[ Page 2891 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 4.

G. Plant: I'm delighted to have this opportunity to rise to speak on a bill which I believe the official opposition will be supporting. I understand it to be, in large measure, a transitional bill; that is, a bill necessary to give effect to the important initiative of this government to create an integrated Ministry for Children and Families.

We on this side of the House have not only supported that initiative, we have, I think, encouraged it. In fact, I think we can take some credit -- and I know we do take some credit -- for having put pressure on the government to expedite its implementation of these important aspects of the report of Judge Gove into child protection in the province. I'm glad to see that the government is moving forward in what I believe will be a challenging. . . . It will continue to be a challenging process of transition as the government moves to integrate into one new ministry services that have been delivered through a broad range of other ministries by people who have spent their lives in the public service of British Columbia, doing their jobs in the ministries in which they are accustomed to doing them.

In this case, we are dealing here with a transition, which I understand to be made necessary. . . . The legislation is made necessary because the transition of youth corrections services into the new ministry cannot be made, as other aspects of the transition were possible, by simply an order-in-council, given the language of the Correction Act and other statutes in British Columbia.

I think, though, that having welcomed the fact that the government is moving forward with the ambitious task of delivering and creating a fully integrated Ministry for Children and Families, it's important to recognize that transition often comes at a cost. Transition is a difficult time, sometimes, for people who are in the business of delivering the service and also for those who are in the business of receiving services.

In the particular case of those who have delivered the services associated with youth corrections in British Columbia, I think there are one or two points that need to be brought to the floor of this House, if for no other reason than to ensure that the government is aware of these issues and to ensure that as the government moves forward in the process of integrating these services, it does so in a way that is mindful of the issues that are out there.

I think there are two broad issues or areas of service delivery that are affected by this bill, at least according to my understanding. One is what might be called youth corrections in the sense of the institutions which are used in British Columbia to house young offenders. To the best of my understanding -- and I don't claim that it's a perfect understanding -- that transition is probably more easily achieved in the sense that the institutions are there as single-purpose institutions, in large measure. Those people who have provided service on behalf of the public in those institutions can probably be moved fairly easily into a new ministry -- although I say that in relative terms; I'm sure none of these transitions is all that easy.

The area, though, that seems to me to be perhaps more a concern -- and I hope it's a concern in the short run rather than the long run -- is the area of probation services. Here we have an unusual situation -- a historical anomaly, as I understand it. For years in British Columbia individuals in the Ministry of Attorney General have provided services as adult probation officers, as youth probation officers and as family court counsellors, and I think they may even do work in relation to interim release, bail hearings and bail reports.

Sometimes all of these functions have been performed by one individual. This is certainly true in rural British Columbia, or in small-town British Columbia, where there will be an office that has one or two or three individuals in it. Each of these individuals is someone who has training, has experience, has skill and has acquired judgment and expertise to the necessary degree over the years to provide services across what can be a fairly diverse range of activities; that is, ensuring that adults who are on probation are monitored and supervised, ensuring that young people who are on probation are also monitored and supervised, and also assisting the court in the provision of family court counselling services.

These are extremely demanding jobs and important jobs in our public service. These are, however, jobs that have been performed within one administrative structure that probably has done what it can to accommodate the circumstances of the geographic enormity of the province and the fact that in most parts of British Columbia the population is very sparse.

I know, for example, that in Vanderhoof the office that has been the probation office has three individuals who are professionals there. The way they do their job is that they deliver the services that I've talked about over a very broad area, an area that includes hundreds and hundreds of square miles. I wish I could remember the number, but I think it includes approximately a dozen first nations communities. It covers an extraordinarily large part of the province. The way the office has been organized is such that when court is sitting in Vanderhoof, one of the three individuals can sit in court and, over the course of a day, assist the court in all three, at least, of these diverse areas of responsibility: adult probation, youth probation and family court counselling. That one individual can do that job in court while there is someone back in the office dealing with the office business and yet a third person travelling around to the communities and delivering the services that are important and are required in those communities.

My hope -- and I'm sure the minister shares this hope -- is that in moving through this transition, as this bill will allow the government to do, the service delivery in an area like Vanderhoof in respect of each of these important functions is not compromised.

[10:15]

Now, I am sure that the minister has heard, as I have heard, concerns expressed by people who work within the probation office community about whether or not there will be some impairment of service in communities like Vanderhoof -- smaller communities in British Columbia where there has not been developed the same specialization of function 

[ Page 2892 ]

that I understand exists in the lower mainland and other more populated communities. The challenge is to ensure that without a significant increase in additional expenditure, the same level of service delivery is maintained across British Columbia in respect to each of these important subjects of the government's responsibilities.

I hope, for example, that as a result of the transition which this bill facilitates, young offenders -- young people who are in trouble with the law -- in rural British Columbia, in northern British Columbia and in areas like the Kootenays, north Vancouver Island, the north coast and, for that matter, Vanderhoof will continue to have the same access to the important services, the valuable work and the valuable experience and judgment of trained professionals who can move them through the criminal justice system in a way which ensures that they never return to it. That, I'm sure, is the goal that the minister has, and it's a goal that I think all of us have.

So my first thought, my first observation, is to say that while we share some enthusiasm for the intent of this bill, I urge the government to bear in mind the challenge that's involved in transition, to ensure that the government recognizes that this is hard work, and to ensure that the government recognizes that change of this nature is always viewed to some extent as a threat by those whose lives are affected by it. I urge the government to do what it can to make this experience, this transition, a constructive, positive one that achieves the goal of improving the delivery of service to young people rather than results in its deterioration.

I want to speak for a moment about a second issue that is, I think, an additional challenge which the minister is taking on when the minister takes on the responsibility for corrections in the area of young offenders. That is the issue that arises when one examines section 2 of the amendment act, which will, I think, become section 2 of the new Correction Amendment Act. That section reads: "The purpose of this act is to protect the community." Generally speaking, when we examine what it was that Judge Gove sought when he made the recommendations that he did, we find that the primary issue of concern for him -- and I think this is also the primary issue of concern for those of us on both sides of this House who are interested in this matter -- is how we can design those aspects of the child welfare system of government service in a way which enhances its primary mandate, which is the protection of children.

We know that that mandate is one that naturally and logically belongs across a whole range of services that government provides to children and families in our communities -- issues around youth and the provision of services that are intended to ensure that youth at risk are made less at risk. Issues like this are all about designing government services around the unifying principle, and the unifying principle is how to protect children. This is an old principle of the law. It's a principle that goes back in the doctrines of the courts of equity and the common-law and chancery courts of England for hundreds of years. It's deeply rooted in our common law. It's deeply rooted in our sense of what the proper relationship is between the state as parens patriae and those children who are at risk or in need of protection. That deeply rooted theme has been picked up across a whole host of legislation, including the family and children's services legislation.

That is, however, a different theme and a different message and a different purpose and a different policy from a policy which says that the purpose of this act is to protect the community. The reason that the Correction Act has that at its core, has that as its central purpose, is because when we are speaking of people who are in the corrections system, we are often speaking of people who, frankly, are dangerous to the community. We are speaking of people who leave the safety of ordinary citizens. . .who put that safety at risk.

It would be nice to think that all young offenders are troubled youths whose lives can be turned around in a way that will turn them into constructive citizens. I'm sure the minister and I want nothing better than to create a society in which there are fewer young offenders; and those who become young offenders are people who can, in fact, be turned back onto the path of becoming constructive members of society. But it is also sadly the case that there are young people who are profoundly dangerous to our community, who commit crimes that threaten safety, who commit acts that put citizens at risk and make them fearful for their own safety.

The corrections system and the institutions that are created and maintained as a result of this statute, the Correction Act, are places where some of those people -- hopefully, most of those people -- will be for a very significant period of time. They are there because it is important for government to take the steps necessary to protect the community rather than to put the community at risk.

There is, I think, some dichotomy between an objective which is fundamentally and primarily to protect children on the one hand and an objective which is fundamentally to protect the community. Because sometimes it will be necessary to take steps in respect to a particular offender that may not really be, in one sense, in the best interests of the rehabilitation of that offender but are, on the other hand, vitally necessary in order to ensure that the community at large is protected.

When I first thought about this bill. . . . I first examined it in the context of Judge Gove's report, and I wondered whether Judge Gove had given sufficient thought to this apparent -- contradiction may be putting it too high -- potential conflict in terms of competing purposes. I wondered whether, in the goal of integrating those services which enhance the government's ability to act in the best interests of children, Judge Gove perhaps had failed to give enough consideration to the other objective, in some cases the important objective, of protecting the community. Upon reflection, I think Judge Gove probably gave this as much thought as he was able to in the context of what was an enormous project. And it is not possible for me to say now that these two purposes could never be reconciled.

It will, I think, be a part of the challenge which the minister faces -- a challenge which is brought about, as I said earlier, by the fact of transition, by the administrative arrangements necessary in order to achieve transition. But I think it is also a challenge brought about by the fact that into this new ministry will be incorporated service delivery that is motivated by a different purpose, by what will become an express statutory purpose: the purpose of protecting the community.

It may well be that the best place to make those decisions is a table around which sit persons whose job is to protect the community as well as persons whose job is to protect child welfare. I hope that is the way this ministry organizes itself; that is, there will be advocates for their respective policy objectives and mandates sitting and dealing with these issues in the way that is anticipated when the minister speaks of integrated service delivery. If it is not done that way, I think there will be greater challenges. For example, if we find that people who are primarily social workers who have devoted their careers to advancing the welfare of children also have to incorporate in respect of a particular file the competing objective of protecting the community. . . .

[ Page 2893 ]

I understand that it may be possible on a case-by-case basis for people to draw that balance quite appropriately. But I'm not sure that it is wise to organize matters that way in the long run, because I think we always need to be mindful of the fact that the protection of the community brings into it concerns and considerations which include the advancement of the welfare of young people but also a whole host of other considerations that are really not very pleasant ones as far as young offenders may be concerned. That may involve making some very unpleasant decisions about incarcerating or detaining young offenders for long periods of time.

So we have two issues here and neither of them, in my view, is insurmountable. We have an issue of transition which I think is fundamentally an issue of administration, having given it the thought that I can in the time I've had available since I first saw this bill. It's an issue of ensuring that transitional arrangements are made in a way which maintains the existing levels of service across British Columbia in a context in which British Columbians can say: "Service delivery over the years has been at a high level." I want to make sure that this high level of service is continued.

Secondly, we do have this very interesting incorporation into a new integrated ministry, a ministry which brings together a whole host of different programs that have come from different ministries. We have the incorporation into that of a new policy objective that will apply to some of the work that this ministry does. I wish the minister well in the very hard work that she and her ministry will have to do in the months to come to ensure that neither of these obstacles becomes in fact insurmountable. And with that, hon. Speaker, I would say that I am happy to support the bill.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to stand. . . . I do support this bill, but I have some concerns. Hon. Speaker, you'll understand why I have some concerns when I explain that last Thursday the member opposite from Alberni threatened me and the women in my riding when I voted against what he thought I should vote for -- that is, there would be no transition homes in my riding. I think that's appalling. So that's one concern I have when this government puts forward something -- and if we don't support it, what then happens to us? We get threatened.

But the Liberal Party campaigned on making a children's ministry, and we are pleased that this government has taken our ideas and managed to bring forward a ministry that brings together everything that concerns children.

[10:30]

Judge Gove wanted anything to do with children to be transferred into this ministry, and the Attorney General ministry was no exception. Judge Gove stated that the ministry should work with the Ministry of Attorney General, the Justice Institute of British Columbia and relevant police authorities to ensure that the revised and updated protocols in the "Interministry Child Abuse Handbook" are made part of the basic knowledge taught in police recruit training. RCMP recruits transferred to B.C. should have a summary of the protocols as required reading in their orientation kits. I hope the ministry has seen, through the Attorney General, that all of these things Judge Gove has asked for are implemented. He also stated that the ministry should promote and participate in more directed training with police, particularly in risk assessment, interviewing and investigation skills.

The Ministry of Attorney General is turning over to the ministry youth probation and related community justice services, youth containment centres and family court counselling. And there's a great concern about when the 20 regional offices are put together and all the parties are working from those same offices. I've had many people come to me, especially mothers or parents with children with disabilities, who are very concerned about being in the same office, say, with an offender -- and we do have young offenders that are very dangerous. They are very concerned about the safety of their children. I think this is one issue that the Ministry for Children and Families should speak to them about so that their fears are not warranted. I have tried to talk to them about it, but they are very concerned.

Probation officers themselves are concerned that they are not social workers. They are concerned that when they are also in these offices, they will have to become social workers and look after children that they really don't have any training for. That was just another concern that has come to me.

Most of my concerns have been related to you by my colleague for Richmond-Steveston, and I have the very same concerns. But there are many questions I have that I will bring up in estimates with the Minister for Children and Families and have them answered then. I do wish her luck also. She has a tremendous job ahead of her. It is a tremendously large ministry, and I know that it is a big job to put all this together. I do want to wish her great success in doing that. I hope that the children are put first.

L. Reid: I'm delighted to rise this morning and speak on Bill 4, the Correction Amendment Act, 1997. I, too, would suggest that this is a transition bill. I think the challenge before all of us is to ensure that services continue to be delivered without compromising any level of service. I think that's the challenge. I personally think this minister is up to the challenge. As Liberals, as members of this official opposition, we have stated very strongly our support for a ministry that integrates service.

As a teacher in the Richmond school district for more than a decade, the discussion with parents, teachers and families was always around fragmented service -- they had a number of different points that they needed to reach to acquire service. Typically, if they had children with special needs or children who had conflicts with the law, if they had a combination of those, they had difficulties in terms of managing their lives, because they needed to go to two or three or four different stops on any given day to ensure that those services were delivered in a reasonable fashion.

I'm trusting that this bill will correct some of those fragmented delivery systems we currently have in the system. I'm under no illusions that this will happen overnight. This is definitely an evolutionary process. This will be something that will take us many months or probably many years to achieve. I think the discussions in my riding around accelerating these time lines is perhaps premature. I think there need to be some goalposts which are clearly defined for people. But then we need to stand back and give them some opportunities to drive through those goalposts at a pace that works for them.

The comfort zone around dealing with troubled children is a huge issue for individuals who are currently employed in the system. We need to ensure that those relationships are intact. We need to ensure that some kind of rapport makes sense to them as they continue to be in the system.

I've been a strong supporter of Judge Gove's recommendations, for the very reason that I believe that an integrated system is possible. It will not come to us without enormous challenge. Those challenges will certainly be in place day by day, month by month. There's no question about that.

[ Page 2894 ]

From the minister's comments yesterday. . . . She talked about moving to a proactive, multidisciplinary ministry. That works for me. It makes good sense. I would like our school districts to rise to that challenge, I would like our health care systems to rise to that challenge, because I do believe it's possible. I believe it's possible for us to come together and build something that's incredibly fine in this province. I think the Ministry for Children and Families is a very decent place to start, but I hope that that same thrust, that same direction, moves well and easily into the realm of government overall, and that we see some coordination of service in health care, some coordination of service delivery within the Ministry of Education.

When I was teaching in the system, I very much wanted the children I taught to be flexible decision-makers, to be reasonable human beings. If the goal of government is to produce decent citizenry -- and I believe it is probably one of the most admirable goals -- then all of us need to be reasonable players in that. At the end of the day, we want everyone -- no matter if they're young people, children or adults -- to be superb decision-makers. That's the goal. We want people to be able to weigh information, pro and con, and arrive at some kind of reasoned decision. It's a hefty challenge, but it's one that I think is eminently doable.

We need to talk for a moment or two about risk assessment, and about the training for probation officers and social workers. This will not be a new comment to this minister, because she's heard me speak of this in the past in terms of whether or not we adequately prepare people to be service deliverers. I don't believe we do. I believe we need to put in place definite risk-assessment training. Whether or not someone's at risk should be uppermost in the mind of any person dealing with children -- whether that's a teacher, a social worker or a probation officer. We've tended to cluster that skill set within probation officers. We need to extend our thinking and ensure that all individuals working with children have a very strong foundation in risk-assessment training. The world is changing, and we very much need to ensure that we put in place all of those issues.

One of the other concerns I have about Bill 4 is about benchmarking. This is a concern that crosses all spectrums of government. How are we going to measure success from this piece of legislation? What will the standard be? What will the evaluation tools be? I fully support that they're probably not created as we speak. I think we will come to them, but I think we need to come to them sooner rather than later. We want to have some useful mechanisms by which we can evaluate the evolution of this ministry, the growth of this ministry, and where we might go next with this ministry.

Accountability is essential for this piece of legislation to work. In the minister's remarks yesterday, I noticed that she talked about mandatory advisory committees. I think that's a very good thing. I think that people across spectrums and communities need to be invited into the process, in the good times as well as the bad -- not just when something goes wrong, but as part of the decision-making, part of the solutions, to get us to the point where we all believe we need to be.

I believe we're looking for new solutions. These are not new problems; they're ongoing problems in society. But we need to look at them from a different vantage point. We truly haven't done that in the past. We've had a series of old-hat remedies, if you will, that we've pulled out and said: "This is the answer." It hasn't been the answer. We're only seeing an increase in youth crime activities. We're seeing an increase in the number of children in care. We're seeing a decrease in the number of people willing to take on the fostering role in society. The problems are evident, and have been in place for many years. We certainly need to look at new solutions.

The challenge is teamwork. It means that every single person in the province has to believe that this bill makes good sense for the ministry and has to believe that they all want to play on the same team. That's vitally important if we're indeed going to make a difference for children and families.

This is about prevention issues -- there's no question about that. So the fact that the ministry is taking a stance on being proactive is a very, very good thing. Integration is the key for me, but it has to go hand in hand with accountability. Accountability is the goal. We have to be able to deliver on what we say we do in this Legislature. The public knows on some days -- on good days -- what they're paying for the product. They never know how to evaluate the product. We need to put in place some transparency so that new systems, such as this one, begin to make sense for people; otherwise it will simply be more paper. So if there's any way for this minister to make this system more transparent, to have more public hearings around the process, to have more information meetings that make good sense to people. . . . And not just people who are having difficulties with the system, but the people who, perhaps, have not been touched by the system but who, if they were, would know that they would want it to function in a particular way.

We talked earlier about balancing the needs of society -- the needs of a community -- with the needs of young people and putting children first. It's a very fine balancing act. Again, I believe the minister is up to the challenge, but there will be many, many days in the evolution of this ministry where it appears that not very much will happen in a smooth and easy manner. Those days will come. All of us need to participate fully in ensuring that the goal is to put the needs of children first, while balancing our community commitment to public safety. I acknowledge that that will be a fine balance, but I believe it's one that this Legislature is up to. No matter if you have the probation officers in the Ministry of Attorney General or in the Ministry for Children and Families, the challenge is the same. The service doesn't change based on where the ministry lies, so the service delivery needs to be first-rate and it needs to make good sense to people. I believe that's certainly possible.

If I could just make one or two closing comments, I do believe this ministry will face many challenges and, frankly, many upsets. However, I believe this minister will stay the course, and I wish her well, because I truly believe that this bill is about a different belief system in government -- that it's no longer appropriate to parcel out all the different aspects of government. It is about bringing them together. That will be a significant change for government if, 18 months from now, they are able to report back to this Legislature that indeed the system is working well, based on this level of criteria and based on this measurement tool, whatever that tool -- or many tools -- happens to be. That's the challenge. I look forward to the outcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Hon. G. Clark: We have in the gallery today some friends and neighbours of mine from East Vancouver, from the Foundation school in my constituency. They are affiliated 

[ Page 2895 ]

with Windermere Secondary School. Accompanying them are staff of the school: Jill Blair, Bob Robertson and Tammy Brennan. I ask all members to make them most welcome.

M. de Jong: I am pleased to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill 4. I don't think that many people were unaffected watching the deliberations of the Gove commission and the hearings that at times focused on really tortuous evidence about the life and death of a young boy. As I read through the report, it left the impression with me that what we saw in some of the provisions, some of the narratives and some of the recommendations was a sense of the frustration that Judge Gove had, I think, particularly as a member of the bench who had been sitting in family courts for a number of years. I think the report reflected the frustrations, disappointment and shock of many members associated with the delivery of court services to young people in the province, both on the family side and on the criminal side.

[10:45]

I think that I derived that impression because, as one who formerly had some involvement in the delivery of those services, it must have come as a tremendous shock to judges to know that when they made orders for access reports, for counselling, for probation, the service that they thought was being made available was quite different than the service that was actually being delivered. And I think you can discern from the pages of the final report some of that frustration and the desire on the part of Judge Gove to see that situation rectified, so that when these orders are made, when the decision to seek counselling, to seek reports, to provide assistance or, indeed, to impose a period of detention on a young offender is made, there is actually follow-through, and what you see is what you're actually getting. In principle this bill, which purports to move towards the integration promoted by Judge Gove in his report, is one that I suspect all members of the House are in accord on, and that is why I think the minister enjoys the support that she has seen in the House today.

There are some issues that have been raised by speakers before me, and will be raised I'm sure by other speakers, that give us pause for thought and concern and that we wish to highlight for the minister's consideration. One of them that I think is of particular significance relates purely to the logistical elements involved in an integration process, particularly in those areas of British Columbia where we don't see the number of personnel that we might in greater Victoria or greater Vancouver and the lower mainland area. I think that there is an overwhelming desire to see the spirit and the intent of Judge Gove's report implemented. There is, however, the reality that people are also cognizant of -- that this will involve some expenditure of moneys, and they want to see it done in a way that makes sense. I think that is one of the challenges that the minister and the ministry face in moving towards implementation of this specific initiative as set out in this legislation.

I know that the member for Richmond East spoke a moment ago about the need to incorporate some manner of tracking the success with which these objectives are being met, and I think that's very important. All too often in the past, politicians in this House have stood and praised a particular initiative of government, only to discover years down the road that all of those lofty goals and objectives were not met, went unfulfilled. So if we believe, as I think we do in this House, that it is possible to reconcile the notion of societal protection on the one hand with a child-focused approach to these issues -- if we do believe that it's possible to reconcile those two objectives -- then let us determine now, let us say now how we intend to demonstrate how we've accomplished that one, two, five and ten years down the road. Otherwise it becomes a rather hollow pledge -- one that years down the road we could always concoct an argument for, but it wouldn't be a meaningful argument, in my view.

I want to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, in addressing the intentions of the bill just to relate to the House experiences I have had in the past in youth court and the impression -- oftentimes troubling -- that it has left with me about some of the services that are and aren't provided, and whether or not they are ultimately successful both in terms of protecting society and from the perspective of rehabilitating the young offenders they are designed to rehabilitate. I don't think anyone could be unaffected going to a Provincial Court facility in this province on a day when youth court is scheduled, seeing the line upon line upon line of young men and women who find themselves in trouble with the law -- and not, I might add, for insignificant transgressions, insignificant offences, but for serious allegations of criminal activity. I suppose if that's not troubling enough, to notice, to observe the expressions on their faces. . . .

Fortunately, when I was a youth, I didn't have the experience of coming before the courts. But if I had, I'd like to think that I would have been terrified. I would have been terrified of the courts; I would have been terrified of the judge. Most of all, I would have been terrified of my father. But you don't get that impression. The impression you're left with, walking through the halls of those Provincial Court facilities, is almost as if many of these youngsters view their being before the courts as a badge of honour. And that's a challenge that I think the ministry, in moving towards this integrated approach to correctional services for youth, is going to have to confront.

Somehow we have to acknowledge and meet head-on this growing feeling amongst many youth. And yes, it's a minority; 99.9 percent of our kids are law-abiding, good citizens. But for that growing portion of the youth population -- and it is growing. . . . Sadly, in the face of crime statistics that in many other areas are decreasing, in this area the crime rate is going up. Property crime, violent crime involving young offenders, is going up. I don't think any of us in this House like that fact. I think we all wish it weren't so, but it is. It is important, in my view, that we signal to society at large that we understand this fact and that this bill doesn't represent an attempt by the House, by the Legislature or by the government to hide its head in the sand and disavow any responsibility for trying to correct that very disturbing trend.

When you sit in the courts and you watch these young men and women parade in front of the judge, occasionally being sent off to detention facilities, you're struck by their seeming unconcern for the acts that they have perpetrated. You're struck by, as well, the fact that in many cases they have been abandoned by parents and custodians and left to their own devices. It's perhaps not surprising that they find themselves in the situation they do. But you're also struck by a tendency on the part of those parents who are there to try and find excuses. I suppose they are defensive about the situation they and their children find themselves in. I don't know how many times I would speak to a parent whose child has come before the court system who has ranted on and on, deploring the state of our youth, their lack of respect for authority, and how it's time for the courts to get tough. Except the rant always ends the same way: "Except for my Billy. You know, he's different."

[ Page 2896 ]

I think the challenge the minister and the ministry are facing is to recognize and understand that some of these young offenders are guilty of very serious crimes -- and that the need to preserve and protect society as a fundamental tenet of the ministry's operation in this area is something that should be uppermost, and hopefully is uppermost, in the minds of the ministry and this minister. She will be assuming responsibility for the operation of a number of facilities. These kids, when they do appear in court -- when they are sentenced to periods of closed custody or other custodial-related sentences involving placement in various homes and transition houses. . . . Those are real kids. They go to real facilities. They don't disappear out the back door, and they aren't placed in suspended animation until their sentences are up. They go to places.

One of the areas that I will be exploring with the minister in her estimates relates specifically to the operation of those facilities. There has in the past, I dare say, been such an attitude or mentality of crisis associated with serving the needs of a growing young offender population that in many instances our inability to respond in a meaningful way -- to provide facilities that actually do what it is we require of them or wish them to provide in terms of rehabilitation services. . . . We have failed. Society has failed. These young offenders are going to facilities that are poorly staffed. The expertise of the staff is poor, if not non-existent. This relates to the standards that are to be expected and imposed on operators of these facilities for troubled youth -- be they pure and outright detention facilities, which I suppose one could say are easier to keep account of, insofar as the people that operate them and staff them, or be they other numerous facilities scattered around the province that our courts are referring young people to once they have become involved in the judicial system.

It is perhaps trite to say, but we're saying that given the information I have received in the past number of months, all of the good words, all of the good intentions, don't amount to a hill of beans when the people staffing those facilities don't know what they're doing, or haven't been properly trained or properly provided with the facilities they require. So very much a part of this bill, as I see it -- very much a part of integrating these services -- involves providing to the minister and her ministry staff the means of following up on these facilities to ensure that they are providing the level and quality of service that is required -- and all the while understanding that there will be incidents of young offenders, just as there are incidents of adult offenders, who, sadly, will not be rehabilitated. It won't happen, for any number of reasons. And we can say that society has failed them, and that they have failed themselves, but at the end of the day, the predominant concern relating to those individuals will remain protection of society. That is an objective, as I said earlier, that we can't lose sight of.

I detected in the minister's remarks from yesterday a hopefulness, and I think that is the correct attitude for approaching what will undoubtedly be a daunting task. I can't think of anyone who would willingly accept responsibility for a branch of government that really represents one of the most difficult services that have to be provided. I think it is wise for her to approach this with the attitude she expressed in her remarks yesterday. I hope, and I think I know, that she has observed some of the comments which have been made from this side of the House in the spirit they have been intended: to highlight some of those areas where there could be concerns and where there could be difficulties in the future.

[11:00]

And, lastly, Mr. Speaker, I think she has understood -- or I hope she has understood -- that from the opposition's perspective we will be seeking from her some assurance, both during this debate and the debate that follows in committee and during her estimates, that there is a plan in place to track in a meaningful way the success -- or lack of success, for that matter -- with which this experiment is undertaken.

With those remarks, hon. Speaker, I join my colleagues who have extended best wishes to the minister as she embarks down this path. And rest assured, we will provide whatever helpful suggestions and comments we can to help her along the way.

R. Neufeld: I rise also to make a few remarks on Bill 4, Correction Amendment Act. This is obviously an act to carry on with some of the recommendations of Judge Gove on the Matthew Vaudreuil case, and to get some of the ministries aligned properly so that they can hopefully provide better services to our children in the areas of probation, centres and those kinds of things.

I think it's incumbent on all of us. . . . Just before I say that, I guess as far as me commenting on this bill goes, it's because the tragic life that young Matthew led originated in the community I live in. It urges me to stand and speak to the bill. I generally, and my party, support the recommendations of Judge Gove, with the exception of a few, and hope that the implementation of those recommendations -- and that's going to take some time; this is not something that will happen overnight, that's for sure -- will, over time, provide a better service to families in the province.

We should not think that if we implement all the recommendations, all our woes will end, because that fact is not true. It's something that seems to have been with society for a long, long time. We try in our own way, each of us, to make our lives and our children's lives better, and this is an attempt on behalf of all of us to do that. I believe that the government of the day and the minister have the support of all members of the House in trying to get to that point. And I hope that through working together on these issues, we can arrive at that point.

I was reminded also of the speech I went to hear recently by the Deputy Minister for Children and Families. I guess Mr. Plecas has always been able to put, very distinctly and to the point, issues that he wants to. . . . One thing that struck me was him talking about training and making sure that we have the correct, trained staff to provide those services. That was one of the recommendations that I had a bit of a problem with, because I thought that although new people coming into the ministry should require a certain amount of training, for sure, there were those within the ministry that had been there for years who may not have the BSW but had worked within the Ministry of Social Services for many years and had done yeoman work and remarkable work. Those kind of people were almost forced to go and take this six-week training course so they could carry on with their work, when really their talents were needed within the ministry to provide the services.

I also thought about "properly staffed," and I know the government has talked much about properly staffing the ministries. I would like to remind the minister that when we talk about trying to reduce staff in the province, a 10 percent cut -- and I'll use an easy number to work with -- in 100 people in Vancouver means a reduction of ten people. A 10 percent cut in staff in the community of Fort Nelson or Fort St. John, where there may be a part-time probation officer, is cutting it to nothing. We achieve nothing when we do that.

[ Page 2897 ]

I think it's important for all of us to consider the geographical regions of British Columbia. I'm speaking again for the rural parts of B.C., where we see tremendous understaffing in many areas associated with children and families, with probation and with court services. If we are to provide to those people the same level of service that people in the lower mainland have come to expect over the years, I think it's going to take a determination on the part of the minister to be able to do that, and to say: "Yes, in the rural parts of British Columbia we have to be cognizant of the fact that they have been understaffed for a long time, and we have to look seriously at how we're going to staff them to a proper level."

I was also struck by the purpose section, as was the member for Richmond-Steveston. He explained it very well, although when I read the purpose section of the act, "to protect the community," it reminded me again of the services that we receive -- or do not receive, I guess, would probably be a better statement. I just want to relate to the minister -- and I've dealt with this with the Attorney General in estimates -- what happens in the community of Fort Nelson in relation to courts, to dealing with everyone, whether they are adults or minors, and to the probation services that we have in that community.

The court services are provided by a judge resident in Fort St. John. Fort St. John is about 250 miles from Fort Nelson. The court will sit approximately once every six weeks in Fort Nelson, where a judge and staff will come to Fort Nelson for four to five days -- five at the very most; four days usually. The judge will hear in the neighbourhood of 150 cases. He will conduct two dozen or better trials in that period of time. It's sad, because there's no way that you can provide court services when they're done that haphazardly. I think it's better in Fort Nelson than it is in some of the smaller communities in the northern part of Bulkley Valley-Stikine -- Dease Lake and those areas. I've talked to people who have serviced those areas, and it's pretty sad how we provide court services and probation services to those areas of the province. I fully understand that it's expensive, that it costs money. I don't think any one of us suffers under the illusion that the democracy we have in this country is cheap, and we should remember that. Those people should receive decent service, at least the basic service, whether they live in Atlin, Dease Lake, Telegraph Creek, Fort Nelson, Fort St. John or Vancouver.

We talk about probation, and much of this bill deals with probation services. The community of Fort Nelson, a community of 7,000 people, is served by a part-time probation officer again, headquartered in Fort St. John, 250 miles away. Probation is served in the community of Fort Nelson in a way that just amazes me, and I have lived in that community for twenty-some years. What happens is that at the courthouse, which is vacant most of the time, a list of those who are on probation is stapled to the door of the probation officer: "Come and sign once a week: 'I was here.' " So if you're on probation in Fort Nelson and you have to sign in once a week, all you do is go down to the courthouse whenever you feel like it -- as long as the door is open -- sign your name, date it, and away you go. There's no backup; there's no one to help that young person.

The member for Matsqui talked about what happens in the courtrooms now. I'm not familiar with it but obviously he is, because he's a lawyer. The feeling amongst youngsters that are caught up in crime, that are caught up in the court system, is that it's almost a badge of honour.

When we provide services, as slim as they are, to some of those communities -- and I'm talking about 7,000 people -- it's no wonder people feel that way about our court system. It's no wonder youngsters really don't care -- some of them, and I stress some of them -- whether or not they get picked up and charged, because nothing happens. There is no penalty. Come to the courthouse once a week, sign your name, and away you go. If you want, the next night you can steal another $10,000 skidoo, and away you go.

Young offenders out of the community of Fort Nelson are. . . . A bit of a bizarre story of how young offenders are handled was brought to my attention just recently. Again, it originated in the community of Fort Nelson. From what I understand, young offenders can only be held for a certain length of time, and then they must come before a court. I'm not sure of the statutory time, but it's not that long. So what happens with the young offender in the community of Fort Nelson is that a sheriff -- there are no sheriffs in Fort Nelson, either -- will be dispatched out of the community of Fort St. John or Dawson Creek, flown to the community of Fort Nelson to pick up the young offender and fly that young offender back to either Fort St. John or Dawson Creek to appear before a judge.

In this particular case, the young offender was held almost to the time limit -- or maybe even exceeding the time limit by a short period of time because of travel arrangements -- and the court slapped the wrists of the RCMP for holding the young offender too long. The sheriff had to escort the young offender back to Fort Nelson via airplane and then take an airplane back to Fort St. John. When you put all that into context, without even thinking about the wages, over $1,000 was spent on airfare. And one wonders why we have trouble with our youth and with people that offend. It's a sad case.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

I'm not saying -- and no one is -- that we should have every service in the north that we have in the south. We understand that fully. People that live in the north understand that they cannot have all the services that the people in the south or in more populated areas have. They do expect a basic service, and they'll live with it, but in most cases, we're not even providing the very basic service. That's probably more the root of our problem than anything, and I think that's what we have to look at.

[11:15]

I am also reminded of when I had my business in Fort Nelson. I had a bulk agency with a gas pump and a card-lock that was regularly broken into. People had figured out how they could break into the card-lock, operate it and get gasoline out of it without a key. I came to work about 5 o'clock one morning and caught three young people in the course of hammering on my gas pump, so I went over and talked to them. I said: "What are you doing?" They said, "Well, we're trying to get some gas," and I said: "But you don't have any authority to be here. You don't have a key to get gas." They said: "We don't care. We need gas to run our vehicle."

I said: "Well, I'm going to call the police." And one of them said: "We don't care. There's my licence on my vehicle. My name's so-and-so. Call the police." Wow! I was actually dumbfounded. There's a young person, 18 years old, telling me: "I don't care. There's my licence on my vehicle. Here's my name. Phone the police, because nothing is going to happen to me, anyhow." Those are just some examples of what takes place in the rural part of British Columbia in some of the northern communities, which we have to look at. And, again, those are the roots of some of our problems.

[ Page 2898 ]

In closing, I'm reminded of a comment that the Minister for Children and Families made recently during a speech about hospitals in her constituency. I know the minister very well. I'm not being critical of her, because I appreciate the work that the minister does in this area. I think she handles the ministry very well. But I'm reminded of what she said: that people had to travel all the way from Surrey to Vancouver to get services in a hospital and how that affected the family, the children and the whole outcome of things.

I was struck by that comment. It's not that the minister is insensitive, but it reminded me of what seems to be on most people's minds and that is the golden triangle -- either Vancouver or Victoria -- and what services we get. I thought: "How about the young family?" Of course, this is getting into health care, but how about the family that has to travel all the way from Dawson Creek or Fort St. John to Vancouver to get cancer treatment? What do you think this one-tiered health care, which we seem to talk about constantly in the province, does to a family or to youngsters having to travel on their own because both parents are working to pay for the airfare so they can get that youngster to Vancouver to have health care?

A good note for everyone to remember is that we don't have one-tiered health care. We have two-tiered health care in British Columbia, and we always have had. We've got total health care for those that live close to the facilities, and we've got a two-tiered health care system for those that happen to live 800 or 1,000 miles away from it.

That also happens, as I have related, in our court services. That's something I think we have to look at seriously as a society, as a province and as a ministry -- to try and rectify some of those problems that are inherent in the north. It's not because northern people are bad people. It's because in a lot of cases they have not received a lot of the services that people in the south have become accustomed to having.

We can't all live down here. Someone has to be able to continue to work. Someone has to be able to continue to provide all the resources the province needs to be a productive, economically sound province. They're going to continue to live around rural B.C. We have to start providing services to those people that live in rural B.C.

Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for his remarks and now recognize the member for Okanagan-Vernon.

A. Sanders: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and good morning. It's nice to see you sitting there.

I'd like as well to speak to Bill 4 and to carry on some of the comments of the member for Peace River North. Again, I tend to look at this bill in terms of the northern and interior constituencies. I would urge the minister to talk to those members for North Coast, Prince George-Omineca, Bulkley Valley-Stikine and Skeena to really see the changes that will occur for them even more than for the Okanagan, in terms of the adjustments under Bill 4 to section 24 of the Correction Act.

What we have presently is youth corrections under the Ministry of Attorney General. This Bill 4 will amend the Correction Act to have youth corrections moved from Attorney General into the Ministry for Children and Families. I really think that we have to look at what aspects of that move we support and what aspects of that move we need to revisit in the future to ascertain that they truly are working and are in the best interests of this combination of society as well as children.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Let's look at the positive attributes of this integrative process. What it will provide is a broad-based integration of youth services. For Judge Gove this was a goal. I think it is a goal that needs to be ascertained within the larger picture of the real world, especially for north and rural British Columbia. It puts a child-centred superministry at the centre of focus, the nucleus, basically to attempt to enhance service delivery to children.

I think, however, that we need to look at the potential negative attributes of that move, and we need to ascertain in the future whether the system is working as we had hoped. Especially in the north of B.C., there will be a potential for reduced services with this move. What we will find is a change from a generic to a specialized caseload model. Offices may find that there aren't sufficient full-time people to make service delivery viable, and we may find service gaps created where none currently exist.

An example that was offered by one of my colleagues today is the example of service in Peace River North. The example is of the circumstance in other non-lower mainland communities, where you have adult probation officers, youth probation officers and community and family court counsellors who are interchangeable. They can do all of the prescribed services that are required in any of those areas. They go to court, they go to the reserves, they work with youth, they work with adults and they work with children and families in terms of the overall counselling picture.

Now, breaking that down through this bill, what you are potentially going to have is one person for youth, one individual who will handle adults and one person with children and family court counselling. As a result of that, in large areas where the demographics have a huge square mileage in the constituency, as they have in Peace River North, you're going to find people locked into certain jobs where they used to be able to do three. That will decrease by two-thirds the number of people readily available to youth.

A survey of probation officers confirmed that this in fact was the opinion of probation officers who worked in the north. In terms of service delivery, their own statistics showed that 100 percent of those probation officers working in the north were not in favour of splitting up the services; 90 percent of those working in the Kootenays were not in favour of splitting up the services; 95 percent of those in the Okanagan felt that this was a problem. A majority in the lower mainland did as well, albeit there are more services in the lower mainland, so the direct impact on the lower mainland is much less than it is for those of us who choose not to live in the lower mainland environment. So basically what we are finding is a potential for decreasing service to rural communities and perhaps even the elimination of the service that was provided in remote communities.

We're also going to find increased travel time and downtime for each of these disciplines. As a result of that, once you get people travelling more -- where three people used to be interchangeable and you're now down to one -- you're going to have less hands-on contact with the individuals that these people are mandated to help.

Another one that bothers me is the removal of youth probation officers from courthouses. To me, that's where they belong. That's where they make their one-on-one contact with offenders. That is where their services often start. I feel that removing them from that particular location is deleterious to the delivery of care.

There is also the reduction in, or elimination of, the services -- to first nations communities, most notably. Looking at 

[ Page 2899 ]

rural, northern and first nations communities, these are the areas where we have minimal services. Because we have minimal services, cutting in those areas is something that really needs to be viewed by those of us who live in the lower mainland as, again: are we sacrificing those things we have in northern communities to help them operate, in favour of things that would be best for the larger communities that have significantly more staff and significantly more inter-cooperation because of numbers alone?

There is also some evidence to show that this move will increase the cost of doing business. Increased cost, in this time, is always a factor that needs to be considered very, very carefully. There will be massive training requirements for those yet unidentified shadow workforces, who will substitute or pinch-hit for adult and youth probation officers and perhaps even for the family court counsellors. There will be an increased backfill in the requirements of both administrative support and probation officer positions. There will also be an increased need for new office space. These things can amount to significant costs while decreasing the direct services to the community.

The third possibility, especially for those out of the lower mainland who work in probation, is the potential for decreased morale. This is something we don't talk about specifically, but increased caseloads in combination with expanded geographical coverage is a really important thing for those people who live in these less central communities, and it must be considered.

We are also asking these individuals to manage potentially conflicting mandates. One is child protection through the Ministry for Children and Families, and the other is community safety in the proviso of probation. Which mandate should these people use to take precedence? What consequences are in store for a youth probation officer who conscientiously argues in family court against a Ministry for Children and Families case management position?

Those are three predictions that I have in terms of areas where this minister will have to spend considerable time and effort and have some accountability for the potential for increased costs, accountability for the decrease in service to non-lower mainland areas and accountability for the perceived potential decrease that probation officers may feel from a morale point of view.

[11:30]

Other situations that are important in terms of the negative attributes that Bill 4 brings into the Correction Act, of course, are the two diametrically opposed mandates of the bill: specifically, that probation officers are there to protect our community and that social workers are there to protect our children. If you look at that from a mathematical point of view and do vector analysis, these vectors are in an absolutely opposite direction of each other and therefore do cancel each other out. I think that by looking at it in a very mechanical way, it can be something that we need to look at and see whether or not this mandate is perhaps somewhat confused.

Another time consideration for the officers who do the probation work is that they cannot legally deal with children under the age of 12. Statistics show that only 10 percent to 20 percent of youth on probation actually have any need for working with a social worker. Therefore we're finding 80 percent to 90 percent of clients will be involved with the Ministry for Children and Families, and we have to decide if that is a meaningful and needful use of those individuals' time.

Another thing that is of concern to me is that in the implementation of Bill 4, a transition commission that had been set up to study the implications of combining the affected areas -- the Ministry of Attorney General and the Ministry for Children and Families -- and bringing in two diametrically opposed mandates. . . . The transition commission was on a 36-month mandate. In that time, all interested parties were to make representation to government to say why or how or when they would be able to integrate and what the potholes would be that they would fall into and that might need to be looked at further. One of the problems I have with that is. . . . I think that was a reasonable request. What happened, however, is that this Premier -- potentially for political expediency; I hope that isn't the case, but potentially -- moved that 36-month mandate down to seven months.

Some of the people on the transition commission felt this was somewhat like a pre-death autopsy. What they found was that their necessity to bring points forward was curtailed, truncated, not available to them. There is a tremendous amount of resulting frustration in those who wish to see this mandate work but who were not allowed the time to translate that into reality.

In closing, as this minister goes about setting out the implementation of Bill 4, I would really like to see some accountability from her with reference to the changes that have been incurred by the combination of Attorney General and Children and Families. I want to know that this is not change for the sake of change itself. I think integration has become a buzzword that people see as always a positive move. I think that there are other examples of integration that I would not personally like to see -- having funeral homes in hospitals, for example. It would be a lot better in terms of integration, but it somehow defeats the ethical idea of what the hospital is there for.

So I'd like to see that there is accountability in the ministry to look at the changes that have occurred in terms of whether they have increased services -- yes or no. If they haven't, how are we going to amend things so that they do, especially for the north and rural communities? Has it decreased cost? If not, has it improved the service commensurate with the increased cost, or has it decreased the service? What is the morale? What factors are being taken into account to make sure that the confusion of mandates within a superministry do not become the focus of the individuals working in there, so that they're not doing the jobs that they have been trained to do? Has this move increased the ability for children's needs to be handled as best as possible? And finally, has it resulted in a commensurate increase -- hopefully, an increase -- in the ability of government to protect society, as government most rightly has the obligation to do in British Columbia?

When we come back to revisit this particular bill, those are the questions I will be formulating to the minister in terms of looking for factual answers on the accountability structure -- and that what we have done is in fact better for us and has not sacrificed the smaller communities, the more rural communities in favour of integration because integration is the in thing to do.

B. Penner: It's again a privilege for me to have an opportunity to rise in this House and offer my comments in debate. We are debating the principle behind Bill 4, the Correction Amendment Act, 1997. I'm pleased to indicate to everyone here in the House that I offer my general support for Bill 4, as it does live up to the spirit of Judge Gove's recommendations in his report to the Legislature. However, with that said, I am 

[ Page 2900 ]

rising today to offer a few comments, and some of those comments are going to be in the form of a caution to the minister as she proceeds to oversee the integration of services that previously were provided by the Ministry of Attorney General through the probation service and the corrections branch.

I think it's important that we keep in mind that we're dealing with a whole range of youth with different experiences and different attitudes in society. Particularly when we're dealing with youth who run into trouble with the law, we're dealing with a whole spectrum of offences that could potentially be dealt with. They start from your garden variety shoplifting cases -- specific examples I'm aware of, from my previous career working as a lawyer who often dealt with youth court cases, were troubled teenage girls charged with stealing either mascara or lipstick -- all the way up to older youth, perhaps 17 years old, charged with aggravated assault or, in some cases, manslaughter. In one case, I had the opportunity and responsibility to deal with a young person who was charged with murder.

The reason I point out the broad range of offences that come before the courts in youth matters is to stress again that a one-size-fits-all solution will not work. We need to remember that what might be appropriate for some youths is not appropriate for others. At the end of the day, there will be situations where the protection of the public is going to have to be the paramount consideration. That means, regrettably, that there are times when incarceration is the only answer, at least in the short term, for dealing with young people who come before the courts.

Obviously, jailing our youth should be a last resort, in a sense. We shouldn't be considering that type of a disposition for matters involving, as I pointed out, a young teenage girl taking mascara so that she can somehow keep up with her peers. But there are a whole range of factors that go into offences, and I think the minister made the point quite well in her introduction to the bill yesterday that it's rarely one issue that affects young people in trouble with the law. We have to look at what's behind the behaviour. As I pointed out, sometimes perhaps society won't much care. If it's an individual bent on violent activities, perhaps we just need to take action to protect society, at least in the short term.

I'm going to keep my comments short, but I'd like to again point out, just in terms of a caution to the minister, that I do understand that there are some morale concerns held by the staff, particularly in the corrections branch. I suppose that as human beings, we're always given to having some concerns when there is change. We get comfortable with what we know, and even though sometimes we may complain about our present circumstance, it's often preferable, at least in the short term, to something new that we don't know about. But I do point out to the minister that I have heard that there are some morale concerns.

Near my riding of Chilliwack, there is a youth custody centre known as Centre Creek, which houses some of the more serious young offenders. I've had the opportunity to visit that institution on a number of occasions, not as an inmate but as an adult going there to visit the people working there as well as to see the conditions under which the young people are kept. And I know from what I've heard through the grapevine that there are some morale concerns from the staff.

I'll offer this final comment to the minister. In my experience of working with young offenders as a lawyer, you start to get the sense that some of the individuals charged with the less serious offences -- not all of them, certainly, but some of them -- almost feel that it's in their best interest to commit an offence and get caught, because that is when services which are otherwise unavailable to them are being provided to them.

I can give you an example. When a young person gets charged with a shoplifting offence, suddenly they are not only the concern of the police but a youth court worker gets involved, perhaps a social worker gets involved, and a legal aid lawyer often is appointed to deal with them and find out what their problems are. At the end of the day, a court may order, as a term of probation, that the young person receive some psychiatric counselling or other form of ongoing support in the community. Those services, generally speaking, are not available to youth who do not run afoul of the system.

On more than one occasion, parents of young people told me that they were relieved that their children were now finally charged with an offence because now they were finally attracting some attention from this thing we call the system and finally resources were being made available to the parents, who, frankly, were at their wits' end trying to deal with a troubled teenager. Now that the individual was before the courts and a probation order was in place requiring some form of mental health counselling, the real root cause of the child's acting-out behaviour was being examined.

I'll also state that on a couple of occasions, I had some concern that a number of young people may have repeated their offences -- recommitted criminal offences -- so that they could get back to having the full attention of, perhaps, myself as a lawyer, their youth court worker and their social workers. I join the minister in her comments that we need to move away from a system that is simply reactive or crisis-driven and try to find a way of being more proactive. Because clearly what sometimes happens is that young people get rewarded in a certain way for behaviour that we don't wish to see rewarded. Again I stress that I'm now talking about those types of offences which are at the less serious end of the spectrum as opposed to the more serious, violent offences.

In closing, I would like to extend to the minister an offer from me, as the member for Chilliwack, that if she were ever interested in visiting youth court in Chilliwack, I would be more than happy to join her and take her for a tour of the facilities in Chilliwack and, as well, if she is interested, accompany her on a visit to Centre Creek correctional camp, which is about 35 or 40 kilometres outside of Chilliwack, toward Chilliwack Lake. I thank the minister for her attention during my remarks, and I wish her every success in implementing the changes as outlined in Bill 4.

L. Reid: Hon. Speaker, might I beg leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

L. Reid: We have been joined in the gallery this morning by Mrs. Patricia Gudlaugson, past chair of the Richmond school board. I would ask the House to please make her welcome.

[11:45]

M. Coell: Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to offer some comments to the minister on second reading of Bill 4. I will be the last speaker for the opposition to speak on this bill, and I wanted to again reiterate our approval of this bill.

I think that in the past, when Judge Gove investigated the life and death of Matthew Vaudreuil, he made a number of 

[ Page 2901 ]

recommendations that this House agreed with. The opposition will be vigilant in making sure that all of those recommendations are implemented by this government. And I can assure you that we will be watching the implementation of this bill.

I think it's a bill that will give opportunity to the children of this province. For many years, correctional services and child protection were very separate, and a lot of people fell through the cracks. A lot of children who required services didn't receive them. Now, with the risk assessment tool, the 20 regions and the promise of consultation, I think that bringing correctional services and child protection together will only offer opportunities for the future.

For the minister's consideration, I wish to offer a few examples, which have helped shape my life, of how I see the correctional services and the support services of child protection and Children and Families working together. When I was in elementary school, I had a friend who came to school quite often bruised and in clothes that didn't fit, because he came from a rather poor family. In the early years, he was a happy, energetic, normal boy. As the years progressed, he became more violent and he acted out. By the time we were in grade 7, he was actively drinking and taking drugs, and he still showed up with bruises. By the time we were in grade 9, he was no longer in school. When I was working as a social worker in the late seventies, I just happened to come across him in a detox centre. He looked about 20 years older than me, and his life hadn't been much fun. He'd been in trouble with the law, and he was seriously addicted to drugs and alcohol. But when I look back over his life, I see that in the fifties and sixties there weren't services for abused women or for abused children, and there weren't alcohol and drug programs and programs for children. So when intervention needed to take place for a child like this, there weren't services.

What the ministry is doing now is combining the support services that children like this boy, my friend, need with correctional services. Hopefully, an overlap of the role of social workers and probation officers, transition houses and alcohol and drug services for young people will be more readily available, and children won't fall through the cracks. So I support the move that will bring these two groups together, because of incidents like that.

I can remember in the late seventies and early eighties having juvenile clients -- I worked for the alcohol and drug programs in those days -- who were 12, 13, 14 years old. They had probation officers because they had broken the law; they had social workers; they had teachers; and they probably had support workers for their family. Now this ministry will coordinate that in a more positive light.

When I read in the papers of children dying in the care of this ministry, I can relate to that, because I read in the paper the names of some of the clients in our clinic and some of their parents as they died from drug overdoses. Those people, for the most part, had probation officers, social workers, alcohol and drug counsellors. For the first time, these things will be coordinated, and I think it's a continuum. I don't think that probation and social work are separate. I think they're part of the whole system of protection for children and families.

I would offer another idea or suggestion to the minister. This is the first time that a ministry for children and families or for social services has combined incarceration. The history of incarceration in this province is not a good one. With even the best intentions, through the forties, fifties, sixties and seventies in this province, we incarcerated people with mental handicaps. They were in institutions whether they committed crimes. . . . Some of them had; most hadn't. They were in Riverview and Woodlands, Glendale, Tranquille. That is a huge power that government has to incarcerate people and to incarcerate youth.

When incarcerating youth, we must also supply them with support. Now, as many other speakers have said, there are young people who are a danger to society, and society must be protected from them. But my experience has shown me. . . . I can remember visiting the youth detention centre here in Victoria. I can tell the minister that she might want to do that, too, because 20 years ago they were talking about rebuilding it. It's almost exactly the same today as it was 20 years ago: overcrowded, outdated like many of the other youth corrections facilities in this province. I hope that this change will give the Ministry for Children and Families a way of looking at youth corrections in this province in a new light, with a new understanding, because it's time to do that.

Government has awesome powers to incarcerate people, and it's incumbent on us to make sure that the youths who are incarcerated -- and as the minister said, approximately 400 in this province are -- are given an opportunity that my friend wasn't, an opportunity to change their lives and to go forward and make a meaningful contribution to society. I realize that's not always possible, but I think we have to do whatever we can to do that.

In closing, I want to use an example I believe would have helped my young friend had there been transition houses and alcohol and drug programs. Last week, because of a court closure on Saltspring Island, I asked the Attorney General to work with the Minister of Women's Equality to find a way to fund a transition house on Saltspring Island that is functioning for another 48 hours. If my friend or his mother or the rest of his family had been able to go to a transition house, possibly that first line of help would have changed his life. In those days there weren't transition houses and alcohol and drug programs, but there was probation. I would ask you to work with the Attorney General and the Minister of Women's Equality to make sure that a transition house on Saltspring, which will stop the battering of children and the battering of women, becomes a reality, not just a year-to-year program that has the potential of closing in 48 hours.

This bill before us today opens new opportunities for the children in this province. It offers new opportunities for the parents of troubled children in this province. I can assure the minister that we want to work with her to make sure that this is a success. I can also assure you that we will be asking the hard questions, the uncomfortable questions, to make sure that the government is doing what it says. This is a tough change in the criminal justice system, but I personally welcome it and look forward to seeing its success.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his comments. Vancouver-Langara? Seeing no further speakers, then, I recognize the Minister for Children and Families, whose comments will close second reading debate.

Hon. P. Priddy: I did have 30 or 40 pages, but I will try and be much briefer, given the hour. I do thank everybody who has spoken in second reading debate on Bill 4. I'm pleased to hear both supportive and encouraging comments from people.

According to Judge Gove's recommendations, this bill will assist young people, their families and their communities. You've all said that, and we've said it. This transition is not easy. It is really difficult work for everybody who's involved 

[ Page 2902 ]

in it, and we acknowledge that. Many members spoke of the challenges facing our staff to better meet the needs of children and families. Like all of the staff in our ministry, the dedicated probation officers, in this particular case as it relates to the bill, will face the challenge of a new way of doing work, where they will work with new teams in each region, as Judge Gove recommended. They will receive as much support as I can offer them in this challenge.

I appreciate the comments from members that spoke to section 2 of this bill, because the purpose of the act is to protect the community. As the guiding principles for the transition of the ministry also state, community safety is to be recognized as essential to promoting the safety and well-being of children. While we know that children are too often victims, we know that they are also often the victims of other children, so support to both children will be done in a much more comprehensive manner through much improved case management.

As I said earlier, the real key to this is that the more assistance we give young people at risk at the beginning, the better protected the public will ultimately be. Over time the focus on prevention will help to reduce youth crime by addressing it through causes long before we reach a crisis point. As one of the members said, an integrated system is a challenge but it is possible, and I am delighted that there are 75 people in this Legislature prepared to help me do that work. So I now move second reading of Bill 4, the Correction Amendment Act.

Motion approved.

Bill 4, Correction Amendment Act, 1997, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 10:11 a.m.

On vote 16: minister's office, $429,000 (continued).

V. Anderson: We would like to discuss multiculturalism and immigration this morning. It has been three years since the Multiculturalism Act was passed and brought into effect by the Legislature. I thought it might be helpful if we review some of the concepts.

Two of them that I would ask the minister about -- which come out of the discussions undertaken by the Multicultural Advisory Council, which I attended recently. . . . In almost every discussion group there was a great deal of concern about the definition of "multiculturalism." We have used the word "multicultural" on the one hand and on the other hand . . . as two separate undertakings with two different descriptions. Perhaps we could begin by asking the minister, after three years of experience, what a definition of multiculturalism might be. I stress the "ism" as opposed to multicultural activities or multicultural concerns. The assumption is that the "ism" is presenting a particular philosophy or point of view, which is different from describing multicultural groups or multicultural activities.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Multiculturalism is obviously a policy, and "multicultural" would define and qualify the state of things in society.

From my point of view, and I have said this before, multiculturalism is a philosophy that encompasses the creation of conditions in British Columbia where people with different backgrounds -- cultural, linguistic, ethnic and others -- would be able to live in harmony with each other with the great deal of acceptance of diversity that arises out of the kind of cultural mix that we have in British Columbia, which continues to be more diverse by the day. So from my point of view, multiculturalism isn't an airy-fairy concept.

In fact, it is a concept not imported into British Columbia or Canada. Multiculturalism was here, in essence, long before the European diversity started showing up on the shores of North America. The first nations were multilingual, multi-ethnic and multicultural. European diversity came, then non-European diversity came, and diversity continues to increase in complexity as well as in scope. About 25 or 30 years ago, some leaders in Canada decided to recognize that reality and say that it is a reality worth preserving, cherishing and celebrating. The word "multiculturalism" was coined as a result of recognition of that reality rather than importation of something that was alien to Canadian or British Columbian reality.

[10:15]

I don't believe that any discussion on multiculturalism in abstract can have any meaning at all. As I have said before, I believe that in terms of the actual practical work that we do in this ministry, multiculturalism means essentially three things. It means integration; it means work on non-discrimination -- anti-discrimination work; and it means the promotion of the acceptance of diversity in British Columbia. Those are three thrusts that we have, and we continue to work on those three thrusts.

"Multicultural," on the other hand, simply qualifies a particular state of things. Let me give you an example. If you had Punjabis from the region of Punjab in India -- from where I come -- gathered in a particular room, all speaking Punjabi, all belonging to one faith and all of the same ethnic origin, there wouldn't be much diversity there. They wouldn't be multicultural; they would be unicultural in that particular confinement. But if you mix them with everybody else in British Columbia, taking into account the diversity that you have, then the reality is multicultural as opposed to unicultural.

I haven't looked at the discussions the Multicultural Advisory Council has had. I have been to their meetings. In 

[ Page 2903 ]

fact, I told them that I want to make sure we increasingly move away from multicultural issues simply confined to visible minorities. That's why, in fact, in the last round of appointments to the Multicultural Advisory Council, I wanted to make sure that the full diversity of people in British Columbia was reflected in those appointments, to the extent possible. We are trying to do the same in any new appointments we're making, because there is a perception that multiculturalism is something that applies to or is relevant to the visible minorities. That's not the case, as the hon. member knows, and I'm sure he shares that belief with me.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's pointing out the three main areas of concern. That's helpful, and I'm not sure it's always heard in the community.

One of the other terms which comes up a great deal in the discussion is "racism." There was a confusion between multiculturalism and anti-racism: if you like, where the boundaries are between them. The concern about whether one is taking over for the other or one is working against the other, and that comes up fairly consistently in the discussions. . . . In looking at that, perhaps the minister might describe for us the meaning of the term "race" in the legislation. As an illustration of that, last evening I was listening to a multicultural forum on the Shaw channel, and one of the speakers was describing race as. . . . There are four races: black, white, brown and yellow -- and that was the definition of race that was presented in the multicultural forum. I'm wondering if that is the definition of race here. Because when we talk about race, and then we talk about anti-racism. . . . The definition of race is probably a very confusing one for the community at large.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: With the little knowledge that I have of issues around race, and having done a paper on race and anthropology in my early days at college, I wouldn't venture at all to define what race might mean. That's a very difficult concept. It's a very controversial concept, and I don't think that I would be able, without much thought, to expound on what race might mean. However, I don't believe that the definition of race or racism in specific terms is relevant or important to the work on an anti-racist front. I say that because we are all aware that race could mean several different things, but it does definitely lend itself to some specific recognition in terms of issues around discrimination. When we talk about racism, what we talk about is discrimination or different treatment, unequal treatment, based on what might appear to be racial factors -- for instance, some people coming from one region of the world as opposed to another region of the world, people speaking different languages as opposed to other languages. And racism doesn't have to be based on division between or amongst colours; it could also be amongst the same colours.

From the point of view of fighting a battle against racism in British Columbia, it would be nice if we could agree on a definition of race and racism, but I don't believe that we need to. I think everyone understands that when one talks about racism, one talks about unequal treatment or lack of respect or lack of dignity being imparted by someone's actions, based on what might appear to be differences either of origin or of the pigment of your skin or of the language that you speak or of ethnicity. For instance, in that loose fashion, you could actually have racism manifest itself between people of Polish origin and of Czech origin, just as you could have between people who might come from the country that I'm an immigrant from and people from Britain, for instance.

These are very unscientific terms as we use them. I think that in the work we do educating people around British Columbia, what we say to people is that we want everyone to respect everyone, we want us to respect differences that all of us have, and we want to treat each other with dignity and equality, compassion and fairness, regardless of who we are. I think that's what an anti-racist campaign means. I'm sure, if you are working in the specific field of human rights and you are making decisions as a member of the Human Rights Tribunal, you would, of course, have to look at the issue of race and racism in a more technical fashion. But I think that in terms of our work in the Ministry of Multiculturalism, we can get by with the simple understanding that all of us have to be treated equally and with respect.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister that all of us need to be treated with respect, but may I take the minister back to Saturday for a moment, when we were at a common meeting of the Chinese community. They were concerned about police forces and treatment by them. At the end of that morning there was a gentleman who came forward, a Caucasian gentleman, I think, by observance -- if you can go by observance -- who had listened to the discussion and the concern about treatment. As it happened, because of illnesses and diseases that he had upon his outer personage, he had facial features which gave him a more rough-looking appearance and was finding that he also was having difficulty in being recognized with dignity and equity by the force. On recognizing his particular validity concerning those who might mistreat him, would the minister regard that as an element of racism?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That's a very difficult question. One would have to know a lot more about that particular case than we did that day. However, I think the individual who appeared before the forum and the panel had a very legitimate question. His question was: "Just because I have some blemishes on my skin, I should not be treated with any less dignity or respect." And I agree.

I don't believe that would fall, in the ordinary parlance, within the category of racial discrimination. Maybe it would fall in the category of lack of respect and dignity shown by a police officer to the individual who might look as if he was not well -- and that is as unwelcome as any lack of respect based on race. However, that particular disrespectful behaviour might be caught under the rubric of disabilities, if one extended the definition of disabilities. Obviously, under the human rights legislation, if the individual felt that he was discriminated against because of the way he looked because of the illness. . . . An illness is by definition a disability. I'm not giving him a legal opinion, but as a lawyer, one would think that he may be able to persuade the Human Rights Tribunal to look at his case successfully.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister in his analysis. It was unacceptable behaviour if this person was not treated fairly and equitably like anyone else. His own actions should be able to speak for themselves. But I used that illustration because I'm increasingly hearing, as I become part of the conversations, that what is being shared and what is developing within our awareness in working at just programs may be an unjust conclusion.

I want to venture this: that what I heard -- and it was highlighted as I listened to that program last evening. . . . The conclusion of an outside observer of that program, without perhaps knowing the intent that people had there, was to say that everyone in our society is, by definition, racist; that we live in a very racist society here in Canada; that we need to 

[ Page 2904 ]

drive home the reality that we are racist, that every single person is a racist; and that only when every person has confronted themselves with that reality will we be able to deal with it.

I'm not sure if the intention is to say to young children in school, in grade 1, grade 2, grade 6, grade 12 or whatever the case may be: "Whether you like it or not, you are a racist. And you'd better understand that you're a racist, because unless you understand that you're a racist, you're not going to be able to deal with it and overcome it and then learn to live hospitably with your neighbour." It seems that kind of guilt complex which is being engendered is one of the reasons that people are having difficulty understanding multiculturalism -- because the guilt being engendered is going in the opposite direction.

Let me use another illustration which is very helpful. It comes out of my own background as a Christian minister, where one of the traditions has been that everybody has to see themselves as a sinner, and only when you recognize yourself as a sinner can you say that you have been forgiven for your sin. A Jewish girl one time said to us, out of her Jewish background: "I don't understand why you have to be condemned in order to be forgiven. In our history, we were forgiven and loved in the beginning. We didn't have to go through that two-stage process." She had a lot of validity there, and it helped me to understand.

[10:30]

As I listened, I became aware that what is being engendered is that you are a racist. If you were born in Canada -- whether you're white, black, brown or yellow -- you are a racist: it's the inherent nature of your person and of our way of living with each other; until we understand that -- our children are being told, in effect -- we'll never overcome the problem. I think that's engendering the confusion that we have between anti-racism, on one hand. . . . It's a program against ourselves -- it's not a program against others, because by definition we're all racist -- in order to develop a multicultural society.

In merging these two conflicts together, it seems to me that we've engendered misunderstandings about multiculturalism and anti-racist programs. That's why I highlight it. When you find a group that is organized to say in a racist way that there are certain people who are inferior to them, those are organized racial slurs and activities. That's quite a different thing from saying that every child and every person in our community is a racist per se. I think we have to sort that out. The program has confused those two in a way which I think is engendering a great deal of difficulty and misunderstanding.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm actually concerned about the hon. member's comments. When I was at the panel -- if the panel is what the hon. member was referring to -- I didn't get that impression. I got the impression that individuals were coming forward and sharing their stories about how they felt they had been unjustly treated. I'm very concerned that the hon. member feels that the anti-racist programs would have all of us believe that all of us are racists in British Columbia. That is neither the intent nor, I hope, the result of what we're trying to do.

Wherever I have gone in British Columbia over the last two years while I've had this responsibility for multiculturalism, I have said, using the two major examples of what might be categorized as racist incidents -- in fact, three or four examples. . . . Let me remember all of them that might be categorized as incidents in our history that we can't be proud of. Those incidents are: the turning away of the ship full of Jews off the Atlantic coast of Canada during the Second World War; persecution of Japanese Canadians; the Komagata Maru incident, with respect to Sikhs who were trying to come to Canada and the way that was treated; and the Chinese head tax saga and all of the other injustices attached thereto.

Wherever I have gone I have said to people that the fact that I, an immigrant kid from the villages of Punjab, am able to be where I am represents a great leap forward from those days. That has to be recognized. The fact that we have several visible-minority MLAs in this Legislature in both parties has to be recognized as a major leap forward for British Columbians.

I have never, ever intended to leave the impression that British Columbia is a racist society or that Canada is a racist society. My view is that we are a society better than any in the world. That doesn't mean that we don't have far to go. That's what I have always said.

I take the member's comments to heart. I will re-examine the issues around the anti-racist activities of my ministry and make sure that we send the message that needs to be sent, which is a positive message that we have come this far with the struggles that we have been engaged in. And we need to go far. This is the best place in the world to be.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the minister's comment. I think one of the realities is that even if we are not aware of our comments and the effects upon them -- which are often different from our intentions -- we who work in the area assume that one thing is happening, where others who are not as involved in it are seeing something quite different. That's why I raise this issue. For instance, in one of the report-backs of the health agencies' consultation on multiculturalism, the question was addressed. . . . One of the recommendations of one of the groups was that we should address systemic and institutional racism. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us what he thinks they might have meant by talking about the systemic and institutional racism of our community.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It's very difficult to define terms such as "systemic racism." I know there is a provision in the Human Rights Code which lends itself to some remedial measures to be taken if the Human Rights Tribunal finds that there has been systemic discrimination.

Let me give the hon. member an example that's closer to home -- here, in the pointy buildings we're in. I understand that the visible-minority component of the civil service in British Columbia is lower than it was five years ago, while the population of visible minorities across the province has increased significantly. If one then tries to explore and analyze the reasons for it, I don't believe there is anyone in the government who is consciously saying we shouldn't be hiring visible minorities as part of our civil service. From what I have been able to learn, the way the system has been set up, partly because of how the unions and PSERC and all of those institutions work. . . . The result is that we now have fewer visible-minority individuals working, as a percentage of our civil service in British Columbia, than we had five years ago. I think that when experts analyze this, they might arrive at a conclusion that there are built-in hindrances, unconscious though they may be, to the hiring and promotion of visible minorities, the disabled, or aboriginal people -- first nations people -- which is also an issue.

I think that's what "systemic discrimination" -- one might use the term "loosely systemic racism" -- might mean. 

[ Page 2905 ]

I'm just sort of thinking out loud with the hon. member. That's an important recognition for us to arrive at if that is the case. We can then address it collectively so the face of society is reflected in our government.

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly with the minister. It is a concern when those inequalities are increasing rather than decreasing and when there seems to be a built-in discrimination there, consciously or unconsciously. That needs to be rectified and overcome. My concern is that there are discriminational factors and inequalities there that need to be dealt with.

My concern is that we have come to classify a whole variety of inequalities under a kind of racism terminology. When we do that, we're building in. . . . Why I'm highlighting that is that we have been warned by a number of people who have come to our country from other lands and who have gone through similar kinds of difficulties. I think, particularly, of two Bosnian refugees who have brought home the theme that they lived in a unified country at one time, recognizing their differences; then they began to fight over their differences and had elections and referendums about their differences. The country began to break up because of the very forces that it had been working at in order to bring it together.

So it's a concern. I won't push it any further than that, but I would ask the minister. . . . It has come up in the series of consultations and from the councils. When we talk about "multicultural" and when we talk about multiculturalism and about the many cultures that have come into Canada, what work is being done in the ministry to highlight, if you like, the variety or the expression of a Canadian culture, which the integration that he spoke about as one of his key pillars would or does look like, so that people would understand that? What we're hearing is: yes, we are a Canadian culture, but we're made up of many cultures. The more you emphasize the differences, where do we find the similarity? Where in the multiculturalism branch is that focus also maintained?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The hon. member has touched on the age-old debate: "What is Canadian culture?" I don't think I'm better equipped than anybody else around here to answer that question. As part of the debate that rages in the community, I've said many times. . . . Let me repeat those words: in this ministry, we try to create conditions, as we do throughout government, that might be conducive to us living with our traditions with pride and dignity in British Columbia and Canada. For instance, in our youth programs division and youth drama troupes, we try to make sure that individuals and young people from all different backgrounds are part of those troupes so that they reflect the diversity as they perform in front of the school children in British Columbia.

I think that rather than specifically defining Canadian culture and what's Canadian. . . . For each of us what may be Canadian may be slightly different, with the exception of the core. Those core values are not just cultural per se, but that's also the political culture of the country: the caring, the compassion, the just society that we have -- more than any other in the world, probably -- and some cultural traditions we have that have remained with us.

For instance, for an Italian or Ukrainian immigrant to this country, Canadian culture would be what it is for you, plus some of the additional traditions that that particular culture may allow them to retain. When I look from my background at Ukrainian culture or watch the Punjabi folk dances -- or Italian dances or a Chinese dragon dance or some African dances -- on the soil in British Columbia, I'm sure they don't think of themselves as belonging to those countries they've come from. For them, that is being Canadian, in addition to having some of the core values that we have as Canadians, which they would pick up and imbibe over years, hopefully. So it is a very elusive kind of concept. It is some basic minimum values and traditions, plus more, as you choose to retain them.

V. Anderson: I'll move on, but with a comment, because time after time in this reporting-back of the groups, it's emphasized that the term "multiculturalism" is not defined properly. There really was not a clear definition of multiculturalism. Almost every one of the groups report back that same concern. I highlight that, so that the ministry might comment.

Part of that is also along with the comment: "What is the definition of multiculturalism in a Canadian context?" The definition of multiculturalism in the context of some other country of the world may be quite different. Within a Canadian context, what does multiculturalism mean? The minister has already mentioned that different parts of the world have had multicultural persons. They've had ethnic mixes for years -- generations. Long before we were born, there were multicultural mixes in other parts of the world. But in the Canadian context, what does multiculturalism mean?

[10:45]

Moving on through the bill that was passed, there was a question on the Multicultural Advisory Council. I know that a new council was appointed last year. The minister inquired for interest right across the province. What is the present frame of reference of that Multicultural Advisory Council? For how long were these people appointed -- a one-, two- or three-year term? What is the process in the future?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The council's appointment actually has expired, but they are putting finishing touches to their report. We are in the process of either reappointing them for a short while, plus some new appointees, or we may wait for a few weeks and do an entirely new appointment process, looking at all of the r�sum�s that we had when we sought those applications. So the council is working. I don't think the OIC with respect to their new appointment has gone through; it hasn't been put forth as yet. I'm hoping they will finish their work. We may want to reappoint them for a little while so that we can think about who we want to retain as part of the council out of the existing membership and who we want to bring in new. I believe we should always have some change in that council, so that there's new blood and new ideas coming in. That's where we're at right now.

V. Anderson: That raises a number of concerns I heard expressed in meeting with some of the persons involved. For one, there was the feeling that the one-year term is too short -- that you take a year to find out what it's about and then a year to work on any recommendations. So the concern of the council appointment, and maybe a longer term with a revolving. . . .

It also leaves it very much open to political shenanigans, if one wants to be suspicious about that at all. Of course, none of us would ever be suspicious about political shenanigans going on with regard to any aspect of government, but that is certainly a concern out there.

There's a concern that there's an expiry of a term without any plan, at least publicly, about where it goes from there, and 

[ Page 2906 ]

a kind of almost witch-hunt approach to who will be the ones who have said the wrong thing and won't get reappointed, and who are the ones that get reappointed -- who will then lose credibility by the very fact that they're reappointed because, being reappointed, they will be seen as saying what the government wants to do and what the government. . . . That's the image that's created out there. So I think there need to be frames and terms of reference and some clarity.

I'm surprised, because a year ago we had exactly the same discussion. The council wasn't quite appointed at that time; there was uncertainty. A year later we're in exactly the same position, only worse, because then the minister at least had the excuse that he was new and had not had time to look at it. But the minister has had a whole year to look at it now. I'm really aghast that this should be true at this point.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is no hidden design here. We will reappoint all those who want to remain on the advisory council. That's been the policy. That would be the policy, at least in the next set of appointments. There are a number of people who don't want to be reappointed; we'd be looking for new people and additional people to fill those roles.

They are a bunch of free spirits. I can tell you that I've been to their meetings, and they rake me over the coals. They're not afraid. I don't believe that member has any cause to worry in that regard. The only thing I ask of those members is that while we work towards multicultural acceptance, we also work towards integration; we also work towards including the whole of the population of British Columbia in our endeavours as we work towards a better society. That's the only thing that I've asked them to do. There are no other designs here.

V. Anderson: I know we have a great deal of confidence in the present Minister for Multiculturalism, and in his fairness. I think it's important for the process that the process be seen to be in place. When that minister is no longer there -- which may happen in the next 20 years or so -- there needs to be some continuity and some fairness, so there is some protection for the people involved in that process.

Might I ask the minister, then, that since there is a long history -- not only during the last year, but prior to that. . . . Can he suggest any particular recommendations that have come from the advisory council that have been major changes in the program of multicultural activities in the province -- because of recommendations that the advisory council has presented to the minister? In other words, have they just been talking in the wind, or are there particular recommendations that have been accepted and implemented?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: They have made several recommendations over the last year. Those recommendations, in fact, go towards us reformulating our grants and the criteria for those grants. That work has been done. They've also urged us to meet with the Ministry of Education and work closely with them, and we're following that through. So they have an ongoing impact on what we do.

I also understand, as I believe the hon. member is aware, that they have actually had several consultations across British Columbia from June of '96 to date. They are now preparing their final report as a result of those consultations. Once they come forth we will deal with them and do what we can to follow them.

V. Anderson: We received the 1994-95 report of Multiculturalism. I understand from the act that each of the ministries are to do a report. I am asking about the report that's overdue from last year, from '95-96. It should have been presented, I presume, last summer. The act says it will be presented in the first session of the House after the report is due, and that would have been the session last summer. The report is now due for 1996-97. We're two reports behind. Might I ask about the reports at this point?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: We have the final draft of the 1995-96 report in hand. It's going to print, and it will be tabled in the Legislature at the earliest possible. . . . The reports are always a year late.

V. Anderson: Contrary to the act, the reports are always a year late. I understand the minister in that regard. We will look forward with interest.

Could the minister tell us about changes that will be in the current report that's coming out, then? As I read the '94-95, and as I've had some conversation. . . . Once you have read a couple of the reports from the ministries or the corporations, you could change the title. . . . Each of the reports was the same; it looked like they were all written by the same person. There was very little difference in them. They were all going to have workshops, they were all going to put up posters, and they were all going to do this and that, which was very similar. But one of the questions that came out, again, in the workshop is: what accountability do the ministries have -- once they have made the report -- to follow through on what they have said? What accountability are they held to as the result of the reports? That was a major concern, again, in the workshops.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: As I look at this report, it appears to be a lot more dynamic than the last report. The hon. member will be pleased to get this once we have a copy ready. I also understand that we are now asking each ministry to report to us about the progress they have made in the recommendations that were made the previous year. Where the implementation is of all the concerns that were made known to them will hopefully be contained in the report.

V. Anderson: Are these issues being discussed in the interministerial committee? Are they being dealt with? Is there any record available of the discussions in the interministerial committee and of changes and activities that are taking place currently because of that committee meeting and acting?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The committee is meeting regularly. I believe they just had a meeting a couple weeks ago. I would be happy to ask the ministry to forward the minutes of those meetings, which might be useful to the hon. member, if he so wishes.

V. Anderson: Looking at the overall budget for the ministry for this year, there's a $325,000 increase -- if I have this right -- from $8.158 million to $8.483 million. Can the minister indicate where, basically, that extra $325,000 has gone?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The restated budget reflected the anticipated cut in that budget. We were able to then save the ministry from that cut because we felt that the ministry doesn't already have a huge budget and it does important work. That money was then plowed back in. That is what the $325,000 is, essentially.

[11:00]

V. Anderson: I'm not quite sure how, if you cut back a certain amount of money -- as the minister said -- and then put that money back in, it amounts to an increase of $325,000.

[ Page 2907 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Okay. Well, I may have misstated this. It was cut in the previous year, in '96-97, in the restated estimates. In the estimates for this year, it's shown as back in. It would reflect an increase over the '96-97 budget.

V. Anderson: I understand what the minister is saying. Did that extra money, then, go into grants, or did it go into the operating side of the ministry? Because about half the money of the ministry is in grants, and the other half is in operating budget. Which did it go into?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Grants.

V. Anderson: Perhaps it's an appropriate place to ask what effect the interprovincial discussions will have on this ministry. I understand that $24.2 million came back to the provincial government to do with immigration settlement activities. Is any of that $24.2 million coming to the multiculturalism and immigration section? The press releases indicated that it was for settlement work, it was for multicultural work, it was for immigration concerns. So of that $24.2 million that is coming each year, how much has come back or is coming back into multiculturalism and immigration? Or is it just going into general revenue?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If I remember correctly from the reports in the press -- and probably the hon. members remembers, as well -- those moneys were for needs that are already being met by British Columbia money. So this was to compensate the province for the money that the province already spends on such things as ESL, legal services, social assistance and those kinds of services to new immigrants. I think it's important that that be recognized.

So we are not direct recipients of any of that money at all. I'm assuming that money went into general revenue, as a result of the fact that that money was considered to have already been spent in dealing with services to immigrants.

V. Anderson: Could you share with us the current discussions, then? As I understand, there are discussions underway for the provincial government to take on additional multicultural settlement immigration programs here in the province. If that is agreed to, and there is some indication that it will be, another $24.2 million a year will come in. Will that money also go into general revenue, or will some of that money, or the majority of it, come into multicultural immigration settlement grants, immigration programs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The negotiations on that issue are ongoing with respect to the devolution of that responsibility. We believe that we can provide those services better, and the federal government seems to agree; negotiations have not concluded. Of that $23 million or so, $18 million goes to adult language programs. I believe that that amount may continue to go in that direction. There might be the additional $5 million or $6 million left over, above and beyond the English-language programs, and that would, of course, be dealt with by our ministry.

V. Anderson: I have an indication that, because of the federal-provincial discussions, the core programming funds which have been given to many multicultural settlement groups within B.C. are going to be phased out. Now, I was at the presentation of the previous Premier when he announced the beginning of the core funding program, which was a big boost and a big encouragement to many programs in the province. Can the minister indicate that what I have in writing is true, that the core funding will be phased out and will no longer be available to the groups within the province?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, we don't intend to phase out core funding. Core funding, in fact, has been maintained from '94-95 to '97-98 at the same amount, which is $750,000. We intend to continue to provide that core funding, because we believe that without some core funding, those organizations that provide valuable service wouldn't be able to provide that service. The hon. member may be confusing core funding that comes from Heritage Canada, through the Secretary of State in the Department of Canadian Heritage.

V. Anderson: If so, the groups that are in the community will be glad to hear that, because the document I have doesn't indicate. . . . Briefing papers that were given to me indicate that the core funding from our general non-profit programs. . . . In fact, the wording was: "New funding program criteria are now more clearly defined and outcome-focused. Core funding support for non-profits will be phased out during the next two to three years, and all funding will only be project-based. Institutional change projects will now be considered." If that is only in Canadian Heritage, then perhaps the minister could clarify that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: From the words read out by the hon. member, that appears to be a federal document; I remember when it came out and was reported in the press. I could be wrong.

V. Anderson: It's on British Columbia memorandum letterhead. That's the one I'm reading from. It had to do with the impact of federal-provincial. . . . I'll be glad to clarify that, because I think it's a very concerning factor out there in the community. That's why I raised it.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand from my officials that that may be a briefing that was prepared for me on the federal announcement and the impact that it might have.

V. Anderson: Thank you. I'm glad we got it clarified, then, because I think that's very important. I might say that I have not mentioned it outside this House until this moment, until I got it clarified. I was concerned and surprised, actually, if that was going to be the case.

Perhaps we could take a few minutes now to deal with some of the questions around immigration that have to do with the new federal-provincial discussions. Could the minister first of all explain the rationale for moving the business entrepreneur program out of Multiculturalism and Immigration over to the community economic development branch?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm sure the hon. member might have that question for the hon. Premier, since those are decisions made by him, but I agree with that decision. I believe that's a better fit with trade and investment, because entrepreneurial immigrants come here primarily as a result of the investment that they intend to make in the country and in the province. I believe that under one umbrella of trade and investment with the Ministry of Employment and Investment, they might be better able to utilize the facilities.

V. Anderson: Perhaps the minister would explain. There is still part of the Immigration portfolio within the minister's ministry. Could he explain the policy division? Is the investor 

[ Page 2908 ]

program -- the $450,000 that investors can put in, because that's different from the entrepreneur program -- still within the policy division of his ministry? Is that still within his ministry, or was that transferred, as well?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: This ministry is still responsible for immigration policy, including business immigration and the like. However, the actual program has moved to the other ministry. We still liaise closely with them.

C. Hansen: I just wanted to follow up on a couple of issues regarding the relationship now between the Attorney General's ministry and the Ministry of Employment and Investment and the other ministries involved. I noticed in the last annual report there is reference to an interministry working group on immigration. I was wondering if the minister could tell us if that is still functioning and what ministries are involved. Basically, I'm assuming that the Attorney General's ministry takes the lead on this. I was wondering if the minister could give us some background on that.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, that committee. . . . There is a working group, and it's chaired by the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism, Human Rights and Immigration. We work with most of the ministries in government, and we obtain advice and information so that we can appropriately represent the interest of British Columbians in our discussions with the federal government on issues such as devolution of settlement services and the like.

C. Hansen: I can see a need for a very close working relationship between the business immigration branch and the policy branch of your ministry. I guess my concern is: is the interministry working group the vehicle that provides for that liaison, or is there a more direct liaison? My next question after that is going to be: how active is this group, and is it really the vehicle that can provide that fairly intense coordination?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: There is an ongoing relationship, unarticulated as it may be, with the business immigration branch of Employment and Investment because of the fact that we are negotiating with the federal government on issues around immigration policy generally. They were actually in our branch until quite recently. I understand that they meet regularly and discuss issues regularly. So there is a very close relationship, although there is no name to that relationship.

C. Hansen: The community liaison branch is described in your annual report as providing "a one-stop service for the ministry's immigrant settlement, anti-racism and multiculturalism community grants programs. . . ." Is that still a function that that's providing, in view of the fact that the. . .? Will they still provide that one-stop liaison to the business immigration program?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: That branch does not liaise with business immigrants per se; it liaises with groups that provide services for immigrants. So it's an indirect connection, and some of those business immigrants, or entrepreneurial immigrants, may come in contact with the programs that are offered through agencies by this branch.

C. Hansen: The last point I want to ask, hon. Chair, relates to immigration levels that are set by the federal government in consultation with the province. I gather it's anticipated that this year could be a record year for the number of new immigrants coming into Canada. I'm wondering what input the provincial government has had and what factors go into the input of the federal government in terms of infrastructure, schools, health care and that, to absorb numbers of newcomers to the province.

[11:15]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I understand that the federal government is desirous of allowing the same number of immigrants this year as it did last year, although for various reasons it may not be able to meet that target. Our share of that is expected to be almost the same, which is just above 50,000 immigrants. It could be more or less the same, with some changes, perhaps.

V. Anderson: Is the minister able to share with us these new discussions with Ottawa on the immigration policy of 50,000 and the kind of immigrants that come in, how they're settled and all the things that work around that? Are there guidelines in a policy discussion that the provincial government has through this ministry about the nature of what the provincial government is asking for in immigration policy? What are the principles of the immigration policy? Are they available so that we can pursue them and have a chance to review them?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Those documents are public documents, and I'll ask the ministry to forward them to the hon. member as to what we're asking for. In fact, I have talked about those kinds of issues publicly before, and I'll be happy to have the member receive them.

V. Anderson: Thank you.

Coming back to the transfer of the funds, I think the minister referred to funds that came back for work that had already been done, and I think that was some $20 million. But there's $22.4 million, according to the briefing, which comes on a yearly basis to be used for English-language training services, settlement grants and income assistance. Now, that $22.4 million, I presume, is over and above what we were receiving previously in this regard. This is new money coming back to us from Ottawa. It's not money we've previously spent; it's for the next three years.

I'm wondering what effect that will have on settlement grants and immigration programs and what new money will be coming into the ministry to do these because of that transfer. I know there's an expectation in the community that with another $22.4 million coming in, there should be increasingly more effective programs than what we have at the moment.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I wish. But as I said earlier, these moneys were to compensate British Columbia for the money that it's already spending on English-language training, social assistance and the like. What it would do, in fact, is strengthen the possibility and the probability that we would continue to be able to provide the services we're providing without any reductions to our budget. Maybe there might be increases over the next few years, but one of the worries that we've faced in the last year was some cuts to this ministry.

This is a very small ministry in terms of the budget. It provides a very valuable service. In fact, this is a ministry that represents the face of government to many immigrants, in terms of the services that they access. We wanted to make sure that there was integrity left in the ministry, and we were 

[ Page 2909 ]

happy to have that happen. But I don't believe that we can expect any new moneys coming into the ministry from the moneys that the hon. member refers to.

V. Anderson: I may come back to that in a moment. One of the suggestions that I understand is under consideration is an advisory council to work with the policy branch around immigration policies -- the same as the advisory council that works with multiculturalism -- so that there would be community input and community contact with this part of the ministry. Could the minister indicate anything about that?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, there is no plan to have an advisory committee on immigration issues. We do consult widely; we actually consulted with the community before we started negotiations with the federal government on the devolution that we've talked about around settlement services. I don't cherish the idea of having another advisory committee doing another search. The ministry continues to widely consult throughout British Columbia, and we will continue to do that. If there are any concerns, I'm sure we will know -- and I'm sure the hon. member will be the first to let me know if there are any concerns.

V. Anderson: Might I ask if the Multicultural Advisory Council. . . ? In their consultation around the province on the settlement grants, the immigration questions come up on a regular basis. Is the minister assuming that the present advisory council will deal with these issues as they arise and include them within their mandate? I know the minister has the authority to suggest to the advisory council what their mandate might be. Will this be included as part of their mandate?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: No, the Multicultural Advisory Council has a different mandate. The immigrant settlement issues are entirely different from multicultural issues, although they are, unfortunately, confused quite a bit by society at large.

Immigration has nothing to do with multiculturalism -- it may have some impact on the increasing complexity of diversity in British Columbia -- and multiculturalism has nothing to do with immigration per se. We could shut down immigration today and still need multiculturalism programs and settlement programs. They're two separate issues.

V. Anderson: Thank you. I appreciate the minister's statement. That also leads me back, then, to asking how it is. . . . There isn't a day goes by when questions about immigration and immigration policy are not raised by people in the community. At this point there is no focal point from which they can deal with those issues.

In the past it's always been said: "Well, that's federal, and we can't do anything about it." But now that the government is consciously and publicly saying that it's going to be dealing with immigration policy and programs, and people are hearing about the Quebec model, and we hear, "Well, that's not the model B.C. would like," how do we get input into that? How does the community focus back into the immigration policy that they very much would like to be part of?

If there was an advisory council, they could focus through the advisory council. How would the minister suggest they focus that within the community in order that they can be constructive and helpful in the undertaking?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of the settlement issues, the branch has actually consulted quite widely -- over 400 different British Columbians in eight different communities. In the process of that, you get the input that you need in terms of what people demand in terms of our policy.

As well, they have consulted otherwise in preparation for discussions around devolution. In fact, I was present at a discussion around devolution with a group of community activists in Vancouver some months ago where the issues around whether or not they should be at the table with the B.C. government and federal government around devolution discussions was raised, and I indicated that they had had their input and that it was now up to the government to negotiate based on that input. So I'm quite cognizant of the fact that we need to have that input.

I can assure the hon. member that I can get the director to provide the details of that input to the hon. member separately, if the hon. member is interested in the details. I don't believe that any discussions would be required at this time. The discussions have already been held for us to be able to deal with the negotiations. If any people are concerned and feel that they have not been heard, they're free to write to me, of course, and I'll deal with those issues.

V. Anderson: I can appreciate that the discussions in preparation for the present negotiations have been held and that therefore the negotiations are going to be undertaken. But what I am asking is: once those negotiations are undertaken and there is a new program in place, whatever it may be, what is the ongoing process for people being able to feed back to the government and to share the results of that and to get the consequences back? That's what the advisory council idea, or something similar to that, is a focus for. The very fact that the minister had consultations across the province indicated the need for those kinds of consultations. Now, to have had them and not to continue them, particularly if people think they weren't heard, leads to the claim that we've heard so often: "You consult with us and then you go ahead and do what you want, and there's no way for us to respond to that or to feed back." So I'm concerned about the process of ongoing consultation for whatever process or decisions are made.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I think it's important to separate the two things. One is the issues around devolution. I understand that once we've concluded the negotiations based on the discussions we've had with the community, we would go back to the community once we were in receipt of the money to then decide how that money should be dealt with. That's a separate issue.

The issue around immigration discussions, as to what the policy should be -- who should be allowed in, how many. . . . Once we've made our views known to the federal government and there is some understanding, at the end of the day, in response to any immigration changes, both the federal government and we in British Columbia would hear from people from all across the province as to what they think, and we will take our cue from that. If at the end of the day. . . . I'm not wedded to the ideas of -- in fact, I don't particularly like the idea of -- multiplying advisory committees upon advisory committees; but if one is needed, we would certainly consider that at that time. But this is not the juncture to make that decision.

V. Anderson: Just a couple of other questions that have been raised. In the area of presenting grants, what is the process of evaluating the grants of the immigration settlement program? That's one part of the question. The other part of the question. . . . Looking at services that those programs. . . .  

[ Page 2910 ]

Does the ministry have a listing of programs that provide like services to the ones provided through settlement grants but that are not funded through settlement grants, to have a comparison of the overlapping programs within the community? Do we have an inventory of services in the program not funded by the government that provide services similar to the ones that get grants but are complementary to them? What is the process, then, of evaluating the grant programs as against evaluating the programs operating by other organizations?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: In terms of duplication of services, whenever a grant application is received, the ministry does an assessment of whether or not that need is being met elsewhere or in the same area by other services. If it is, those grants are not approved. We don't have the money to provide additional help in areas where there is already some work being done. We only have so much money, and we want to use it as best we can.

In terms of the evaluation, there are criteria for funding programs in the first place -- what the societies need to prove in terms of being registered and providing audits, and the like. We also do a physical on-site assessment of the programs through our ministry once the program has been funded. So there is that front-end assessment and requirements that need to be met, and then there's also the assessment on the ground once the program is underway, to make sure the program does what it is supposed to do.

[11:30]

V. Anderson: I thank you for that. Also, in case I failed to indicate this, I would appreciate receiving information on the principles of negotiating on the immigration principles.

Now I'll take the opportunity, if I can for just a couple of minutes, to ask some unrelated questions which I need to ask each year of the minister. One is about the present standing of guardianship and representation agreements, if that hasn't been answered already. What is the process? Last year, when we discussed this, it was underway; it was under review. Where is it at the present time, on both the guardianship and the representation agreements?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: On that issue, once we had the four acts in place, there were differing views on the implementation and the process of implementation. We have now -- actually, some months ago -- asked Tim Stevenson, one of the MLAs in our caucus, to review that with the communities that are going to be impacted. That review is underway. Hopefully, we'll be able to implement that at the earliest possible. . . .

One of the two reasons we didn't want to proceed with the full implementation is that there was disagreement as to how it should be done and what portions should be implemented. The second was that if we implemented it in a full-fledged fashion, it would have cost us $11 million a year in addition to what we currently spend. I didn't believe that we should spend $11 million and cause controversy in the community. It wasn't going to be fruitful expenditure.

Therefore we were motivated to have this review. It is almost complete, I believe. I'm hoping to get that report at the earliest possible. . . . Once we have it, we would of course share the results with the public and hopefully implement whatever portions of that legislation we could.

V. Anderson: I'm beginning to learn that there are some very important words here: "We will act at the earliest possible time." Whether it's getting a report or whether it's implementing a report. . . .

Interjection.

V. Anderson: My colleague says it's on the same time frame as the Lions Gate.

Also, in a recent order-in-council, I noticed that the Attorney General is charged with the administration of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. Could the minister explain what that charge implies?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It was at the request of the advocate that the act was moved to the Attorney General -- simply that the Attorney General is responsible for that piece of legislation -- the reason being, I understood, that having the act in my jurisdiction enhances the appearance and the reality of the independence of the officer of the Legislature.

V. Anderson: I appreciate and actually commend the minister for accepting that under his jurisdiction, because I think it's a logical place for administration to take place in that regard. But one particular concern I have in that regard. . . . I ask the minister if he will be helping the advocate to do. . . . When the act came in, one of the recommendations of the Gove report was that the advocate would have the facility to provide legal counsel to the youth who had need of it. It was put in abeyance at that time, and it needs to be brought forward at this time. It is my understanding that the advocate would like it to come forward at this time. Would the Attorney General undertake to review and facilitate that through his ministry, since it now comes under his administration?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I understand that there is a very small budget in the legal services branch of my ministry -- I believe it's about $200,000 -- to meet any eventualities with respect to legal representation, as the court may require a child advocate or a lawyer to be appointed in a particular case. I would certainly look at what the hon. member has asked me to look at.

I was not actually aware of that issue, because this act only recently came within my purview -- not that I didn't want it. I just want the hon. member to know that ministers don't have a choice about what they're given. It's the Premier's prerogative to tell you what act you get. But I'm delighted that it is with my ministry. I will do what I can to look at that issue.

V. Anderson: I urge the minister to look at it very quickly, because it's an urgent issue. It's a very critical issue, because it's very much in my awareness, in my experience, that the funds under the Attorney General ministry just aren't effective. The program of supporting children is not taking place at the moment.

As one illustration of the possibility of that, hon. minister, I share a very crucial incident that took place just this last week, in which a couple who are dealing with an apprehension had legal aid and then were not able to get it, because their finances were just over the limit. So they're without legal help for their children. We have tried to get it, without success. They were notified at five or 5:30 on an afternoon, through a fax, that they would need to be in court at 10 o'clock the next morning in order to deal with Children and Families wanting 

[ Page 2911 ]

to extend the case further, after many years of extensions. That implied that since they were representing themselves, they had to book off work. They are now in the position that they may be losing that job, because they took off work to be in court the next morning. This kind of situation should not be allowed to continue, with this kind of. . . . If they were criminals, they could get assistance. But because they have a child and because they don't have a lot of money. . . . It seems to be that children are not being put first. The families that are fighting for their children and fighting for the children's rights are just being totally destroyed.

In this case, they will probably be able to get legal aid, if he's forced off work and has to go without a job and go back on social services. I think it's incredible that this should take place. It has happened not only in one case but in others. But I've taken this particular thing that happened just this weekend. I hope the minister will look into the representation of children and families. The advocate could be a big help in that regard.

G. Plant: I want to briefly return to one issue around adult guardianship that was canvassed by the member for Vancouver-Langara. I understand that the minister is looking forward to receiving the results of a review at the earliest possible opportunity. But in terms of program funding for the fiscal year which we are now in, I think it could be fairly said that some decisions have already been made -- that is, those aspects of the implementation of this legislation that were going to cost a significant amount of money are not provided for in the current fiscal year. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'll tell you what's provided for. It's $1.6 million for implementation, with the annual cost estimate being $2.5 million once it gets into full swing. So I think we've budgeted $1.6 million this year.

G. Plant: That implies that certain aspects of the review are, as it were, a foregone conclusion, at least for the short term. I think there was a particular program around advocates for people who needed help making certain kinds of decisions. As I recall, the legislation contemplated that these advocates would be publicly funded. If I'm right in that, am I right in my understanding that it is perhaps the most expensive part of the program and a part which is almost certain to be delayed indefinitely, if not ultimately rejected?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I want, then, to ask a question or two at this point about the debtor assistance program. The people who run the Kamloops office of the debtor assistance program were put in a high state of alarm a few months ago over the prospect that the office might be closed. The minister will recall some of the public furore that surrounded that. I wonder if the minister could provide a progress report on the state of the debtor assistance program -- in particular the initiative, which I understand would require federal assistance to improve cost recovery for some of the work that's done in that program.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Kamloops office is staying open. With respect to the federal initiative, the OIC has not come through. We don't know when it will come through -- hopefully soon. It would increase the levy from 10 to 15 percent.

G. Plant: I don't purport to be an expert in understanding the details of the funding mechanism. But am I right in understanding that if the federal government passes this OIC, which I suspect could be a problem for the next 34 or 35 days, the debtor assistance program will become even more of a self-funded program than it currently is? Is that a fair statement?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Yes. It may even approach 100 percent cost recovery.

G. Plant: With that in mind, am I correct in assuming that the minister has no changes planned for the debtor assistance program over the course of the current fiscal year?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

G. Plant: I wanted to ask some questions about the Victims of Crime Act. But noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada