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)

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 11

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act,

2004 (Bill 17)

Hon. G.

Abbott

B.J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr401)

Suffredine

Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr402)

M. Hunter

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Cultural diversity awards for

business

D. Hayer

Role models for children

B. Locke

Gibraltar mine reopening

J. Wilson

Oral Questions

Call for public inquiry into case

of Frank Paul

MacPhail

Hon. G.

Plant

Hon. R.

Coleman

Open Learning Agency severance

payments

J. Kwan

Hon. G.

Collins

Medical Services Plan contract and

access to personal information of B.C. residents

J. Bray

Hon. C.

Hansen

Offshore oil and gas development

R. Visser

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Transfer of community living

services

R. Hawes

Hon. C.

Clark

Introduction and First Reading

of Bills

Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2004 (Bill Pr403)

Anderson

Second Reading of Bills

Railway Safety Act (Bill 20)

Hon. M.

Coell

J. Kwan

Environmental Management Amendment

Act, 2004 (Bill 13) (continued)

J. Kwan

B. Penner

Suffredine

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. C.

Clark

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Public

Safety and Solicitor General

Hon. R.

Coleman

MacPhail

Halsey-Brandt

K. Stewart

D. MacKay

[ Page 9783 ]

MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Introductions by Members

Hon. C.

Hansen: I am delighted to introduce a constituent who is visiting in the

gallery today. She is the daughter of Samantha Thorpe, who is the administrative

coordinator for the Minister of Provincial Revenue. Sorry — I had better get

this right so that I don't start family disputes here. The constituent I am

introducing today is Cynthia Howard. She is here today visiting her daughter,

who is Samantha Thorpe with the Minister of Provincial Revenue's office. She's

been a constituent in the constituency of Vancouver-Quilchena for 35 years, and

this is the first time she's been able to get over here to see question period.

Would the House please make her welcome.

[1405]

S. Orr:

Today I have three absolutely wonderful guests in the gallery. One is a

gentleman who needs absolutely no introduction when he's walking around

Chinatown. He truly is the patriarch of the Chinese community. His name is

Phillip Chan. He's 91½ years old, and he was born here in Victoria in 1912.

When he leaves here, he's going home to dig the garden so that his wife can put

in the spinach, and she's 90. He's just wonderful. With Phillip is his younger

brother. His younger brother is called Paul Chan, and he is a mere 82 years of

age. He is a Second World War veteran who was assigned to the secret service.

We had

lunch together, and they were regaling me with absolutely amazing stories. Their

father owned a restaurant in town here, and on one given day he fed more than a

thousand people in Victoria during the Depression years. Paul went to fight for

the country in World War II. Remember that they didn't get the vote until 1947.

We were talking about how different it was then to now, how little they had and

how they had no rights. Today people have everything, and they still feel very

blessed that they live here.

With them

is a very dear friend of mine who is a huge supporter and a great worker of

mine. She has helped a lot of people in this community and helps me immensely

with the Chinese language, and that's Catherine Campbell. Would the House all

make these great people very welcome.

MacPhail: I am honoured to ask everyone to welcome Cindy Stewart, who is the

president of the Health Sciences Association, to the House today. Would the

House please make her welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

LAND SURVEY STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

Hon. G.

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

intituled Land Survey Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I am pleased to introduce today Bill 17, the Land Survey Statutes

Amendment Act. This bill is consistent with the government's commitment to both

deregulation and operating more efficiently and effectively. The primary purpose

of the proposed amendments is to transfer the authority for setting and

enforcing land survey standards from the province to the Corporation of Land

Surveyors of the Province of British Columbia. This authority is currently

within the ambit of the surveyor general.

Currently,

standards for the practice of land surveying are set out in the general survey

instruction regulation. This regulation will be repealed as a consequence of

transferring authority to the corporation. The corporation will thereafter be

responsible for making changes to those standards and ensuring that their

membership adheres to them. The surveyor general will be able to review and

approve any new standards adopted by the corporation, thereby maintaining an

appropriate degree of government oversight to ensure that adequate standards are

in place at all times.

Additional

amendments to the Land Surveyors Act modernize the governance system for the

corporation by, for example, updating its disciplinary powers, allowing

surveyors from out of province to become members, and revising examination and

admission authorities. A number of other acts will be affected as a consequence

of the amendments to the land surveying statute. These are the Coal Act, the

Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Land Act, the Land

Survey Act, the Land Title Act, the Mineral Tenure Act, the Petroleum and

Natural Gas Act, the Pipeline Act and the Strata Property Act.

The

amendments to these acts authorize the corporation to do various things, such as

make rules for surveys under those acts that were formerly the responsibility of

the surveyor general. Finally, a change is being made to the legislation to

enable the corporation to change its name to the Association of British Columbia

Land Surveyors. These changes will come into effect on January 21, 2005, to

coincide with the 100th anniversary of the corporation.

[1410]

This bill

has the full support of the Corporation of Land Surveyors of B.C. and other

affected professional associations. This bill also follows through on the

government's commitment to reduce regulations and improve efficiency by seeking

out appropriate alternative service delivery mechanisms. I am pleased to present

this bill to the House today.

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 17

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.

[ Page 9784 ]

B. J. FIELD SERVICE LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2004

Suffredine presented a bill intituled B. J. Field Service Ltd. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004.

Suffredine: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the

order paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Suffredine: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

Bill Pr401

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

KIDD RESOURCES LTD.

(CORPORATE RESTORATION) ACT, 2004

M. Hunter

presented a bill intituled Kidd Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act,

Hunter: I move that the bill, of which notice has been given on the order

paper, be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hunter: I move that the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill

Pr402 introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

b) CULTURAL DIVERSITY

AWARDS FOR BUSINESS

Hayer: British Columbia is a cultural mosaic, and nowhere is that ethnic

diversity more prominent than in Surrey. Last week the Surrey-Delta Immigrant

Services Society, under the direction of Lesley Ann Woodman and its board of

directors, held its ninth annual cultural diversity awards to honour those

business people who embrace employee and customer diversity in their businesses.

When I was

the president of Surrey Chamber of Commerce in 1996, our team was instrumental

in initiating these awards. Surrey, with almost 400,000 people and thousands of

businesses, is representative of virtually every ethnic cultural background.

These awards recognize those that celebrate and encourage their heritage in

their business.

I would

like to honour these business people for their efforts and their dedication to

diversity by naming those who were finalists for awards and those who won. In

the category of business with 25 or fewer employees, Injury Management Solutions

from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead won. Other finalists were Guildford Town

Centre and the Janitor Room Supply House. The Gipaanda Greenhouses won for

business over 25 employees. Also finalists for this category were Boston Pizza

in Fleetwood, again, in the Surrey-Tynehead riding and the Surrey Leader

newspaper.

In the

category of not-for-profit in general, the finalists included the Boys and Girls

Club of Delta and Delta Youth Services, Inter-A student society, and the winner

of this category was Surrey Chamber of Commerce. In the not-for-profit public

institutions category, the finalists were the city of Surrey, the George Mackie

Library, and the winner was the Surrey public library. Royal Bank won the

corporate division. Other finalists were Home Depot and RHM Teleservices

International.

I would ask

that all members of the House join me in congratulating all the winners and the

finalists for these important awards that promote equality and celebrate the

differences of culture we have in this great province of ours.

ROLE MODELS FOR CHILDREN

Locke: I would like to ask everyone in this chamber to pause for a moment

and ask themselves: who are the role models for children in British Columbia

today? There are few high profile names that come to mind, like Rick Hansen,

Silken Laumann, Jimmy Pattison, Martha Piper and Brendan Morrison. These are

people known around the world for their accomplishments and the challenges they

faced along their way. They have gone beyond their field of endeavour and given

back to the community and are inspirations to all of us.

But who are

the role models closer to home? Who are the people that are influencing children

and youth every day? Of course, for most children it's their parents and

grandparents, but it also might be a teacher, a pastor, a police officer, the

school secretary, a neighbour, a volunteer or a coach.

[1415]

Although

the saying "It takes a village" is overused, it is still a strong and

real message for all of us to remember. Kids are learning by watching and

absorbing the things we do and say. As adults, our world is moving so fast we

sometimes forget that the young people in our lives are trying to keep up with

us.

As a mom of

two teenagers, which can multiply in our house to ten or more, I talk to

teenagers every day. They, too, like to be acknowledged and valued, and

sometimes they wear clothes we don't like or have one more piercing than we can

understand. Sometimes we think they don't want us in their lives at all, but the

[ Page 9785 ]

truth is that they do. We may have to work a little harder to nurture the

relationship, but it is those relationships that will have a significant

influence on their future. A simple word of encouragement, dusting off a scraped

knee or helping a child with a problem that may seem minor to us are the

important actions that shape young lives. As a community, we share a

responsibility for all the children in B.C.

GIBRALTAR MINE REOPENING

Wilson: This year the city of Williams Lake celebrated its seventy-fifth

birthday. Today they've received a birthday gift that is absolutely wonderful.

Taseko Mines has announced that the Gibraltar copper mine will be reopening this

summer. That means that 280 direct, very well-paying jobs will be returning to

the Cariboo — plus a private sector investment of $120 million.

Taseko has

wanted to reopen ever since shutting its doors in 1998. Like so many mines in

B.C., the nineties were unbearable for its Gibraltar operation. They were forced

to close not once but twice during that decade of decline. That was when the

previous government alienated mining companies and pushed hundreds of jobs from

the province.

There are

still labour issues to be resolved at Gibraltar, and both sides are working to

make sure the benefits are fair to all. In the spirit of cooperation with

management and union, the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour has offered

to sit down with each party and help them reach a resolution. We recognize that

all parties are in support of getting back to work at Gibraltar. The Ministry of

Energy and Mines and the Minister of State for Mining are two others who are

working hard every day to breathe new life back into mining. This announcement

is a victory for their efforts.

Mining

activity is coming back to help pay for schools and health care and the programs

we all value. I know my colleague from Cariboo South shares my enthusiasm about

the Gibraltar copper mine. Many similar mining opportunities exist for our

fellow northern caucus MLAs all across the north, where mining companies are

very interested in doing business. With proper diligence and the will to

succeed, I am certain that names like Red Chris, Tumbler Ridge, Mount Polley and

Wayside will soon join the name Gibraltar as an active part of the B.C. economy.

Congratulations to Taseko, and we are all excited about the future of the

Gibraltar copper mine.

Mr.

Speaker: That concludes members' statements.

Oral Questions

CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO

CASE OF FRANK PAUL

MacPhail: Last week the Solicitor General told this House that he did not

see anything that would actually lead him to believe that it was in the public

interest to call a public inquiry into the death of Frank Paul. Soon after the

Solicitor General said that, Crown counsel announced that they had appointed a

lawyer to investigate new evidence brought forward by the police complaint

commissioner. Given that the Crown has determined that this new evidence

warrants an investigation, why won't the Solicitor General acknowledge that it

is serious enough for him to reconsider his decision to block a public inquiry?

Hon. G.

Plant: When the police complaint commissioner referred the material to me

that supported his recommendation to government with respect to the holding of

an inquiry in this matter, having read the report of Mr. Ryneveld, I determined

that it would be appropriate to refer the material to the criminal justice

branch. That happened. I am told there is a review underway, and there will be a

decision made shortly, but that is a separate process entirely from the process

followed by the Solicitor General in respect of his powers under the Police Act

to respond to the recommendations of the police complaint commissioner.

Mr.

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

[1420]

MacPhail: Yes, we understand that. That's why the question is to the

Solicitor General. As the Solicitor General appreciates, this case is

fundamental to the confidence British Columbians have in the fair treatment of

visible minorities by the police. Accusations of racism in the police force may

be difficult to face, but face them we must if visible minorities and aboriginal

Canadians — indeed, all Canadians — are to have confidence in the fair

distribution of justice.

Given that

the Attorney General has just made the comments he has made, which have been

reported in the media through Crown counsel, and given that the police complaint

commissioner and Frank Paul's family are both demanding a public inquiry as a

result of new evidence, is the Solicitor General, who is in charge of the police

in this province, prepared to accept that there are legitimate questions about

racism on the police force that can only be confronted through a full public

inquiry?

Hon. R.

Coleman: As I said last week, this incident took place in 1998. The members

opposite were in government from 1998 to 2001. There was a coroner's inquiry

done at the time. There were disciplinary measures taken at the time. There were

also some things put in place so that further incidents of this would be

mitigated in the future with regard to the operation of the police in this

province. We actually audit that when we do high-risk audits of police

departments.

There are

two issues here. Obviously, I await the fundamental issue with regard to the

independence of Crown. With regard to reviewing the file, the police complaint

commissioner's file was forwarded by the Attorney General. I think that's the

proper process on

[ Page 9786 ]

that side. On this side, I think that having sat down with the chief coroner

and reviewed the information and having sat down with officials and looked at

it, the proper decision was made on my part as well.

Mr.

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

MacPhail: I'm not quite sure why the Solicitor General is suggesting that

because this occurred in 1998, he somehow isn't responsible.

The

incident — the tragic death — occurred in 1998. Because of the previous

administration, this province has an independent police complaint commissioner

— because of the previous administration. The police complaint commissioner

wrote to this Solicitor General, after receiving a complaint from Frank Paul's

family, dated October 4, 2001. What doesn't he get about that — that he's

trying to pass blame elsewhere?

I know the

government maintains that it's concerned about fighting racism. The Minister of

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is responsible for B.C.'s anti-racism

program because I don't think the government's appointed a minister of state for

multiculturalism. It doesn't seem that they want to do that, given the

resignation of the other one. So the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and

Women's Services is responsible for the anti-racism program, whose stated

mission is to provide multicultural and anti-racism education, to provide

critical responses to racism and hate. That's what this whole case is about.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, time for the question now.

MacPhail: Because the Solicitor General rejected a public inquiry, because

issues of racial discrimination are likely to become the central features…

Mr.

Speaker: Question, please.

MacPhail: …of attempted cross-examination, will the minister responsible

for multiculturalism stand up and say…? Does he support the Solicitor

General's concern that racism may be examined in the context of a public

inquiry? And as the appointed anti-racism activist and advocate at the cabinet

table — the only one — will he take a stand for a full public inquiry into

the death of Frank Paul?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Two previous police complaint commissioners did not see fit to hold

a public inquiry. The present police complaint commissioner forwarded additional

information he thought…. I met with him last week. We went over that. He's not

going to make any public comment with regard to the decision the minister has

made, after having the discussion with me. He will allow government to go

through its process. He understands the Crown counsel's process, and frankly, we

will allow that to…. That will take place.

[1425]

When you

deal with a public inquiry, you're dealing with issues in and around a number of

questions, as the member knows. That's to deal with the public interest and

whether decisions in the past or other processes that were in place with regard

to the Coroners Act or whatever were followed, and they were. Therefore, we are

dealing with the issues in and around that the member has identified. Frankly,

we await the report from Crown counsel.

OPEN LEARNING AGENCY

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

J. Kwan:

On February 26 we asked about the severance packages at the Open Learning Agency

that appear to have been deliberately structured to contravene government

guidelines. The Minister of Finance promised a swift investigation and to get

the money back. It's now been a month. Will the Minister of Finance please

report the findings of his investigation?

Hon. G.

Collins: Indeed, that day I asked for a full investigation. I have received

a good deal of information to date. Just earlier — late last week — I sent a

letter to the board of the Open Learning Agency requesting additional

information. We've sought legal advice, as well, with regard to this case.

That's what's taken longer than one would normally hope. As soon as we have the

information back from the board, then I'll be pursuing it further.

Mr.

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

J. Kwan:

I remind the minister that confidential board meetings from the Open Learning

Agency strongly suggested that the OLA rework the language of the contracts for

senior executive members, including the COO, Bill Harlan, and CEO Terry Piper.

Soon after, Ms. Piper walked away with a big severance payment to go and work at

Humber College. This raises serious questions about the use of public dollars.

The Minister of Finance says he's still working on getting the information. It's

now been more than a month. His action is anything but swift. Either the Open

Learning Agency broke the guidelines, or they didn't. Which is it? Which is

holding up?

Hon. G.

Collins: One of the risks of asking questions when one doesn't have complete

information is that the member might get it wrong. What we're trying to do is

get all the facts. As I mentioned in response to the first question, I have

requested and have, as recently as last week, received additional legal advice

with regard to this file — a legal opinion. As I said, I requested last week

additional information from the board to determine some details around some of

the contents of some of the minutes, and once I have that information, I'll be

glad to make it public.

[ Page 9787 ]

MEDICAL SERVICES PLAN CONTRACT

AND ACCESS TO PERSONAL INFORMATION

OF B.C. RESIDENTS

J. Bray:

Recently in the media, BCGEU organizers have been talking about the fact that

any changes to how we deliver MSP registration services by a Canadian subsidiary

of a U.S. firm would invoke the USA Patriot Act. Specifically, they've suggested

that Canadians' health data would make its way directly and without question to

U.S. law enforcement agencies. Obviously, claims like that create concern, and

I've had many calls to my constituency office over the last week on this issue.

My question

is to the Minister of Health Services. I'm asking the minister if he could tell

me whether or not we would ever enter into a contractual arrangement with a

company that would allow for any Canadian data — health data or otherwise —

to end up in U.S. law enforcement hands.

Hon. C.

Hansen: The initiative that we're taking with regard to MSP is going to

provide for better service for British Columbians in getting information and

applications processed. We are out seeking a technology partner to work with us

to make sure that we can bring a new system in place. Certainly, the Patriot Act

is an issue that's come up recently, and it's one that causes considerable

concern for governments all across Canada. We are seeking legal advice from the

Attorney General's ministry to make sure that we are able to structure the

business relationship and the contract in a way that ensures that patient

confidentiality in this province is protected and will not be compromised.

OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Visser: Recently the Royal Society of Canada — one of their panels —

released a report that concluded that there are no scientific gaps that would

hinder the development of British Columbia's offshore oil and gas reserves.

Furthermore, that panel also suggested that there is a potential to generate

$110 billion worth of economy out there.

[1430]

Despite all

that, the NDP leader, Carole James, simply says: "I say no to offshore oil

and gas — not now and not ever." That raises a bunch of concerns for

people on the north end of Vancouver Island — that type of attitude. I was

wondering if the Minister of Energy and Mines could tell my constituents about

some of the benefits that he's learned about and how they will flow to the

people of North Island.

Hon. R.

Neufeld: There are huge benefits that are available in the oil and gas

industry, whether offshore or onshore — for a quick example, $2 billion in

revenue to the provincial government to provide health care and education.

That's just for royalties and lease sales; that has nothing to do with the jobs

that are created. Thousands of jobs are created. Onshore right now the industry

invests about $3.5 billion yearly — $3.5 billion yearly — in exploration and

production of oil and gas in the province of British Columbia.

There are

huge opportunities offshore B.C. We now have two scientific panels, one from

highly respected folks from the province of British Columbia…. I know the

Leader of the Opposition may not like scientists, but in fact they're highly

respected in British Columbia, highly respected in Canada — another group.

Also, an environmental firm has said there's no reason why we can't move ahead,

with a good regulatory system.

Mr.

Speaker, huge opportunities for British Columbia. We ought to take the move

forward so that we can continue to provide great services to this province.

TRANSFER OF

COMMUNITY LIVING SERVICES

Hawes: Fearmongering seems to be the style adopted by the new leader of the

NDP, Carole James, as she has frightened people with developmental disabilities

all over this province, saying that we are now cancelling our plans to move

ahead with a transfer of governance to the local authorities in the community

living sector. That includes people from my constituency who have worked very

hard on this. Yet Carole James says that the plan we were moving towards and are

moving towards is a very good plan. I want to just quote what she says. If, God

forbid, we ever descend into the depths of darkness again and elect an NDP

government, she would sit down with the stakeholders and the process — sit

down with the people who have been working hard on this — and put a good

implementation plan in place to do it correctly.

My question

is to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Why have you delayed the

transfer? Is it moving ahead, and is it moving ahead in the way that Ms. James

seems to endorse?

Hon. C.

Clark: We remain committed to making sure that we change the governance of

community living services, of aboriginal services and of services to children

and families in British Columbia. What we've said is that we want to make sure

we have them on a solid, firm foundation when that change happens, and that

means it is going to take probably a year longer than we had initially

anticipated.

Why? We

want to make sure that when this change happens, it happens well and that the

authority we create is on a firm foundation. We have done great things in this

ministry, like doubling the number of children who are adopted into permanent,

stable family homes. We have lowered the number of children in care. That means

more families are staying together, and fewer children are coming into

government care. We've increased the amount of alternative dispute resolution,

which means that fewer people have to go to court to resolve the family issues

they have.

We have

made some great strides in this ministry. We want to make sure that we carry on

with the successes we've made. The regional committees did a tremendous

[ Page 9788 ]

job of laying the groundwork, of setting out a road map for reform. We intend

to pursue that reform. We remain committed to the regional governance for these

authorities. We will get there, and we will do it well.

[End

of question period.]

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

PHEIDIAS PROJECT MANAGEMENT(1979) CORP. (CORPORATE

RESTORATION) ACT, 2004

V. Anderson

presented a bill intituled Pheidias Project Management

(1979) Corp. (Corporate

Restoration) Act, 2004.

Anderson: I move the bill, of which notice has been given on the order

paper, be introduced and now read a first time.

[1435]

Motion

approved.

Anderson: I move the bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bill Pr403

introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

J. Bray:

I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

J. Bray:

I've been informed joining us in the gallery is a class from a school — one of

the oldest in Victoria and one of the oldest in British Columbia — that's

actually just a few blocks from this place. It is a tremendous school with a

great history. They are a class from South Park Elementary School, and I'd ask

the House to please make them all very welcome.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

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

the members we'll be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Public Safety

and Solicitor General. In this House I call second reading of Bill 20.

Second Reading of Bills

RAILWAY SAFETY ACT

Hon. M.

Coell: I move that Bill 20, entitled the Railway Safety Act, now be read a

second time.

I am

pleased to present the Railway Safety Act for second reading. British Columbia

has a long history of railroads. Since the last spike of the CPR was driven in

1885, railroads have been an instrumental part of the growth and economic

development of our province. While the railway industry continues to be a

dynamic part of our economy, we must now recognize the challenges of our world

today — the challenges of technical advances and global competition.

Transportation and enhanced public safety are both vital to B.C.'s economy and

quality of life. Both are addressed in this new railway safety legislation.

There are

three purposes of the Railway Safety Act: first, to harmonize with the federal

rail safety regime; second, to repeal outdated railway safety legislation and

regulations; and third, to regulate the administration of provincial railway

safety to the provincial safety authority and Transport Canada. Historically,

the province has regulated railway safety. While there were updates here and

there over the years, we now need to modernize railway safety legislation to

reflect the province's current roles and responsibilities.

Canada's

rail network includes both federally regulated railways, those crossing

provincial lines, and provincially regulated railways, those operating within

the province. In the mid-1990s the federal railway safety framework was

substantially updated and modernized. The federal rail safety regime includes

rules governing all aspects of railway safety, including engineering, equipment

and track maintenance. It also requires a systematic approach to managing

safety. Working with their employees, each railway must formulate a safety

management system which commits the railway to operating in a safe manner,

consistent with the regulations, and to reporting on its results. The railway is

then monitored to ensure compliance with the safety management plan.

The other

provinces are now using most or all of the federal government regulations, rules

and standards. However, B.C. fell behind with legislation and regulations that

were inconsistent and unresponsive, I believe, to the changing times and needs.

The Railway Safety Act is a positive move, harmonizing our provincial system

with the federal regulations so that B.C. is consistent with other

jurisdictions, offering uniform standards and objective-based regulations. While

retaining the ability to address particular needs and circumstances in B.C., we

can assure our railway systems can be competitive while ensuring public safety

is maintained.

[1440]

The second

purpose of the Railway Safety Act is to see a number of outdated and

inconsistent railway safety regulations repealed, resulting in a decrease of

over 10,000 regulations largely from harmonizing with the federal railway safety

regime and, on a larger scale, with the rest of North America. This change also

ensures those working and doing business in British Columbia can do it under a

modern and enhanced legislative framework, in line with all other jurisdictions.

Thirdly,

the Railway Safety Act enables deregulation of the appropriate compliance and

enforcement

[ Page 9789 ]

activities to the B.C. Safety Authority and Transport Canada. The act also

creates the office of the registrar of railway safety, which will issue permits

on a basis of a provincial railway's ability to operate safely.

Railways

are one of the very few industries that were not covered by the Workers

Compensation Act's rules. Employee safety will enhance with the repeal of the

provision in the Workers Compensation Act, too, that will be consistent with

rules across industries. Now we will have consistent rules across all of these

industries.

In closing,

I would like to reiterate that the Railway Safety Act reflects the province's

current roles and responsibilities in the area of railway safety. The Railway

Safety Act is part of our new-era commitment to streamlining regulations and

enhancing public safety. By moving to objective-based safety systems and

offering a standardized approach to benefit businesses and employees, we are

working to ensure effective railway transportation and enhance public safety —

both vital to B.C.'s economy and quality of life to our citizens and our

communities.

I ask that

all members lend their support to this important piece of legislation. I move

that Bill 20 be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next

sitting of the House after today.

J. Kwan:

Bill 20 is the Railway Safety Act. The Railway Safety Act is a 12-page bill

that, according to the minister in his first reading speech, "will result

in the repeal of over 10,000 regulations and harmonize provincial legislation

with the federal railway safety jurisdiction. While enhancing rail safety in

British Columbia, the new act will also provide for smarter regulation with rail

companies and their employees together establishing a quality management system.

The proposed act also provides for the delegation of railway safety

administration to outside agencies, such as the B.C. Safety Authority and

Transport Canada."

Today in

second reading, the minister continued to elaborate on these points. Here's what

the minister did not tell us, though, in first reading of this bill. Bill 20 is

a piece of legislation that allows the government to pass off responsibility for

railway safety standards and enforcement in British Columbia. The Railway Safety

Act does this in two ways.

One, Bill

20 gives government the power to delegate the administration of railway safety

standards to an independent authority. While this authority is, by law, not an

agent of the government, it will be charged with the power to administer the act

and any regulations created in the future.

Here we see

yet another authority being set up at arm's length from government — another

independent authority charged with responsibilities and powers once held by the

government. We saw it with B.C. Ferries provincial safety standards and, just

last week, when a bill covering business practices and consumer protection was

passed. Now we're seeing it with railway safety standards.

Two, Bill

20 allows the minister to appoint a registrar of railway safety. This registrar,

who is handpicked by the minister without any guidelines or competition process,

will have the power to issue fines and permits to railway companies. It all

makes sense in theory. First they sell off B.C. Rail to CN; now they're

privatizing the safety standards that CN has to operate under. How fitting.

The

minister tells us that Bill 20 will allow for the harmonization of provincial

legislation with federal legislation. There is nothing in this bill that

guarantees that this will happen in the future. All this bill says is that it

may happen. Some provision may be adopted.

[1445]

Furthermore,

Bill 20 allows for the adoption of railway safety standards by any

standard-making body. What does this all mean? It means the minister will be

allowed to pick and choose whatever railway safety standards he sees fit. Once

these safety standards are decided upon, they will be carried out under an

independent authority and a railway registrar handpicked by the ministry.

Bill 20

repeals 31 pages of previous legislation detailing railway safety standards. At

the same time, there is nothing in this bill that guarantees that the 31 pages

will be replaced with anything that guarantees that the interests of employees,

consumers, industry competitors or the environment will be protected. After

reading this bill, it is clear that the big winner with Bill 20, the Railway

Safety Act, is the railway industry.

Indeed, the

timing of this bill is rather curious, following police raids on the

Legislature, an ongoing police investigation, a billion-dollar B.C. Rail deal

that's tainted — that's the best language that I'm using in this House — and

the firing and suspension of high-ranking ministry staff. The introduction of

this bill comes at a very strange time indeed.

The

opposition will be speaking in detail on this legislation in committee stage and

canvassing detailed questions with the minister regarding this bill.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

Coell: I move that it be referred to a Committee of the Whole at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20,

Railway Safety Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole

House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call second reading, continued debate on Bill 13.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

(continued)

Kwan: The minister made much of streamlining, modernizing and accelerated

redevelopment in his

[ Page 9790 ]

introduction of this bill. As the minister's press release notes, this is the

second phase in the reform of our environmental protection regime. Within

walking distance of this chamber there are brownfield sites. Across this

province there are an estimated 7,000 contaminated sites, with some 260 of those

sites being what we see most commonly — former sites of gas stations. These

are often properties of considerable commercial value. Nationwide it has been

estimated by the National Round Table on the Environment that there are over

30,000 abandoned or idle commercial or industrial brownfield sites.

Not only is

this property not providing a benefit to its owners, but it is also in many

cases holding up the needed development of our city centres. But these issues,

while important, are not what should drive regulatory and legislative change

when it comes to protecting public health and the environment. What brownfield

sites demonstrate is that when industry fails to protect the environment, we all

pay for the consequences.

Media

reports over the weekend suggest that the government is moving to reduce the

number of contaminated sites to just 30 by simply reclassifying these sites

based on risk assessment criteria. While all regulation is risk-based to some

degree, when it comes to toxic pollutants, there is an overriding public

interest in the establishment of what is to be considered an acceptable risk.

This bill gives power to the minister to establish regulations that denote risk

levels. We all assume he will do so based on the best scientific information

available and that he will fight to enhance the necessary work his ministry will

need to do to ensure compliance with those regulations.

Given the

huge, indeed overriding, public interest when it comes to public health and

environmental protection, it means that when it comes to this type of

legislation, the public needs to be engaged in and aware of just what the

government is considering. Consultation must engage more than just experts. We

all fully appreciate the necessity of running parallel legislative changes and

regulatory changes, but when it comes to the protection of our health and

natural environment, broad legislative strokes that do not provide an

explanation of what we will see in regulation does a disservice to the public

and to the notion of an open and transparent government process.

[1450]

Should

there be a sliding scale of what is considered truly toxic, in need of extensive

cleanup and those sites that represent a comparatively small risk to our health?

Probably. It would make sense to do so. But in doing this, we need to make sure

the public is made aware of just what risk the government is taking on their

behalf.

One of the

most extensive changes in this bill is

section 44 of the Environmental

Management Act, this

section entitled "Determinations of contaminated

sites." At present this

section encompasses six subsections that are again

divided into 12 sub-subsections that are further divided into nine sections

within those sub-subsections. The current

section 44 runs to two pages of text

in the current act. They are to be replaced by four sections that take up less

than half a page. The way this is done is to insert the phrase, "Subject to

the minister's regulations," and to make conditional those things that are

currently mandatory.

As I've

said, legislative and regulatory reform is not in and of itself a bad thing.

Where problems arise is when such reform is used as an excuse to replace the

protection of the environment and our health in a subservient position to that

reform. The minister will be aware of a Supreme Court of Canada ruling in

October of last year that reinforced the role of government in protecting the

public by ensuring contaminated sites were cleaned up and the role of government

in protecting the environment from toxic substances. The court in that judgment

was unequivocal in its support for the principle of polluter pays when it comes

to cleaning up contaminated sites.

supporting the position of the Minister of Environment for Quebec, who is being

sued by Imperial Oil, the court has this to say about Quebec's environmental

quality act:

"The

Quebec legislation reflects the growing concern on the part of legislatures and

of society about the safeguarding of the environment. That concern does not

reflect only the collective desire to protect it in the interests of the people

who live and work in it, and exploit its resources today. It may also be

evidence of an emerging sense of intergenerational solidarity and acknowledgment

of an environmental debt to humanity and to the world of tomorrow."

Indeed, it

would be a sad commentary if, in its zeal for regulatory reform, this government

would turn its back on that debt.

The

opposition, again, will have further questions when we come to committee on Bill

13 around this issue — particularly highlighting the notion of the need for

health and safety protection in the interests of the public.

Penner: I hadn't been planning to speak to this bill, but after hearing the

comments from the member opposite, the member of the opposition, I thought I

would contribute a few thoughts to this bill and why in my view it's very

important. She gets it partly right when she notes that there are many sites

around the province today that are sitting idle. One of the significant impacts

of that is a loss of revenue to local governments. When those properties are not

deemed to be of high commercial value, their tax value to those communities is

decreased.

A bigger

problem, though — and, Mr. Speaker, you'll be aware of this, no doubt, from

your experience — is that when those sites are inactive, it also means that

people aren't working. It means we aren't getting the kind of employment

opportunities in this province that, frankly, British Columbians deserve.

I've had

more than my fair share of experience dealing with two contentious issues in the

Chilliwack-Kent constituency, which I have the honour to repre-

[ Page 9791 ]

sent. I have spent more time than I care to think over the last number of

years struggling under the previous legislative and regulatory regime enacted by

the previous government that has led to no improvement in environmental

protection and yet at the same time has cost the community of Agassiz, the

district of Kent, thousands and thousands of dollars in forgone tax revenue and

has prevented young people and others in that community from having the

employment opportunities they might otherwise have had.

[1455]

Let me

elaborate, because I know you're eager to hear the details. There are two

specific sites in the district of Kent that have caused that community more

concern and distress than anything else I can think of. One is a former Ministry

of Transportation and Highways yard where, in years gone by, sand and salt were

loaded onto highways trucks to go and maintain the roads in the wintertime. That

site's been sitting empty, I believe, since the late 1980s — sitting idle. The

concern there is, according to the old legislation, there may be rock salt on

the site.

Well,

surprise, surprise. Yeah, it was used to store rock salt for winter when the

trucks had to go out and maintain the roads. I personally have never thought of

rock salt as being all that particularly hazardous, yet it was caught up in the

full-monty regulatory regime of the previous contaminated sites system we had in

the province. It had to go the full distance, and as a result, that site has sat

idle.

We were

told things like, well, the reason we don't want this land to transfer without

getting a clean bill of health and all the remediation taking place is:

"What if, some day, someone were to actually crawl on that property? Their

skin might make contact with rock salt that is deeply embedded in the soil from

many years ago." What if, indeed? That has been the response from the

people in Agassiz. Certainly, it hasn't stopped other people from trespassing

across that land as it's been sitting empty and not contributing any significant

value to the community.

Another

example. This one is higher profile in the community, because it happens to be

on the busiest intersection in that community. In fact, if you've been to

Harrison Hot Springs in the past few years, you've likely driven past this site.

It used to be known as the old Penny Pinchers gas station. It was a Shell gas

station. On your way just by the CP Rail line was a gas station and corner

store. It went out of business in the mid-1980s or late 1980s, and it, too, has

sat idle lo these many years.

The concern

has been: what about the gas that may have escaped from the underground storage

tanks over those many years? Successive buyers or potential buyers have come

forward and said: "We're interested in this property." Then they're

warned: "Wait a minute. It doesn't have a clean bill of health. It has to

go through the contaminated sites process, and you might be forced to spend

untold dollars — not even hundreds of thousands of dollars but maybe an

unlimited amount of dollars, an unknown quantity — to remediate it before you

can undertake some kind of other commercial activity on this most prominent

commercial space in Agassiz."

So what has

happened? The site has grown weeds. It's an eyesore. The buildings are derelict.

The tanks were removed years ago. A number of tests and studies have taken

place, sometimes at the expense of the community of Agassiz. What they've shown

is that the gasoline contamination, which is subsurface, has been diminishing

over time through natural processes. So let's just step back and ask ourselves a

question.

The member

from the opposition says: "Oh, but we have to be cautious about the

environment." I agree, but let's ask ourselves this philosophical question,

because it's one I haven't yet had a good answer to. What greater harm or risk

to human health or any other species' health would have taken place if the

prospective buyer of that property had been allowed to go ahead and do what they

had intended to do years ago, which is to set up a Subway sandwich shop? Would

the presence of a Subway sandwich shop at that location have caused more risk to

human health than leaving that site derelict, with weeds and dust blowing and

bothering neighbours?

The answer

is no, yet that has been the effect of the previous regulatory regime we had in

this province with respect to contaminated sites. It freezes the status quo

without ensuring that we're actually taking action to deal with the threat we

think may be there. I don't see how that benefits anyone. Now, the good news in

terms of this site is that through natural processes over the last 15 years,

with the water table moving up and down, it's actually had the effect of

diminishing the amount of gasoline residue.

I'm told

the technical answer has to do with various microbes that are subsurface and are

being fed oxygen from the water. They have gone out and essentially eaten up the

gasoline residue, so the site has cleaned itself over time. I am pleased that

working with the predecessor to the current Minister of Water, Land and Air

Protection, we were finally able to get that site a relatively clean bill of

health so that someone would actually step up to the plate and buy it. They're

now taking steps to redevelop it.

Soon —

here's the good news — they'll be hiring young people from the community of

Agassiz to work serving customers and tourists that are travelling through that

community. We'll no longer have an eyesore at that corner. We'll have a

productive business employing young people and paying taxes. The workers working

there will be paying income taxes, and the business, if it's successful, will be

paying corporate income taxes. More importantly maybe for the community of

Agassiz, they will be paying higher property taxes. The value of that site is

going up, because it has finally been released from this cumbersome process that

has previously dealt with contaminated sites.

[1500]

Those are

two examples that have caused a considerable amount of angst in the community of

Agassiz,

[ Page 9792 ]

and I don't see how the public has benefited from the many years of delay. In

fact, provincial taxpayers have been missing out on an opportunity. The city of

Agassiz had wanted to purchase that old highways yard for redevelopment purposes

— maybe to use as a fire hall or some other emergency facility — but they

said in their contract with the previous provincial government, which I think

was entered into in about 1996: "We will not complete on this deal until it

gets a clean bill of health in terms of the contaminated sites

legislation."

The

previous government could not deliver on that, so there that site sat, and

provincial taxpayers didn't get the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the

community of Agassiz was willing to pay for that property if it had had a clean

bill of health. Again, the concern there was about the potential for rock salt.

How that would interfere in the operation of a fire hall is not clear to me nor

to anybody else that lives in the district of Chilliwack-Kent.

However,

I'm proud to endorse this legislation. I think it's a much-needed and

long-awaited step forward. If it can help move things forward with other sites

around the province in a way that, unfortunately, Agassiz did not get the

benefit of because we had to deal with the previous legislation from the

previous government, then I will certainly salute it. I say good on those other

communities that won't have to struggle the way the community of Agassiz did.

Suffredine: I also was concerned to hear comments from the opposition about

slowing down and not making changes. I have been part of a committee that's been

looking at this sort of change. Essentially, what was wrong with the way the

legislation was and has been for years is that it encouraged sites to be left

alone. Now, the former speaker said: "Well, what would be worse than if you

put a Subway shop on that location?" I say let's go even further than that.

Let's look at things like the CPR to Nelson that's now stood idle for about 25

years. What could be worse for the environment than letting a site which has

contaminants on it be encouraged to be used for nothing? If it's contaminated

and if it's a problem for the environment, it's only going to sit there and make

it worse. That site is a great example of the fact that the city of Nelson has

been held back for a quarter of a century from commercial development, from

putting things on that site that would not harm the health of any person and

that would not increase any risk to the environment over what exists there

today.

There is

another site that comes to mind immediately in Kaslo, where formerly there was a

motel. People had stayed in the motel for the last 30, 40 or 50 years. The owner

is trying to redevelop that site to put condominiums — brand-new

tourist-attractive condominiums — on a site in Kaslo on the water — great

tourism resort activity. What's the block? Once upon a time, back around 1900,

it was a mine site where they shipped ore and loaded it onto boats. There is a

little bit of a trace of the metals that were there back in the 1900s, which

exists all along the beach. Because there is a trace of metals there that aren't

natural, it's deemed to be a contaminated site under the old regulations.

There's nothing being done about it. It's not helping the environment any by

holding back this development. The change in development or the redevelopment to

condominiums won't change the use that has been there for 50 years. It won't

make it any more hazardous to anyone's health, and it won't make it any more

hazardous to the environment.

The new

changes bring about a change in philosophy, a two-step test: is it hazardous to

someone's health to do this, or will it create a hazard to the environment?

Those are both sound, logical things to do that respect the kinds of needs that

we have to respect if we're going to make changes. I say good on the minister

for bringing forward changes that are logical, which don't prohibit development

simply on the basis that the contamination isn't the level that nature put there

in its natural course — as long as those changes are things that don't cause a

hazard to people using the site or to nature surrounding it.

Motion

approved.

Hon. B.

Barisoff: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13,

Environmental Management Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to

a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Hon. M.

Coell: I call Committee of Supply for the estimates debate for the Ministry

of Children and Family Development.

[1505]

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:06 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 16:

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

J. Kwan:

Following up on estimates debate from last week, it is interesting to

note…. I must first put this information on the record. I was canvassing with

the minister a number of questions about the '02-03 budget and particularly what

she refers to as the strategic investment fund, which contains millions of

dollars — I think as high as $100 million. The minister refused to

[ Page 9793 ]

answer any of my questions when I put questions related to this matter to

her. She specifically stated that she would provide the opposition a briefing on

this amount of money.

Actually,

let me backtrack just for a moment here. The minister actually calls this money

"strategic investments," and the former minister actually referred to

them as transitional funding. In fact, from the government's own release at one

point, it refers to these transitional fundings as high as $100 million. When I

put these questions to the minister to see what happened to these moneys,

instead of getting answers, the minister offered a briefing, as I said. The

opposition leader and I had requested that the meeting be set up for Friday or,

alternatively, for Monday. The minister's office had informed the opposition

caucus that the deputy minister would not be available on Friday, as she had a

meeting set up already. However, she would be available for Monday.

This

morning the Government House Leader's assistant told our office that the

Minister of Children and Family Development had decided that she would only give

the opposition a briefing on what happened to close to $100 million of these

so-called strategic investment dollars if the opposition agreed to collapse the

estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development by 9

o'clock tonight. Now, Mr. Chair, wouldn't that just be convenient for the

minister? She wouldn't answer questions in these estimates. She pretended to

offer a briefing for the opposition, and then she only threatened, quite

frankly, that the briefing would be offered if the opposition promised to finish

up questions by the end of tonight.

[1510]

What is the

minister so worried about? What is she so nervous about? What is she trying to

hide from the public? Why wouldn't she answer questions in this public forum?

Furthermore, why would she put forward a threat that says: "We would only

provide information to the opposition" — that is legitimately for the

opposition to seek answers to — "if the opposition agrees to collapse

estimates debate"? We obviously refuse that kind of blackmail, that kind of

threat. It is outrageous. It is outrageous for the minister to make such a

suggestion.

We called

the minister's office. When we called to go through the promise of the briefing

with her, we were told, first of all, that there was no staff to provide it,

even though we did our own checking and found that the staff was indeed

available. We actually have e-mails to that effect. In fact, we have an e-mail

confirming the briefing for this morning at 10:30, which was only pulled later

on because the minister wanted us to promise we would collapse estimates debate

— end the process of putting questions to her. It is clear that it is the

minister who is playing politics with the ministry staff's

schedule as well as

that of the opposition.

We know the

minister is unhappy about having to answer questions for this troubled,

scandal-ridden ministry, but seeing as how the minister has not yet answered

questions on special needs kids, on youth and autism and early childhood

development, on the massive cuts to the child and family development side of her

ministry, it was clearly impossible for us to wind up today.

That only

deals with one segment of the ministry. Of course, there are still Community

LINK programs to cover, as well as the cuts for the Vancouver school board in

terms of funding for the school board to provide hot meal programs, counselling

programs and the like for needy children and families.

Since the

minister is refusing the opposition the briefing that she promised, which her

staff had actually all set up on Friday, we will now put on record some of the

questions we wanted to follow up in the briefing with the deputy minister. Maybe

the minister will answer them, although I doubt it. Nonetheless, I think these

questions deserve to be on the record. Just like the Doug Walls questions, they

deserve to be on the record, and the minister should be answering these

questions.

No. 1, what

is the reason for the large discrepancies between the estimates that were made

at the start in the year 2002, which were restated in restated estimates made at

the start of 2003, and the actual figures? In estimates debate on March 23,

2004, the minister gave the numbers for the years '02-03 in terms of the

discrepancy. When you add it all up, this includes a $99.4 million discrepancy

made between February 3 and March 31 of 2003.

A February

18, 2003, budget fact sheet claims that the 2003 budget contains "more than

$100 million in transitional expenditures, most of which will create savings in

subsequent years," which is close to $100 million, as I stated. What was

this $100 million spent on? What programs? What initiatives? We could only find

three news releases relating to this $100 million.

The current

minister talks about $60 million for 27 "strategic initiatives." The

former minister talked about $25 million for transitional funding, and we know,

from a November 2002 community living comanagement committee document, that a

working group run by Doug Walls recommended a restructuring fund of $45 million

to $50 million. The government's own fact sheet talks about $100 million.

Naturally

the opposition would want to find out how these many different numbers jibe.

What is the correct figure? How much money was allocated in the strategic

investments, and to whom? What oversight was there on how this money was

allocated, and by whom? Did Doug Walls hand this money out? Or who handed this

money out? What was it spent on?

From which

area did the money come? There is nothing in the voted appropriations

descriptions for the budget estimates about strategic investments. When was the

decision made to make strategic investments for this government?

[1515]

understand that the auditor general told the ministry they could not carry over

the whole whack of money into next year's budget. Instead, the govern-

[ Page 9794 ]

ment found a way to park the money in smaller parcels — $20 million, we

know, for the Victoria Foundation, $20 million for the Vancouver Foundation and

$10 million for United Way. But the people in the community have no idea what

that money is being used for, and we wanted to ask that question at the

briefing. Does the minister have any say as to how the money is to be spent? Why

have there been no public announcements? Why was there no public call for

proposal? Normally, that is the process.

When the

government has grants to give money away to the community for work to be done by

the community, there is a public call for proposal. There were no public

announcements around this. There were very few public announcements indeed, and

they came much later, after the money was handed out, only to cover a few

million dollars in total.

Did this

allocation go through to Treasury Board? Did Treasury Board approve the

allocation of these grants? What procedures did the minister follow? What

process did the allocation go through? We have a copy of an internal MCFD e-mail

that indicates that time-limited funds from the '03-04 budget year were set up

in a separate vote from the ministry by Treasury Board. We wanted to ask why,

and how these might connect to parked funds from the '02-03 fiscal year. The

e-mail also says that the funds expire by the end of the '03-04 fiscal year but

that as long as the paperwork is in place, work can be done into this fiscal. We

wanted to ask at that briefing what kinds of programs these moneys might be

funding and how they were being tendered.

These are

just some of the questions that we wanted to put to the minister. The minister

refused to answer the questions. She refused the briefing now. The briefing

would only be offered to the opposition if it is contingent on the opposition to

wrap up estimates debate.

You know

what? The opposition will not be threatened by the minister in this way, Mr.

Chair. There is no way we will actually agree to wrap up debate at the

minister's convenience. These are important questions to be asked and answers to

be had for a government to be held accountable, and the minister should be

answering these questions.

Hon. C.

Clark: There is a reason that I haven't answered any questions about

children with special needs and those kinds of things. It is because the member

hasn't actually put any questions on the floor. She has asked a number of the

same questions again and again and again; rephrased it repeatedly; asked very,

very long questions, which really are just statements of her own opinion as

opposed to questions. That has meant, I think, that if she hasn't got some of

the answers to some of the questions that she'd like, she may want to consider

actually asking some of the questions about the areas she is interested in, and

we could quite happily get onto those things.

I'm always

delighted to go on with estimates. I enjoy the estimates process. I enjoyed it

when I was opposition, and I enjoy it even more now that I'm in government. I'm

happy to carry on with our debate and with our discussion. I am, though, looking

forward to some meaningful questions from the member. She has had some, but I

must say many of the questions have been repetitive. If she has topics she would

like to carry on with, I would be happy to canvass some of those topics with

her.

I can give

her some information about…. This is not typically an appropriate venue to be

discussing these kinds of issues. We are debating the 2004-05 budget estimates.

I know the member wants to talk about the budget debate in 2002-03, and I think

the reason she suggested she wasn't able to debate that at the time was because

she was having a baby. I guess that's understandable. Of course, there was

another year in between, when she could have raised questions as well, and she

didn't then either. It's not really appropriate to be talking about them here,

but I can give her a high-level answer.

[1520]

Victoria

Foundation, $39 million — that is, the institutional legacy trust fund, $2

million; aboriginal strategic investments trust funds, $9 million; adoption and

permanency trust fund, $3 million; youth education assistance fund, $3 million;

Vancouver coastal child, family and community development fund, $2 million;

community living restructuring fund, $20 million; Queen Alexandra Foundation for

Children, $5 million; aboriginal strategic investment fund, $1 million;

Vancouver Island regional child family community services trust fund, $2

million; West Shore accommodation partnership, $2 million; McCreary Youth

Foundation, Overland Foundation, $2 million; HRFA facility upgrade agreement, $1

million; supports for sexually exploited children and youth, $1 million; BCHMC

mortgage payout, $6.9 million; UBC child and youth mental health plan, $9

million; Young Women's Christian Association, $600,000; United Way of the lower

mainland, ECD Partnership Success by 6, $10 million; Canuck Place, $200,000;

school districts for school-based restructuring, $6.3 million; UNBC–northern

regional CFD strategic investment fund, $2 million; University College of the

Fraser Valley–Fraser regional CFD strategic investment fund, $2 million; IA–CLBC

transfer of assets, $5 million; Vancouver coastal regional strategic investment

projects, which are various organizations in the lower mainland, $1.5 million;

ECD Building Blocks, $1.3 million; aboriginal organizations, $0.8 million;

aboriginal planning tables, $2.5 million; CLS service provider capital and other

restructure grants, $4.9 million; aboriginal research chairs at B.C.

universities, $2.2 million; interior region CFD strategic investment fund, $2

million.

Of course,

if we were able to do this in the context of the briefing, I could certainly

give the member more detailed information about these things.

J. Kwan:

It is interesting that the minister says she is happy to engage in estimates

debate. Maybe that's why the minister cancelled a briefing that was set up with

her staff and confirmed by her staff on Friday,

[ Page 9795 ]

only to turn around and have the member from Chilliwack — who carries the

Minister of Finance's bags — come in and say to our staff that the minister

would only proceed with the briefings if we agreed to wrap up estimates by 9

o'clock. I would say there is a complete disconnect with what the minister is

now saying versus her actions. It simply is not true. The reality is that they

agreed to provide a briefing, and then they turned around to cancel it, only to

say: "If you don't do what I want you to do, we are not going to provide

you with the information."

All right.

The minister just provided a list of community groups that got grants from the

ministry out of these so-called strategic investments. The minister says these

groups got these moneys. Let me ask the minister this question: what process did

the ministry follow in providing these grants to the community? Was there a

public-proposal call into the community so that people could apply for the

funds, or were these organizations handpicked by the ministry somehow to receive

the funds?

Hon. C.

Clark: The foundations are doing requests for proposals.

J. Kwan:

The foundations were put through a request for proposal, the minister said.

There were more than foundations that received the dollars, so when was the

request for proposal put out? What is the language of the request for proposal?

Who applied under this request for proposal?

Hon. C.

Clark: We set up the funds with specific criteria, and each of those

organizations has a management structure which sets in place certain criteria

for granting that money. It's important to note that that's hands-off from

government, so it's not something that our government directs or manages

directly.

J. Kwan:

The minister says there were requests for proposals. What was the language of

the request for proposals? Let me just ask that one question first.

Hon. C.

Clark: The specific agencies do their own requests for proposals, so they

would have different language depending on the different agency.

J. Kwan:

Maybe the minister can outline each step of the process. She did, in fact, say

that she went out for requests for proposals and that the language for the

request for proposals was different for each agency. That's rather news to me.

Requests for proposals from government normally are put out with a global

request for proposals. People then apply to them or to an agency of government.

Interjection.

[1525]

J. Kwan:

The minister says it's not a government or an agency of government. It doesn't

matter. A process is followed, then evaluation is done on these applications,

and then determinations are made on who gets these moneys. Maybe the minister

can outline step by step the process that she followed with respect to these

grants that were given to the community. She said it applied to foundations.

What about the dollars that were granted to other organizations? What process

did the minister follow if it's not the same process as under the foundations'

procedures?

Hon. C.

Clark: The member is, I think, very confused about which budget year we're

in. It is the 2004-05 budget year. When she puts a question about what criteria

did I follow in 2002 for the budget, I'm afraid, first, that's not in order for

the House to be able to answer that question. Second, I was not the minister

then, so it is not really a question that I think any due research would

support.

It is

important to note that the foundations did RFPs. It's important for the member

to know, too, that the foundations aren't government and they're not government

agencies. The Victoria Foundation isn't a government agency. It is an

independent agency of government that makes decisions based on the needs of

their community, so it is a fundamental disconnect for the member to suggest

that things like the Victoria Foundation are government agencies. They aren't.

They are independent of government. That's why these strategic investment funds

were treated the way that they were.

The

foundations do their own RFPs. It is my understanding — although we don't have

all of this information available in the House because we didn't come prepared

to debate the estimates from three years ago — that the money that went out to

community agencies was given out based on a criteria, which I'm sure would have

been debated in the budget estimates over the last couple of years.

J. Kwan:

The minister keeps claiming that this has nothing to do with the '04-05 budget.

It is simply untrue. The minister knows very well that it has everything to do

with the '04-05 budget. These agencies granted dollars, provide for a service

that is still being provided in the community. The ministry is still expecting

the reporting out of how these dollars were spent and how it actually benefited

the community. It is still being evaluated by government.

All that

evaluation is done by the minister's staff right now. That is funded out of the

'04-05 budget. The fact is that not all of the dollars have been spent, I

believe, because some of them are actually going out in instalments and so on,

and it is contingent on reporting out and so on. So it is absolutely current for

this minister under the '04-05 year. For the minister to claim: "Oh well,

gee, I wasn't the minister then. It was somebody else who was

responsible…."

It is this

government who is responsible. This now minister took over the responsibility of

that ministry so she is therefore responsible for the actions of previous

ministers, as well, in terms of what happened to the

[ Page 9796 ]

ministry's dollars and the spending. That is accountability. I know that is a

new thing for this minister, but you know what? She has to live up to it in

order to be paid and to be recognized as the minister and, I might add, as the

Deputy Premier as well. She should have responsibility and should be overseeing

what is going on in her own ministry.

The

minister says that I don't understand the process. Let us be clear. At least two

foundations got $20 million each — the Vancouver Foundation and the Victoria

Foundation. She says they don't give out RFPs, that it is up to them to decide.

It's not the government's responsibility. Did the Victoria Foundation and

Vancouver Foundation apply to the government through an RFP process to access

the $20 million to begin with? Let me stop there and ask the minister that

question.

Hon. C.

Clark: The member is sort of blowing hot and blowing cold at the same time.

She, on one hand, complains that we're cutting services, and now she is

complaining that we're adding money into the community to support services. I

should point out to her that supporting services in the community is a

centrepiece of our three-year service plan to transform service.

We want to

make sure we are delivering services that meet local needs. That means that some

of the decisions about where the money can be spent should be made locally. We

believe these kinds of strategic shifts will strengthen families and provide

more choice of flexibility to adults with developmental disabilities.

[1530]

The trust

funds are helping us build that capacity in communities and are assisting us in

transforming our service to communities. It is a long-term investment in the

future of children and families in British Columbia. I think it takes foresight,

in spite of what are significant financial pressures in the short term, to make

those funding decisions, which means that in the long term we take care of our

strategic interests and our strategic investment in human resources in British

Columbia and find ways to try and support families. That's what this money is

for. It's to go into communities, based on decisions that are made locally,

reflecting the needs of local communities there.

J. Kwan:

Let's be clear, Mr. Chair. The minister's trying to hide behind words that she

is creating to hide the reality of what's going on in this ministry. The

ministry over three years cut out $175 million. That's the government's decision

to cut $175 million out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

That's what the government's done in terms of cuts in programs. Then in each of

the successive years in the spending of the budgeted amount, the government

underspent the dollars that had already been cut from its budget to the tune of

over $127 million by the minister's own admission previously. In the year

'02-03, $127 million was underspent.

Then the

minister says, "Oh. Well then, we redirected those so-called savings into

the ministry under this thing which was formerly called transitional funds and

what is now called strategic investments" — as though the minister and

the government planned these strategic investments all along, when in fact it

isn't true. They ran into a situation where they couldn't spend the money. We

actually have internal e-mails that tell us this information — that the '02-03

budget had an increase in it for transition expenses, which actually increased

the funding for that fiscal year for community living. But community living B.C.

was not ready to go into operation, so the transition funds show up as a surplus

on the MCFD books. Then miraculously, for some reason, on or about the last day

of the fiscal year all this money apparently went out to these community groups

with no public announcements other than the money that went into United Way.

MCFD staff and senior bureaucrats say they have no say in how the money is

allocated. How did they decide who got the money and who to give the money to?

The

minister still has not answered the question. I believe that there was no

request for proposal. The minister claims that it is up to the foundations how

they handle the money, but how did the foundations get the money to begin with?

That is the question.

The other

question I want to canvass with the minister is this: what guidelines did the

ministry follow for the reallocation of funds? What Treasury Board guidelines

did the ministry follow?

Hon. C.

Clark: I can give the member an overview of how this is structured. The

province issues grants to the foundations, which — again, it is important to

note — are independent of government. They're not government agencies and not

government itself. There were conditions on those grants including reporting

requirements and the fact that evaluation was required. The foundations were

chosen based on their capacity and their mandate. The foundations then struck

evaluation committees. They issued RFPs and made granting decisions. The

recipients also report to the foundation, and then the foundation reports to

MCFD.

J. Kwan:

The minister didn't answer my question. Was there Treasury Board approval? What

Treasury Board guidelines did the ministry follow with the spending and

reallocation of these funds of over $100 million?

Hon. C.

Clark: All of our granting decisions and all of our grants follow government

guidelines. That's always been the case.

J. Kwan:

The minister says they follow guidelines. Is the minister saying that she

actually went before Treasury Board and got Treasury Board approval for the

reallocation of these unspent dollars?

Hon. C.

Clark: There is granting policy. We fund following that granting policy. No,

I never did appear before Treasury Board in 2002-03.

[ Page 9797 ]

J. Kwan:

Technicalities. The minister says: "Oh no, I didn't appear before Treasury

Board in 2003 and 2002." Did the ministry go to Treasury Board, and did the

ministry get approval from Treasury Board to reallocate the funds?

[1535]

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said, we follow granting policy in this ministry with this and

with all other cases, as I'm aware. I can't speak to financial decisions, in

that level of detail, that happened over two or three years ago. The appropriate

place for that debate…. This member has had two years in which to discuss the

estimates for two years ago. We're now on the 2004-05 budget estimates. If the

member has questions about this budget year that pertain to this budget year,

I'd be delighted to answer those for her.

J. Kwan:

Were grants of this magnitude contemplated in the original budget? Was it part

of the original budget? Was that the plan all along — the transitional

expenditure funds that were supposed to spend the money? According to e-mails I

have, it's indicated that the transitional funds weren't ready to be spent by

community living B.C.; therefore they had to find some way to spend these

moneys. Was it part of the original budget plan?

Hon. C.

Clark: As I said a number of times previously, we can endeavour to get that

information for the member from the budget year of two and a half or three years

ago.

J. Kwan:

With the exception of this, Mr. Chair, and I established earlier on today in the

debate that the minister…. While she continues to pretend she is offering

briefings, that is subject to a condition that the opposition wrap up estimates

debate by 9 o'clock today. That's what the minister said this morning. We

actually had a briefing set up at 10:30 this morning with ministry staff. The

ministry staff said they weren't available. We have it on e-mail that the deputy

minister and her staff weren't available on Friday, but they were available on

Monday. This morning at 9:45 our staff got a call from the member from

Chilliwack, who plays the MA role to the Minister of Finance in setting House

business. He phones our staff and says that the scheduled briefing…

The

Chair: Member, member.

J. Kwan:

…would only go ahead if the opposition agrees…

The

Chair: Member, please take your seat.

J. Kwan:

…to wrap up by 9 o'clock today.

The

Chair: Member, please take your seat. I just want to caution you. You are

becoming repetitious here. You've just discussed this a matter of a few minutes

ago, and now you're saying the same thing. I want to make sure that we keep the

debate moving along and try to prevent being repetitious.

J. Kwan:

It's the minister who brought it up again — to say that she'd be happy to

provide this information to the opposition. Well, I have to get up and set the

record straight with the minister's words. It is simply not true. She cancelled.

She instructed staff to cancel a briefing that was set up this morning to get

this information, because the opposition refused to stand down estimates by 9

o'clock today. I'm responding directly to a comment that was just made by the

minister, Mr. Chair. What she said is completely false — to pretend she will

provide information to the opposition when in fact she doesn't. Information is

only provided and briefings can only be set up if we do what the minister wants

us to do. Well, we won't do that, and we'll continue to ask questions, as it is

the right of every member in this House to ask the minister questions and for

the minister to be held accountable.

Having said

that, the minister still hasn't answered the question. She still has not

answered the question with respect to Treasury Board procedures, with respect to

how these dollars were spent and whether or not the magnitude of these

grants…. We're talking about over $100 million. The magnitude of these grants

that were contemplated — was it part of the original budget? Keep in mind we

were going through a steep process of budget cuts impacting the community in the

most severe way.

Hon. C.

Clark: I think it is fair to say that I do enjoy the estimates process. I

think it may even be fair to say it is a matter of some amusement for my

colleagues that I enjoy it as much as I do. I'm quite happy to carry on with the

estimates debate. I hope the member's not too concerned that we might end before

she gets to ask some questions. I'm looking forward to her putting those

questions on the record.

In respect

to the question she just asked, I have already answered that.

J. Kwan:

Well, no, she didn't, actually. If you go back to review Hansard …. I

just happen to have a copy of Hansard here. I reviewed that this morning

to see what the minister said, actually, last week. You know what? Almost all

the questions that I put to the minister, she didn't answer. She also just

didn't answer this question around the original budget. You know what? I would

expect that the minister will continue to stonewall. She's trying to hide

something. That is obvious.

[1540]

I think

there is, to say in a very courteous way, a lack of accountability within the

ministry in terms of how these moneys were spent. I think it's fair enough to

say that the government's plan for this regionalization was a complete disaster

insofar as the government mismanaged the entire process. Funds they had cut from

the community, which provided for critical ser-

[ Page 9798 ]

vices, that they said they needed to do something else with were taken away

from community. They had reallocated these dollars. The accountability on the

reallocation of these dollars…. Now the minister won't come clean to tell the

public what happened to these moneys, what criteria were used to make those

determinations or what kind of processes were followed through. The minister

won't even offer the information with respect to the process on how the dollars

were given out.

The

foundation dollars that she claims are independent of government…. Well,

somehow the foundation got those dollars. What made the government decide that

the foundation should have $40 million worth of critical dollars in terms of

services for the community? What process was in place to make that determination

when the government is cutting and closing residential beds, as an example, for

those with developmental disabilities in the community. Mr. Chair, $175 million

was being cut in this process, and the government cannot account for why and how

they came about with underspending $100 million worth and how somehow that went

out to community groups in grants.

I just want

to cover this off as well, because it is new information that has surfaced since

the budget process. Actually, it does have to deal with the volunteer cuts —

the volunteer cuts that the minister claims that the community groups actually

offered up. I established last week that in fact community groups did not offer

up these moneys. One group sent an e-mail to the opposition advising us that

board members of the Developmental Disabilities Association received phone calls

and were threatened by the former deputy that if they didn't come through with

these cuts, they would lose their contracts.

Since that

time, here is more information that has come forward with respect to these

threats and the process that the ministry went through in taking moneys away

from community groups. This actually came from the B.C. Association for

Community Living, which is a very large organization representing many, many

people. Here's what they had to say with respect to these so-called volunteer

cuts:

"As

you're aware, there are increasing concerns about the community living

services budget in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Over the

past several months executive directors have been meeting to collectively

brainstorm and problem-solve the budget issues. We very much appreciate the

efforts of so many of our organizations to come to meetings to address the

fiscal issues you are facing as staff and volunteer leaders of local

associations."

Then it

goes on to talk about how the groups came together. Here's what they had to say

about the situation they were faced with:

"It

was abundantly clear to all of us present that the '04-05 budget targets would

be met. On December 15 the Ministry of Children and Family Development staff

and leadership will meet with Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, and

they must have an ironclad strategy in place that will assure Treasury Board

that the budget will be met. If the staff of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development do not have a plan that meets with Treasury Board's

approval, the ministry staff will take over management of the Ministry of

Children and Family Development budget." I say that's a threat.

"We

have been briefed on the 'mitigating strategies' — cutbacks — at Treasury

Board and the Ministry of Children and Family Development will implement

should they not have another alternative. The only way to describe them is

draconian. The strategies include re-tendering of contracts, terminating

contracts, benchmarking, aggressively pursuing cuts to supports for high-cost

individuals and one-to-one day programs, closing two-person homes,

across-the-board cuts and collective bargaining.

[1545]

"You

can well imagine the damage such measures could do to individuals and families

if driven by Treasury Board. In addition, the communities' enormous efforts to

realize a greater vision for community living through the creation of

Community Living B.C. will be entirely at risk if the budget targets for

2004-05 are not met."

The

document goes on to say:

"This

weekend the BCACL board met and reviewed the strategy group's proposal. We

reflected on its implications and the current climate in the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, the government and beyond. It is, to say the

least, a profoundly disturbing time. It is a time in which the risks to

individuals and families, both served and unserved, are at an all-time high.

However, after much deliberation, the BCACL board endorsed the approach

captured in the proposal, with both a deep sense of regret and yet a hopeful

eye to the future."

They came

to the realization, it goes on to say, first, that the harsh reality is that the

budget targets of this government are immovable and, second, that they have to

do the best they can under these kinds of circumstances. This is a document

written by John Kehler, president of the B.C. Association for Community Living,

about these so-called voluntary cuts.

Throughout

all the budget years of '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05, community groups weren't

volunteering their cuts. They had no choice but to make the cuts. The B.C.

Association for Community Living has actually sent out a document in that regard

indicating that, and they're saying that these so-called voluntary cuts that the

ministry is forcing them to come through with are draconian at best. Let's be

clear: those are not the only people who are concerned about this situation.

There are many others who have raised their concerns.

Here are

some other documents from, in fact, the government's own interim authority and

what they have to say about these cuts. Of course, if you look at the

summary

chart on the government's own budget books, it shows that the budget target for

community living in terms of cuts for '03-04 and '04-05 is $49.6 million, of

which they estimate that only $9.9 million had been achieved when they

negotiated this deal in December 2003. That meant they had to cut a further $40

million — yet to be made as of January 2004. They were forced to make these

cuts remaining by '04-05 — $40 million on the threat by the Treasury Board —

and if they didn't, the alternative would be severe.

[ Page 9799 ]

Here, the

government's own interim authority on the intolerable situation that this

government placed agencies in when it forced them to agree to these so-called

voluntary cuts:

"Community

Living faces a significant dilemma in responding to the government's budget

targets. No one believes reduced budgets make any sense in an environment

already characterized by wait-lists for those requesting support. Everyone can

agree that reduced government support for people with developmental

disabilities and their families is wrong. …The widely held belief is that

the budget reductions will be imposed regardless of the community opposition.

"Rather

than have budget reductions imposed, a decision was made to work with the

ministry to accomplish the final budget reductions in a way that most

protected individuals and their families. …The alternative to the proposal

was clear. The ministry would be forced to employ what was called 'mitigating

strategies' to meet the budget objectives.

"It

was made clear by the ministry these strategies included a range of options,

all undesirable, including the re-tendering of service contracts, which would

have inevitably led to forced moves, reductions in areas of service that would

have reduced or eliminated support for people and forced reductions that would

have led to a surrender of contracts and disruptions or changes to services

for people. None of these strategies are the kind of things that people in

community living want to contemplate."

This is

from the government's own interim authority about these so-called volunteer

cuts, a government document that highlights the risks about the cuts.

"The

initiatives" — which they call initiatives — "will involve

changes to services that (

a) will involve staff reductions not associated with

previous service transformation; (

b) will reduce the level of service some

people receive; (

c) will result in people who are being served with additional

capacity, some of which was created in the voluntary initiative earlier this

year, having their services terminated; and (

d) will significantly impact

non-residential programs that traditionally provide limited support to

families that assist them in coping. This change may result in health and

safety concerns being raised by families."

[1550]

It also

included cuts to all service providers under different sections of this document

related to the delivery of services from the ministry.

These are

just some of the responses that I have received about the minister's comments

about voluntary cuts. They're anything but voluntary. Would the minister finally

admit to that?

Hon. C.

Clark: I think the member is talking about some of the mitigation strategies

that we did not pursue, first of all. We sat down with the sector in December,

and we had discussions about how we would meet our budget targets. They came

back to us and said: "Look, we think we can come up with a better plan than

you can." They did come back with a better plan, and we're implementing

that plan. This year more than half of the budget savings are coming out of

compensation, so that's not service cuts.

Much of it

is also coming out of reduced demand because there are fewer children coming

into care. There are fewer children coming into contact with the criminal

justice system, so that means lower costs. That's where most of the savings are

coming from in this coming year, $70 million, 4 percent — very difficult

decisions nonetheless, though, that we're having to make and that the sector is

making.

The BCACL,

under the leadership of John Kehler and Laney Bryenton, has shown just an

absolutely exceptional commitment to making sure that services to people are not

impacted. They were amongst the first people I met with and spoke to when I got

this job. They are exceptionally constructive, exceptionally focused and very,

very strong advocates of the people they represent.

There is, I

think, no getting around the fact that some of the decisions and the discussions

we had were certainly very, very difficult. In the end, we were able to work

constructively and cooperatively together to come up with solutions to meet the

needs and the requirements we had both as a government and as a sector that

serves people with special needs, children with special needs and adults with

developmental disabilities.

J. Kwan:

The minister is trying to confuse the matter. She claimed in estimates

debate last week that $15 million came out of community organizations

voluntarily. The communities have now heard the minister's comments, and they're

writing to the opposition saying: "No, it ain't so. We didn't volunteer

those funds. We actually had to come up with them. Otherwise, we were threatened

by the ministry."

Even the

highly praised individual, the president of the B.C. Association for Community

Living, John Kehler, wrote this document saying the government actually

threatened them, quite frankly, that if they didn't come up with these cuts, the

ministry was going to do it on their own and "The only way to describe them

is draconian" — the approach with which this government is approaching

these cuts and in fact the cuts that have impacted the community. Don't try to

mix up the issues by saying they were savings from elsewhere. I'll get to that

at a later time. That is not true.

The

ministry said there were savings of $15 million — voluntary savings — from

these agencies who handed over these moneys to the government. Not so. Not

voluntary. They were acting under duress. I would say, to say it kindly, that in

fact the government threatened them. Board members were threatened that if they

didn't come through with these cuts, they would actually lose all of their

budgets.

In this

situation, we have other people commenting about the ministry's budget cuts.

It's a letter actually written to the minister on February 13, 2004:

"I'm

writing to express my concern about the upheaval in the Ministry of Children

and Family Development and the budget cuts that have been advertised. This

community serves the most vulnerable among us and

[ Page 9800 ]

cannot afford to absorb further cuts. In fact, the budget should be

restored to at least year 2000 levels.

"I'm

attending meetings of the Coalition for Community Living and have heard a

number of first-person stories from family members and self-advocates, which

speak to people being put at risk as a result of cuts that have already been

enacted. Further cuts will make the situation downright dangerous. It does the

government no credit to put itself in a situation where it is an incident away

from a public outcry over the death of or serious injury to someone with a

disability or to their caregivers.

[1555]

"This

is a public perception that your government is driven by blind ideology; i.e.,

the need to balance the budget for ideological reasons has taken precedence over

the functions that government must — I repeat, must — perform, and that it

is mean-spirited.

know that you as an individual are neither of these things, but if you

remain silent in the face of demands from Treasury Board for further sacrifices

from those unable to bear them, you will be complicit and guilty by association.

I think you should do your utmost to restore the public's faith in government as

an instrument of the public good, not of ideology.

"Linked

to this is the devolution of authority to the yet-to-be-formalized

Community Living B.C. Devolving authority to this new body in a climate of

budget cuts and uncertainty will doom it to failure. There is too much upheaval

in the ministry right now, both in budgetary terms and in terms of the shadow of

the Doug Walls scandal surrounding it. Devolution should be delayed until the

budget has been stabilized and increased and all outstanding issues surrounding

governance of the new authority have been resolved.

"This

is an issue that people are passionate about. If a society must be judged

by how it treats its most vulnerable members — and it must — it is not only

those directly affected by a disability who will judge your government harshly

if you abandon this community for the cryptic victory of a balanced

budget."

It's

signed by Joe Greenholtz, who is an executive director of the UBC Ritsumeikan

academic exchange program.

This is

what the public is now saying about this ministry and their cuts. So come clean.

These cuts were never voluntary. They were forced. The ministry basically said

to people: "If you don't make these cuts, we will do it for you, and we'll

take away your contracts." In light of that situation, in light of these

budget cuts, the government finds they have underspent in their budget and that

they have over $100 million that they could give out in grants. The minister

says there was proper process and the government followed proper process in

giving out these grants. I want to ask the minister this question: how did the

government determine the successful implementation of the objectives tied to

each of the grants?

Hon. C.

Clark: The $15 million the member has talked about is a figure that's

annualized into this budget year, but that process started over two years ago

— or about two years ago, I understand. Some of the changes have been in place

for a year for some of those services.

I think the

thing that really doesn't serve the community very well, because I…. Some of

the authors of the letters…. By the way, the member should be careful. She

mistakenly sometimes reads nice things about me into the record. I'm sure she'll

regret that.

It's

important to remember that the community is a vulnerable community. I do think

it's really unfair for the member to try and stand up, as she often does through

the estimates process but also in question period and outside the House, to

really pursue her own political goals. To talk, for example, about $70 million

worth of cuts to services this year is just simply not true. She knows that's

not true.

She knows

that $35 million of that, at least, is going to be coming out of wages, not out

of service. And she knows that's not coming out by reducing the number of

positions. That's because the collective bargaining process has been pursued

through the employer and the employees, and they have come to an agreement. So

it's just not fair for her to stand up and to fearmonger the way she does. I

understand that it serves her political ambition, but I don't think it serves

the community very well.

I think we

all have a responsibility to try and have a rational debate around these issues

that's based, as much as possible, on the facts as they are before us. I'm happy

to try and offer her the facts as I understand them, and perhaps we could move

to some kind of a rational, really thoughtful debate about some of the issues

that are so important to the community and that need to be discussed publicly.

J. Kwan:

The minister would like to claim that it is the opposition who is

fearmongering with these cuts. Let us be clear. A couple of weeks ago the deputy

minister wrote to the aboriginal community citing that the ministry is faced

with $170 million worth of cuts over the years and that they have to deal with

this. Then there were issues related to the aboriginal community.

The figure

of $175 million didn't get dreamt up by the opposition. In fact….

Interjection.

J. Kwan:

Actually, I have the letter, and I will be getting into those issues under the

aboriginal section. We just received the letter last week from the community

source.

[1600]

The

ministry and the government have cut over $175 million in the Ministry of

Children and Family Development over the last three years, including this year.

This year, true, the minister says it's only a $70 million cut, but it is still

a $70 million cut added to what was cut previously. Let us be clear about that.

There's

nobody fearmongering here. In fact, the Interim Authority for Community Living

B.C. sent out a newsletter dated March 27, 2004. Here's what they have to say:

"Community

living faces a significant dilemma in responding to the government's budget

targets. No one be-

[ Page 9801 ]

lieves that reduced budgets make any sense in an environment already

characterized by wait-lists for those requesting support. Everyone can agree

that reduced government support for people with developmental disabilities and

their families is wrong. In fact, individuals, families and many service

providers have spent the better part of a lifetime advocating for increased

support."

the way, this minister, when she was in opposition, said there should be

increased support in the Ministry for Children and Families.

Then the

document goes on to say:

"It

was made clear by the ministry that these strategies included a range of

options" — when I say these strategies, they're referring to what they

call mitigating strategies — "all undesirable, including the re-tendering

of service contracts which would have inevitably led to forced moves, reductions

in areas of service that would have reduced or eliminated support for people and

forced reductions that would have led to a surrender of contracts and

disruptions or changes to services for people. None of these strategies are the

kind of thing that anyone in community living wants to contemplate."

The

budget reference group must be commended for intervening and establishing a plan

that makes the absolute best out of the very difficult situation. This is the

Interim Authority for Community Living, dated March 27, 2004.

It's not me

who's fearmongering, Mr. Chair. The interim authority themselves are saying that

these cuts from the ministry, forced onto them, are difficult and, in fact,

would compromise the folks who need these services.

I have

another letter here about the government forcing cuts onto people. You know,

hon. Chair, I would read another letter onto the record, but I won't. I think I

have established the point clearly about what the impacts are. The minister can

pretend this is not happening, but everywhere else the community says

differently.

The

minister actually didn't answer the question. I don't want to let her off the

hook on the question that I put to her, and that is how the government had

determined the successful implementation of the objectives tied to each of these

grants in an environment where there were severe cuts to services to the

community. Of course, if the issue, as the minister says, is so old and so

ancient, then there should be a follow-up report on how successfully the

objectives came out. Shouldn't that be the case? If the minister can't answer

the first question, then will she commit to ensuring there's a follow-up report

on the objectives being met?

Hon. C.

Clark: First of all, the year the grants were made, there were no cuts to

services in the ministry. I'll clarify that for the member. I think she's

operating under a very serious misapprehension on that.

Second, on

the other issue, the stuff she has just read into the record really just repeats

what I just told her, which is yes, there was a plan in the ministry, and yes,

we went out and talked to the budget reference group. The budget reference

group, as the member read into the record, came back with a different plan that

they thought would work better, and we accepted that plan. That's exactly what

I've just told the member, and now she's confirmed that, so I'm glad we can at

least agree on that part of it.

The plans

that the agency executive directors came back with — it's important to note as

well — also provided assurances that the plans would not have impact on

services, on their work with families. It's not fair to suggest that there were

forced moves; it's just not true. In fact, I think it's really irresponsible for

the member to talk about that, because all of the agencies are working with

families to try and make sure that any changes have a minimal impact on them. To

talk about forced moves is, I think, not just hysterical on the member's part,

but it's really irresponsible.

I'm

delighted to have a debate about the facts, and I hope that will help establish

some of the facts for the member's future debate.

J. Kwan:

The minister says that we are in agreement. Let me just be clear that we're not

in agreement here.

Hon. C.

Clark: I refuse to agree with you on anything, ever.

[1605]

J. Kwan:

The minister is sitting there trying to mock what I just said by saying: "I

refuse to agree with you on anything, ever."

Let me just

be clear about what I disagree with this minister on. She might think it's

funny. She said on record last week that these agencies volunteered $15 million

worth of cuts from their communities. In fact, since that statement that this

minister made in the House last week, community groups have forwarded e-mail

upon e-mail saying it simply is not true. Board members — who are voluntary

members of the board, parents of people with developmental disabilities — of

the Developmental Disabilities Association were advised…. We were advised that

the board members were threatened by the former deputy minister that if they

didn't come up with these so-called voluntary cuts that the minister likes to

claim are….

The

Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please. This debate, once again, is

becoming very, very repetitious. We've heard this same story now numerous times.

I'd ask you now, please, to move on to a new subject.

J. Kwan:

It is the minister who actually brought it up. It's the minister….

The

Chair: Member, it's immaterial whether the minister brought it up. The fact

is that this debate is becoming repetitious. Move on.

J. Kwan:

Well, there is no end to the minister trying to stonewall — absolutely — and

trying to twist the facts so that they fit into her message box, when everyone

in the community is saying otherwise. They're say-

[ Page 9802 ]

ing, "Not true, what the minister is suggesting about these voluntary

cuts. Not true at all," which I put on the record from these individuals.

The

minister is trying to claim that I agree with her. I don't agree with her. These

were not voluntary cuts. People were forced to make these cuts. They had no

choice in the matter. The B.C. Association for Community Living is saying that

these cuts were draconian — at best. Others say it's a threat from the

government.

I asked the

minister about the so-called successful implementation of the objectives tied to

these grants, about what evidence the minister has to make that determination.

The minister has yet to answer that question, Mr. Chair.

Hon. C.

Clark: I have answered that question a number of times.

The

Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — with a new subject, please.

J. Kwan:

The minister did not answer the question, and obviously she's not going to

answer the question. No briefings, no answers in this House — that's how the

government is conducting themselves. They think they're being open and

transparent and accountable. What a laugh, Mr. Chair. What a laugh. The people

in the community know better, and they will not take the minister's nonsensical

answers as though somehow she's dealt with these issues when it is, in fact,

untrue. They have not dealt with these issues at all.

The

minister says that everything is just fine in that ministry and that they're

operating very well, thank you very much, and that all the questions I've raised

about cuts are just fearmongering. All right. Let's just go through some of the

issues in detail.

Let's start

with the Developmental Disabilities Association. In the community living adult

services part, they said they were hit by a $1.14 million cut — $650,000 of

what the ministry calls overpayments and $500,000 of what ministry calls

voluntary. This is in spite of the fact that they have already subsidized the

adult residential services to the tune of $600,000 per year. Then they were up

for an additional cut of 4 percent out of the collective agreement's so-called

savings and then another 5 percent on April 1, 2005, for more collective

agreement savings — although we have done the rough calculations, and that's 5

percent that won't be realized through the collective agreement savings for

their organization. These are the cuts that they now know for this organization.

The ministry has not further reassured them that there won't be more cuts.

[1610]

Will the

minister reassure them that there won't be further cuts to this organization,

the Developmental Disabilities Association?

Hon. C.

Clark: We are incredibly close to reaching our '04-05 budget target, and

we've been working with the DDA as well as many, many other organizations. They

have been very, very careful and diligent in dealing with the people they serve

to ensure that there's no impact on the vulnerable people that depend on them,

just as they depend on government. We're continuing to work with them, and we

are going to continue that into the '04-05 budget year.

J. Kwan:

I want a clear answer from the minister for the Developmental Disabilities

Association. Will there be no more cuts that they would have to face from this

government for the '04-05 budget year and the '05-06 budget year?

Hon. C.

Clark: We're always going to be making sure that the services we provide

meet the demographic needs, so it's impossible to tell the member that things

are going to be zapped, that they're frozen as they are today forever, but we're

certainly very close to reaching our budget target.

J. Kwan:

Well, let me just say this. The ministry and this government have already failed

in trying to meet the demographic needs of this community. They have already

failed that. They have wasted money, and they've actually angered people. More

importantly, they have cast people aside, irrespective of their needs. This is

in spite of a minister who claimed when she was in opposition that more moneys

needed to be put into the ministry. In reality, when she's now the minister,

she's taking more moneys away from these communities and their families, so

she's already failed with that approach.

The

minister can claim that she's meeting their needs, but she is not. Right now,

Mr. Chair, she just would not confirm on record that the Developmental

Disabilities Association would be faced with more cuts, so more might be coming.

I'm sorry to say that I couldn't nail down for them the minister's commitment to

not further impact them in a negative way.

The

ministry's service plan indicates that some services for children with special

needs and their families are provided under the community living services area.

What is the total budget for the special needs children in youth services?

Hon. C.

Clark: Just in answer to another point that the member made, I'll endeavour

to get this information for her about the special needs children as we speak.

Actually, the member is quite…. I worry that she is deliberately

misrepresenting the facts, but if she doesn't know the facts, I'm happy to

provide those to her now.

We have

admitted 300 more new people to the system to service in 2003-04, so that's not

a cut. That's additional service for new people. That's at the same time that

we're achieving a stable budget. There are 50 more group homes since 2001, so

it's just not correct for the member to suggest… Those numbers are not cuts in

service; those are additional services.

J. Kwan:

I actually think the minister is trying to confuse the situation here. There's a

difference between

[ Page 9803 ]

group homes for developmental disability adults and children versus children

in care. They are completely different kettles of fish. If the minister claims

that there are increases, indeed, for these services, then let's be clear in

what area she claims that there are increases, and let's be clear in terms of in

what areas there are reductions. From the adult side, I can tell you there are

reductions according to the community, and they've come in with this

information.

Hon. C.

Clark: I was talking about adults, so the member can put to rest her

confusion about that. Special needs children funding in '04-05 is $40.3 million.

J. Kwan:

Let's just go back here for one moment. The minister claims there are increases

in residential care, in terms of residential services for adults. Let's be clear

and put that on record — what the minister claims is the reality — and for

her to put it forward. Last week we canvassed this information, and the minister

actually admitted there's a significant budget reduction in these areas. I'll

look back in Hansard to get those exact figures. She's now claiming that

there's an increase, so let's get on record what she's claiming is an increase

exactly.

[1615]

Hon. C.

Clark: Last week I was talking about the fact that there was a 15 percent

reduction in the number of children who were coming into government care, so

there was a 10 percent reduction in the number — so it's still smaller — of

beds there. I'm talking about adults. I think this is a tribute to the service

providers who are working so diligently and to the government staff who have

also worked so diligently on this, providing more services, as I talked about

— 50 more group homes and 300 new individuals admitted to the system — with

the same budget. I think that really speaks to the fact that we are providing

more services in this area with the same amount of money. I think that really

speaks to the diligence and to the hard work of the people out there.

J. Kwan:

The minister says that they're increasing group homes for adults with

developmental disabilities. Could she advise exactly where the beds are that are

increased in the community?

Hon. C.

Clark: I don't have that breakdown by community with me, but I can certainly

provide her with that. We know it is 50 provincewide. I could tell her this: it

would be to meet demographic need and changing demographics. People move. They

don't all stay in the same place all the time, so we need to make sure that the

services we're providing meet the needs of the people and where they are.

J. Kwan:

The minister says that there are increases in group homes, 50 of them across the

province. That's net compared to what base year?

Hon. C.

Clark: To 2001.

J. Kwan:

What is the wait-list now for people with these developmental disabilities?

Hon. C.

Clark: I answered that question in estimates the other day.

J. Kwan:

No, she didn't, Mr. Chair. The minister actually didn't answer those questions,

because