2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2005

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25 B )

Surrey Food Bank

B. Ralston

Science and technology in B.C.

J. Rustad

Metchosin Pavilion

M. Karagianis

Chinese Canadian veterans

R. Lee

U'Mista Cultural Centre

C. Trevena

Adoption awareness

H. Bloy

Oral Questions

Coroner's inquest into death of

Savannah Hall

C. James

Hon. S. Hagen

A. Dix

Hon. J. Les

Closing of Midway sawmill

K. Conroy

Hon. R.

Coleman

Government assistance to communities in

transition

N. Macdonald

Hon. I. Chong

B. Simpson

Potential reopening of Port Alice mill

C. Trevena

Hon. C. Hansen

Link of sale of Terasen Gas to softwood

lumber dispute

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Coleman

Role of B.C. Utilities Commission in

sale of Terasen Gas

C. Evans

Hon. R.

Neufeld

Ownership of shipping terminal on

Ridley Island

G. Coons

Hon. K. Falcon

Future of Victoria residential tenancy

office

M. Karagianis

Hon. R.

Coleman

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and

Family Development (continued)

J. Kwan

Hon. S. Hagen

M. Karagianis

Hon. L. Reid

A. Dix

D. Thorne

R. Austin

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism

Hon. W. Oppal

L. Krog

C. Evans

A. Dix

R. Chouhan

[ Page 1545 ]

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2005

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

Introductions by Members

Hon. L. Reid: I'm honoured to have in my office Heather James, and her granddaughter is visiting us today. She is part of a learning partnership which is a job-shadowing experience for grade nine students across Canada. Her name is Laura Kirk. She attends Oak Bay high school, a grade nine student, as I've mentioned. I ask the House to please make her very, very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, I apologize for not recognizing you first.

[1405]

C. James: No problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three very special constituents and three very special people in my life to be able to introduce today in the House. All of us in this House have people in our lives who have helped shape the values and the morals that we bring to our work and to our lives in this Legislature. I'm incredibly fortunate to have someone in my life who not only did that but walked the talk. I'd like to introduce my father Lorne DeGirolamo.

With my dad today is also my stepmom, who is a special person in my life and, also, a special person to the neighbourhood of Victoria–Beacon Hill and the James Bay Community Association and who just retired after 30 years as a nurse practitioner with the James Bay Community Project — that's Anne Boldt. With them today is Anne's father Peter Boldt, who is a long-time educator, was a school principal in Victoria–Beacon Hill as well as in other communities. I'd like the House to please make my guests welcome.

Tributes

GEORGE RYGA

Hon. O. Ilich: I rise today to recognize George Ryga Week, which began on Sunday, October 30 and runs through to November 7. George Ryga is one of Canada's most famous playwrights. He was also a novelist, a poet, a broadcaster and a social commentator. His best-known play, The Ecstasy of Rita Joe , was commissioned by the Vancouver Playhouse Theatre and became a theatrical landmark in Canada and around the world. Ryga was a lifelong advocate of theatre in Canada and understood its contribution to our national identity and our heritage.

George Ryga died in 1987, having spent his last 25 years living and writing in Summerland, B.C. Will the House please join with me in acknowledging a great Canadian writer, George Ryga.

Introductions by Members

S. Simpson: I'm very, very pleased to introduce my daughter Shayla Jones, who's here with us today. She's also part of the grade nine job-shadowing program, and she's here trying to figure out what it is that her dad does for a living.

An Hon. Member: Can she get back to us?

S. Simpson: She's promised, minister, that she will be back to you as soon she figures out what it is. I do hope the House will make Shayla welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to welcome and would ask my colleagues to help welcome two members of my ministry that are here in the gallery today. I know that a number of people here are participating in a special workshop. We're delighted to welcome Susan Stokhof, who's with our privacy and records management branch, and Deborah McKnight, who is with our finance and administration branch.

R. Cantelon: It's my pleasure today to welcome constituents to the House, and I'd ask you to make them feel welcome. Kaajal Manhas is here today, and her son Arjan Manhas is here. I want to note that he has, at the age of nine, become a very astute political observer. Their aunt is visiting from Los Angeles to observe our proceedings — Tejwant Uppal — and also Kaajal's mother Sujit Handau. Please give them a warm House welcome.

R. Fleming: In the buildings with us today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Brad Zubyk, who is also celebrating his 43rd birthday. For some reason, he chooses to celebrate that today in these buildings. Will the House please make him feel welcome.

R. Lee: Today I would like the House to welcome the delegation of the Shanghai women's training workshop in Canada. The delegation represents the Shanghai Women's Federation, the Shanghai Children's Health Care Institute, the district people's court and many other important committees. Accompanying the delegation leaders — Ms. Yanling Li, Ms. Ping Feng and a team of 18 colleagues — is Marianne Cheng of Vancouver. Would the House please give our visitors a warm welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to welcome a number of staff members who are here attending the parliamentary procedure workshop. They are two individuals from the B.C. Public Service Agency, Julia Berkowitz and Jeanne Sedun. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

[1410]

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are four women who work in the Ministry of Health. They're here today for the parliamentary procedure workshop and are, undoubtedly, in the gallery admiring the decorum and civility which you have instituted in this

[ Page 1546 ]

great chamber, Mr. Speaker. Among the four are Roxanne Gallant, Julie Brown, Stephanie Power and Maureen Andersen. I would like to ask the House to make them all welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce 28 public servants seated in the gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. This workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how their work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) SURREY FOOD BANK

B. Ralston: The Surrey Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards took place recently in Surrey, and the House joined with the member for Surrey-Tynehead in congratulating all recipients of awards. Today I want to speak particularly about the not-for-profit business award recipient, the Surrey Food Bank.

The Surrey Food Bank was established in 1983 in an economic downturn. It was viewed then as a temporary solution to a temporary problem. Since then, the food bank has grown. It occupies a 7,000-square-foot warehouse in Whalley. It has a fleet of three vehicles, a hundred active volunteers and a core staff of eight. The society currently distributes 56,000 food hampers per year. It has expanded its support to include many different food security programs, such as Surrey Food Bank's community kitchen, a community garden, food-buying clubs and cookbooks with low-cost nutritious recipes.

After 22 years the Surrey Food Bank has come to the realization that people will always need their help. Their view is: "We give people a hand up, not a handout." Their mission is to help people help themselves. They help many people through the trauma of job loss, marital breakup and crippling addictions, and with the return to the workforce. I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Surrey Food Bank board of directors and the executive director Robin Campbell for the outstanding leadership, effort and commitment they have shown to our community.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY IN B.C.

J. Rustad: I stand today to mark National Technology Week, a chance to acknowledge the contributions made in B.C. and across Canada by technologists and technicians. Biomedicine, electrical engineering, aerospace research, data communications and graphic information systems are just a tiny sample of the incredible range of professionals and fields that fall under the banner of science and technology.

My riding, Prince George–Omineca, is traditionally known for resource jobs, especially in the forest sector. But we are also becoming a focal point for high-tech innovation and employment in those sectors. One example is a new high-tech piece of mill equipment designed to improve handling of wood in the planing process, which has been designed and is being marketed worldwide by a pair of cutting-edge Prince George companies, Wolftek Industries, formerly known as PG Mill Supplies, and GLC Controls.

Bruce Sutherland and Gerry Bergeron of Wolftek were recognized for their innovations by the Prince George Chamber of Commerce, who jointly awarded them the Business Person of the Year Award this past weekend.

Innovative companies like theirs are eagerly scooping up graduates from B.C.'s post-secondary institutions, and our government's helping to meet these increasing demands for these types of skills with unprecedented support for trades education. Just last week I attended the grand opening of the John A. Brink Trades and Technology Centre in Prince George. The $6.46 million, 557,000-square-foot facility was made possible thanks to provincial funding and will help the college expand its high demand in trades programs.

As B.C. continues to grow and we work towards our great goal of creating more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada, it is clear that the people who work in these areas of applied sciences and technology will be in greater and greater demand.

[1415]

METCHOSIN PAVILION

M. Karagianis: I rise today to celebrate my community of Metchosin. Metchosin recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, although it was actually incorporated in 1984, the first of the Western Communities to do so. They wanted to mark this occasion, so they took it upon themselves to construct a public pavilion near their town hall. They did not have a lot of resources and money for this, so with a mere $20,000 and a group of amazing volunteers, they've actually managed to build this pavilion.

The group that gathered themselves together coined the name "The Old Farts Construction Co." This group of dedicated volunteers — Ed Cooper, Jack Howe, Eric Quissy and Larry Tremblay — with about 50 volunteers proceeded to build their pavilion that today is insured for a value of $100,000. It goes to show that a group of volunteers with a great name and a lot of effort can, in fact, turn $20,000 into a huge community monument.

One of the things that was incorporated into this pavilion is a green roof, as well, which is a very interesting and new construction technique that harmonizes the building with the surrounding environment. This is now a destination for anyone who feels compelled to go out to Metchosin and visit that community. It'd be a great place for weddings, for any kind of community event, so I would welcome everyone to choose Metchosin and the pavilion as a destination while they're here.

CHINESE CANADIAN VETERANS

R. Lee: November 1 to November 7 is proclaimed as Chinese Pioneer Week, and this Saturday marks the

[ Page 1547 ]

beginning of Veterans Week, running until Remembrance Day on November 11.

There are many we honour, but one group I wish to talk about today are veterans whose own country denied them citizenship or the right to vote. Despite their willingness to serve and their unwavering loyalty to Canada and the Crown, Chinese Canadians were not allowed to serve in our military at the outbreak of World War II. This discrimination continued until Japan entered the war, when the government finally relented and allowed Chinese Canadians to serve their country. Hundreds immediately enlisted.

Many volunteered — in greater numbers than any other groups of Canadians — for the Special Operations Executive, an elite British-led unit. Operating undercover in China and the Asian sphere, they faced numerous and near-suicidal missions. By the time the war was over, more than 600 Canadians of Chinese ancestry had served their country with honour.

Not only did these veterans fight for freedom, they also fought for something else. They fought for equality in their own country. Two years after the war, parliament gave Chinese Canadians the vote.

I would like to express my deepest admiration to the Chinese Canadian veterans and thank them not only for their service to our country but also for their determination in their fight for equality. I especially recognize veterans Bill Chong of Nanaimo, Gordy Quon of Victoria, Roy Mah and Willy Chong of Vancouver, and Dodson Mah, Frank Wong, Gim Wong and Howe Lee of Burnaby for their outstanding contribution to our country and for their continuous effort to educate us about the history, lest we forget.

U'MISTA CULTURAL CENTRE

C. Trevena: I would like to tell the House about a special event I attended yesterday. It was the 25th anniversary of the U'mista Cultural Centre on Cormorant Island. U'mista brings together that past and future for the 'Namgis First Nation and the Kwakw a k a 'wakw people. It is a very special place, built in the shadow of the residential school on the island.

It houses a stunning potlatch collection, items which were taken from the band in 1921 during a large celebration. At that time 45 people were arrested and charged with giving speeches, dancing, and carrying and receiving gifts at the potlatch. The confiscated items — the coppers, masks and blankets — were sold to collectors around the world. Instead of being held and used by the people for whom the items meant so much, they were displayed in the United States, in the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Royal Ontario Museum and in private collections.

[1420]

Yesterday, at the 25th anniversary of the centre's opening, after much negotiation, a stunning transformation sun mask, on long-term loan from the British Museum, was returned to its rightful place with the 'Namgis First Nation.

The potlatch items are from the Kwakw a k a 'wakw people's past but U'mista celebrates the future. It is a significant tourist attraction, which is important since the fishing is now going, but it is also a living cultural centre for the band and for its people, a place for the Kwakw a k a 'wakw language to grow and develop, a place for the art of carving to be nurtured, and it's a place where people of all ages can again take pride in their culture.

Like first nations across our province, the 'Namgis face problems of health, of housing and of unemployment. But U'mista symbolizes a future approached with pride in the past and with possibilities for the future.

ADOPTION AWARENESS

H. Bloy: I rise today to talk about a subject that is very close to my heart. November has been proclaimed in British Columbia as Adoption Awareness Month. Its goal is to raise awareness about children waiting in care for an adoptive home and to recognize adoption as a valued way to build a family. Every year approximately 300 children in care find a family through adoption, yet despite this success there are still about 1,000 children in continuing care who are waiting for a permanent home.

Our government, specifically the Ministry of Children and Family Development, is working with community partners such as the Adoptive Families Association of British Columbia to increase the number of adoption homes for children in care. We are also working to raise awareness about B.C.'s waiting children.

My life has been touched by embracing a newcomer to our family. Over five years ago my wife and I became legal guardians for Candice Earle. Along with our children Jeremy and Katie, Candice has become a full-fledged member of our family.

I urge everyone in this House to promote adoption. There are too many children in the province still waiting to be placed with a caring and supportive family. I can tell you first hand that adoption and taking care of another's child has enriched our whole family. It was a decision we have not regretted, and it's something I hope others will make.

Oral Questions

CORONER'S INQUEST INTO

DEATH OF SAVANNAH HALL

C. James: On Monday the Minister of Children and Family Development declined, on behalf of his government, to launch a coroner's inquest into the tragic death of three-year-old Savannah Hall. Today we learned more about the case and the investigation.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development: given what we've learned today, does the minister stand by his claim that an inquest isn't necessary and he doesn't need to know what happened to Savannah Hall?

[ Page 1548 ]

Hon. S. Hagen: As we've all read in the newspapers about this very sad death, this child died in January of 2001. Since that time there have been extensive reviews into that matter, including a foster home protocol investigation, a director's foster home review, a director's case review, an RCMP investigation that did not result in any charges, a preliminary review by the coroner's office and a judgment of inquiry. All of the recommendations resulting from the ministry's investigations have been implemented. The coroner's file remains open, and it is in the hands of the child-death review team. Following that review, the coroner can then decide whether any further steps are required.

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

C. James: I think there are some other pieces of information that I think it's important for the minister to also point out. The coroner who did the initial investigation wrote to officials in the Solicitor General's ministry and called for a full coroner's inquest. She also informed staff that all officials involved agreed that some of Savannah Hall's injuries were not consistent with accidental injuries.

So my question is to the Solicitor General: can the Solicitor General explain why the ministry rejected the request by the coroner on this case to hold a full inquest?

[1425]

Hon. S. Hagen: I've already outlined the extensive reviews. I've said to the Leader of the Opposition that the coroner's file remains open, and it is in the hands of the child-death review team. It's difficult for me or I think most people to understand why the member is presupposing the results of their review. I don't presume to know what the review is going to come out with or recommend, and nor should she.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the opposition has a further supplemental?

C. James: I think we should look at the facts around coroners' reviews. The coroners service has released one public report since taking over the child-death reviews. Ministry for Children and Families has made just two reports public in the last three years. So it's very clear that although the minister talks about reviews going on, this is not a transparent process, and the information is not going public.

If we take a look at the coroner's report, it was very clear that the death was ruled undetermined and no recommendations were made. In addition, the Minister for Children and Family's own internal report concluded that Savannah Hall was suffering from neglect and abuse. On Monday the Minister for Children and Family Development said to this House: "It's incredibly sad when the death of a child occurs.

Thankfully, it doesn't happen very often, but when it does, we want to get to the bottom of it when it occurs." If that statement is accurate, why won't the minister or the Solicitor General or the Attorney General immediately demand an inquest so that British Columbians can learn from the tragic death of Savannah Hall?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, there have been extensive reviews, including a foster home protocol investigation, a director's foster home review, a director's case review, an RCMP investigation that did not result in any charges, a preliminary review by the coroner's office and a judgment of inquiry. I think the member knows that an inquest cannot be held while the file is with the child-death review team. That's the fact.

A. Dix: My question, too, is to the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the coroners service from an administrative point of view. We know that the employees, the investigators, at the coroners service recommended an inquest. We know that for budget reasons, the coroners service cut the number of inquests by two-thirds. We know that two current B.C. Liberal cabinet ministers intervened in this case at the highest level. We know that the government rejected an inquest two years ago. Can the Solicitor General explain to this House why senior officials in his ministry overruled the investigators and didn't hold an inquest into the Savannah Hall case?

Hon. J. Les: As the Minister of Children and Family Development has already indicated, there have been extensive reviews into this file. He has also indicated that the child-death review team is currently in the middle of a further review process. We have medically trained personnel that are involved in that. I think we all share the same objective: to get to the bottom of this case, to learn what can possibly be learned from this case.

But I would point out that it's important to know that whether or not there will eventually be an inquest will be a decision that will be made either by the chief coroner or by me but for all of the appropriate reasons — not to appease the member opposite, and neither will it be to appease a disaffected former employee.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental?

A. Dix: Well, I'm not going to respond to those attacks on a former employee who, I think, is recognized to care very much about her work and her efforts. There are 79 of us in this House but only one person in this House who, today, could order a coroner's inquest. That person is the Attorney General. Now, I know the Attorney General's under instructions not to respond to questions related to his jurisdiction, but this is a critical matter that involves the death of a child. I ask him, based on the overwhelming evidence: will he order a coroner's inquest today?

[1430]

Hon. J. Les: As a matter of fact, the member opposite is misinformed. According to legislation, the power

[ Page 1549 ]

to ask for an inquest on behalf of government resides with the Solicitor General. That decision, at this moment in time, would be inappropriate. There are other processes going on, and it would be inappropriate to ask for an inquest to be held until those processes are complete and we have all of the information that we hope to be able to gain from those processes.

CLOSING OF MIDWAY SAWMILL

K. Conroy: In September at the UBCM convention, the Minister of Forests spoke to the delegation from the village of Midway and said: "Sorry to hear your mill is closing." The minister confirmed in the House this week that it was months before that date that he was made aware of the fibre supply issues in Midway.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Why didn't the minister contact the Minister of Community Services immediately after finding out this information, to begin implementing a plan to help the village of Midway deal with the imminent closure?

Hon. R. Coleman: The company did come to us and talked to us about their concerns about their mill. They also talked to us about concerns about their modernization. In my conversations with the company as late as the end of last week, they were very complimentary of the work that both the ministry and the minister did with regards to them and trying to find solutions. At the end of the day, their economics just said it didn't work. That's why they decided to move on to adding the shift into Grand Forks, because that's where they'd made their investment.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

K. Conroy: It seems to me that when the very life of a community in B.C. is at stake, this government would want to act immediately to help a community begin to take transitioning steps. It would seem to me that if the government and the minister knew that this was coming, there would be something, anything, done — some kind of announcement that when this closure is going to be made public, the government would be there right away to help.

The position of job protection commissioner would do just that. My question to the Minister of Forests and Range: will the minister agree that reinstating the job protection commissioner would go a long way to helping communities deal with mill closures this minister knows are coming?

Hon. R. Coleman: The company, in its discussions with the ministry, had not made this decision at the time that you would actually go and have a discussion with the community. In addition to that, if the member wants to check, the mill is actually not slated to close until the end of the first quarter of next year. So there's plenty of time to deal with the transition issues once the company makes its decision.

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE TO

COMMUNITIES IN TRANSITION

N. Macdonald: My question is to the Minister of Community Services, and the question is this: how many coastal mayors affected by mill closures has she called with an offer of community transition assistance?

Hon. I. Chong: As I have stated on a number of occasions in the last few days about the community transition program that is housed within our ministry, it is about assisting communities when they are going through transition as a result of industry that has impacted the community. We are there to help. We will provide that help, and my ministry will coordinate across government to ensure that that assistance is there.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

N. Macdonald: I'll just put that in language that people at home can understand. That means zero — no calls. The Minister of Community Services said in this House that she will look at each of these situations on a community-by-community basis. So again, my question is to the Minister of Community Services. What is the criterion that gets recognition from this ministry? Is it something like the size of the employer? Or is it when the opposition raises the question here in the House? Is that the criterion?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member had this series of questions, he should have raised them in estimates, which he did not. But for the benefit of this member and his caucus, I will explain to him what happens when a community is in transition.

[1435]

We are notified, we contact them, we work with them, and we provide a plan that allows them to move forward. It's interesting, and I have to apprise the members opposite that in the year 2000, when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was Minister of Community Development and had to deal with another particular transition in Gold River, this is what she said: "Government didn't go in at that time with…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. I. Chong: …the approach of saying: 'Here's what we think is best for you.'" Rather, she indicated that it was necessary to work towards developing a plan to meet the needs and work towards finding resources to meet the plan's needs.

B. Simpson: I just heard the minister say, "We contact them and offer them our services" — that she has a program in place, that they have a team. Yet this minister did not answer the question of how many mayors

[ Page 1550 ]

of coastal communities who already have mills closed this minister has contacted with an offer of that service. So, again, to the minister: how many mayors of coastal communities who have had mills close already has she contacted with an offer of those services?

Hon. I. Chong: What I indicated to the members is that we have a community transition program housed within our ministry that allows us to work across government to provide services for a community going through transition. When we are apprised that that needs to come into place, we will make contact; we will send in staff to assess the situation and see what needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I've given the members adequate information about the community transition program. If they would like a briefing, I would be happy to provide one.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Simpson: Again, I think the minister proves our point. Her comment that she just made is "when we are apprised." Well, what does it take to be apprised? Mills are closed — 16 of the mills are closed. Communities have been impacted already by that. What does it take to be apprised? Other than — as one of my colleagues has already pointed out — this side of the House raises the issue in this House, and then the minister calls?

So, to the Minister of Community Services: what does it take for her to understand that the communities are going through transition, and she should be contacting those communities and offering those services directly now?

Hon. I. Chong: The members opposite do not serve any of the communities well when they are casting doubt as to what assistance is available. I have made assurances that our community transition program is there to help communities when they go through a difficult period and are facing challenges.

Again, I want to quote from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in the year 2000, and she said this: "It depends on the community and what its approaches…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member.

Minister.

Hon. I. Chong: …are and what those needs of the community…."

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Can we have quiet?

Continue, minister.

Hon. I. Chong: This is the quote from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant: "It depends on the community and what its approaches are and what those needs of the community happen to be." We will deal with that when those communities are faced with those challenges.

POTENTIAL REOPENING

OF PORT ALICE MILL

C. Trevena: We've been hearing a lot about this government's failure to keep mills open. So I'd like to give them the opportunity of giving some good news: a mill that could reopen — the Port Alice Speciality Cellulose mill. I'd like to ask the Minister of Economic Development whether he'll assure this House and the people of Port Alice that the mill will reopen soon.

[1440]

Hon. C. Hansen: That's not a decision that is ultimately up to us. There is an interested party who is looking at purchasing the assets of the mill. We are working with that individual, and it is my hope that we will be able to draw that to a conclusion very soon so that the residents of Port Alice can know whether in fact it is going to reopen or not. But ultimately, it is not our decision to make.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. Trevena: The minister says it's not up to the government, but the government has set certain hurdles there — that there has to be a certain amount of financing, that the government needs to see whether the buyer's financing has come. There is going to be an environmental agreement. It's still not concluded, but I understand that the ministry staff are possibly close to an environmental agreement.

We have a buyer who is willing to invest $45 million in this mill. I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development why he is not taking a leadership role on this portfolio and making sure that that mill does reopen.

Hon. C. Hansen: It surprises me, coming especially from this particular member, to hear environmental regulations being described as hurdles. I think we have an obligation. We have an obligation to make sure that the environmental concerns are, in fact, addressed, not just in terms of pre-existing contamination but in terms of making sure that any environmental issues that are developed in the future can be addressed. We need to make sure that there is a proper business plan in place, and we are doing that.

At the end of the day, if this particular mill is viable in the market without subsidy from government, which would undermine the competitiveness of other mills and other industrial properties in British Columbia, then we want to do everything we can to make that happen. We are pushing this file as fast as we can. I can assure the member that wherever there have been delays, which I know are a huge frustration to the resi-

[ Page 1551 ]

dents of Port Alice, the delays have not been of our making.

LINK OF SALE OF TERASEN GAS

TO SOFTWOOD LUMBER DISPUTE

C. Evans: You know, the first time I asked the Minister of Forests about, I thought, the good idea of tying energy to softwood, he blew me away and said: "Oh, we have back-channel ways of solving that problem." Then we woke up in the morning, and the Prime Minister of Canada said that back channel won't work anymore.

Next time I asked him about it, he said: "Oh, we've got a pan-Canadian solution for the first time." Then the CEO of Canfor said that isn't going to work.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

C. Evans: Let 'em rip.

Then yesterday I asked him again, and he said: "Well, you know, we're going to solve this at the first opportunity." Today we wake up, and Mr. — what's his name? — Ritchie and Mr. Tellier, the federal negotiators, say there is no next opportunity; it's going nowhere. And they quit their jobs.

So, hon. sir, as softly as I can, given that every one of your ideas is blown away as fast as you can say them, could you try once one of ours?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Forests and Range.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members from both sides, the Minister of Forests has the floor.

Hon. R. Coleman: I spoke to the federal Minister of International Trade this morning. Mr. Tellier and Mr. Ritchie are both ready to go to the table and assist Canada in negotiations with regards to this file. Their concern is the door open on the other side of the border. Our work on this side of the border was to have a Canadian position so we could take it. We're ready to go. As soon as the Americans are ready to go, we'll go to the table.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

ROLE OF B.C. UTILITIES COMMISSION

IN SALE OF TERASEN GAS

C. Evans: I didn't get anywhere that time, so I'm going to shift now. I would like to make all members aware that today, November 2, is a really important day in our history. Today was the day that the B.C. Utilities Commission was going to have a single public hearing into the sale of Terasen Gas. But they have decided not to have even one public hearing. So I'm here. The Minister of Energy is here. We're all here instead of in Vancouver commenting on this moment in our history.

[1445]

I had hoped that there would be public hearings so public citizens could say how they felt about the public interest. Now, the public interest will be decided, probably before we return here. My question is to the hon. Deputy Premier. It's a simple question. Will the public interest in the matter of the sale of Terasen Gas be resolved in Vancouver by the BCUC? Or is that a matter for cabinet decision, and cabinet will decide whether or not it's in the public interest?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As we have consistently said, the B.C. Utilities Commission has had what they call a written-in hearing, and they've received a lot of e-mails and letters from across the province. It will be the entity — the British Columbia Utilities Commission — that will make the decision at the end of the day, in the best interests of all British Columbians and all Canadians, on whether we should move ahead.

I would remind this minister — or this member — when he talks about…. Actually, he was a minister when he used to get involved in the B.C. Utilities Commission by writing letters to actually tell them what to do. That's typical of that side.

I should remind that member that the acquisition that Kinder Morgan talks about started August 1, three months ago. We've had this NDP opposition go from pillar to post to actually say that we should have public hearings, that we should tie it to softwood, that we should try all kinds of things. What works is not having politicians fool around in a quasi-judicial body.

OWNERSHIP OF SHIPPING TERMINAL

ON RIDLEY ISLAND

G. Coons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As we all know, minister, the bid process of Ridley terminals is still emanating a scent that taints this government's assertion that there is a fair and open process for B.C. companies. The Minister of Transportation has stated in this House that this government had intervened with the federal government on their own behalf and had a freeze put in place on the process to examine the province's options.

Will this government once again demand a freeze on the process and request that all bids — all bids, including the Ridley Shippers Coalition — be re-evaluated in order to protect the interest of shippers in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: It seems to me that we rather thoroughly addressed this issue in previous question periods. But once again I'll remind the member that this is a federal government process, in which the federal government is going through a process of selling Ridley terminals.

We, as the member well knows, worked with the federal government because we were concerned that

[ Page 1552 ]

provincially we wanted to make sure there was fair and open access to Ridley terminals. We've received assurances from the federal government that we can work with them in creating the contract language that will ensure that there will be fair and open access for all shippers in British Columbia. I look forward to coming forward with a solution that will do exactly that — protect our shippers and ensure that we've got fair and open access for all British Columbians.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

G. Coons: Again to the minister. Obviously, "thoroughly addressed" doesn't wash it in my community. And as far as a federal government process, you seem to have intervened in the process. And you had stated once again that there had been assurances from the federal government that British Columbians will benefit from the sale of Ridley terminals, even if it's sold to an out-of-province company — one with no apparent operating revenue, one with no experience in running a port. It just doesn't make any sense at all, minister.

Why is this government…?

Mr. Speaker: Through the Chair, please.

G. Coons: Through the Chair to the minister: why is this government backing the sale to a single operator and not backing the group of western mining companies who want to run Ridley as a cooperative where all of the members share in the costs and the risks?

[1450]

Hon. K. Falcon: I have just a very fundamental question for the member opposite, and maybe the opposition: do they believe in a fair and open bidding process, or do they not? Because actually, there was a fair and open bidding process put into place. The coalition which that member mentions had every opportunity to be part of that bidding process.

Now, apparently what this member is saying is because the company…. Granted, it's from a different part of Canada, not from British Columbia. Apparently that should rule them out in terms of their ability, after following a fair and open process, to be able to acquire an asset which the federal government has had for sale for almost two years.

I'm astounded by the member opposite. I'm astounded that he would like us to interfere with that process, to rig, apparently, the process so that somebody else will get access to it and violate the entire process. That's a rather shocking declaration, though not altogether surprising, given the experience of those members when they were in government during the tragic decade of the '90s.

But as I said, we have got an assurance from the federal government that there will be contract language that we will have a

part in drafting to ensure there is fair and open access for all British Columbians.

FUTURE OF

VICTORIA RESIDENTIAL TENANCY OFFICE

M. Karagianis: As a result of layoffs last week, only seven staff members are left in the residential tenancy office here in Victoria, which the minister responsible knows is the second-largest residential market in B.C. Two more staff members are due to be laid off this month. Will the minister confirm that it's the government's intention to close this office entirely?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. R. Coleman: I have no memory of the Minister of Health ever having responsibility for the residential tenancy office, but he seems pretty anxious to answer the question.

[Laughter.]

The residential tenancy office is going through some transitions. We've been going through some issues with regards to it. It is not the intention to close the office but to have it remain open for walk-in traffic and transition over to our database management system for more efficiencies for our tenants.

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued estimates debate — for the information of members, the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, continued estimates debate — for the information of members, the Ministry of Attorney General.

[1455]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); S. Hawkins in the chair.

The committee met at 2:56 p.m.

On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,111,979,000 (continued).

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister some questions around a specific program in my riding, and that's the Young Eagle Lodge. The Circle of Eagles Lodge Society was awarded a five-year contract to a culturally specific residential healing program for aboriginal youth in trouble with the law. This became the Young Eagle Healing Lodge, and the ministry granted the contract in 1999. Since then, 86 aboriginal youth have gone

[ Page 1553 ]

through the program, and many have gone back to school, found work and were able to live successful lives.

In the last year of the program all the participants in the program except for one graduated. The success of the program is largely credited to the qualified all-aboriginal staff with the society, who provide the treatment, counselling and support, culturally and spiritually, to the individuals, the youth who come into contact with the Circle of Eagles Lodge and its derivative, the Young Eagle Lodge. The focus was to bring youth back to their culture.

Last year, the contract was put out to a request for proposal. It is our understanding that the Young Eagles Healing Lodge lost the contract to a non-aboriginal organization. Could the minister please advise who instigated this RFP process?

Hon. S. Hagen: The ministry instituted the RFP program.

J. Kwan: Why did the ministry do that?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm informed by staff that there were some concerns about the program. Apparently only two out of 19 students who were enrolled graduated.

J. Kwan: Did any discussion take place between the ministry and the society?

Hon. S. Hagen: The contract was actually with the Vancouver health authority, and I am told that there were discussions that took place with the society and the health authority.

J. Kwan: According to the society, they advised that no discussion and no consultation had taken place, and that the contract, the program, was actually terminated before the end of the year, when there were still dollars there. They advised that the graduation rate is much higher than what the minister stated. So specifically, what conversation took place? What kind of consultation? If there were problems and concerns, were they flagged with the society and discussed with the society so that there could be some solutions found?

[1500]

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told that the ministry contracted with the health authority, the health authority contracted with the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society, and it was actually the information from the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society that indicated they only graduated two out of 19 in 2004.

J. Kwan: What was the total graduation rate since the contract was in place in 1999?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that information, but I'll be happy to supply it.

J. Kwan: According to the information that I have, some 86 aboriginal youth have graduated from the program since it started. The information that I have seems to differ from that of the minister in terms of last year's graduation process.

But I'm not going to dispute that. I'm simply going to say that if in fact there were concerns, what kind of discussion took place for a contract to terminate in the middle of the program? Have there been concerns building up since that time?

I know that the minister's going to say that the ministry had contracted these services to the health authority, and the health authority in turn contracted these services to Young Eagles Lodge. But at the end of the day, it's the minister who's responsible for the health authority's actions. The health authorities report back to the minister. Court cases have proven that.

The former Health Minister is in this House, with respect to who can verify that issue, because I remember distinctly in the last four years asking the former Health Minister those kinds of questions, and he actually answered questions related to the health authority. So if in fact consultation took place, I'm very interested in knowing who spoke with the organization on behalf of the health authority, and with whom did they speak?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I agree with the point you're making, and that is that it seems to be an unwieldy type of process for the ministry to contract with the health authority to contract with the agency. That's why we decided not to do that anymore, but we actually went out for an RFP from the ministry.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The government terminated a contract in the middle of the contract year, when there was still money left for that contract. If the government says that they wanted to embark on a new process, usually the process is such that you go and talk to the organizations. A consultative government would have gone and done that. A good government that manages well, when there are issues concerning a particular contract — employment services and so on — would actually go and talk with the individuals involved, raise these concerns, and see how those concerns could be addressed.

If the only answer the minister could come back with is to say that the contract was terminated because there were only two graduates out of the program in the 2004 year, I'm afraid to say that that's not good enough. I would say that that's not good enough, and I would really like to know, on behalf of the society, what the problems were. Could the minister please be specific?

Hon. S. Hagen: My understanding is that there were discussions that went on between the health authority and the agency.

[1505]

The contract expired, and then it was extended for a period of months before it was terminated. I'm told

[ Page 1554 ]

that there were three concerns. Firstly, the program was underutilized; secondly, only two of 19 students in 2004 graduated; and thirdly, another one of the concerns was high staff turnovers.

J. Kwan: The Ministry of Children and Family Development had allocated ten beds in total to two agencies who were working in partnership to address aboriginal addictions: the Urban Native Youth Association and the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society. The Urban Native Youth Association had five beds that were referrals from non-profits in the area, and the Circle of Eagles Lodge had five beds that came from referrals from the youth justice within the Ministry of Children and Family Development. There was, as I understand it, liaison from the youth justice and with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The program had developed and operated for a couple of years, and it was in 2003 that the government decided to change the process and transfer the funding to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. If it was cumbersome, the cumbersome process was created by the government in 2003, so let's be clear about that.

The minister states that there were issues or difficulties around staffing, if you will, and the issue around…. Part of the difficulty, as I understand from the Circle of Eagles Lodge, was that they had only a part-time coordinator. That did present some staffing challenges, and it was one of the criticisms, as I understand, from the coastal health authority.

As a result of that, there were some challenges. In some cases, reports were behind, and that was identified by the health authority. This is information for the minister because he did not provide this information in his answer. So I'm providing information to the minister, having spoken with the folks from the Circle of Eagles Lodge.

The Circle of Eagles Lodge tried to rectify the problem and hired a consultant. They tried to remedy the problem that the health authority had identified and brought to their attention. The challenges, the problems, were dealt with. They were dealt with by the Circle of Eagles Lodge.

However, by that time the government had already made the decision to close down the Young Eagles Lodge. The Young Eagles Lodge closed at the end of August 2005.

To our knowledge, there was no evaluation prior to the closure of the program. So I'd ask the minister: what evaluation was done with respect to this program before its closure?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I say, there were three concerns. One was the low graduation rate, which we've talked about — two out of 19 students. At the time that the contract was cancelled, only two out of the five beds were occupied. The high staff turnover was another concern of the health authority.

J. Kwan: If the issue was around only two beds being occupied out of the five, and given that the pro-cess is such that referrals are made to the Circle of Eagles Lodge to occupy those beds and that those referrals actually come from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, did the government go and talk with the people who make the referrals to see whether there's actually no need for these beds or if there is some other problem going on that we're not aware of?

[1510]

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, I just want to reiterate that I think the main concerns expressed by the health authority in not renewing, or in them not being successful in the RFP and in going to RFP, were the three things that I mentioned: the fact that there were 17 out of 19 of the young people who didn't graduate, the high staff turnover and that the program was underutilized.

J. Kwan: Let's break that down piece by piece, and I just want to go with this one piece at the moment. On the question around the underutilization, the Circle of Eagles Lodge received referrals from the government to the program from the ministry. Was the government not making the referrals to the Young Eagles Lodge? Is that why it was underutilized?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the referrals are actually made either by a judge or a probation officer. I mean, this is only conjecture, but if you're a judge or a probation officer and you're looking at an agency that is not being particularly successful, then you may not refer wards to that particular agency.

J. Kwan: Okay, so the minister is saying that judges or court workers did not make the referrals to the agency. That's why it was underutilized. So I'm going to put that as a marker on the side here. The minister answered that question on why it was underutilized. We'll see whether or not…. Well, anyway, we'll check into that.

Let me go to the question around the high staff turnover, because it is my understanding that the Young Eagles Lodge, the Circle of Eagles Lodge, actually addressed that issue and dealt with that issue in terms of the staffing challenges. By the time they finished addressing the issue, when it was brought to their attention as a challenge, the government had already made the decision to terminate the contract. Why did that happen? Why did the government not give time to the organization to address the issue and see whether or not they could rectify the staffing problems?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that the decision was taken for the three reasons that I've already given. There was due consideration given, and we now go to RFPs for all of our programs to make sure that we offer the best service possible for the dollars that we have in the ministry.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Madam Chair. The minister actually didn't answer my question. So maybe let me break

[ Page 1555 ]

down the questions even further then. When did the government notify or alert the Circle of Eagles Lodge that there was a staffing problem and that the government was concerned about it?

Hon. S. Hagen: It wouldn't have been the government that notified them. It would have been the health authority that notified them. I'm not the minister responsible for the health authority, so I don't know when that was done.

J. Kwan: But it is this government who is responsible for the health authority. It is this government who transferred those funds to the health authority in 2003. So it's too easy for the minister to try to not answer these questions.

Now, is the minister suggesting that those questions should be put to the Minister of Health in his estimates process? If that's the case, then let's put that on record, and I will do that. But the fact is this contract came from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The Ministry of Children and Family Development passed it on over to the health authority. So somebody in the government needs to own up and answer some basic questions of accountability.

[1515]

We have an agency that began providing services, and as far as I know, actually has a pretty good track record and maybe more recently ran into some difficulties because of staffing challenges. But it does not mean that the government will just pull the rug from under them without sitting down and talking with them and raising these issues. It is to the point that the agency should have the right to know.

The government should tell this House when the government knew that there were issues. When did the government contact the agency involved and advise them? Did the government give them an opportunity to address the problems, or did the government just decide: "Hey, we get to make the decisions; we're going to pull the funding and to heck with it?" Never mind the work that has been done before, never mind the capacity that was built before, and never mind the efforts and the successes of the society over the past years.

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the concern of the member opposite, because I think this society is in your riding. I appreciate her raising the questions, but I just want to clarify. I'm not evading the answers.

They were under contract to the health authority, and I can't speak for the health authority. We were providing the money by a contract to the health authority. To find out what discussions took place between the health authority and the agency is not something that I can answer.

J. Kwan: The money does come from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the health authority, does it not?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned, the ministry provided the money to the health authority that then did a contract between the health authority and the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society.

J. Kwan: The answer is yes. The ministry provided the money to the health authority. The ministry should know what the health authority is doing with that money. If there are problems with it, what are the problems? Isn't that logical?

If I was in the minister's position, I think it would be logical to say to the health authority: "Hey, what's going on here? I gave money to you. You're supposed to make sure that the service is being provided to meet the need here."

Would the minister, then, commit in this House — if the minister doesn't have the answer to my question right now — that he would actually go and talk to the health authority and get to the bottom of this and facilitate a meeting with the society so that they could sit down and talk about what went wrong, what is the problem and how the society could rectify that problem?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member has made a reasonable request. I'm happy to have one of my staff people from Vancouver go and have a talk with the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society, but it's important for the member to understand that we have awarded the RFP, so the discussion will not be about renewing the contract. But I'm happy for my staff to have a discussion to satisfy your concerns about what discussions were held, how much time was given to the society to correct things and those sorts of discussions.

J. Kwan: As far as we know, the ministry to date has not met with the society, which is why I made the request. I think that should be done, and I think that the minister should do it. If the minister cannot do it, then it should be the deputy on behalf of the minister who should facilitate this meeting.

I think that there should be a review to see what went wrong. I would be very interested in knowing what evaluation actually took place prior to the closure of the program. Any written reports that the government might have, I would ask the minister to pass that information on to not just the society but also to me as the local MLA. I'm interested in knowing what process was undertaken to the measure of accountability here.

[1520]

Then, more importantly, on the question on the RFP, I'm wondering from the youth justice side…. We know and I know that in my community we have a lot of challenges. We have many young people who are out there, who are struggling. We have many aboriginal young people who are out there struggling. Many of them have suffered childhood traumas. I can't even begin to imagine how awful it was, and it goes from generation to generation.

What I do know is this: the Circle of Eagles Lodge and the Young Eagles Healing Lodge had made a tre-

[ Page 1556 ]

mendous effort over the last number of years in providing a service that's much needed to provide for some healing and for some building and re-establishing of cultural and spiritual aspects within the aboriginal community. We now know that the contract is lost to a non-aboriginal agency.

I'm curious to know from the justice branch — given that there were no referrals to the society, or very few — if it is the case that there are no aboriginal youth out there who need this service — because I see otherwise. I'm interested, then, in a second tier of questions and information from the minister: how many youth of aboriginal descent are out there who need such a service?

Hon. S. Hagen: Madam Chair, I appreciate her passion on this particular issue, because it's not dissimilar from my own concerns, particularly with regard to the young aboriginal community. In answer to the first part of your question, my deputy minister and my assistant deputy minister did meet with the society last week, but I'm happy to have the assistant deputy minister go back and meet with them as a result of your request today.

Secondly, we don't have an exact number of aboriginal youth who need this kind of care. Having said that, that's why we went out for an RFP — because there is a need there, and the health authority, at least, apparently didn't feel the need was being addressed by the society, so they went out for an RFP. That RFP has been awarded.

J. Kwan: Was the Vancouver aboriginal advisory committee of the Ministry of Children and Family Development aware of the RFP going out?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised that they were not made aware of the RFP going out.

J. Kwan: Why not?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that there wasn't consultation because it is looked upon as a provincial program. However, I agree with the member that they should have been consulted.

J. Kwan: The problem here is this. The information that I've received shows that, in fact, when the government decided to pull the contract, there was little or no consultation with many people who should have been consulted — by the minister's own admission, the Vancouver aboriginal advisory committee.

[1525]

I would assume that the committee exists to provide advice on critical matters under the ministry on programs that relate to the aboriginal community, and that didn't happen. I'm advised by the society that no discussion took place, and they weren't advised of the RFP process going out. Then it was just pulled out from under them. They were just notified, services were just discontinued, and they had to shut down shop.

I've been advised that the service actually went to a non-aboriginal agency, and if there is a critical need — and I do believe that there is…. There's a shortage of such services targeted for aboriginal youth. Given the government's new-relationship approach with the aboriginal community, one would have thought that the basic consultation process would have taken place and that the government would make sure that those kinds of programs are increased, not decreased.

What measure is the government undertaking now to ensure that aboriginal youth get access to these much-needed programs? What steps is the minister taking to make sure that those programs are available to aboriginal youth in our communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: Madam Chair, I think the member stated that the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society was not aware of the RFP. I think she said that. If she said that, I don't think that's the case, because they actually bid on the RFP, and they were unsuccessful. The further point was that because of the RFP going to another agency, this was a cut. It was not a cut. The services are still being offered to aboriginal youth, but by a different agency.

J. Kwan: Is the agency an aboriginal agency?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised that the successful bidder was the Elizabeth Fry Society, that they are operating and offering the services on Stó:lô land and that all of the service providers, except one, are first nations.

J. Kwan: The government advises that there are programs to address aboriginal youth needs. How many programs are there in Vancouver and how many programs are there across the province? How many beds are available?

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member: could I ask her to be a little more specific in her question? Are you talking about addiction beds or are you talking…? What sort of programs are you talking about?

J. Kwan: Let's start with residential healing programs for aboriginal youth, like this one that was cancelled — how many beds in Vancouver? The minister is shaking his head, saying that it was not cancelled. Well, the Young Eagles Healing Lodge lost their funding, and the minister said that the funding went to another agency, so how many beds are there in total in Vancouver? That's five beds. How many beds are there in total in Vancouver that provide such a service to aboriginal youth? Let's start with Vancouver.

[1530]

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that there are 26 beds. This is for the province, but this is only for the youth justice addictions part of the program. The other youth beds are funded by the Ministry of Health.

[ Page 1557 ]

But I do want to clarify the statements that you made that the program was cut. You're right in saying that the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society was not successful in getting the program, but the program is being delivered by the Elizabeth Fry Society.

J. Kwan: In British Columbia, 26 beds. How many in Vancouver?

Hon. S. Hagen: The breakdown of the 26 beds is: 16 in Surrey, five in Kamloops, five on the new Stó:lô lands and none in Vancouver.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know how many beds are needed to address the issues? Are there people waiting to get into such services?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I remarked earlier with regard to the beds at the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society, there were only two beds occupied there. I'm told that there are waiting lists, particularly in Surrey, where there are 16 beds.

J. Kwan: What's the wait-list?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told the wait times are about two to three months.

J. Kwan: Two to three months. How many people are on the wait-list?

Hon. S. Hagen: My staff does not have the answer to the number of people, but the wait times are two to three months.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister would commit to providing that information, then, at a later time to the opposition. I certainly would be interested in knowing how many people are on the wait-list to try to get a bed.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I'm happy to do that.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister.

Are there any plans from the ministry to actually get some service of this nature in Vancouver? Between Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Hastings, we actually have the largest number of urban aboriginals living in British Columbia, between those two ridings, yet there is no service because the closure of Young Eagles Lodge.

Are there any plans from the government to actually provide some sort of service in Vancouver to support the two ridings that have the largest number of urban aboriginals living in those communities?

[1535]

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no, not at this time. However, I want to reiterate that the 26 beds that are around the province are available to young aboriginals wherever they live in the province.

J. Kwan: As the minister knows, oftentimes when people are in these services, they actually need the support of their network of friends and family who happen to be in and around those communities. To send youth who are struggling with these kinds of challenges elsewhere, to a different community…. One can anticipate and appreciate the difficulties around that.

I've just been kindly reminded by the critic in this area that, of course, Vancouver-Kingsway also has a high number of aboriginal youth living in that community. So it's safe to say that in our communities, we do have a need here. We now have lost a service in Vancouver that I would say is much needed in the community. There is a two- to three-month wait-list on this, and the numbers have yet to be seen to see how many people actually need these services. I would certainly advocate for additional services around British Columbia and, more particularly, in Vancouver.

My last question to the minister: once the minister's staff has had the opportunity to meet with the Circle of Eagles Lodge around this issue, would the minister please have his staff provide some sort of information back to me so that I'm aware that the meeting actually took place and how the matter was dealt with and resolved?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm certainly happy to have the staff report back to you that the meeting took place, what was discussed at the meeting and what the results of the meeting were.

M. Karagianis: Minister, I'm here today on behalf of one of my constituents, a young woman by the name of Ashley Waddington. Ashley is a young adult with autism and a number of other challenges as well. Ashley turned 19 in June of this year, and as I'm sure the minister is aware, that triggers some new evaluation of Ashley's circumstances. She is currently under PWD-2 funding.

Ashley is being determined at this point to be eligible to live independently, on her own. Unfortunately, because of her multiple challenges, Ashley is not capable of maintaining an independent lifestyle by herself. She certainly would have challenges in maintaining paying her rent. Ashley has challenges in even maintaining her own personal hygiene. But because Ashley's IQ is over 70, she is now being determined as classified to live on her own.

Ashley's family is unable to care for her. Her parents are separated. Her mother is on a very modest income and supporting another family member.

What Ashley really needs at this point are two things. Ashley needs some partial support care, and she needs some job training like the Roads Program. So I am here to ask if the minister will intervene on behalf of Ashley. There is clear evidence from psychological profiles done with her that it was determined that she would not successfully live on her own. I believe that Ashley is at risk if she is not supported in some way and is not given some clear job training to help estab-

[ Page 1558 ]

lish some semi-independence. I believe that Ashley may fall into street life, drug addiction, any number of other risky situations.

I'm here to ask if the minister will intervene for two clear outcomes for Ashley: part-time support to help her live as independently as possible and approval from the ministry for her to enter the Roads Program.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to respond to the question. In terms of autism as an issue for the province, it's increasingly challenging — no question. Certainly, there are more young people each day being diagnosed. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and see if there are some issues we can advance collectively in terms of putting in place some supports. I appreciate your bringing Ashley's issues forward.

[1540]

The reality is that there will be a number of young people, as they transition beyond the services that are currently available. We have some extraordinarily fine services in British Columbia in terms of what's offered for children zero to six, six to 12, 12 to 18. We should collectively, as a Legislature, grapple more effectively with children as they age through that process and then what the next step might be. I would welcome the opportunity to work with you on this issue.

M. Karagianis: I will avail myself of that opportunity. I thank you very much for listening to this and for making an attempt to at least meet with me, and we'll see if we can come to resolution. I'm sure Ashley and her family would be deeply appreciative.

[Applause.]

A. Dix: Modest applause, hon. Speaker.

Just to let the minister and the staff know, in terms of how we're proceeding with estimates, I have a few questions following up on last night. Then we'll have some questions on aboriginal affairs and children with special needs. At 5:30 we're going to start the session on child care, and then we'll be back later this evening with questions on foster care.

That's just to let the people who are probably watching in that room behind there know, because I actually took

part in these in that room back there at one time. Just to let them know so they can….

An Hon. Member: No BlackBerrys.

A. Dix: They've got BlackBerrys over there too, I think — one or two. Just to let you know, that's kind of the

schedule for the rest of today.

Last night I asked the minister about the deaths of children in care, about the mortality rate for children in care, and the minister said he'd get back to us today with a graph from 2000 to 2005 of the death rate per thousand. I'm wondering if the minister has that information.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm looking at a graph here showing fatalities of children in care by cause-of-death category per-100,000-child population — zero to 18 by calendar year. It starts at 1996, where it's two. Then in 1997 it goes to 2.2, and then in 1998 it drops to 1.5. These are very, very small numbers, thankfully. In 1999 it's 1.6. In 2000 it's down to 1.0; 2001, 0.9; 2002, 1.0; 2003, 1.3; and 2004, 1.5.

Now, these are broken down to categories of undetermined homicide, suicide, accident and natural, but I'm not sure how in-depth you want to go on these numbers. I don't know if this is the same graph you have.

[1545]

A. Dix: This is the information on the ministry website. What it shows, if you compare children who are children in care; children known to the ministry — in that category; and the overall mortality rate in British Columbia…. If you look at the numbers per-thousand population, you'll see that over the last four years the overall mortality rate has stayed constant, in fact. It was 0.39 per thousand in 2001-2002. It was 0.4 per thousand in 2004-2005. So the overall mortality has essentially stayed the same, and that's not a surprise to anyone.

What has gone up dramatically, if you look at that…. In fact, the ratio of mortality for children in care was double the provincial average in 2001-2002 — also not a surprise, because there are great challenges in this area. It was 0.83. It's risen now to three times the provincial average — 1.28 in 2004-2005.

In that period the minister, of course, has eliminated many of the reviews of children's deaths. Does the minister not think that information…? As he rightly points out, over all, these can be small numbers, but it's still a significant increase in the mortality rate since 2001-2002. Does he not think that is cause for concern? Does he not think that's cause for more reviews and more recommendations so that we can learn more from the deaths of children? Is that not an argument for the previous system of reviewing children's deaths?

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the challenges in looking at these numbers is that they are so small that to say something goes from 0.5 to one is certainly not…. I don't think you can read a trend into that. I'm not sure where the member is going.

Thankfully, the numbers are small. Of course, we are concerned about every child's death in British Columbia, but this certainly doesn't show me that there's a trend.

A. Dix: With great respect, there is a trend. The numbers are small, thankfully. I wouldn't expect that the numbers themselves would climb exponentially. That would not be something one would expect, particularly given the stability of our province in general and the stability of the overall mortality rate.

The trend is clear from the information provided by the ministry. In every single year since 2001 the mortal-

[ Page 1559 ]

ity rate for children known to the ministry has gone up. In every single year since 2001-2002 the mortality rate has quite dramatically gone up for children in care. That seems to me to be a consistent trend.

The minister might, if the mortality rate were to go down this year, have an argument that it isn't a trend, but in fact, in every single year since those cuts were made, since services for children were cut, the mortality rate has gone up. That's not to say that you want to make that linkage, but I'm just making the point that because we don't have a children's commissioner — right? We don't have the reviews that we used to have of these events.

I'm saying: "Let's not draw those kind of conclusions. Let's not have a debate about this." But surely, with the fact that every single year the mortality rate has gone up in both categories of children in the ministry's responsibility, isn't it a reasonable argument that we should go back to a system where we review more comprehensively every death in order to draw those lessons we do learn?

I think the lessons we draw usually aren't from the statistics. Given, as the minister has suggested, the small number of deaths we're talking about — from nine to 14 per year, pretty much…. The small number of deaths may not provide the information we need, but the individual deaths can provide enormous information.

What we've had since 2001-2002 is a pattern of not wanting to investigate individual deaths adequately. In fact, the elimination of the child advocate, the elimination of the children's commissioner, has indicated that.

I think that's the question for the minister. These are the trends. They're very clear in the information. That doesn't mean we need to draw extraordinary conclusions from those trends, but surely it means we have to ensure that every death is investigated properly.

[1550]

Hon. S. Hagen: We do care very much about the kids that we have in care. We care very much about the outcomes of those children that we have in care, and obviously, we care when there's a death of a child in care. That's precisely why the provincial health officer and the child and youth officer are doing a study to check the outcomes and also to look at the deaths of children in care.

A. Dix: Doesn't the minister agree with me that increasing mortality rates every year since 2001 is a subject of concern?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to point out that — I know the member's hung up on these numbers — if you look at homicides, there's been no change in homicides from…. Actually, they've gone down from 1996. In 1996 there were 0.2 deaths per 100,000. In 1997 it was 0.1. Since that it's been 0.0. The increase that the member is talking about is in kids dying of natural causes. Some of these kids are extremely ill. Yes, I care about why there has been an increase from 0.6 deaths per 100 children to 1.0. But as I said, that's one of the things that's being looked at in the study that's being carried out by the provincial health officer and the child and youth officer.

I hope that the member would agree with me. I mean, he's really hung up on what you call these people. You know, to me, it doesn't matter what you call a person. It's important what the person does. That's what we want. We want to know what the outcome is, and that's precisely why — and I'm sure you didn't miss this press release today — to make sure that what we're doing is correct, we announced today the panel to review B.C.'s child protection system. Here's what the panel is going to look at.

As a matter of fact, I think it's important to read this into the record, and I know the member opposite would be disappointed if I didn't.

The province has finalized the membership of the independent panel that will examine oversight, public reporting and advocacy within B.C.'s child and youth protection system….

"With this panel, we are uniting many of

B.C.'s most respected experts on child welfare, child development and governance…. The panel will provide an independent assessment of our approach to meeting the needs of vulnerable children and investigating child deaths, to ensure it is as thorough and open as possible."

The Hon. Ted Hughes, QC, will chair a

panel composed of Jane Morley, B.C.'s child and youth officer; Joyce Preston, B.C.'s former child and youth advocate; Grand Chief Ed John, B.C.'s former Minister of Children and Families; Terry Smith, B.C.'s chief coroner; and Maureen Nicholls, a former deputy minister.

On top of that:

Judge Thomas Gove, a Provincial Court judge who was commissioner of the Gove inquiry into child protection ten years ago, has agreed — with the approval of Hugh Stansfield, Chief Judge of the Provincial Court of B.C. — to be available to engage in discussions with the panel if requested to do so by the panel.

I know that the panel will want to talk to Judge Gove. Here's a quote by the chair of this blue-ribbon panel:

"Protecting vulnerable children and youth is one of the most important goals of government and society," Hughes said. He added that he welcomes the opportunity to work with panel members and is pleased with the availability of Judge Gove to assist in a consultative role.

The panel is to review and recommend any

changes to improve B.C.'s system of reviewing child deaths by the end of January 2006 —

I think it's February, actually

— for consideration in the spring 2006 legislative session. The panel will also review roles and responsibilities related to advocacy for children and youth and to monitoring and public reporting on government's protective and other services to children and youth, and will make any recommendations for improvement by April 30.

[1555]

The terms of reference were included in this, and I'd just like to read those into the record.

Whereas government is committed to supporting and protecting children and youth and

whereas government is committed to ensuring the public accountability of services provided or funded by government to children and

[ Page 15 60 ]

youth in British Columbia, including the child

protection system, the following panel….

I won't read the panel members into the record again.

The terms of reference.

Part 1.

(1) To examine the system for the review of

deaths of children, including (

a) the roles and responsibilities of….

And it lists the various roles and responsibilities.

(

b) the way results of reviews are publicly reported and internally addressed; and (

c) related matters as the panel sees fit.

(2) To recommend any changes to improve

the system for review of deaths of children and to balance the need for public accountability with the privacy interests of the families and others involved.

(3) To make a final report to the Minister of

Children and Family Development and to the public….

And it is by January 31, 2006.

Then there's a part two of the terms of reference, and I appreciate that the member has asked me to read this:

(1) To examine the roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the child and youth officer, the chief coroner, the Ombudsman, the public guardian and trustee as they relate to advocacy for children and youth and to monitoring and public reporting on the government's performance in protecting and providing services for children and youth in British Columbia.

(2) To recommend any changes to improve

advocacy for children and youth and monitoring and public reporting on the government's performance and protecting and providing services for children and youth in British Columbia.

(3) To make an interim report to the

Minister of Children and Family Development and to the public by February 28, 2006 and a final report to the Minister of Children and Family Development and to the public by April 30, 2006.

So as I've said many, many times in answers to the questions posed by the member opposite, we actually do want to make sure that we have the best system that we can possibly have, that we have the most open and transparent system that we can possibly have, bearing in mind that we do owe confidentiality to family members and to others, and we don't want to breach the law in information that we release. But we really do want to make sure that we can stand up proudly as British Columbians and say: "We have the best system anywhere with regard to child protection."

A. Dix: I'm delighted, because the minister gives me hope. He gives me hope that the many questions I ask will in fact bring action from the government. He'll remember that on September 19 the government had no plans to do any review in this area. Then we asked him some questions in the House, and magically on September 20 there was one review, and then on September 22 there was a second review, and then on September 23 there was a third review.

We asked him more questions in the House. The government's response every day — desperately trying to defend its record and its failures in this area — was to announce a new review. Then on October 4 the government announced a review, and the minister's words were fulsome in Hansard . He said, as did the Premier: "Judge Gove will be on the panel." Of course, he's not.

What that tells me is not, you know, that anyone is inevitable or anyone has to be on a panel or anything else. What it tells me is that the government has failed in this area, that the government has no plan in this area, that the government was making this up as it went along, that the minister and the Premier wrote out this plan on October 4 on the back of an envelope, that they hadn't got their ducks in order, that the Premier and the minister announced Judge Gove, and Judge Gove wasn't available, probably for good reasons. I think probably because people in Judge Gove's position have to actually seek permission to sit on panels, and judges are busy in British Columbia.

[1600]

But I'm pleased that that this review is taking place, because the overwhelming evidence is that we need to reinstate the children's commissioner. Now, the minister says I'm hung up on titles. I'm not hung up on titles. It doesn't bother me what the minister calls the position. What matters is that all child deaths are automatically reviewed under the legislation; that the children's commissioner and, potentially, a children's advocate — because I'm delighted to see that aspect of it being reviewed as well — be appointed as independent officers of the Legislature; and that they have the true independence that comes with having these cases automatically referred.

Unlike the child and youth officer, an independent children's commissioner doesn't have to seek the permission of the Minister of Children and Family Development — the very ministry that she would be reviewing — in order to have a review. To quote Judge Gove, referring to the case we're talking about, because Judge Gove had some very interesting things…. Judge Gove, like me, isn't hung up on titles. He says: If we see the work that the children's commissioner did — it doesn't matter what the name is — we would certainly go back there.

I think that is something that those who make decisions of that nature may want to consider. If we did have the children's commissioner or if the officer had the same authority that the commissioner had —

and he's referring to the case in Port Alberni, minister

— what would have happened is that there would have been a comprehensive review of this child's life, her placement with her relative, her death. Experts would have made recommendations, including assessments of decisions that were made, and the report would have been made public. All that would have happened without people blaming each other in terms of the political sphere and who did what. That gets child welfare out of politics and where it belongs: the concern of everyone.

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

I agree with my friend the minister when he says to me: "We want the best system possible." But for three years the minister has put in place — and successive previous ministers and the Attorney General and the Premier have put in place — an inadequate system.

[ Page 1561 ]

I received a letter with respect to the case in Port Alberni from the chief coroner, who said they're still working on their system of reviewing child deaths, who has an aggregate system for reviewing child deaths. I received a letter from the child and youth officer with respect to the case in Port Alberni. The child and youth officer said to me that I should ask questions of the minister about those cases, because her reviews won't cover it.

I'm delighted. I had just one or two questions. Since the minister brought it up and since he read the terms of reference, it means that I don't have to read them into the record. I'm delighted he has taken that course. The fundamental term of reference is to review the role of the child and youth officer and the coroner's office in reviewing children's deaths. That's fundamentally what's involved here: whether that process was the right process. It's referred to specifically in the terms of reference.

Ordinarily, when we do a review of offices, the offices in question don't review themselves. The Ministry for Children and Families is an exception to that. They like to review themselves and not have anyone else review them independently. Ordinarily, in the regular world, if one were in the corporate world or something and you wanted to bring someone into review the agency, I suspect, and the minister agrees with me…. In the corporate world — or the non-profit world, where I've been working…. If we wanted to review my organization in the non-profit world, you'd bring someone in from the outside.

You wouldn't appoint me the reviewer of my performance. I think that's a fair statement — if you wanted an independent review.

It seems to me, of course, that the child and youth officer and the chief coroner and anyone else who wants to be involved can be involved in this process. That seems reasonable to me — making presentations, defending their positions. Both of those individuals are aggressive and articulate spokespeople for the status quo. They've already decided on these questions, and it's their offices that are under review.

Doesn't the minister think their role should be more like that which he has suggested Judge Gove will have and, perhaps, others of us will have in providing advice to the blue-ribbon panel? Isn't it sort of strange to have the people being reviewed on the panel doing the reviewing?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, it wasn't my suggestion that Judge Gove take the role that he's taken. It was actually the suggestion of the Chief Judge for the province of British Columbia. There were reasons for that. Mainly, it revolved around time commitment and the length of time that the judge would be away.

[1605]

We had always said…. I will also say this: Judge Gove dearly wanted to do this. We all know that this is a passion for him, and we appreciate everything that he's contributed over the years and what he's contributing now. Unfortunately, it was not possible, so the Chief Judge made the suggestion so that we could…. I mean, we could have said: "Well, if he can't be on the panel, then we're not interested." That wasn't the case. We wanted him involved, the Chief Judge knew that we wanted him involved, and this was a way that he could still carry out his duties on the bench and still play a role in the panel and in providing information to the panel.

With regard to the question as to whether or not the child and youth officer and the coroner — who are both independent, I might add — should be on the panel, I guess you could have a debate around that. I might add that regardless of the debate, we wouldn't change it. I have total confidence that Ted Hughes — who has a longstanding public service record in the government and on the bench and as a former conflict commissioner and a very, very talented adjudicator — will actually listen to all of the views.

I, frankly, don't have any idea what views Grand Chief Ed John will bring to the table. I've never had the discussion with Grand Chief Ed John with regard to…. I have discussions with Ed John with regard to the system all the time, because he's on my advisory committee, and I appreciate the advice that I get from Grand Chief Ed John and others. I've never specifically had a discussion on the makeup or the positions — and the same with some others on the committee.

I think this is a blue-ribbon panel. I don't think you can question the integrity of this panel or the people on the panel. I'm thrilled, actually, that all of them agreed to serve and agreed to do what they've been asked to do. I do look forward to any recommendations that they might bring back to me, which will be public. I think that where I am on this is: let's let the panel do their job. Let's let the panel do their work. Let's not bring partisan politics into this to add to the confusion that's out there. Let's let them do their work in a responsible manner, and then we'll see what recommendations they bring forward.

A. Dix: I say — with, as always, great respect for the minister and his long experience in politics — that he's given me hope, because he's repeatedly, in fact, changed terms of reference and panels, so far, after I've asked questions. I'll just ask him the question again — the specific question I asked.

I think the members of the panel are great. I actually have no particular issue with Ms. Morley personally or with Mr. Smith personally. My point is simply that they're the people being reviewed. When you're being reviewed and you have an absolute point of view — you're the designer of the current system; you're the people being reviewed — it seems to me that your role in relationship to the panel shouldn't be one that you don't participate. In fact, I think the minister will agree that we want all people in the province with an interest to participate and to have an opportunity to express their views.

If you're being reviewed, should you be doing the reviewing? That's a fairly simple question. I think that on most corporate boards, on most non-profit boards,

[ Page 1562 ]

the answer to that question would be no. I'm just asking the minister why things are different at the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. S. Hagen: Let's not forget what the objective is. The objective is that the panel will examine the oversight, the public reporting and the advocacy within B.C.'s child and youth protection system. That's the objective. The objective is to make sure that we have the best system that we can possibly have.

[1610]

Now, who better to talk to than people who actually work in the system, people who use the system — in the case of Grand Chief Ed John — and people who have no connection with the system. I think that's a combination of objectivity and people who have the knowledge about how the system works. Then, of course, we have the former child, youth and family advocate on the panel, as well, to bring her views to the panel. I think the panel is incredibly balanced.

I did forget to thank the member opposite for all the compliments that he gave me. I think, actually, to be really truthful, that's the most compliments I've ever had from a critic in any of the nine ministries I've had.

A. Dix: I say to the hon. minister: we're just getting started, although I have a tremendous litany of nice things to say about the Minister of Health when his estimates come up next week. He's doing well. He's in business over there.

I want to move briefly to the issue of child protection audits. The ministry conducts these audits on a four-year cycle, and it lists on its websites the most recent audits it's done. Have there been any audits done since 2002? If there have been, where are they, and can we have copies of them?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the numbers from the last budget debate. I don't have the numbers from 2002, but I'm happy to provide the numbers that were….

Interjection.

Hon. S. Hagen: Yeah. I'll just read into the record. From January 1, 2004, to September 22, 2005, there were three director case reviews completed and 18 deputy director's reviews completed. As of September 22, 2005, three director's case reviews are in progress, and 37 deputy director's reviews are in process.

A. Dix: I just want to be clear from the minister. Of course, my second question would be: with respect to the completed audits, can we receive copies of those audits?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, but they'll be severed to meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. You did ask for the number of audits. I have the number. From April 1, 2004, to September 30, 2005, 44 case practice audits have been conducted in the regions. Four additional audits are in progress. If you'd like the number of audits from 2002, I'm happy to provide that.

[1615]

A. Dix: I'm just curious. The ministry lists child protection audits on its website for public information. In fact, you can access some of those audits. It's under "Accountability in audits," and in this information to be made available to the public, the most recent audit was Richmond in 2002 — the integrated youth team.

I'm just wondering if the minister can explain whether it's a matter of practice to put the most recent audits on the website so that they're publicly available and don't require extensive FOI. I have, I must say, great difficulty getting FOI information from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I thought it would be easier just to ask the minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's something we're actually anxious to do, but I'm told by staff that we're having negotiations with the FOI legal people. There's some debate or argument, I guess, about what can be posted and what can't be. I'm not sure how long that's going to go on or whether it will be settled, but I'm sure my staff will let me know that.

Just to clarify that a bit more, it relates to the recent amendments to the FOI Act, so my staff are trying to clarify that with the FOI staff to work their way through that. The goal is, as I've said before, to post as much information on the website as we legally can.

A. Dix: Can the minister confirm that an audit of the aboriginal side of child protection in the Fraser region was recently cancelled?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know the answer to that, and neither do my staff that are here.

A. Dix: Would the minister agree to find the answer to that question and to bring it back before the end of estimates?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, we'll do that.

A. Dix: The hon. minister raised a story in the New York Times last night, and he read it into the record. I know he's a reader of international journals and international newspapers. I'm amazed, given his many responsibilities, that he has the time to do these things, but there you go. I think he may have people who bring them to his attention from time to time.

I just wanted to bring a note to his attention with respect to changes to child welfare, because we're all learning and we're all trying to get better. There's been a very significant and interesting series of case studies in Alabama over the last few years, which the minister, and probably his staff, will know have actually made great strides in several of the areas that the minister and I and others have talked about in terms of child protection, child services and keeping families together.

[ Page 1563 ]

I wanted to refer to him an

article in the August 20, 2005, New York Times — and there's a series of other articles related to this — about Alabama. What they said was this: "What by all accounts had been a dysfunctional system in Alabama, scarring too many children by sending them to foster-care oblivion while ignoring others in danger, has over the last 14 years become a widely studied model. But it has not been cheap…." In fact, Alabama has more than quadrupled its spending on these services since 1990.

Now, we've had a little debate in the last while about these questions, but it seems to me — I say to the minister — that the government has got it only half right. The decision to keep children and families intact is one we all agree with. It forms the basis of the very legislation that the minister and social workers enforce and everything else. It says it right in there; it's always said it right in there. Back when he was the member of a previous party, it said it, and when we changed the act in the early '90s, it was reinforced in there. It's always been part of that.

What people have learned in other jurisdictions is that if you want to change the system to keep families together, you have to invest more resources in families. You don't create programs where you cut away all the government supports for children as you keep families together.

[1620]

I just want to bring this to his attention and say to him that I think there is a reasonable debate about this. I think the problem with a lot of the new methods, with the least disruptive measures, that the ministry has come up with is that they have been combined with deep cuts to supports for families, to income assistance and to day care funding, and with all the other things that the government has done over the last four years which have taken away supports that families had to succeed and to get together. Combine that with reductions in child protection workers and reductions in supports for workers. Combined together, that is not the best course.

I just wanted to raise that to his attention — because this is a serious debate, a serious issue, and there are lessons we have to teach sometimes in our jurisdiction, and there are also lessons to learn — and get the hon. minister's reaction.

Hon. S. Hagen: I hadn't read the

article with regard to Alabama, but having gone to school down in the States and knowing what they sometimes spend on social programs, I'd be interested. When you said they'd quadrupled it, I'd sure be…. That's a meaningless term unless you know what they started with and you compare it to what we're spending.

This ministry is much like the Ministry of Education. The education of our children is not necessarily improved by the amount of money you spend. The quality of education is actually directly related to the quality of the teacher in the classroom. The answer to every problem is not necessarily to spend more money.

As I indicated yesterday, because we are actually discussing the '05-06 fiscal budget and then moving on to the next three years, because we do three-year rolling planning…. Over the next three years our budget will increase by $138 million, which is what I said yesterday. That's not including any of the federal money on the early learning and child care agreement.

The member talks about doing things differently and improving the way we do things. As I talk to social workers on the front lines, that's exactly what they talk to me about. They're thrilled with the changes, where they no longer have to go in and take children out of homes as a first step. They're actually thrilled and excited talking to me about working with families so that they can keep children in the families. We're thrilled about that too.

As I said yesterday, we have refocused resources and changed policy to reduce the numbers of children in care. Here are some of the improvements we've made. These are shifts for specific reasons.

Adoptions. We've increased what we spend on the adoption programs from $3.3 million a year to $17.3 million a year. Out-of-care and alternatives to care — kith-and-kin and other tools for keeping families together — from $400,000 a year to $2.4 million a year. Aboriginal services, from $7.8 million to $18.7 million a year.

Yes, I am satisfied that our senior staff and social workers do keep up to date with the practices that are improving, and that's important. It's part of the training. We do things differently now than we did ten years ago, and I think they're better.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the workload per FTE — and we're actually meeting our targets — we've gone from 7.8 children in care per FTE to 6.6 children in care per FTE. That's a 15-percent decrease overall. Some of that probably has to do with the fact that social workers now spend more time with families to keep kids there. You can't always have that high ratio. Of course, that ratio was much higher under the government that you worked for.

I think we're on the right track. I think we're making good progress. We're always looking for continual improvement in how we do things. I think I'll leave it there.

[1625]

A. Dix: Well, you know, it's interesting. I say this to the minister. Usually ministers of the Crown have a tendency to hear what they want to hear, but I've never seen cognitive dissonance adopted as a ministry policy before.

We had a survey that the child and youth officer took of agencies and front-line workers, and they said exactly the opposite of what the minister just said. They said they were being pressured by ministry staff. They said, by the way, even now, that social workers who make decisions in kith-and-kin agreements…. Most of them haven't received in-person training at all, even on those agreements, even after all that's happened.

I think that the direction the ministry has gone in is simply wrong. Laying off social workers is the wrong approach. Just to read from this

article — the minister, I'm sure, is interested in these things — they hired

[ Page 1564 ]

more social workers to trim caseloads. That's what they did. They, in fact, increased the capacity of social workers to help individual families increase the options. They reduced the egregious conditions of impossible caseloads. They literally hired — hon. minister, the opposite of what you did — hundreds of new social workers so that the workers could now spend ten hours a week in some homes.

Now, this is the opposite to the approach that's taken. I mean, the minister doesn't need to ask me. I've been around talking to social workers. He's been around talking to social workers. He may think…. I haven't met a single social worker who agrees with his description of events.

He may say that I'm biased in my view, that I'm unfair in my view, that I'm overly critical of the minister, that I'm overly critical of the ministry — that I'm a critic. So I just refer him not to what I have to say but to what social worker groups have to say, what the Association of Social Workers has to say, what the BCGEU has to say. More importantly…. He may even think they're biased. He may even think, as he said yesterday, that social workers complain about things. They were whining. He may say that.

I just refer him to the report of the child and youth officer, who said clearly that social workers are feeling pressured. This ministry and this minister have set targets. It sets targets for the number of children in care, in fact, to drive them down. It seems to me that what the number of children in care surely should be is an aggregate of individual decisions made by social workers and not the minister and the ministry, for budget reasons, driving down the ministry's children in care for statistical reasons to meet phoney targets. In fact, it should be an aggregate of individual decisions that social workers made based on the right options, the best choice for every individual child.

The ministry shouldn't be instructing — as, by the way, it did in the memorandum that we went over at length. I don't intend to bring back into the debate, from yesterday, the shameful memorandum that implemented the kith-and-kin program, where the ministry said that this was the best measure — and, in fact, has engaged with all these measures in pressuring social workers. Again, it's not what I say. It's what the child-and-youth-officer survey says. It's what social workers say. It's what agencies say. It's what the child and youth officer says. Social workers feel like they're being pressured to meet certain targets. They're pressured to go in a certain direction.

I say with great respect to the minister that I don't think that's the right approach. The right approach is that we take each case as an individual, and what the numbers end up at in aggregate are what the numbers end up at. Social workers should not, and surely he would agree, be pressured by ministry targets to reduce the number of children in care, be pressured to choose options that they don't see as desirable.

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, I don't disagree with everything that the member says, just a bit of it. If I left the impression that in my travels around the offices, I didn't hear any complaints from social workers, then I apologize for that. When I go to the offices, I want the people, as we sit around the table and talk, to be very open about what they have to say, because I'm interested in what they have to say.

[1630]

Certainly, you hear things that you might rather not hear, but I expect to hear those things. I learn from that. I take what they say to heart. Sometimes my senior staff gets a bit nervous when I go around to these offices. But I think it's the right thing to do, and I will keep doing it.

I want to talk about where we were, because the member has taken me back to '01 and is talking about the budget since then. At that time there were over 11,000 children in care. Yes, we have to look at each individual case. But I think you also have to look and compare how we're doing in B.C. to other provinces, because how else do you know whether you're doing well or you're not doing well?

When we became government in '01 — and I'm not going to talk about the terrible decade of the '90s — there were 11,000 children in care, which was 24 percent above the Canadian average. It seems to me that if the situation were reversed and our government had been government in the '90s and the NDP came into government in '01 and the minister sat down and said, "Well, let's have a look at the Ministry of Children and Families to see how it's doing after the government that's been in for ten years," and it was pointed out that there were 11,000 children in care, somebody would probably ask the question: "So how does this compare with the rest of Canada?"

Let's say that you were the minister and that you were to find out this was 24 percent above the Canadian average. I am sure that you would ask the question: is this where we should be in British Columbia, or do we need to make some improvements? That's all we did, because we thought that we shouldn't be 24 percent above the Canadian average. Then you look at best practices, and you look at how you can do things better. You look at what the previous government had done and how we can improve on that. As I say, if the situation had been reversed, I'm sure that you would have done exactly the same thing.

What we found was that over the next four years we lowered the number of children in care by 16 percent, which I think is laudable. We're still 5 percent above the Canadian average, but as I've said many, many times, we believe in the principle of continual improvement. We will continue to improve, to work with our social workers, to work on a case-by-case basis, because I don't disagree with that. But I also think that we have to be conscious of how we match up to other jurisdictions.

A. Dix: I say, with great respect to the minister, that I find that defence of the pressure social workers feel across the ministry when they have to make decisions to meet the ministry's targets rather than decisions that

[ Page 1565 ]

they feel are in the best interests of children surprising. I've been told repeatedly that the term social workers get from managers is that they just have to learn to accept a higher level of risk. Well, I don't think that's acceptable.

When the minister sets targets — and sometimes the ministry meets them, and sometimes it doesn't — to drive down the number of children in care…. When they create new kinds of situations, such as the discussion we had yesterday about kith-and-kin agreements, where the ministry created a new system where children in care — and they're really children in need of protection under those agreements — go in without all the supports they might otherwise have in a foster home. They don't really get anything like the level of financial support.

The minister can talk about this federal-provincial stuff all he likes. The fact of the matter is that the home gets less money to support the children under that agreement. The government saves money when a child goes into kith and kin rather than restricted foster care, and the child gets less access to resources.

[1635]

In addition, there is less effort made on a home study and less protection for the child. We know what the result of that was in the one case. But more importantly, since the ministry hasn't actually measured the success of most of its least disruptive measures and hasn't done a comprehensive audit of kith and kin — it seems unbelievable to me, under the circumstances, that it hasn't done a comprehensive audit — we don't know the success of these, if the approach is wrong.

I think the right number of children in care is the aggregate of those individual decisions. I think we should, as the minister says, trust social workers to make that decision and not pressure social workers to meet the minister's artificial targets. That's where, I think, we differ significantly.

I wanted to go on and start to ask the minister about the devolution process to aboriginal agencies, because that's where…. Before he, again, inspired me today….

Should we let staff come in? We'll just give a couple of minutes for one person to leave.

Hon. S. Hagen: While the staff is changing, I just want to make one comment. That is that I've been assured by my senior staff that the instructions that go out to social workers are to make their decisions on a case-by-case basis on the merit of that case. I know that you're trying to make some political points by suggesting that the numbers are driving everything, but that's not what we ask our social workers to do. We ask our social workers to make their decisions on a case-by-case basis based on the merit of that case.

A. Dix: Well, I'll just say that it's not me saying it, of course, and the minister knows this. It's agencies saying it. It's social workers saying it across British Columbia. They are saying — social workers, his ministry workers — that in fact the ministry has decided to accept a higher level of risk. I don't agree with that approach. I think it's budget-driven. I think it was driven by the Premier's decisions around the budget in 2001 and 2002 — the extraordinary decision to target large cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development in complete contradiction of his commitments to the people of British Columbia.

With respect to the devolution process, I wanted to ask the minister, first of all, with respect to aboriginal planning committees…. As he knows, the government made a commitment to this process. I think it's fair to say — and all of us, I think, on both sides of this House are quite supportive of this process — that the challenge the process faces is the lack of real confidence, of real resources, of real support from the minister.

The minister made a commitment. What was their commitment to regionalization in 2002-2003? It was $30 million. What has the ministry delivered? Some $2.2 million. In fact, there's been a 92.5-percent reduction in funding to support communities to reclaim responsibilities for children and families services. Only 7.5 percent of the original targeted funds remain.

In fact, the ministry in this case broke a written commitment to community-based planning committees. I think that people I've met with in this sector will say to the minister that the goals of the MOU and the goals of the Tsawwassen accord are in jeopardy as a result.

I'd like to ask the minister first of all: can he tell the House what impact he thinks this broken promise, this cut, has had on their ability to oversee and plan for child welfare services in their communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure where the member is getting his numbers from. I do want to talk about moving ahead with the aboriginal governance authority. I think I can say that we haven't moved along as quickly as we had wanted to, but we have now — together with my advisory committee — made a commitment to have these in place by the next fiscal year.

[1640]

I certainly can say that I have a strong working relationship with the aboriginal leaders through JAMC — the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee. To date we've invested $10.54 million in planning. We've budgeted $2.2 million for planning in '05-06 — over $3 million if you can include in-kind support through ministry regions and headquarters. And in addition to this budget, the aboriginal leaders and I met with the chairs of the planning committees in September, and I've committed another $500,000 this year to support the work that committees are doing.

A. Dix: I just wanted to ask the minister before we go further through the details, before we go through the specifics of the broken commitment to the planning committees and to the process that has seen the process delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed — that's five delays…. I wanted to ask him, just in a general sense, whether he thinks that the structure of the restructuring is the right approach — that

[ Page 1566 ]

the centralized approach, the ministry-driven approach, is the right approach.

As he knows, in the province of Manitoba they went a different route with respect to the regional aboriginal authority process. They appointed, essentially, a leader and a team from outside of the ministry to drive it. Does the minister not think that that might be the best approach, given the failure of the approach over the last four years — and I would say, by the way, independent, probably, of both sides — to help drive the process, not reporting to the ministry but rather a more independent approach? Doesn't he think that might yield a more successful result?

Hon. S. Hagen: This has really been a partnership all along. Our working relationship with JAMC, my joint advisory committee, has been excellent. We're meeting with them in the next couple of weeks. We meet twice a year, and we meet at additional times whenever they want a meeting.

On top of that, we've set up five regional committees, all with aboriginal members. You know, as I said, sometimes you would like these things to move ahead more quickly than they do. But having said that, I think the relationship with the first nations and the government, the aboriginal community and the government, is stronger now than it's ever been.

A. Dix: Well, I say to the minister: I know that the minister listens very carefully to all the suggestions we make, so I want to get his reaction to three suggestions that might improve this process — his reaction to all three of them.

We could do one at a time. For example, would he agree with me that one way to help this process along would be to reinstate the original funding levels to aboriginal planning committees?

Hon. S. Hagen: Working with first nations is not always about throwing money at the process. It's more about building a relationship of trust and respect with the first nations leaders and with the first nations people, and that's exactly what we've been working on.

[1645]

We are committed to funding this process. We're committed to the process being successful, and we know how important it is to the aboriginal community to work with them to keep aboriginal kids in aboriginal homes. That's what the goal is. Will we get to that goal next week or next month? No. But over a period of time, we will get to that goal.

A. Dix: I agree with the minister that it's not all about money, but surely it's about trust. The minister and the government signed an agreement. They said there was going to be a level of funding, and then they arbitrarily cut the funding. So I say to the minister that yes, I agree that it's not just about money, but in fact, that's what happened. They arbitrarily cut the funding. They made a decision to arbitrarily cut the funding, and that has, I say to the minister, an impact on trust.

I'm assuming that the answer to my first suggestion — that he reinstate the original funding levels to the aboriginal planning committees — is a no. How about my second suggestion, which is to return resources and supports for aboriginal organizational development and coordination to an aboriginal secretariat with no outside interference from the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is throwing all kinds of numbers around that I've never heard of, but I can tell the member this: we work with the committees, the abo