don't

know what the final numbers look like for 2004. The year 2004 has not yet ended.

There's still time yet to see what will happen there. Year over year, the

numbers change and numbers are revised. The historical problem that was supposed

to be identified, it appears, is not yet fixed because they keep on changing.

That's why I'm asking for these numbers. Every death counts; every life counts.

These questions are just as important as all the questions I have been

canvassing with the minister in these estimates.

On April

30, 2003, the children's commissioner's office closed its door as a result of

cuts. Commissioner Paul Pallan and this office were responsible for

(1) reviewing all deaths and critical injuries of children in the care of the

ministry; (2) ensuring that the ministry established fair and adequate processes

for receiving, investigating and responding to complaints; (3) integrating

complaints and review processes for children;

[ Page 9913 ]

and (4) ensuring annual reports of children with continuing care orders. It

is interesting to note that while in opposition, the current minister praised

the children's commissioner's work and the work that the children's

commissioner's office did. How are investigations over deaths conducted now that

the commissioner's office is gone?

Hon. C.

Clark: The coroner's office investigates every death, as they always have.

There's a children and youth officer that reports to the Attorney General as the

children's commissioner did.

J. Kwan:

Well, the coroner's office has always been involved in looking into deaths of

anybody. That's always been the case, but there was, nonetheless, a special

commissioner that was established in dealing with children's situations, the

deaths of children. This government has eliminated that office since they took

office in spite of the fact that this minister acclaimed, when she was in

opposition, the value of the work of the former children's commissioner and his

office.

Now, again,

the tune has changed, because now they're no longer in opposition. They're now

in government. The standards which were set, I would venture to say, have

changed under this government and under this minister.

Are

investigations automatically conducted following a child's death?

[1600]

Hon. C.

Clark: No, because most children who die in care die with an attending

physician, because they die of natural causes.

J. Kwan:

Is it the case that only children who die of natural causes would not be

investigated and that all the others would be?

Hon. C.

Clark: They would all be reviewed, and the coroner would make that decision.

It's important to note that in 2004, there were no children who died in care

from accident or suicide. The total number for 2004 is three. The member says

there's more information coming in. I suppose she hopes the number will change.

The date for the deadline for collecting this information is March 10, so we

have final information for 2004. So, that number shouldn't change. There were

three children who died of natural causes who were in care, and that's the total

number of children in care who've died.

J. Kwan:

So investigations are not done at all, except for what the coroner's

recommendations are. They're just based on the coroner's recommendations. Does

the B.C. children and youth officer, Jane Morley, conduct investigations related

to deaths of children in care?

Hon. C.

Clark: She may. Every death, though, is reviewed by the coroner.

J. Kwan:

The coroner's recommendation to conduct an investigation would be based on

whether or not an investigation would be undertaken. Is that correct? The

government takes the recommendations by the coroner on whether or not further

investigation needs to be done on the death of a child in care?

Hon. C.

Clark: The coroner is independent of government. He or she decides if they

want to do an investigation.

J. Kwan:

Whom does the coroner make those recommendations to?

Hon. C.

Clark: To him or herself.

J. Kwan:

The coroner decides whether or not an investigation should be done. The minister

also said that Jane Morley, the B.C. child and youth officer, also has the

authority to conduct investigations related to children-in-care deaths. Under

what circumstances or under what guidelines does she apply to determine whether

or not an investigation is done?

Hon. C.

Clark: She would make an investigation if she has a request from the

Attorney General's ministry to do so. I want to correct a piece of information I

gave the member just a minute ago. I misread the piece of paper I have in front

of me. The 2004 number is three — I apologize — from January 1 to March 10,

so the member is quite correct. She may get her wish, and that number may

increase.

J. Kwan:

That is absolutely outrageous and is completely offensive — what this minister

just said. To suggest that I wish that there were more deaths of children in our

community is sickening to the absolute tune. I can't even imagine for anyone to

even think such a thing.

Maybe the

minister had those thoughts when she was in opposition, when the government was

trying to deal with children in care and the deaths of children. Maybe she

wished every day that there would be somehow headlines with children who are

dead somewhere. Maybe that was her wish. But I'll tell you this, Mr. Chair. I

have never, ever, in my entire life wished anybody to die under any

circumstances, much less children. My God. There is no level to which this

minister will stoop. It is shocking. It is absolutely shocking for this minister

to make such a suggestion.

As a young

mother, I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose a child, for any mother

to lose a child. For this minister to suggest that I wish the number of deaths

for children would go up is absolutely sickening. I have no words, and I have no

ability, quite honestly, to understand what goes on in the mind of this minister

and how twisted her thinking must be with such a statement and such a comment,

Mr. Chair. It is absolutely outrageous. It's just beyond belief that a minister

would even think such a thing and actually speak it in this House. Shame doesn't

even describe

[ Page 9914 ]

what the minister just said. It is appalling. I have no wish….

The

Chair: Member, you've made your point. Let's get on with the debate.

[1605]

J. Kwan:

I have no wish whatsoever to wish anybody ill — anybody, a child or adult,

anywhere. I want to be absolutely clear on the record about that. Absolutely

shocking.

The

Chair: Shall vote 16 pass?

Some

Hon. Members: Aye.

J. Kwan:

I know that we're in a hurry to move on so that the minister won't have to

answer questions, but I have many questions for the minister, Mr. Chair, and I

have not finished my questions with the minister.

The

Chair: Member, you have the floor to proceed.

J. Kwan:

The minister says the B.C. children and youth officer only investigates deaths

on the request of the Attorney General. Under what circumstances, and who makes

recommendations to the Attorney General to investigate deaths of children for

the B.C. children and youth officer?

Interjections.

The

Chair: Member, you've made your point. Just drop it.

Hon. C.

Clark: A request for an investigation could come from this ministry; it

could come from the Attorney General; it could come from the coroner. There's a

whole number of sources that those requests could come from.

J. Kwan:

Under what circumstances would the ministry make a recommendation?

Hon. C.

Clark: For example, it could be because our own review tells us that we need

to have an external look at something.

J. Kwan:

Formerly, there used to be an independent individual, the children's

commissioner's office, who would look into these matters. Then that person would

make the determination on whether or not an investigation should be dealt with.

In fact, every death was investigated by the children's commissioner's office

prior to this government cancelling and closing that office. Now it is based on

the minister's recommendation, as one source, for investigation to take place.

The

minister says it's up to the ministry to decide. Does the ministry have

guidelines that are set that would trigger an investigation — guidelines and

procedures that they would follow? Or do they simply evaluate it on a

case-by-case basis perhaps to see what the pressures are — the political

pressures, perhaps public pressure — and then determinations are made?

Hon. C.

Clark: Things have changed in this ministry. We are no longer a ministry

that makes decisions based on politics, which is the way things used to be for

ten years in the Ministry for Children and Families under the NDP. We don't do

that anymore. The decisions about whether these recommendations for

investigations would be made would be made by the professional public servants

that work in this ministry. That would be based on what they view to be

potential serious flaws that they see in the system.

It is

important to note, for example, that in this last year there have been three

children who have died in care. All of them have been from natural causes. I

can't discuss specifics of cases, as the member knows, because that would be a

violation of people's privacy, and I'm not legally able to do that. Nor can I

morally attempt to do that; nor would I.

But in the

case of all three cases, or in the case of any child who dies of natural

causes….

Interjection.

Hon. C.

Clark: I hear the member's indignation, standing up. She's a little bit late

coming to this sense of indignation, feeling wronged suddenly, when she's stood

up in this House and been quite prepared to offer any kind of baseless

accusation — some of the worst kinds of baseless accusations I've seen against

members in my entire time of being elected to this Legislature. In answer to….

The

Chair: Minister, this is really irrelevant. Let's get back to the debate.

[1610]

Hon. C.

Clark: In answer to the member's question, those investigations are done

based on the advice of professional civil servants. It is almost always the

case, that I am aware of, that when children die of natural causes, there is a

qualified physician present. If that is the case, then it would be unlikely in

those cases that there would be any need for a review ordered by the ministry or

recommended by this ministry or by the Attorney General.

J. Kwan:

Let me just be clear. The minister just accused me of wishing to see the numbers

of deaths of children….

The

Chair: Member, member. You know, this has gone far too long now with this

discussion. I would suggest moving on to the questioning of this ministry and

dropping the subject, please.

J. Kwan:

The minister just made that accusation, and she just tried to do it again

moments ago, Mr. Chair.

[ Page 9915 ]

The

Chair: Member, it is imperative. It doesn't matter what the minister…. I

want you to please move on in your questioning. You said you have lots and lots

of questions. Please move on and pose your questions.

J. Kwan:

I do have questions, Mr. Chair. I also want to respond to the minister's

statements.

The

Chair: Member, I'm asking you to move on. If you continue to challenge the

Chair, I will call the question on this ministry.

J. Kwan:

Mr. Chair, let me just….

The

Chair: Member, move on.

J. Kwan:

Let me put my statements and questions to the minister. The minister likes to

claim all kinds of inappropriate, offensive and appalling claims at different

venues, and she has just done so once again in this House.

The

Chair: Member, take a seat, please.

Member, you

were given the opportunity here to ask questions of the minister, and this line

of questioning in this debate has gone far too long, in the sense that it has

absolutely no regard for each other's respect in this House. I would suggest

that we change the tone of this debate immediately. Let's get on with asking

questions of the Minister of Children and Family Development.

Hon. C.

Clark: Mr. Chair, if it would help the course of debate, I'm prepared to

withdraw the statement if the member thinks it was an ill-tempered statement

that I shouldn't have made. I withdraw it completely, and I am prepared to

apologize to the member unconditionally immediately.

The

Chair: Thank you.

Member for

Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, now let us move on. You have this opportunity.

Please pose your questions.

J. Kwan:

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The

minister actually said that the former administration based their decisions

around children in care on politics. You know what? It was the former

administration that put forward the independent children's commissioner. It was

an independent authority that was put in place by the previous administration,

funded by the previous administration. The purpose of that act was precisely to

take the politics, especially issues that may surround deaths of children in

care…. They're sensitive in nature, and they're hurtful for the families and

friends who have lost their loved ones. Make no mistake about that. The purpose

of the previous administration was to do exactly the opposite of what this

minister claims, which is injecting politics into children and family and

particularly children in care where there's a death.

That

independent officer and that office have now been closed down by this

government, shut down by this government irrespective of the good work of the

office this minister acknowledged when she was in opposition. She acknowledged

the good work of the former commissioner and his office, but when they took

office, they cancelled that office. They shut it down, and they eliminated the

children's commissioner's office.

I would say

the opposite of what this minister is claiming is actually happening, and that

is that this government is injecting politics and taking away the independent

level of work that was done by the former children's commissioner in this area.

That's the action of this government, and their record and action stand to that

test.

[1615]

The

minister says it is left up to the civil servants to make that determination.

Civil servants do good work under tremendously difficult circumstances. They do

the best they can, in spite of budget cuts and in spite of increased pressures.

But the reality, of course, is that it still leaves the opportunity for

political pressure to be applied in these situations, one way or the other.

That's why

there was an independent children's commissioner, so that no political pressure

could be applied anywhere. The independent officer makes those decisions alone,

with no one else pressuring them and no other source putting pressure on them.

That has now changed. That has now all changed under this government. The

standards have once again been lowered under this minister, under this

government's tenure. That is indisputable.

The

children's commissioner's office used to conduct annual reviews of children with

continuing care orders. Last year the former minister repeated over and over

again how the ministry was looking to ensure that ministry money went to the

people who need it. One would think that conducting annual reviews for ongoing

case reviews would be in the interests of this government. The children's

commissioner's office was responsible for ensuring that exact role. Now it's

gone. That has gone also. Now that the commissioner's office has been cut, how

and how often will cases be reviewed, and under what criteria?

Hon. C.

Clark: I've answered that question to the extent of the responsibilities of

this ministry. We can request investigations based on the professional advice of

the civil servants that work for us. I notice, though, the member has downgraded

the staff from competent to good in her latest comments. But that aside, the

professional civil servants that work in this ministry will make those

recommendations. Further than that, it's the Attorney General in whose purview

the children's commissioner works.

J. Kwan:

What are the criteria that would apply for action to be taken?

Hon. C.

Clark: The children and youth commissioner will make that determination

herself, and she

[ Page 9916 ]

will…. I'm sure the Attorney General will be prepared to answer those

questions in the discussion of his estimates.

J. Kwan:

Is the minister suggesting that there are no criteria that apply, no

guidelines that apply, and that it's just being done on a case-by-case basis?

Hon. C.

Clark: No, I'm telling her that the areas she's asking about don't lie in

the purview of this ministry. The place to get those answers will be in the

Attorney General's estimates, which I don't think have been debated yet, so the

member has the opportunity to ask them there.

This

ministry can request an investigation be done by the child and youth officer,

and we do that based on the professional advice of the civil servants and the

front-line staff that have the experience and the expertise to make those

decisions.

J. Kwan:

What guidelines apply for the civil servants in this ministry?

Hon. C.

Clark: Every time — every time — the ministry has questions about the

conduct of a certain case, we review that case. Then, if there are serious

issues that arise in the discussion of that review, those issues can be raised

with the child and youth officer for her investigation.

Again, this

isn't something that we do every day. The number of children who die in care is

not a large number, although it's a very tragic number that any die at all.

However, as a result of the fact that it's a small number of children who die in

care, there aren't many requests. A request isn't made every day for the child

and youth officer to investigate, just simply because there aren't that many

cases to investigate.

J. Kwan:

Here's what we've established. The children's commissioner's office used to

investigate every death. They used to investigate and review issues regarding

annual reviews around children with continuing care orders. The children's

commissioner was an independent officer of the Legislature who worked completely

independently of government with no possibility of political influences in terms

of the decisions made in that context.

[1620]

That is now

all gone. The children's commissioner's office is gone; the children's

commissioner is now gone. The investigations of death are potentially subject to

political interference, in my view, because it's not being determined by an

independent officer.

The civil

servants will make and give advice, but nonetheless civil servants could be

subject to political pressure. That's what the government has done now — allow

for political pressure. The guidelines which the minister has actually just put

forward are very vague in their nature in terms of what triggers the guidelines.

I expect that the minister probably doesn't know what the criteria would be that

would trigger these actions.

The

children's commissioner's office used to handle complaints. Now that the office

is gone, how will complaints be investigated?

Hon. C.

Clark: I think I responded to that question a number of times. It's

important to note the member is wrong. The children's commissioner was not

independent of government under her government. The children's commissioner

always reported through the Attorney General. The coroner, on the other hand, is

independent of government, continues to be independent of government, has a long

history in statute of being independent of government. Those reviews are done by

the coroner, and the coroner remains — unlike the children's commissioner —

totally independent of government.

J. Kwan:

Formerly, coroners could investigate deaths — anybody's death — at any

time they wished. They continue to have the right to do that, and that's not

changed. Under the previous administration…. That's not changed. You know

what? The children's commissioner was specifically appointed to look into the

deaths of children in care. When children in care die, automatically a review is

done; an investigation is done. That was done by the children's commissioner,

who was independent of government. Let's be clear about that — no political

influences whatsoever into the work of the children's commissioner. The minister

may want to cast doubts onto the good work that the former children's

commissioner has done. I would remind her that when she was in opposition, she

also praised the work of the former children's commissioner in this regard.

It is only

after the election that the government decided, hey, perhaps there should be

less scrutiny on what the government is doing on these issues and how they

handle these matters. Perhaps that's why, I think, they cancelled that office

and the good work they had done in the past.

The

children's commissioner's office used to handle complaints from adults,

children, youth. Now that the office is gone, what avenues exist for children to

file complaints?

Hon. C.

Clark: Children can, as they always have, make complaints through the

ministry. If they're having trouble making those complaints, they can make them

through the child and youth officer.

J. Kwan:

It was the recognition previously of the fact that children may well have

trouble filing those complaints that the establishment of the children's

commissioner was put in place. It was precisely because of some of those issues

that arose. In fact, the first children's commissioner, who's done this great

work in this area, had lots of experience and through the good work that was

done received many complaints from children. It wasn't always easy for children

to find, within the bureaucracy, the right people to file a complaint with and

to get the assistance that they needed.

[ Page 9917 ]

With the establishment of the children's commissioner, that was to be a

direct link and a direct line for children to make those complaints. That, too,

is now gone, and children will have to go into the bureaucracy to find who they

can file complaints with.

[1625]

It's not

made it easier for children, let me tell you, with this move that this

government has embarked on. It has not made it easier, I think, for the

interests of the public, who want to ensure that there's no political

interference in dealing with children in care and the death of children in care.

There is no public service, I think, in the interests of the public for this

government to have made this move at all. I think they made the move because

they want to minimize scrutiny on the actions of government and how they deal

with these very important and very difficult matters that arise from time to

time in our communities.

The areas

around group homes and foster care. Some of the questions I have canvassed with

the minister about how many group homes have closed over the last year….

Particularly, at that time, I was dealing with developmental disability adults

and children, and the minister said she would provide a list of information to

the opposition on that. I would now like to canvass on the question around group

homes for children in care. How many group homes have been closed over the last

year? Let me start with that.

Hon. C.

Clark: I responded to this question already.

J. Kwan:

No, hon. Chair, the questions I put to the minister earlier were in the areas of

developmental disability for children and adults, not about children in care.

I'm asking questions now in the area of children in care.

Hon. C.

Clark: I did respond to this a number of times over the past week.

J. Kwan:

Again, the minutes will reflect the fact that the minister did not answer these

questions. The questions I asked of the minister were around community living,

and they were around developmental disability adults and children. They weren't

about group homes.

The

minister of course is, for whatever reason, trying to hide once again in not

providing the information. I can tell you that last November the ministry

notified agencies to close seven group homes in Vancouver. These group homes had

the capacity to house some 36 children and youth between six and 18. These

closures reduced 40 percent of all the beds in the city, as one example. The

minister won't provide the numbers. Let me then ask her this question: what is

the rationale behind these closures?

Hon. C.

Clark: I responded to this, as well, quite extensively. I can go and dig up

the Hansard for the member. I think I've probably answered this question

three or four times.

To help the

member remember, if she needs a little bit of clarity, the answer I gave her was

this. In community living, which is the adult side — which we talked about —

there was a 50-home increase. On the children's side, what has happened is there

has been a shift of about 10 percent from group care to family care. The

philosophy that that is based on is best practice around the world, which

indicates that for many children, being in a family setting is better than being

in an institutional setting.

What we are

trying to do is reflect the needs of the population, so that change has

happened. If the member doesn't believe me, I can dig up the number of times

I've answered this for her already in Hansard .

J. Kwan:

Actually, no. I have the Hansard right before me, because I pulled it. I

know the minister continuously likes to claim that she's answered questions

three or five or 100 times before, when in fact she hasn't. In anticipation that

she was going to make up some answer like that, I actually have Hansard right

before me on the page on which these questions were asked.

I actually

said very clearly that we were dealing with, first of all, adults with

developmental disabilities, to which the minister then gave an answer that says

this, and I will quote it for the record: "I think I'll be able to give her

the number for adults in a few minutes. Staff is joining me…with that for the

specifics, but I suspect the next question will be: what about children? We're

estimating there will be about a 10 percent shift between group homes — group

care — and family care in the child system."

Hon. C.

Clark: Exactly.

J. Kwan:

"That's an initiative that started over 18 months ago. We want to make sure

that shift meets the changing needs of the population."

[1630]

The

minister goes: "Well, that's it exactly." I was talking about in the

context of developmental disabilities, not children in care — two completely

different areas in terms of group homes and residential homes. I would expect

the minister would actually know that information. The information she has

provided is in two separate areas, accordingly.

Hon. C.

Clark: No.

J. Kwan:

If not, then she wasn't listening to my question. The question I put to her was

around developmental disabilities. It stated very clearly: those with

developmental disabilities. I'm now asking the question around group homes and

foster care.

Hon. C.

Clark: Well, I suppose I could talk in a debate about whether or not we

answered the question before. I think the information that the member has

entered into the record makes my point for me. That is, I said in that

information — and she quoted it quite accurately — that the number of beds,

the number of homes for…. At the time I didn't have the answer for

[ Page 9918 ]

community living — that's for adults — but I provided it to her

subsequently. It was 50 — an increase of 50.

Then in the

quote that she repeated from Hansard , I said: "…and for children

in care for that population, there was a 10 percent shift." Now, whether or

not I told her that before, the fact is I told her that two…. I gave her that

answer already now. If she wants to work from that new information and if she

considers it new information now, perhaps she could build on that and come up

with another question for it. If she wants to work from the old information I

gave her, that's perfectly fine as well. It's equally accurate.

J. Kwan:

I did ask the minister a question about the closure…. In Vancouver alone, as I

stated, 40 percent of all the beds have been reduced in the city as the

government's action in closing these group homes. Seven in Vancouver were

closed. A capacity to house 36 children and youth between six and 18 has now

been reduced by 40 percent as a result of these closures, Mr. Chair, and that's

what I asked of the minister.

Aside from

the numbers, which I actually…. The answer that the minister provided to me

was in the area of