[ Page 10041 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. I. Waddell: Hon. Speaker, I want to introduce a person who played Louis Riel on the stage 50 years ago. Maybe the opposition could have used him last night. Mr. Mavor Moore has spent his entire life in pursuit of artistic excellence and support for the arts and culture community. Mr. Moore is, of course, an accomplished writer, director, producer, actor, composer, critic, journalist and professor. He is now writing an opera. In 1979 Mavor became the first artist to chair the Canada Council. He has just retired as the chair of the B.C. Arts Council, and we are honouring him for that today. He brought to the Arts Council high standards of excellence, his love of the arts and a real contribution to our beloved province. Even in retirement, I expect his voice will continue to be heard. Thank you, Mavor. I would ask the House to please welcome Mavor Moore.

G. Abbott: It is my pleasure to welcome to the gallery today Dr. Richard Kerekes, who is the director of the Pulp and Paper Centre at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kerekes was visiting with, among others, opposition members this morning to inform us of some of the important work they're doing at UBC. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

G. Farrell-Collins: I have three individuals I would ask the House to help me make welcome. The first is my nephew Patrick Frieze, who is visiting here from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. The second is Erin Hockstein, who is visiting the Legislature for the first time. The third, whom I noticed in the gallery, is Nini Baird, who I know from the Knowledge Network and also from the party. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Dr. Kerekes has been introduced already, but I think we would be remiss in not introducing his son Joey, who has travelled here with his father to follow along to some of the meetings here with the various caucuses of the House.

J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce a friend and constituent, a young man whose family is no stranger to this House. His name is Jim Bennett, and he is the executive director of South Fraser Community Services. He does tremendous work in the Whalley community. They have a free medical clinic, a needle exchange and services for street youth, just to name a few. I'd like the House to join me in making Jim welcome and in congratulating him for all of his good work.

R. Masi: On behalf of the member for Surrey-White Rock, I'd like to introduce Steven and Nathan Christie. I might note that Nathan is 15 years old, and one of his major interests is watching the legislative channel on television. He's here today to see us in action. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted that I have a constituent, friend and supporter visiting here today for the first time. He is here to watch question period and also to take in the IMAX Theatre across the street. I'm meeting with him later. I'd ask the House to please welcome Lex Rutherford to the gallery.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd like to take the opportunity to welcome a friend to the gallery. She's someone whom I met in my previous portfolio: Mayor Corinne Lonsdale of Squamish. Would the House please make her welcome.

R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, we too would like to extend our very sincere thanks to Mavor Moore for his tremendous contributions to the arts and culture community of Canada and for his contributions to the B.C. Arts Council. We look forward to continuing to receive your advice and guidance in developing the arts community in British Columbia. Thank you very much.

Also, hon. Speaker, some 25 years ago today, on the islands of Trinidad and Tobago in the Caribbean, I had the pleasure of marrying a very beautiful young lady. Today on Vancouver Island, here in Victoria, we celebrate our twenty-fifth wedding anniversary. I would ask the House to please make my wife Yasmin welcome.

Oral Questions

FRBC HIRING OF MLA'S CONSTITUENCY ASSISTANT

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think members of the House can make judgments about what all hon. members can do in their roles as members of committees.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: It's amazing, but this is the minister responsible for FRBC. The member for Comox Valley is a member of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, which examines the operating budgets of FRBC. This is the same member who acted, in her words, as a referee to get her fired constituency assistant a $26,000 six-month contract. Again, will the Minister of Forests please tell this House if he thinks it's appropriate for the member for Comox Valley -- a member of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, who examines all aspects of FRBC -- to be actively lobbying for her fired ex-constituency assistant to work for FRBC?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The select standing committee does not make any operational decisions on FRBC -- no budget decisions, no personnel decisions.

M. de Jong: Yesterday in question period was one of those days that you're really glad they keep a Hansard record, because without re-reading the transcript, I wouldn't have believed the Forest minister's explanation for how a disgraced NDP ex-constituency assistant could be awarded a communications contract for a job the minister said didn't exist. Hon. Speaker, listen to what he said: "In virtually every community we have people who are there and who will do jobs for us, should we need their services." They're out there.

My question to the minister is: how many of these contracts are there? How many NDP agents are spread out across the province just waiting for the code word from headquarters to launch into action defending this NDP government? How many of those contracts are there?

[ Page 10042 ]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members. Order!

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: As I said yesterday, hon. Speaker, there are people from all political stripes working in communities. Some of those. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members. . . .

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . .stripes are Liberal. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment, minister. I'll let you continue in a moment. Order, hon. members.

First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please, hon. members, come to order.

[2:15]

Interjections.

The Speaker: The House will come to order. I'm not sure who's heckling who here, but a little order would be helpful.

Interjections.

M. de Jong: Sadly. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, I think enough is enough. Ministers of the Crown, please come to order.

First supplementary, the member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: I don't think there's anything funny, quite frankly, about the member for Comox Valley misleading FRBC and her constituents about the credentials of her disgraced constituency assistant. But I'm probably at least as concerned about the involvement of the Premier's Office in this. I want to ask the Minister of Forests if he can tell us whether he thinks it was appropriate for the Premier's Office to make representations and hide from FRBC the fact that this job applicant was a disgraced ex-constituency assistant who had engaged in unethical conduct.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I think that what's important is that FRBC accounts for their hiring practices, their contract management practices. The bottom line here is that the person never got a job, there was never any work assigned, and there was never any pay advanced for this.

CARDIAC SURGERY WAIT-LISTS

Hon. P. Priddy: As I believe people know, we have put almost nine million new dollars into reducing cardiac wait times. That is not an empty promise; that will be over 1,000 new cardiac surgeries in this province this coming year.

In the circumstance that the member refers to. . . . I don't know the circumstances, but what we do all know is that if this is life-threatening, then that patient's physician has the ability to designate that patient as being in an emergency, life-threatening situation, and the patient will be served.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.

G. Abbott: I'll tell the Health minister about the circumstances of Mrs. Nicholson. Mrs. Nicholson was told that she would have to wait six to eight months for her surgery. She was also told to wait by the phone every Thursday to hear from the hospital what her date would be. After suffering through 51 Thursdays, she finally got that call, only to be cancelled five days later. Can the minister confirm that this government's idea of managing wait-lists is to force patients to become critical before they get their life-saving surgery?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, that is not this government's management. However, this government's commitment is to serve critical patients and emergency patients first, because that is what must happen. Again, I don't know the circumstances. If the member wants to call my office, we will get back to the family.

On occasion, we have seen. . . . This will not remove all of the wait times, but our wait times are now longer as a result of the reduced activity days and the surgeries that have been cancelled as a result of surgeons not being there and places like Children's Hospital having to close down all but one of their operating rooms on the last strike day, if you will, of physicians.

RECOMMENDATIONS OF CHIEF CORONER'S REPORT

Hon. P. Priddy: Actually, there are recommendations of the Cain report that have been implemented. But I think that

[ Page 10043 ]

What has expanded and what has made a difference in this province is the methadone program for heroin users, which has expanded significantly. What we do know -- although yes, there is certainly a rise in drug deaths, and it is a tragedy that continues to need work -- is that for people with heroin addiction being treated with methadone, the percentage annually of people dying is 1 percent. For those heroin addicts who are not treated by methadone, it goes up to almost 10 percent. As we expand the methadone program for heroin addicts, we significantly bring down the death percentage for those people.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast.

G. Wilson: I have the report from the chief coroner, and I would challenge the Minister of Health to go through, recommendation by recommendation, and show me where those recommendations have been implemented.

To the Attorney General: that 1994 report made specific recommendations to the Attorney General with respect to taking action that would assist police and the justice system to get people out of this cycle so that these kinds of deaths do not occur. These are people who do not belong to political parties. They don't vote, and frankly, I think this government has simply forgotten about them. Can the Attorney General tell us why he has not implemented one recommendation that came out of the Vince Cain report of 1994?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: If the hon. members remember, last year I took this issue to the Attorneys General conference. I believe that what we require is a national strategy on drugs in Canada. I believe that what we require is the will of the Ministers of Health and the Attorneys General from across the country to sit together, and I placed that resolution before the Attorneys General. They agreed with me, and we have a discussion paper that I am taking back to the Attorneys General conference in the next few months.

Here is what I stand for; here's what I have been saying. What we need is tougher sentences for big drug smugglers and traffickers. What we need is more education and prevention for children across the country, not just in one part of the country. What we need is some will and determination on the part of the federal government to change some laws, so we can have some additional availability of these drugs that are under controlled circumstances and can deal with the carnage on the streets in British Columbia.

The federal government refuses to move. If you talk to the Minister of Health, he says it's a justice issue. If you talk to the Minister of Justice, she says it's a health issue. They need to wake up. We are working on this issue; they need to work with us. Perhaps they can be called upon to work with us.

PREFERENTIAL ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE FOR WCB PATIENTS

Hon. D. Lovick: When I made that statement, I gave the information that was available; indeed, it was the case that 69 people had been sent. I would again point out the fact that 69 people was the correct figure at that time. I have subsequently been advised that the amount has now increased significantly. The reasons for the increase are precisely the same as they were last time I spoke: there is a dispute with the. . . . I'm trying to remember what kinds of doctors we're talking about at this point. In any event, there is a dispute with the specialists.

An Hon. Member: Orthopedic surgeons.

Hon. D. Lovick: The orthopedics -- thank you very much. Sleep deprivation will do this to one, I guess. In any event, what happened was that there was a deal. A protocol was made with the B.C. Medical Association regarding the rate of payment for that specialized service to be performed by the doctors. Then what occurred was that the doctors, for reasons known to them, decided that that wasn't sufficient money. They are no longer performing that service. Therefore, for all those good reasons, the WCB, acting independently of government -- as it should -- decided to send patients to Alberta.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

S. Hawkins: Hon. Speaker, perhaps the minister could get the correct information. The information we got was that there have been hundreds of patients as of April. The minister should check his information; twice in the House he has said that. Not only are these hundreds of patients going straight to the front of the line, but the NDP has been using taxpayers' money to pay private clinics in Alberta. That's what the vice-president of the WCB says. He says that $360,000 of taxpayers' money has been paid to private clinics in Calgary. And we just heard about a heart patient waiting over a year for cardiac surgery and then getting bumped. I want to know from this minister: how can he deny that there is two-tiered health care when taxpayers' money is being paid to a private clinic in Alberta so that some B.C. patients can get faster treatment than others?

Hon. D. Lovick: First of all, Madam Speaker, to the end of April, it is indeed the case that 69 injured workers were referred to Alberta health care centres for outpatient treatment and/or consultation. Since that time, the numbers have increased, for the reasons I pointed out. However, what the member needs to know, and what her colleagues need to know, is that this expenditure is not paid for by the public health care system. WCB is paid for by the employers. All the employers. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members. The minister finishes his remarks.

[ Page 10044 ]

Orders of the Day

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

G. Wilson: I'd like to alert the minister that I am going to focus my questions somewhat specifically on aboriginal children in care. I would also like to then move to a corollary of the question that I asked of the Minister of Health and the Attorney General with respect to some of the issues that are relevant to this ministry, with respect to narcotic addiction and drug overdose and the effect on families, in particular.

Let me begin by saying that it was a year ago in estimates that I raised with the minister of the day the matter of the number of aboriginal children in care. At that time, it wasn't clear to the government what the absolute numbers were. There was going to be some work done, I was told, in identifying the number of aboriginal children in care. I wonder if we might just start by setting out some baseline information, so that we're both working from the same information.

If the minister might tell us: how many aboriginal children are in care at the moment, and what is that as a percentage of the total number of children in care for the province?

Hon. L. Boone: The number of aboriginal children with the Ministry for Children and Families is 2,865, and the number of aboriginal children with aboriginal children and families service agencies is 440.

G. Wilson: Could the minister tell us what that is as a percentage of the total number of children in care in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: It's 31 percent.

G. Wilson: It's 31 percent, and the minister will know that as a percentage of the population, people of first nations ancestry are substantially lower than 31 percent. I think the minister would agree that the statistics that we're dealing with here are entirely and completely unacceptable. I wonder if the minister might confirm that. I'm certain, knowing the minister as I do, that she would agree that those numbers are unacceptable. Might the minister tell us specifically what steps are now being taken, with respect to aboriginal children in care, to make sure that there is proper placement and to make sure that there are policies that are running concurrently with the policies set out by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to address this situation?

Hon. L. Boone: We agreed during the debate on the special warrant that this number was entirely inappropriate and unacceptable, and I have reiterated that numerous times over the past few months that I've been minister. Clearly, the percentages don't jibe. We have 8 percent of the population in the province who are aboriginal children, and 31 percent being in care is not acceptable.

We do have an aboriginal strategy that we're working on, and that includes delegation agreements. Firstly, it includes working on more protocol agreements with those first nations who do not have protocol agreements already signed. Secondly, we're working towards delegation agreements for those areas that are interested in doing them, so that they in fact can assume control of their own child policies and services. That has already taken place in a number of different communities -- 12 first nations agencies have already delegated authorities. So we are working towards those things.

In addition to that, you are probably aware that when we announced the contract and program restructuring last week, one of the main goals of this ministry is to deal with the aboriginal issue and to work as hard as we can to move those off onto their delegated authorities and to reduce those numbers. So we do have a plan with regards to getting more foster parents, more aboriginal adoptive parents. Those are things that we are very actively doing, and we'll continue to do so, because it is an issue that is very close to my heart. I think most members in this House would agree that we need to address the inequities in that system.

G. Wilson: There have recently been comments made by a number of first nations spokespeople. There were two comments, and I'd like to address them both separately. The first is that there is a separate standard applied to aboriginal children, that this standard is different from that applied to non-aboriginal children and that this separate standard specifically and more directly applies to young aboriginal single mothers. It is assumed, they say, that young aboriginal mothers are less likely to be able to look after their child than a non-aboriginal single mother is. They cite three primary reasons for this. The first is that it is considered or assumed -- all of these are assumptions -- that a non-aboriginal family would have a broader base of support, which I think is questionable and which I'd like the minister to comment on.

The second is that the opportunities for education, training and, therefore, future employment opportunities for a non-aboriginal single mother are greater. That may or may not be true, but I'd like the minister to comment on that.

The third is that there is a greater opportunity with respect to placement of aboriginal children into foster care provisions because of moneys that are provided for foster parents and supplementary income as a result of the joint jurisdictions -- the jurisdiction of the federal government versus the provincial government -- which does not apply for non-aboriginal children -- in short, that foster parents get resources far greater than the single mother herself would to look after the child of a first nations single mother.

Those are three charges that have recently been levelled, with some considerable support of documentation. I wonder if the minister might comment on those three, because I think that they are important for us to consider.

Hon. L. Boone: You're talking about an issue that I hope doesn't happen, but I'm not going to say it doesn't -- that is, that people are treated differently. I'm talking very clearly here, because all of our workers are extremely dedicated

[ Page 10045 ]

It's also important that we move towards the delegation of authority to aboriginal communities, so that they are responsible for delivering these services in the manner that they want to see it done.

We are actively recruiting foster parents. It's our goal, of course, to put aboriginal children in aboriginal homes. Again, we need to look at some of those issues around the expectations of foster parents, the expectations of the foster parent home. Do they fit in terms of what the aboriginal communities can provide? If you're saying that a foster parent may get more than a single parent on welfare, then that's true. But that's true across the board; that has nothing to do with whether you are an aboriginal single mom or not.

G. Wilson: I suppose ethnocentricity is something that is learned. All of us learn it, and it's not necessarily desirable behaviour, especially when you're trying to deal in a cross-cultural kind of context. Nevertheless, ethnocentricity can be unlearned, and I would be supportive of any program that would try to do that -- to a degree, obviously. There's a certain amount of inherent. . . . I don't want to get into a long academic debate on the levels of anthropology here, because I've learned over the years, in having to teach along the lines of those sorts of things, that that can sometimes be a fruitless endeavour.

Nevertheless -- and I see the Minister of Education smiling, because he knows how fruitless some of those debates can be -- I think it is critically important in this set of estimates for us to recognize that that perception exists. It exists, and it is strongly held by a number of first nations who are. . . . Especially dealing with young single mothers who are being administered by this ministry, who are non-aboriginal -- the people in the field. . . . The perception exists, whether it's real or not real, or whether it's only in some cases; that perception is there. And we know how the perception of that level of bias can often aggravate a situation where we are trying -- this is my expectation, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- wherever possible to allow the mother to raise her child, if she should choose to, regardless of what her age may be and provided that there are some support mechanisms in place, and keep the child with the mother as long as is practically possible.

[2:45]

Interjection.

G. Wilson: Did the minister ask if I kept my room tidy? Well, I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't want to be judged on whether or not my room was tidy, as to whether or not I would be fit as a parent. Yet that's the explanation provided in this particular case. As a result, not only has the child been taken but the mother has been taken out of the custody of her mother, because she is a 14-year-old. I'd like the minister to comment on that, because I find that to be really quite unacceptable, as the facts are presented.

Hon. L. Boone: I too wouldn't want to be judged on my room, or in my children's rooms. So please don't go into my house.

As I said, I'm not saying that this doesn't happen; I'm saying that it shouldn't happen. We have a risk assessment tool that does not deal with those types of lifestyle issues; it deals with the safety of that particular child. We have a number of programs in place to assist aboriginal families and single moms in keeping their children. The total amount for support services to aboriginal families is $13.6 million, to assist them in keeping their children at home. We do want to keep children with their mothers, if those children are safe. That has to be the bottom line: we must be assured that the child is safe and not at risk.

If you know of a situation where children have been removed from a home because of an untidy room, I would suggest that you bring that to the director's attention. We can deal with that and review that whole case, because truly, that's not a reason for removing a child.

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to reference that and let action be taken as it needs to be.

I want to come back to what the minister said with respect to the dollars. I didn't actually write down the numbers, because I think that becomes somewhat irrelevant. Whether you've got $10 million, $12 million, $20 million or $50 million, I think, becomes less relevant than what we as a society have to face up to with respect to a long history of interrelationships between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people.

We have not had a particularly proud history. In fact, I would argue that our history is not that proud at all. I have long said that we cannot be, nor should we be, judged and tried for the sins of our forefathers -- but only if we do nothing to correct them in our life. I believe that to be true. Many first nations people who I have spent time with and have spent many hours listening to talk about what is a systemic problem within many of the bands around the province. It has to do with the breaking up of families, the forced movement of children into residential schools and a lot of the abuses that occurred in residential schools. These people have returned in some cases; in other cases they have not. Nevertheless, their lives had been shattered; their parents' and their grandparents' lives had been shattered. As a family -- in

[ Page 10046 ]

I'd like to ask the minister what I hope is not a controversial question, but it's one that I would like an honest answer to. I am of the opinion -- and I hope to introduce a private member's bill at some point in this session -- that British Columbia needs to embark upon a truth-and-reconciliation process, where there can be a full recognition of the problems that have been faced with respect to first nations people as a result of the residential schools and some of the abuses that occurred. It's my belief -- and I'd like the minister's comment on this -- that many of the problems that her ministry deals with now, with respect to first nations children, come as a result of our lack of willingness to put in place a process that allows for full healing to take place around these issues and that we now must move that one step forward. I don't believe that first nations getting self-government or settling land claims is going to address that very, very problematic and difficult social question.

I would like the minister's comment on that. I think that otherwise we would put millions upon millions and solve nothing, because we have not provided a forum for expression -- for them to be heard, for them to be understood and for a sense of healing to take place so that they can rightfully take their equal place in society. I'd like the minister to comment on that.

Hon. L. Boone: I really appreciate the comments that the member makes. As someone from an area. . . . I'm well aware of the difficulties that the aboriginal community has had, and I am certainly aware of the problems we are facing now and how they relate to the problems that took place in the residential schools. It is not surprising that we have a group of people who don't know how to parent, when in fact they received no parenting skills because their parents were taken away, and they were placed in schools where they were beaten and abused and all of these things. It is part of our aboriginal strategy to do some reconciliation, to deal with each and every community on its own basis and in a manner that is sensitive to their particular needs -- the needs of their particular area.

We are well aware of the situations that aboriginal communities have been in, and we're well aware of the need for us to move and to assist those communities in getting beyond that and to help them achieve some equality. It is not an easy situation to get over. We constantly see, whether it be the numbers that are dropping out of my colleague's system. . . .

We met with the Carrier-Sekani tribal council just recently. They want to keep their children in the school system; I don't want them in my system. We've got far too many aboriginal children in our youth detention centres and in our jails, and far too many that have substance abuse problems -- all of these things. I think you're right; they can trace it back to what occurred to them in those residential schools. So we have, as part of our strategy, a plan to deal with the reconciliation on a community-by-community basis.

G. Wilson: I'd be curious, and would welcome the opportunity, to explore with the minister in more detail how that is going to proceed. We are told -- if we can believe reports in the media, and sometimes they're right -- that we're about to see a historic signing of the Nisga'a treaty, which has been ongoing for 20-plus years. Having read the AIP and been fairly involved in the negotiation process, one of the issues that I know was central to Nisga'a discussions -- and I don't want to get on too detailed a tangent here or to get on the tangent for too long -- and that was very critical there was the recognition of the role that the Nisga'a people would play with respect to Nisga'a living off reserve. For those Nisga'a who are not on their lands or traditional territories, as they will become known and called, to what extent will the government have a role to play for citizens, members or whatever term you want to use for people who hold Nisga'a status and who do not live there but live in Vancouver, Victoria or wherever?

The reason I'm concerned with respect to this truth-and-reconciliation process happening on a community-by-community basis is that it strikes me -- and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- that the very heart of our problem will not be upon the landed first nations who develop self-government but will be among urban aboriginal people, the people who traditionally would be within the UNN -- the United Native Nations -- or some other organization and who live in the urban centres, and who live without identity.

You know, when the Sechelt first entered into their self-government, they had a circle of first nations totems that were carved faceless because they believed they had no identity as Sechelt people, because they had not been given that opportunity. Through their self-government, they then had their totems unveiled, which showed the full face and characteristic of who they were. It was a tremendously proud moment for every single person there, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. I think it was a good thing that we felt that, as a community, we were doing good things.

I don't see that happening in the urban centres. Yes, it is happening more and more as we look out into the rural areas, where there are land-based aboriginal people who have a process now in place that's going to evolve, that will allow the evolution of aboriginal self-government and that will then fit into the overall context of governance. But what about those people who don't? Where do we pick up those pieces?

It strikes me that when you talk about substance abuse and drug addiction -- and I want to move at some point to get to the coroner's report -- it is absolutely tragic what is happening in our inner cities. If the statistics that were included in this report -- I've managed to get them right up to 1997, and we've got projections for 1998 -- were calculated on a percentage basis in Ontario, it would be a national news story. But because it happens in good old Lotusland, out here in British Columbia, nobody seems to care. It is a tragedy what is going on in our inner cities.

Yes, truth and reconciliation on a community-by-community basis is important. But where in this process do we capture those urban people who are for the most part homeless, often faceless, often nameless; who don't fit any pattern and yet are people just like every one of us in this room; who deserve to have somebody care? Where do we pick up those people in our system? Maybe the minister can tell me that.

Hon. L. Boone: You've put your finger on a very difficult situation, one that is hard to manage but one that we are working very hard to deal with. We have not ignored the urban aboriginal communities. The urban aboriginal communities along with the Métis communities are very concerned about how those services are delivered.

[3:00]

[ Page 10047 ]

We have a strategy in Vancouver where we're working with the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society and the Métis family services to develop some plans around the delivery of services. So this is something we've been working on. It is something we have to deal with, recognizing that there is no united view as to who should provide those services or how they should be provided. But we are very hopeful that we will get some agreements and that we will see the delivery of those services in the hands of the aboriginal and Métis communities in a very short period of time.

G. Wilson: I don't want to get unnecessarily argumentative. So if it becomes necessary, I'll get argumentative.

We've heard this before. I've been elected to this chamber since 1991, and I heard it in 1992, '93, '94, '95, '96, '97. Here we are in 1998 and I'm hearing it again. Nothing is changing except that the numbers of aboriginal people in care are going up. The number of people who are from broken families and who now suffer as a result of drugs and alcohol is going up. The number of deaths is going up. That's what all of the statistics that I have tell me.

Can minister outline where, for example -- this goes back to 1994. . . . The recommendations were for her ministry to establish the development of safe facilities, safe homes, within the urban communities. Do we have safe houses that were funded and that are now operating within the urban communities to bring people in? Maybe she could tell us yes or no, and if so, how many. Have we set up the educational programs that were recommended in 1994 for first nations people who are urban based? Has that happened? Yes or no, and if so, how many and where have we put them. With respect to children and caretakers and the provision of mentors, have we established a mentors' program now? All of these were recommended years ago. Is there a mentors' program now for first nations people, where they can have somebody assigned as a mentor -- a big sister, a big brother or somebody who can assist them -- from the aboriginal community? Has the mentors' program been established? Does such a thing exist?

These are the kinds of things that we hear in this chamber over and over again, and they just never seem to happen. Maybe the minister can enlighten us as to exactly what's been put in place and how effective it has been.

Hon. L. Boone: It really is not correct to say that things haven't changed. We have 120 of 197 reserve-based first nations in British Columbia that have developed or are in the formal planning process to develop. . . . In the urban centres, agencies are in development that will serve urban aboriginal communities in their area when they become operational. There are five groups representing five aboriginal communities: the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services Society, Many Generous Hands in Victoria, the Prince George urban child and family services task force, the Interior Indian Friendship Society in Kamloops and Tillicum House Society in Nanaimo. We have Métis agencies in development which will serve the Métis community when they become operational. We are actually working with the Métis council to develop a provincewide protocol.

We're working very hard. These things are taking place, but they are issues that one cannot deal with. . . . They don't happen quickly because of the complexity of the issues. There is a tremendous amount of diversity of opinion out there. For example, I had a group that came into Prince George and wanted me to mandate that they should provide the services for the urban-based aboriginal communities, despite the fact that there was a whole slew of other aboriginal organizations that were opposed to this. I refused to do so. I said: "I am not going to mandate those things. We have to work this out to decide what is best and what is acceptable to all of those." So because there are such diverse opinions as to who should deliver those services, it is not an easy thing to do. As a ministry, I think we've come a long way. We've got a long way to go, but we have not been sitting idly by in this past year.

G. Wilson: If you go and talk to an aboriginal mother, I'm sure she has a very clear opinion as to how her child should be looked after -- as does the grandmother; as do many of the family members who are trying very hard to make sure that services for these young children are available today, not when some group of societies that can't figure out who's going to get the pot get together -- that is, the pot of money. What I'm hearing the minister say is that you've got all of these services -- and I jotted down four; that's as many as I got, because she was reading them rather quickly -- "when they become available," "when they're set up," "when they become operational." Well, when? When will they do that? When will these services become operational? When will this happen?

To be quite honest, there is no pressure brought to bear upon this government, because these are people who traditionally do not have the social clout that, say, a group of displaced cannery workers in Prince Rupert have when they lose their jobs and all of a sudden the Premier's up there, the member's up there, the minister's up there. Bang! A cheque is cut, and they've got their money, their eight million bucks. I mean, that happened right now, overnight. I'm not necessarily saying that we shouldn't look for bridge financing to get the fisheries industry back on its feet, because, good Lord, I'm in support of the fisheries industry. But it took all of a couple of days to get the Premier up there. I wonder when was the last time the Premier walked among the people of east Vancouver -- the first nations people in the downtown area -- and committed to a promise and kept the promise that we are going to see these funds in place.

You know, the problem -- without being too cynical, I hope -- is that the cannery workers are likely to wage a pretty effective campaign come the next election. A lot of them are going to go out and support this government, and that's their power. There's big political clout there and a big political bill to be paid. But you're not going to get that from the poor people in the inner city. They're not going to be out there campaigning for anybody. They're going to be simply grasping on to life. That's their challenge -- just to stay alive. That's why we don't pay any attention to them. I think that's true, and I'm not sitting up here trying to be holier than the rest of the people in this chamber. I think that's true of all of us. All of us must be mindful of those who are least able to look after themselves. That's part of our mandate in this chamber. In fact that's a huge part of our mandate. They are the ones who truly need our help.

[ Page 10048 ]

Hon. L. Boone: We don't have that information. The coroner will be reporting that to the provincial health officer. We don't have those details.

G. Wilson: That may be a little homework for the minister.

The next question is: is the minister aware of how many of the 201 people who died of drug overdose in the first six months of this year are parents? Is the minister aware of how many of them have children somewhere in the system? Is the minister aware of how difficult it is going to be for us to care for those children, many of whom -- and the coroners' reports are pretty specific -- are born drug-addicted because of the cycle that goes on?

It is estimated that this endemic problem will cost us over $1 billion in this fiscal year. And do you know what? That's not the worst part of it. The worst part of it is in the human tragedy that exists as a result. I really do question the minister on the list of those agencies that she has read out. Could the minister tell us how many are up and running, how they are funded, and how much money they get?

Hon. L. Boone: There's a number of different agencies and different programs. Rather than read all this out, I will give you the commitment that we will get the information to you so that you've got the information as to what programs there are.

I recognize that we need to do more, and we will continue to do more. We have a number of initiatives that are extremely important ones. There's the Building Blocks program. I was at the announcement of a Building Blocks program in New Westminster that was specifically for aboriginal moms, to connect them up to do some parenting so that they do work with other parents to give them the assistance that is required. Many of these are people who have FAS children or NAS children -- all of these various things -- so we are putting in place programs to assist families and young moms. Could there be more? Of course there could be more. We will continue to work with our organizations to give that assistance.

We have in the Prince George region a safe house that is run by the friendship centre. We have a number of different programs that are run by the friendship centre there, and they receive dollars from government -- from Education, from Health. . . . The needle exchange program in Prince George is run by the native health centre. It's not just this ministry that is responsible for programs. There are programs throughout. . . . We will continue to work to develop those programs and to make sure that those programs are delivered and put in the hands of those communities to deliver them. But as I stated, it's not something that one can do easily in some cases, and quite frankly, I'm not willing to stand up and say that this organization should take preference over another organization in the delivery of those services. We need to work with those organizations. We will continue to do so, and we will continue to work toward delegation of authority to the bands.

[3:15]

I guess I have just two other direct questions. One of the suggestions that has been made, both in the Cain report. . . . It came out as a result of the annual report that came out with respect to the child, youth and family advocate. A number of independent groups have recommended that there be an establishment of adequate day care facilities and travel and financial support for mothers who are attending registered substance abuse programs in the urban centres so that they can in fact accommodate their travel to be able to get the services they need without having to have their child removed. Coupled with the provision of adequate day care facilities is the provision of safe houses for these people in order for them to be able to detach themselves from what is often an abusive situation as a result of those people who prey upon them. I am speaking particularly of people who are addicted and involved in the illicit drug trade in the urban centres by virtue of their connection to a partner. Whether it is formally or informally is irrelevant: the fact is that they are preyed upon.

I am told, in looking at the recent document I have that comes from police reports as well as from the current coroner and the child, youth and family advocate, that we have been negligent in getting these up and running, and that this is a big, big part of the problem. These young people -- not always, but often young mothers -- really are caught in an absolutely untenable situation. They can't get off the drugs. If they are lucky enough to, they do so at the expense of losing their children. They've got the problem associated with losing their kids, and that frequently is enough to push them over the limit, and they go right back to abusing drugs again. So it's a cycle that goes on and on. The police I've spoken with say that they are tired of picking up these young kids, that we've got to have somewhere for them to go and that we simply have not done that. Can the minister comment on why?

Hon. L. Boone: We're trying to figure out exactly what your question was. It sort of went on for awhile there, so we kind of lost it a bit. You were talking about alcohol and drug programs. Alcohol and drug services funds 27 aboriginal programs, including prevention, treatment and residential treatment programs. The Ministry of Health also funds a number of AIDS prevention and education programs for this population. Strategies for addressing injection drug use will be a collaborative effort between MCF and the Ministry of Health and aboriginal health policy. We are trying to address the significant problem that is out there.

When you talk about safe houses for adults, those are transition houses that are funded through the Ministry of Women's Equality. I'm not quite sure if you're asking me a question about the transition houses, which, of course, I don't have the information on, or whether you're talking about safe houses for youth. We do have some safe houses out there for youth. There is one in Prince George, as I mentioned, and we earlier announced and will be putting in some safe houses for sexually exploited youth, so that they can in fact get themselves off the street and into a safe area. Many of those individuals, of course, also have some drug problems.

[ Page 10049 ]

G. Wilson: I'd be happy to make my questions shorter, and I would also be happy to receive a speedier response.

I'm talking about child care facilities for young single mothers who are often sexually exploited youth and are drug-addicted. Can the minister tell us how many of those facilities, let's say in greater Vancouver, are up, funded and operating?

Hon. L. Boone: Day care is included in day, evening and weekend addiction programs. If you are talking about a specific day care centre attached to an addiction centre -- if that is your question -- please tell me.

G. Wilson: No, I'm talking about the recommendation that came out of the Vince Cain report -- the coroner's report -- as well as the recommendations that came out from the child, youth and family advocate, that talked about the need to establish child care facilities -- not just day care, but child care facilities for young, single mothers who are sexually exploited and are drug-addicted, so that they can have an opportunity to care long-term for their children while they are in treatment. I'm not talking about when you're in the methadone program or something like that, and you've got somewhere to put your child for two hours. I'm talking about child care facilities that are connected to safe houses. Now, that's not transition houses as per the Ministry of Women's Equality. These are what were recommended to be put in place so that young women who are sexually exploited and/or drug-addicted don't have, as the first avenue open, the removal of their child. That's what I'm talking about. I'm just wondering if, after four years, we've actually done any of what we said we were going to do.

Hon. L. Boone: We have one mom-and-kids program in Abbotsford, and that's what you're talking about. It's a facility where the children actually have a child care centre there. There's one in Abbotsford, and one is planned for the Prince George region.

G. Wilson: Can the minister tell me why we're putting one in Abbotsford and one in Prince George, when the overwhelming statistical information in front of us is that greater Vancouver -- and in fact downtown Vancouver -- is the place we need it?

Hon. L. Boone: There is one already in Abbotsford. As for Prince George, there's a tremendous need. We have a tremendous need for alcohol and drug services in Prince George; that goes without question. There are practically no services in the north of the province, and we're talking about servicing the whole northern region, which is what the Prince George region does. Clearly it's appropriate to have a service there. We are working at developing other services around. . . . I don't know why Abbotsford was chosen, but it is there, and I'm glad that we do have some services. We could use more of them, as we can always use more, but we are limited in our dollars.

G. Wilson: That speaks to a second problem. I do want to yield, because I know that others want to get in. In reading through all this material recently -- and I spent some time with it -- one of the problems identified is that we tend to think that by setting up a program in Abbotsford, somehow that's going to work in the downtown Vancouver core. It isn't. We've known that for many, many years. In fact, one of the concerns was the cost of travel, the difficulty of travel, the ability to even get travel. If you're poor, drug-addicted, sexually exploited, a single mother in downtown Vancouver, how on earth are you going to go and take advantage of what's going on in Abbotsford? How do you even get out to Abbotsford?

We need to have one in Vancouver -- in fact, more than one, I would argue. They have to be managed and run, if we're dealing with first nations people, by those first nations societies -- by the UNN Society or some other organization that is there to make sure that there are peer counselling services available.

Let me ask two more questions, and I promise I will then yield to my colleagues. Why don't we have one in Vancouver? Are there plans to establish one in Vancouver? If so, when? That's three questions, but I'll pose it as one.

Hon. L. Boone: We transport people to the residential facility. In fact, when I met with a number of the service providers in the downtown east side in the Vancouver region, they didn't have an objection to us putting services in the outer regions. They believe that people are being attracted to Vancouver, and they would very much like to see them go back to their home communities, go elsewhere to receive the services. The downtown east side is not a particularly good place to be clean and sober. So those people that I spoke to in the downtown east side, while they want more services -- and I won't deny that -- they also do not object to services going outside the centre of Vancouver, because they would like to see the people who have come into that centre go back out of that area and have an opportunity for a clean and sober life in a different community.

G. Wilson: I'm taking it that the minister's answer. . . . The minister said that if you can make your questions shorter, then you get shorter answers. I made mine shorter, and I got a longer answer. In fact, I didn't get an answer; I just got a longer comment. So presumably the answer from the minister. . . . The minister is saying that there are no facilities in Vancouver, and there are no plans for facilities in Vancouver; but that's okay, because people who live in Vancouver who are involved in this work think that it's a good thing for people to go back to Abbotsford and not come to Vancouver.

Well, my question is: what do you do with the people who were born, raised and live in Vancouver? That is their home; that is what they know -- all they know -- because they have been born there, they were raised there. And they are caught in a systemic cycle of poverty, sexual abuse and drug abuse. They are simply going to continue that cycle through another generation if we don't capture them and do something to help give them a hand up and out of that situation. So what do we do with the people in Vancouver who don't access Abbotsford? What's their hope? Maybe the minister can tell me.

[3:30]

[ Page 10050 ]

As to why we put the first one into Abbotsford, I don't have a problem with that. I think that's a good place for it. Anywhere we can put in that kind of facility is great. The next one is planned for the Prince George region. As I said, this northern region has a tremendous void in services. I make no apologies for services going in there, because they do serve the entire northern half of the province.

So we're working at this. Could we have more? Of course we could have more. If you can find a pot of money for us, hon. member, we'll be glad to spend it.

G. Wilson: The government just found $8 million for an on-shore fish processing plant in a matter of a couple of days. Now, I'm not opposed to giving assistance or bridge financing to try and keep the fish industry going, but I do think you have to ask a question about priorities on spending. I come back to what I said before. I don't want to get into a protracted debate, although maybe I do. Maybe I really do want to get into a protracted debate.

I do want to really hold this minister responsible, because I have to tell you, I have respect for this minister. I believe that this minister genuinely does care; I do think that's true. And I believe that this minister can be effective. I know that this minister was effective with respect to a certain number of highway projects when she was Minister of Highways, and I saw how that could be done. I know this minister has some clout in that cabinet. I know that's true, because I've watched what goes on over there in that cabinet. So I know that this minister has an opportunity now to really leave a mark before this government is retired in a couple of years.

I would say that the mark this minister has to leave is to start to move money into the provision of services for the poor, because they're being completely left out of this government's set of spending priorities. There are more of them, and they are becoming more and more caught up in this cycle of drug addiction, violence and systemic poverty that is causing tremendous human loss. The provision of police services is telling us that we've got to do something. The caseworkers in the field are saying that we've got to do something. The coroner is telling us that we've got to do something. The coroner is saying: "Do something." The child, youth and family advocate is saying that we've got to do something. So if a member of this cabinet can come up with $8 million to help a fish processing plant in the north. . . . It seems to me that if we've only got $3 million going in to deal with these issues and crises in Vancouver, perhaps we've got our priorities a little bit mixed up. I know this minister can make a difference, and I challenge her to do so.

Let me finish my questions by returning to the matter of first nations and aboriginal people. I talked earlier about the establishment of a truth and reconciliation process for first nations people in British Columbia, and the minister said that, yes, we were going to try to do this on a community-by-community basis. I've expressed my concern for that, because a huge portion of the people we're trying to capture in this process do not live on the land. They live in the urban centres, and they will not be captured in that community-by-community process. I am asking the minister, in recognizing the need to do something and knowing that this minister has the ability to weave some magic in that little cabinet over there, if she will push for this, because the systemic problems that we face today are only going to be worse next year and worse the year after.

The number of people who are affected -- especially young aboriginal youth, who are going to be caught up in a system that will terminate their lives mostly before they are 30 years old -- is absolutely tragic and unacceptable. I hope this minister will agree that one of the ways we can start is by dealing with this truth and reconciliation process, so that we can address some of the systemic problems. I'd like the minister to confirm that she's prepared to work with this member and any other member of this chamber who is interested in actually doing something tangible on that question.

Hon. L. Boone: Certainly. I don't question that every member in this House is as concerned as I am about the aboriginal situation -- what took place in the past and how we can reconcile that. I'd be more than happy to work with you in your communities. If you have any ideas as to how we can deal with some of the urban issues, we'd be happy to hear them as well.

B. McKinnon: I'm going to be asking questions on child protection training. Are you prepared for that?

Interjection.

B. McKinnon: I'm going to start out by asking the minister: what is the total budget for training this year, and has it increased over last year? If it has, how much has it increased by?

Hon. L. Boone: The budget for this year is $9 million; last year, it was $8.6 million.

B. McKinnon: What is the total budget for training child protection workers specifically? How much has that increased over last year?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year we spent $3.8 million for child protection workers; this year we are spending $2.4 million, but we are removing the concentrated BSW, which was a very costly program that we initiated last year.

B. McKinnon: This removal of that costly program. . . . Are you doing away with it completely, or do you still have it? What is happening to that program?

Hon. L. Boone: We are not doing that. That was the program that saw us paying for our staff to upgrade to the BSW.

B. McKinnon: You spent $9 million in your training budget this year and $8.6 million last year. Where was the difference in spending specifically put? Do you keep track of where that money is kept?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll just read through the $9 million, which will probably save us some time: child protection workers, $2.45 million; youth workers, $0.9 million; multidisciplinary, $1.3 million; aboriginal strategy, $0.9 million; adult services, alcohol and drug and CLS, $0.7 million; management administrative training, $0.65 million; curriculum

[ Page 10051 ]

B. McKinnon: Each new child protection worker will have to go through a 20-week training program. Is that correct? Does that 20-week training program include all of the risk assessment training?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

B. McKinnon: Does the 20-week program vary at all, depending on the social worker's experience? Do some get more or less training in this program?

Hon. L. Boone: We do an assessment of individuals who come in with some previous training or experience, and we may determine that they don't have to do all of the modules of the training process.

B. McKinnon: Do the support staff for the child protection workers get any of the risk assessment training?

Hon. L. Boone: We train other community partners but not the support staff.

B. McKinnon: Does the social worker have full training before she is put in the field? Are front-line workers fully trained in risk assessment before they actually start any work in the field?

Hon. L. Boone: They go out on a practicum after they have completed part of their training, and they work under another social worker. They don't get complete delegation until they've completed everything.

B. McKinnon: The child, youth and family advocate said that she supported the development and use of risk assessment tools to help make tough child protection decisions, but I'm not satisfied that sufficient training, supervision or staff time is available to carry this out in most instances. How many staff are dedicated to carrying out the 20-week training program that the social workers take for risk assessment?

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry has five staff that are within our training staff. But then we contract with other agencies or bring in other people from within the ministry to do different modules. So there could be up to perhaps 30 people, depending on what they are going to be teaching. They vary according to where they're at and who's going to be teaching different things.

[3:45]

Hon. L. Boone: There is a test at the end of the process to make sure that they understand it -- that they understand it's up to the supervisors and the child protection managers to monitor them once they're in the field. We also have the audits that are going on; those are new. In the past we've done audits on a sporadic basis. We now have audits that take place once every three years. We will have all of our offices audited within three years.

B. McKinnon: In the field, then, how do the supervisors do this evaluation if everybody is so busy with such a large number of caseloads? How do they find the time to evaluate? Is there a certain procedure that they go through that makes sure it's done?

Hon. L. Boone: There are many decision points that they have to sign off, which gives them an opportunity to check what is happening on those particular cases.

B. McKinnon: So you find that, the way these checkpoints work. . . . Does it work well to make sure that the social workers are following the risk assessment rules and that they're not just going off on their own, so to speak?

Hon. L. Boone: The supervisors must sign off on the risk assessment, so that would give them a pretty good idea as to how closely those employees were following the risk assessment tool. There are other checkpoints -- you know, just being in the field and seeing what's going on -- that would monitor it. In addition, the audits would recognize any problems that were there.

B. McKinnon: In the 20 regions around British Columbia, how many front-line risk assessment workers would you say there are in each region? Or do they differ quite a bit?

Hon. L. Boone: We have 1,247 child protection workers. Most of those would be using the risk assessment tool at some point in time. We have consultants that work within each region to assist them in operating with the risk assessment tool.

B. McKinnon: Actually, I was wondering if there was a specific number of risk assessment workers assigned to each specific region or if the number depended on the region itself.

Hon. L. Boone: They're all trained in risk assessment, and the numbers of child protection workers depend on the size of the region. There are large regions and there are smaller regions, depending on the population base.

B. McKinnon: The ministry has indicated that it will hire child protection workers with degrees other than a BA. So my question is: what level of education is now required for front-line workers?

Hon. L. Boone: We're not exactly moving away from a bachelor or an MSW, which would be our preferred degree. However, we also recognize that there are many educational degrees out there that could be comparable and adequate in terms of our needs. As I said, our first priority would be to have an MSW or a BSW, and then a BA in child and youth care or a master of education in counselling or master of psychology, having completed a practicum in family and child welfare. We are not by any means reducing the level of standards out there. We're just saying that there are other degrees that are comparable and that could, in fact, with the necessary practicum, provide us with experienced personnel.

B. McKinnon: Well, then, would the 20-week training course be the same, regardless of the worker's level of education, or does it depend on how well-educated they are?

Hon. L. Boone: It would remain the same. However, we are working with our various institutions to try to get them to

[ Page 10052 ]

B. McKinnon: Other than the ombudsman, what sources have indicated that it would be safe practice to open the field of front-line workers? I guess you've really answered that -- other than a bachelor of social work -- so I shouldn't even be asking that. It's lack of sleep, I think.

Of the hundred child protection workers that you said have been brought on staff since February, how many of them have their BSWs? If none do, then do the hundred have any degrees at all?

Hon. L. Boone: All of them have their BSWs.

B. McKinnon: How much does it cost to put one worker through the 20-week training program? Does this include a worker's wage, and if not, what is the total cost of bringing a new worker into the system?

Hon. L. Boone: It's approximately $24,000 to $25,000. If we find there's any discrepancy in that number, we'll get that to you.

B. McKinnon: In that amount, when workers go for training. . . . Do they get a wage while they are training? If they do get a wage, how much is it?

Hon. L. Boone: It's their regular social work wage that they would be receiving.

V. Anderson: I'd like to follow up, for just a few minutes first of all, on the aboriginal discussion generally, without specific details. One of the concerns that we've had over the years is that with many programs -- aboriginal being one of them -- there seem to be many agencies of government working with aboriginal people across a variety of ministries. When we come particularly to Children and Families, which involves both adults and children, what is the process whereby the government ministries have come together on consistent policies and principles for working with the aboriginal community?

Hon. L. Boone: We are currently working with the Ministry of Health, for example, on some of their strategies. Each ministry liaises with the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs on the policies, and we try to coordinate efforts as much as we can. For example, we just recently met with representatives of Big Brothers and Big Sisters with regard to a proposal that they had for an aboriginal arm of that organization and support for that. I think four different ministries came together to meet on that issue. We do try to coordinate our efforts as much as we can, recognizing, of course, that the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs has a real role in trying to coordinate and make sure that we're not duplicating services and that we are working together.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

V. Anderson: Has there been developed a statement of principles for the government in total through its different ministries working with the aboriginal community? If so, is that available?

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously I can't comment on what government has. . . . You should ask the Premier on a cross-government basis, but in our aboriginal strategy we have a series of goals. Goal number one is to strengthen the capacity and authority of aboriginal communities to develop and deliver child and family services of a nature and extent comparable to those available to any residents in North America. Number two is to strengthen the capacity of the ministry to appropriately respond to the ongoing need for aboriginal services while aboriginal communities acquire such capacities. Number three is to coordinate federal obligations within provincial jurisdictions to address outstanding issues of federal fiduciary responsibility for resources delivered to status Indians, where they may choose to live in British Columbia. Number four is to advocate within government for the development of viable aboriginal economies and economic opportunities to address this primary determinant of the health and well-being of aboriginal people and communities.

[4:00]

V. Anderson: Since I don't have those five goals in front of me, all of which sounded great, I'm wondering if the minister might go over them a little slower, one by one, and make a comment about what has happened significantly or is planned to happen significantly in each one of those goals, so that we can get an idea of where we've been and where we're going in this coming year on each of those goals.

Hon. L. Boone: Goal number one -- I would hate to actually read this -- has to do with the strategy to deliver services in the aboriginal communities. As I said earlier, we are working very hard in delegating the director's authority under CFCSA on an adoption act to first nations, Métis and urban aboriginal agencies. We're exploring the criteria for designating the heads of aboriginal agencies as directors under the CFCSA. So those are some of the issues that we are dealing with.

Under goal number two, which is to strengthen the capacity to respond to the need for aboriginal services before and while the aboriginal communities develop that capacity, we are developing cultural sensitivity and awareness training. I mentioned that earlier. We are developing protocol agreements with every aboriginal community and providing an ongoing forum to educate and assist regional aboriginal service managers to provide leadership in the development and implementation of regional aboriginal strategic plans.

Goal number three: we are coordinating federal obligations in those areas. We are developing pilot projects with the federal government which temporarily set aside existing jurisdictional issues in the pursuit of better methods of meeting the needs of aboriginal children and families. Two projects are currently in discussion stage with first nations communities. Systematically identifying gaps between the Ministry for Children and Families and federal services to status Indians is the first step in developing policy to ensure equity of service access and strategies for maximizing potential recovery from the federal government.

Goal number four: we're implementing pilot projects to advocate within government. We are implementing pilot projects for small isolated communities, coordination of the Ministry for Children and Families strategic plan with planning of

[ Page 10053 ]

V. Anderson: One of the realities that I find in dealing with people of many backgrounds, including aboriginal, is the necessity of learning to operate in different cultures and between the cultures. Aboriginal persons are no different in that regard, in that many of them need to recover their own culture. At the same time, they need to learn the non-aboriginal culture in which we live in Canada and know how to operate between them. Have there been studies done by your ministry with respect to the training of workers who are working with aboriginal people in intercultural cross-polarization -- moving from one culture to the other within your own person -- as well as in working with people between the cultures?

Hon. L. Boone: We are working on this. The ministry's aboriginal training strategy provides for sensitization of ministry and contract staff to ensure that more culturally appropriate services are provided or supported. We are moving in that direction and will continue to do so.

V. Anderson: Are there some studies or some experiences that have come from the aboriginal community which can help us understand how aboriginal people relate to non-aboriginal culture, which we can learn from and which can be beneficial to all of us?

Hon. L. Boone: We have done a great deal of work, and the aboriginal community has worked with us in training our people to recognize their cultural sensitivities and also to train their workers. But I do not believe that there has been any information coming from the aboriginal community sensitizing them to our culture. I think they're immersed in our culture whether they want to be or not. The problem we have as a society is our lack of recognition of the aboriginal cultural differences.

V. Anderson: To follow this for a moment, it seems to me that -- we're talking about Children and Families here -- recognizing that they particularly have to live in two cultures, our whole preparation and interaction with them should have an in-depth understanding of that reality. In our educational system we should have an understanding of what it is to be able to operate in two cultures independently, which not many of us have had the opportunity to do. It seems to me that in order to help and actually be of assistance to our children in their education as they develop and grow, they have to be aware that health regulations may be different in the two cultures, that evaluations of health may be different and that ideas of success or failure may be quite different in the two cultures. They have to be able to operate in both to be successful and to have the same respect in different cultures. What is called formal education and education by your historical culture are two different ways of looking at education.

There are so many aspects, and it seems to me that one of the reasons that in the past we haven't really been able to solve aboriginal problems, which are really not problems but aboriginal opportunities. . . . They are two sides of that same ledger. Between ourselves and aboriginal people, we haven't gone deep enough to understand who is teaching whom and who is bringing what strengths to us. We talk about aboriginal problems, but the aboriginal people have their basic problems with us, the non-aboriginal people, because we try to impose upon them standards, societies, experiences and evaluations which are not necessary to their culture, except when they have to live with us. If they were able to live independently from us, they would be fine, but having to live with us is another circumstance. So I think it's fundamental that we delve deeper into understanding what we're about, because when we talk about programs without proper presuppositions, we're going to continue making the same mistakes over and over again.

As the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast expressed earlier, for at least the last seven years that we've been here, we've been asking the same questions and getting the same answers. Therefore it seems to me that the questions we've been asking are not the right questions or the answers are not the right answers -- or both. I think we have to begin to look again and say: "What are the questions that we should be asking?" What I had to learn from the aboriginal people was that I was having wrong expectations, asking the wrong questions and therefore getting the wrong answers. So I'm asking the minister just one more time if there could be some research into what it is like to live in two cultures and to express that we have as much to learn, if not more, from the aboriginal culture as they have to learn from the non-aboriginal culture. How do we go about that?

Hon. L. Boone: The member sort of worked his way around there. Originally I tried to advise you that we are doing cultural sensitivity with our workers to make them culturally aware and to make them aware of what we have to learn from the aboriginal community. I recognize that yes, many of their problems do have to do with us, so we are doing that. But I'm not sure what you're asking in terms of us doing some study in the aboriginal community to make them culturally sensitive to the white culture. I think they've been immersed in the white culture whether they want to be or not. They are not the ones that need to be sensitized to what the differences are. It's our community that needs to be sensitized to the cultural differences in the aboriginal community, and we are doing that.

V. Anderson: Just one more comment on this particular vein of questioning. Can the minister provide us with some principles or ideas -- or lessons, if you like -- that have come from the aboriginal community, which have altered and changed the programs we are giving? Or can you list things that the aboriginal community has asked for which were not part of our planning or programming, which we have initiated with their guidance to fulfil their needs?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I'll give you three. There are others, but I'll give you three that are important ones. They've asked for some input into the risk assessment tool, so we're working with them to develop their own risk assessment tool. They reviewed our 20-week training program, and we made some changes to that program to make it sensitive to their communities. We will be funding an aboriginal foster parent association. We are working with them, and we will continue to work with them to make the changes that are required to make our organization as culturally sensitive as possible.

[4:15]

[ Page 10054 ]

When I was teaching at the Vancouver School of Theology, one of the things, when it came to the exams -- the evaluation process -- was that for generations we had had a formal written examination/evaluation process. The adult aboriginal persons, who were 40 and 50 years of age, had never used these kinds of processes. Their general comment on it was: "If the professor already knows the answer, why would I tell him?" In desperation, the professors finally had to give oral exams to the aboriginal people, and they were great. The upshot was that within three years' time, all of the students were doing oral examinations. We learned a new way to look at things and be part of society, which we share together, from them. When that begins to happen, then we are really beginning to relate or to interrelate with them in a way that our processes change as a result of what they teach us. When we have accomplished that, then I think we're all going to be better off for it. So I thank you for indications that we are moving in that direction, because I think that down the road that will be extremely important.

I want to move to looking at the reports of the children's commissioner. I'm not tempted to go through all the recommendations.

An Hon. Member: I am.

V. Anderson: You're tempted.

It's interesting that as I go through the recommendations on aboriginal services, on training, on education and on youth, there is a pattern to them. The pattern is that in almost every case, there is a plan in place to deal with the question that was raised; the plan is forthcoming and underway. If I move from that to the comment in the report of the office of the child, youth and family advocate -- and I would like to deal with that directly for a few minutes: "creating a New Service Delivery System. . . . These are excellent plans. But now we must ask: is the progress to date sufficient? Are children safer? Are services available when needed and easy to get? Things did not get better for many children, youth and families needing services in 1997." So here's an independent person, non-partisan, listening to the community and saying that the plans are there, yet the services are not better. It goes on to say: "The number of calls to the advocate's office increased by 38 percent from 1996." It then lists the three top concerns: ". . .how decisions are made about children in care. . . [the] government's response to complaints of child abuse and neglect, [and] the difficulties faced by youth between 15 and 18 in trying to receive either basic support, such as income assistance, or foster care."

I wonder if we might briefly take a moment for each one of those, one at a time, and if the minister could comment on how the ministry is responding to these concerns which have been summarized by the advocate from her knowledge and experience with people working in the field. First, how decisions are made about children in care. . . . There's been some discussion on that, but what has changed? Or what is being put into effect in 1998 that will make that different from 1997?

Hon. L. Boone: You're correct that the child advocate's report did indicate that there were a number of things that were coming, but I want to point out that the child advocate's report dealt with the years up to 1997, which went to January 1. She also pointed out that this year would be the year that would prove what was happening.

I think it's fair to say that when I met with her, she recognized that a new ministry bringing five ministries together is not an easy thing to do, that in fact there is a lot of turmoil and difficulty out there both in the community sector and in the service sector. They are dealing with it within the ministry, as they try to pull themselves together and work as one. I'm not surprised, and I don't think she was surprised, that that took place during that period of time.

She also recognized that this year would be the year that we would see the implementation of the changes that she was concerned about. This year we do have additional dollars coming into the ministry, so we will see the decisions about children being made in a different manner. We recognize that there were some staff pressures out there.

We have a workload assessment tool now to assess where the staff should be going. We have the risk assessment tool; we have our staff that have been through the training. I think we're starting to work together as a ministry, but I don't want to underestimate the difficulties of pulling together a brand-new ministry of this magnitude in a little over a year. When I met with her, I know that she certainly acknowledged that although she had some concerns, we had come a long way. She also recognized that the calls that come to her office do increase when there is a particular problem. If there is a high-profile case that comes up, then calls suddenly start to come in. Of course, we had the Quesnel issue -- very high-profile. Calls started to come in at that point as well. That is the answer as to how things are going to be changing and what we are doing to make them change this year.

V. Anderson: I appreciate that and in a sense getting it on the record at this point, because what I hear the minister saying and us saying along with her is that the evaluation of the change starts from January 1 of this year, if you like, or at least from April 1, if you like, until next year. So next time we come back, we'll be having a standard from which to work -- kind of where we start now as to where we were then. I think we want to grant her that opportunity and hope that we are able to do that year better than we have the previous years when the same things happened but the standards hadn't been met for a variety of reasons.

When we're looking at, then. . . . I want, just in passing, to congratulate the ministry. We'll come back to contract and restructuring later on, in detail. But in many ways, I want to congratulate the minister for saying: "Things are not working. Let's stop and review it. Let's do it better." I want to thank her for that.

Following up with the child, youth and family advocate, she had specific recommendations which came out of this recognition of how things might be done better. The area that I would like to focus on particularly at this moment is the one that she focused on, which is the area of early intervention. Early intervention must be available to all children who need it as soon as they need it. Probably the minister and all of us agree wholeheartedly that how children are raised from the time they're born, or even prior, and the opportunities they have in the first months and years of their lives are fundamental and will indicate where they go from there. Theoretically at least, I think the community at large is now willing to accept the necessity of giving that priority to the youngest of our children so that they have the fullest opportunity in life and we have fewer negative results to deal with later on, which is an advantage to them as well as to us as a society.

So I want to ask what the stance is on her recommendation: "I recommend that government create a separate, dedicated early intervention fund for the children of tomorrow."

[ Page 10055 ]

V. Anderson: Let me rephrase the question then, having you put it that way. What is the priority of the ministry in its present programming in dealing with the prevention of difficulties that children might have or in giving children the opportunity to meet any of their physical or mental needs in order to be a well and healthy and wholly developed person? What is the priority for that in the ministry, and what is the process to give that priority?

Hon. L. Boone: Within the ministry, we recognize the importance of early intervention, and we do have considerable dollars that go into intervention: public health services, speech, audiology, nutrition, dental -- that's $72.85 million. Child care -- I don't think anybody would say that a good child care program is not an early intervention program. Certainly the provincial health officer, Dr. Millar, recognizes that, and that's $188.53 million. General family support programs -- that's $110 million. School-based programs, are extremely important and something that I support a long ways. That's the lunch programs, the tremendous early intervention and prevention program: $43.96 million. Healthy Kids: $10.66 million. Building Blocks programs are within that area, as well as new programs coming on that are early intervention, helping new moms dealing with FAS children to recognize various things. Those are developed at the community level to meet the various community needs. So yes, we recognize that intervention is extremely important. As a ministry and as a government, we have certainly funded those things.

V. Anderson: I'm encouraged by the list as it goes out. What I'm wondering is whether there is a way in which these early intervention programs can be packaged and, say, promoted by a public education program, which brings the public involved in doing early intervention as communities. That goes beyond and supplements and complements our programs, because it seems to me that if the public and the ministry can be seen to be working together and can undertake a common understanding of what is involved, we'll be further ahead. The government is not expected to pick up all the problems and deal with them with programs. A lot of this could be undertaken by public education and a public process where there is seen to be cooperation between community agencies, individual families and the programs of the ministry. What I'm asking is: is there a public education program in the ministry that concentrates on the early years of life, which all of us can participate in and feel that we're working together with?

[4:30]

You talk about working with the community. It's extremely important. We're trying to do it on an ongoing basis. Just yesterday I announced some provincial funding to assist SPOC, which is street-proofing our children in the Vancouver area, to help provide the young kids in our schools and our communities with the tools to protect themselves when they're out and not under the protection of their parents. Those are some of the things we are doing, and we will continue to do that with the money that we've got. The SPOC program is a very important one, because it is cost-shared. UFCW is supporting it; the RCMP is supporting it. We're supporting it, as are the community organizations. If there are other ways that we can work with community organizations to cost-share and to develop things at the local level, then we're more than happy to do so.

V. Anderson: What I'm asking about is some leadership from the government not just in providing programs but in providing vision and an opportunity to the adults of the community to take on responsibility for children from zero to five years of age, before they get to school. We have accepted that a large part of a child's education once they become school age is between school and the community. I'm not sure we've accepted that there's an educational role that we have together until they get to school. I'm asking if the ministry, with the package of what they're doing and the opportunities and tools that are available to them, can help to bring together a vision of the community to provide the basic fundamentals that children should have prior to becoming school age.

Hon. L. Boone: I think our regions are doing this on an ongoing basis, working within the communities. Some may be doing it more so than others, but if we can work with communities, we will do that.

V. Anderson: I'll move to another area of discussion, which has long been a concern. That is whether the ministry has done any study in the area of child apprehension, whether it's in foster care or whatever, or of the process by which families and children are dealt with through the courts. It's been my experience again and again, and for many others that I've talked to, that there is an imbalance in arriving at just decisions regarding children because of the imbalance once we get into the confrontational basis of the court system.

On one side, you have the government system, the social services and the child and family system, which has in place lawyers and processes which are well defined, but they totally overbalance those independent persons on the other side in our confrontational system of courts, who speak for the children and their families. It's the reality of that imbalance in the use of our court systems that has led us to do a great deal of harm to children and their families and has led to a great deal of cost -- financially, in time and in every other way -- in the use of our system. It has not got the kind of results needed when we are moving into a very important part of the decisions that need to be made.

I wonder if the minister could comment on that and on whether there have been any studies or evaluations done of the harm that is being done by the way the system operates. I'm not talking about the decisions at this point, but about the way the decisions operate. Are there any processes in place to correct and make that work more effectively?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the study is that you would like to see. I must take issue a little bit with what you're saying, in that it's a lopsided system where you've got the Ministry for Children and Families on one side and the children and their families on the other. We are here to protect

[ Page 10056 ]

V. Anderson: I agree wholeheartedly that the intention of everyone involved is the best interests of the child. The system, as it has developed, has developed on adult thinking -- on one process. It's a system that's developed on a right-wrong, good-bad, black-white system. It's not the system that operates in most families. It's the system that gives a certain weight to how clean a place is, to how a person talks and to evaluations. Those evaluations, once they're entrenched, are there forever. It's a system that goes back into the record and says that if you made a mistake at one point, then that will be held against you and your children forever. The difficulty of dealing with that is overweighted. It's a system where the children are in the middle, and there are different groups. One side, the government side, has one, two, three, four, five, six or ten lawyers. The government side has access to all of the court records and documents. The other side does not have any of that, in giving the other position, so the presentations are imbalanced. A person comes and tries to make a presentation. Their court case is on Wednesday. On Monday they ask, "Can we get a copy of what's coming up on Wednesday?" and they're told by the system: "No, we don't have to give you that until Tuesday." And they've taken time off work. Illustration after illustration of the imbalance of the system. . . .

Where it works against children is that in our experience there are hundreds of people in our community who will turn to Human Resources or Children and Families only when there is absolutely nothing else to be done. Their conviction at this moment is that if they turn to Children and Families for any help whatsoever, even if it's short-term, it will automatically mean that the greatest probability is that their children will be taken away from them. So the help is not given at the beginning when it's needed most, and that's because of the way the system is operating.

What I'm asking is that this crucial juncture in decision-making, which decides whether children have parents anymore or children have a history or a background, whether they are together with their own siblings. . . . The system is imbalanced. I'm asking if a study has been done or if a study could be done on these issues, because they're real. If a study has not been done, and if the minister is not aware of this situation, would she undertake to look at these circumstances -- to have someone study it? I'd be happy to tell them my experiences over many years not just with this government but over many -- some 40 years in ministry not only in this province but in other provinces as well. We're not going to get to the right answers and the right solutions with the right costs until we look at it and review it. Would the minister be willing to undertake an initiation of the beginning of that review?

[E. Conroy in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: "An initiation of the beginning of that review. . . ." No, I'm not going to commit to that today, thank you.

Gove was all about us trying to make sure that we put the child at the centre of the decisions that are made. If you look at the information that comes from the ministry with regard to cases, 18.7 percent of the investigations are physical abuse; 5.7 percent are sexual abuse; 15.8 percent are neglect; others -- which include health, emotional abuse, etc., -- are 31.7 percent; and multiple, meaning some of all of those things, is 28 percent. I don't make any apologies for utilizing the resources of the ministry to protect those children. I think that's what our job is. At this point in time, I do not intend to spend a lot of money studying the system again. Gove did that. He made recommendations; we've changed the system to make the child the centre and to make all our decisions around the child. We will move forward on that.

The risk assessment tool is there. . .so that our workers can recognize when a child is at risk. I think that is helping them to make the best decisions. We are working with the aboriginal community to reassess that risk assessment tool, to make it culturally sensitive. I think that will assist us. But no, I do not intend to restudy the system after Gove did an extensive study.

V. Anderson: My final comment at this point is that I appreciate the minister's honesty and her clarity of response when she said no. I'm terribly disappointed. As a result, I will predict that we will continue to have families in disarray, because any system, no matter how good it is, has to continue to review the system that it's dealing with.

[4:45]

C. Clark: Before I start, I do want to note the presence in the gallery of Delphine Charmley, who's come to join us again with her son -- one of her adopted special needs children. I want to welcome her. I've taken the time to introduce her already, so I won't go through that again.

I want to move to the contracted sector -- not the foster care sector specifically -- which was affected by restructuring the ministry. First, though, I'd like to get a sense from the minister of what she means when she says that the ministry is undertaking another 24-month process of restructuring to replace the old process of restructuring. What will that entail? What changes does the ministry envision as a result of that process?

Hon. L. Boone: We will be working at the provincial level, with provincial organizations, to develop an overall umbrella policy with regard to how we should be proceeding and what we can do within the parameters. We'll be working at the regional and community levels with tables -- or groups, or whatever you want to call them -- to consult with those organizations as to how we can better deliver services and how we can restructure our services in those areas, keeping in mind the concerns of individuals -- parents, service organizations -- and also recognizing the needs of the aboriginal community and, as a separate table there, the community living sector.

[ Page 10057 ]

C. Clark: Clearly the minister sees that there's a problem in the contracted sector. Could she articulate for us what problem she sees in that sector that needs to be fixed by her ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: The Gove commission recommended the integration of services in the child and youth program area, due to the need for us to share information. We want to do this. We are committed to doing this, because we think it is very important that we do so, but we want to do so in a manner that recognizes all those concerns that were brought out during the original contracting program restructuring move. We're working very closely. . . . We'll be working with all of those organizations, and with the families, to make sure that we take in their concerns. We also have plans for transition, if there should be a collapsing of services into organizations, but we will not be mandating. We will not be putting out an RFP saying: "We want you to come together, and we are going to have only one organization here." We will be doing so with the cooperation of all the organizations there.

C. Clark: What's the problem out there that the minister is trying to fix, then? Judge Gove made reference to it, and she's mentioned that. But what is the problem she is trying to address with this restructuring program? The first restructuring came along, and now it's been replaced by restructuring mark II. When she announced the mark II restructuring, she said that she accepted that the goals of the first restructuring were valid, and that's why there should be a mark II of this program. What are the specific problems she's hoping to address by continuing with her restructuring program?

Hon. L. Boone: Gove clearly identified the problems that took place with a lack of information-sharing, with organizations not talking to each other about one client -- two or three organizations providing services to one family perhaps, and nobody actually coming together to talk about how those services are delivered, what services they are delivering and what they're finding out about that particular child or family. We need to integrate those services so that those individuals and those people are talking to each other, so that they're working together and basically providing the best services possible for that family or that child.

C. Clark: My recollection of the Gove report and the problems that were pointed out by Judge Gove is that there was a lack of communication between service providers, but that this was happening partly because the ministry wasn't doing its job. The ministry is supposed to be the information hub for all the contracted service providers out there, and the ministry wasn't doing its job in that respect. Certainly other service providers -- doctors and hospitals -- need to put protocols in place to ensure that they're going to share the information with the ministry when there's a child in care. But the ministry needs to have some kind of system to ensure that it's communicating with all the people that are providing services to the client on its behalf. Short of amalgamation of services, I don't know how the ministry can hope to ensure that there are good communication links built between these agencies, unless it's the ministry itself that intends to provide that service and be the hub for the information-sharing. What I'm trying to find out from the minister is what her vision is of integration and what exactly she means by that. The only way I can interpret it, based on what she said she wants to achieve, is amalgamation.

Hon. L. Boone: I said very clearly that amalgamation may occur. As my colleague the Minister of Education said: "Amalgamation but not necessarily amalgamation." Amalgamation may occur if the communities decide that that's the best way to deliver those services. If amalgamation doesn't occur, yes, the ministry will act as the hub, and the ministry will be pulling these organizations together to make sure that those individuals are talking.

One of the good things that came about from the CPR process -- I heard this in areas that were having problems -- was that for the first time ever, organizations were talking to each other. They were amazed. They were sitting around one table -- 20 organizations in various communities that never spoke to each other, that never talked about where there was an overlap of services or where they could combine or enhance their services. This way, we will be pulling those people together, and we will be discussing and deciding at the community and the regional levels how we can best achieve that. There may or may not be some amalgamations taking place, but that will be decided at the community level, working with all our partners out there.

C. Clark: I still don't understand why the ministry appears to be fixated on restructuring. I still cannot get from the minister a sense of what the big problem is that her ministry is so focused on trying to fix. Maybe it would help if she could give us an example of the problems that are occurring out there. It's my recollection that the focus of Judge Gove's recommendations was that the ministries weren't talking to each other. That was the biggest problem. The creation of the Ministry for Children and Families was supposed to resolve that. We know that there are still problems in the ministry, but Judge Gove was not nearly so focused on fixing problems in the contracted sector as the ministry appears to be. It seems to me that the ministry would be better off to focus a little more of its energy on trying to resolve the problems of integration that it's still experiencing -- I think the child and family advocate certainly alluded to that in her report -- rather than focusing on the contracted sector. Can the minister tell us, or maybe give us some examples so that we can understand, exactly what the problems are in the contracted sector that need to be fixed so urgently by a restructuring process?

Hon. L. Boone: If you look at Cynthia Morton's report, in some cases she indicates where there is a lack of information-sharing between agencies, which may not have necessarily caused a child's death but certainly didn't prevent it. If that information could have been shared, perhaps that could have prevented the death of a child. Agencies are telling us they are extremely happy that we are pulling them together, that they are working with us and that they have an opportunity to pull together so that they can decide how they can best share information. They recognize that they can provide better services to the children and families out there by working together and sharing information.

Yes, we recognize that as a ministry we've got a role to play, and we will be doing that. We will be working on those

[ Page 10058 ]

C. Clark: Before I get to my question, I just want to correct the record about something. The minister suggests that service providers were happy with the restructuring process because they got to sit down and talk to each other. Well, I can give the minister a specific example of where that happened. It happened in the South Fraser region. Agencies sat down and talked to each other and tried to figure out how they could best integrate their services. Then, after six months of them doing that, the ministry came in and essentially kicked them in the teeth and said: "Sorry, everything that you've planned, everything that you've discussed, all the conclusions that you've come to based on your experience and your goodwill. . . . Throw 'em out the window, because as far as we're concerned, we'd like to see one service provider in this whole region."

The bureaucrats in that region didn't end up getting their way with just one service provider, but they sure went far down the road of trying to destroy community agencies that have had their roots in that community for 25 or 35 years. They did the best they could to destroy the goodwill that's out there. What happened as a result of that is not that the service providers are out there happily sharing information. What happened in the South Fraser region, the Simon Fraser region and the other regions where the ministry has botched reorganization -- got so far that they essentially destroyed organizations -- is that the goodwill between those organizations has been shattered. The trust between those organizations and the ministry has been betrayed, probably permanently. I think the ministry is now asking those agencies to go back to the table with the same civil servants that tried to destroy them six months ago and renegotiate some kind of new restructuring. They're telling me that they still do not understand from the minister or from the civil servants at the front-line level what that restructuring will entail.

I am trying to get from the minister some clarification of what integration is envisioned by the ministry. Is she simply talking about building better lines of communication between those agencies? Is that the extent of the reorganization that is currently envisioned? If that's the case, I imagine that what the ministry will do is set up regional tables where all the service providers in South Fraser can get together, for example, and talk about what services they're providing and how they might better do it. Maybe they can make it every three months; maybe they can have a retreat. Is that the extent of the restructuring that the minister envisions in this new CPR mark II?

[5:00]

We intend to work at the community level. If the community decides that those services are better delivered on an amalgamated basis -- if they say, "Hey, we want to come together, and we want to amalgamate our services and have one service provider" -- then that will in fact happen, recognizing that there should be some services delivered by the aboriginal communities. If they say, "No, we don't think we should be doing this; we believe that we can integrate our services and find a means of talking and communicating with each other, but not by amalgamating all our services into one service provider," then that's what will happen. But I am not going to stand here and tell you that this is going to be one-size-fits-all. Across this province we will see different ways that people work towards providing integrated services in their communities. Those will be decided at the community level, with the help of everybody.

The member likes to say that the community organizations feel like they've been kicked in the teeth and all this sort of stuff. Well, you know, hon. member, it's just not true. Right now the community organizations are extremely happy. You heard them at the announcement. I went to their AGM in Penticton, the same as you did. They believe that we're on the right track. They want to be at the table. They want the re-establishment of a provincial table, which is what we have done. They want to have a voice. We're saying: "We're listening to you; we're going to be working with you to provide the best services to our communities." They're onside. I don't know why you can't just accept the fact that this initiative is accepted. It is going to be a positive one out there; let's get on with moving forward. As I said earlier, hon. member, get on this bus, because it's leaving without you.

C. Clark: I should let the minister know that there's no need to hurl personal insults across the floor. I should let her know that I wasn't up all night; I got a few hours of sleep at home last night -- just so she knows. If she wants to choose her insults a little more carefully and wants to be a little bit better informed about the way she uses them in this House, there's the information that she might require.

She still hasn't given any of us the information that we require, and she continues to suggest that service providers are pleased with this disastrous restructuring that she undertook -- that her ministry put them through for a full year. She says that they're happy: "Get on the bus; it's leaving without you." That's exactly the same thing she said before she cancelled it; that's exactly the same thing she said when it was the old restructuring. Well, guess what. The wheels fell off the bus, and the minister had to get out and try and figure out some way to get it back on the road. Now she's got it back on the road, but you know what? If the minister isn't honest and straightforward with the service providers out there about what they can expect, then she is going to have bus trouble again. She's going to end up by the side of the road hitchhiking somewhere; that's where she's going to end up.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Service providers require some certainty. They've been kicked in the teeth by this ministry for over a year now. . . .

Interjection.

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat for a moment, please. The Minister of Transportation and Highways rises on a point of order.

Hon. H. Lali: The hon. member across the way was talking about hurling personal insults. I believe that she is attacking the integrity of the hon. minister by suggesting that she is not honest. I'd suggest that she withdraw her remarks.

[ Page 10059 ]

C. Clark: Absolutely not, hon. Chair.

The Chair: Perhaps, then, you could just say that you withdraw. . . .

C. Clark: That I did not suggest that the minister was being. . . ?

The Chair: Thank you.

C. Clark: That I was impugning the minister's personal character?

The Chair: Thanks very much. Okay. The member continues.

C. Clark: Thank you, hon. Chair. I appreciate that.

The minister's suggestion that service providers were happy with this is wrong; it is wrong. Service providers are not happy with this. What the minister has done is say that she's cancelling restructuring, but she's replacing it with another kind of restructuring and not even telling them what it is. They went through a year-long process where for the first eight months they thought that one thing was going to happen with restructuring. Then at the end of it, the ministry came in, pulled out the rug from under them and told them it was going to be something else entirely. Now the ministry says it's going to be something else again. But the minister can't really tell us what it is that she hopes to achieve from her restructuring.

When she talks about community agencies deciding their own future, perhaps she can assure us, then, that the community agencies and community tables -- which will be determining what it is they'd like their region to look like and how they'd like services to be delivered in their regions -- will get the final say on what the services in their region will look like. In other words, if she will assure them that this process will be entirely community-driven and driven by the tables in those regions that she sets up -- where they'll decide if they want integration or amalgamation and what they want it to look like, or if they want to maintain the status quo and how they'd like to improve on the existing structure -- will she make that guarantee and assurance to those service providers today?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, I thought I'd already done that, but sure.

C. Clark: I know that in the South Fraser region the minister's officials appear to be working at cross-purposes, I'd suggest, with her assurances. They've written to the service providers out in the South Fraser region and said that there must be "a reasonable time frame established to allow the further discussion with you" -- the service provider -- "and the community regarding the integration of services." It goes on to talk about how they want to. . . . They're extending their contracts for six months. They want to meet with these guys individually during the next year to review the specific deliverables in their existing contracts and to ensure that those contracts reflect the services presently required.

It does not say anywhere in this letter that the ministry is going to be enabling a group of them to get together and find some consensus about what kind of service they'd like to have in that region, which I think is what the minister has just guaranteed us will happen. Could she perhaps illustrate for us what's happening in the South Fraser region and whether she agrees with them taking an entirely different tack from what she suggested today?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I don't. We have a project manager that will be working with all regions. He will be going into the South Fraser region to make sure that they are proceeding in the manner in which I have outlined for you.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, this letter was written on July 8 and probably received by the service providers on July 10, from the regional operating officer. They in that region are clearly operating on a totally different agenda than the minister. So either the minister is giving direction that her staff is refusing to take, or the minister has some different interpretation of the way she'd like things to work in that region than she's so far told us about. They talk in the letter about a process to review and renew their relationships and to ensure that the contracts are the services that are currently required. They talk about the meetings they're going to have that are beginning in September 1998, and they'll be completed by July 1, 1999. Can the minister tell us if any of that is consistent with her policy with respect to restructuring across the province?

Hon. L. Boone: This talks about what is going to be taking place over the short term as we renew the contracts. The contracts that needed to be renewed are from September until 1999. We will be meeting with our organization. I mentioned in the news conference that we would be meeting with them very shortly to discuss that contract and how it's going to be renewed. In some cases, there are going to be some minor changes -- in the contract language, for example.

We're trying to amalgamate our contracts. Most organizations recognize that that is what should be done. They've never opposed contract amalgamation or restructuring, because they recognize that organizations may in fact have contracts from four or five different ministries that came together. When the ministry came together, it became necessary for us to pull those contracts together to have standardized contract language. We will be meeting with all our service providers over the short term to discuss how we will be proceeding in the next little while.

C. Clark: The minister, as I understand it, is representing this initiative in the South Fraser region as one where they'll essentially just be making some small administrative changes. They'll be cleaning up some contract language and doing the normal things that one would expect when they go to renew a contract in a region. Does that mean, then, that the minister isn't anticipating changing the contracts substantially or that she isn't planning on cancelling any of the contracts for that region? Is that a correct interpretation?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. There are some very strict guidelines that have gone out to all regional operating officers to establish when a contract would not be renewed: if the contractor is no longer there; if they've indicated to us that they don't want to work with us anymore; or if we have problems with the services that they are delivering. All of those would have to be approved by the assistant deputy minister to make sure that they're consistent with our practices. This letter indicates the standard procedure to renew those contracts and to get the language. . . . In many cases, over the next year or so we'll

[ Page 10060 ]

C. Clark: I think I quoted this section to the minister already. It says: "The process will allow us to renew and review our relationships with you and ensure that the services as described in the contracts are those that are currently required by the ministry."

Clearly, that suggests to the contractors. . . . This is what the contractors believe it says, and I agree with them: it suggests to the contractors that the ministry is reviewing whether the level of funding that they provide to each of those agencies should be maintained -- whether, for example, they should continue to fund them for the number of spaces that they provide. Not just that, but there is an implicit suggestion that the ministry is reviewing whether or not any of those services are even required. For example, if you have an agency that's providing drug and alcohol services, the ministry might say: "We don't want your drug and alcohol services anymore." This regional operating officer is suggesting that there may be cases where services are not required and that those contracts will be terminated; that's what she's suggesting in this letter. Could the minister tell us if she supports what her staff has written to the contractors in South Fraser? If she doesn't, will she instruct them to withdraw their instructions to the contractors that they've written to?

[5:15]

As I stated, it's an ongoing part of doing business: when you renew a contract, you make sure that the services provided are the ones that are required. For example, there may be beds that. . . . I'm just using this as an example, just out of the blue, so don't quote me that this is what's going to happen there. Perhaps somebody is being funded for a number of beds, and they have not had those beds fully filled -- for alcohol and drug programs, for group homes or for whatever it is. If that's the case, then as good business people, we would obviously be saying: "We do not require that number."

It's an ongoing process that you do when you renew a contract. This is not a vicious plot to undermine organizations or to slip through the restructuring process in a different manner. This is the start of renewing those contracts and making sure that the language is consistent. We will work with them on an ongoing basis over the next year to amalgamate the contracts where we can. At the same time, over that period of time we will have the community process starting. We're not imposing anything on these organizations; but yes, as good business people we will be reviewing the contracts and making sure they meet the needs of the ministry.

C. Clark: I disagree with the minister. Slipping through restructuring is exactly what this appears to be. It appears to be an attempt on the part of the ministry to hold the contracting process over the heads of these agencies, to get them to do what the ministry wants. The ministry is saying to them that they are going to go into each of those agencies and decide which services they want them to provide. They're going to reassess each one of them with a view to possibly cutting the contracts for some of those services. How is that different from restructuring the old way? Perhaps the minister could explain for us how this process -- its outcomes and what the ministry is trying to achieve here -- differs from the restructuring process that she claimed two weeks ago to have put a stop to.

Hon. L. Boone: Why am I surprised that this member disagrees with me or that she sees a sinister plot here? Every rock is a sinister plot to this member.

The letter that has gone out to all of our operating officers says:

"Exceptions to Contract Renewals:

"The decision to complete contract renewals must be based on the needs of clients and the need to ensure continuity of services during the time following the release of the ministry's response to the CPR review. Regions may determine that it is not possible to renew the existing contract based on an analysis that indicates:

"[1] the services currently provided by the service provider are no longer required or utilized by clients;

"[2] the service provider is not complying with the basic terms and expectations of the existing contract;

"[3] there have been significant service quality issues identified which must be resolved prior to renewal;

"[4] the services as they are currently configured are not meeting the current needs of the clients;

"[5] the service provider no longer wishes to contract with the ministry;

"[6] the service provider no longer exists; or

"[7] the service provider does not have the capacity to continue to provide the services."

"Where it is anticipated that an existing contract is not going to be renewed, these decisions will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis by me" -- the assistant deputy minister, who is sitting to my left.

C. Clark: Perhaps the minister could tell us how this differs from the last CPR process that she claims to have cancelled. It looks like the goals are exactly the same. The only difference in the process is that, rather than go to an RFP process, the ministry officials at the regional level will go out, make decisions and then pass them over to the minister's and the deputy minister's desks for approval. Is that the only difference between the two processes?

Hon. L. Boone: Look, hon. member, the CPR process had RFPs -- requests for proposals -- going out whereby we were collapsing a whole pile of services into one organization. We had organizations out there bidding on the provision of services, and 30 organizations collapsing into one. We have not said: "This is contract reform. This is dealing only with contract reform." We are not asking service providers out there to collapse their services, to amalgamate their services.

We are saying: "We are going to renew your contract. We want to make sure that the services you're are providing within that contract are ones that we require." I don't see anything wrong with that. That's what anybody would do. Are you suggesting for one minute that we should just automatically renew every contract out there, regardless of whether we require it and regardless of whether we have concerns about the manner in which they're delivering services? Surely you're not saying that this ministry should be so irresponsible that we shouldn't even take a look at the contractors out there.

[ Page 10061 ]

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, members.

The member continues.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, what I am suggesting is that the ministry, after spending a year beating up on non-profits in British Columbia, should leave them alone for a little while. Give them a chance to regroup. Give them a chance to try and get back to the level of quality service that they were providing before the ministry started this unprecedented assault on volunteers and volunteer agencies in British Columbia. What I'm suggesting is that when the minister says she's going to stop her contract restructuring process, she should stop it -- not just say that it's stopped. She should stop it and make sure that those agencies have some certainty in the near future, so that they can plan.

After a year of getting beaten up, after a year of an assault by this ministry on the non-profit sector, I'm asking that this minister and this ministry make sure that those agencies have some certainty over the next 24 months, instead of saying: "We're going to carry on with change, and we're not just going to amalgamate contracts that you already hold. Not only are we going to do that, we're going to go out there and look at every single one of your contracts -- with the potential that we're going to cut them." Fine. That's not a goal that I'm opposed to, but what I'm suggesting is that the minister's method of going about this is wrong again. They made the mistake last time, and now they're intent on repeating the same mistake.

Interjection.

C. Clark: The mistake they made last time is that they went through a whole RFP process that threw uncertainty. . . . It gave these volunteer agencies a rough ride for a full year. It made sure that they lost volunteers and employees and made sure that their clients suffered. Now the minister is intent on making the same mistake again, because she is not prepared to provide them with the certainty of knowing that, at least for the next year, the ministry is going to keep their contracts in place, that the ministry is not going to continue to go after them and nickel and dime them while they're trying to regroup after this assault that the ministry has undertaken. That's all I'm suggesting.

For the minister to suggest that service providers are anxiously awaiting this whole 24 months of uncertainty that she has so kindly offered to them is misrepresenting -- very, very badly -- the way those service providers feel. What about the service providers in the Simon Fraser region? They were told by their regional operating officer today that she can't guarantee that any of the old contracts that were in place before the restructuring process was started -- even now that it's been cancelled -- will be renewed. Maybe the minister could help and provide some certainty to those organizations, and tell them that the ROO in that region is wrong, that their contracts will be renewed and that the agencies the regional operating officer was intent on bankrupting in that region will at least have their contracts renewed and some certainty for the next year that they can offer to the people that they serve in the Simon Fraser region.

Hon. L. Boone: You know, I wish you'd gone to the briefing so you would understand what is actually taking place out there. We had an opportunity to clarify all of this for you. This is contract reform, which is what you talked about when you talked about everything else. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, please, minister.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .when you were criticizing us for proceeding with contract and program reform. You constantly said: "Drop the program reform, and do contract reform." The Doug Allen report clearly identifies that participant after participant came up and said: "We believe we can proceed with contract reform." Contract reform is something that agencies out there actually think is a good idea. They actually think it is a good idea to have contract reform. We are listening to them; we have listened to them through the Doug Allen report.

I know it's very difficult for the member to actually acknowledge that we're doing something good. It's very difficult for the member to say: "Yes, I support what you're doing. You're on the right track." That is what the service providers are saying, that's what the community living providers are saying, and that's what the aboriginal community is saying. They said that at the news conference that you were at. You were there, hon. member. You heard every one of them stand and say that. . .

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

Hon. L. Boone: . . .we were on the right track.

Through you, hon. Chair, this is not program restructuring. This is contract restructuring; this is contract renewal. We will be renewing those contracts. The South Fraser region obtained the same letter that every other region in the province did. They have the same directions. I make no apologies for any of those things, hon. member.

The Chair: Members, while we have strong feelings about what we talk about sometimes in these chambers, I would remind all members that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.

C. Clark: My question was very specifically about the South Fraser region. Again, we have another official in the ministry who doesn't appear to be listening to what the minister says. Either that, or the official is receiving different directions from the minister, or a different interpretation of the minister's directions for the Simon Fraser region. In the Simon Fraser region, the regional operating officer has been clear with the service providers that she cannot guarantee that she will be renewing the contracts. The minister will know, I hope, that in that region the RFP process was completed and contracts were awarded but not signed. That's a region where the process should be reasonably easy to reverse. Nonetheless, we have a regional operating officer that seems to be operating entirely independently of what the minister claims to want for her ministry. Could the minister clarify for us what's happening in that region and whether those service providers that didn't win in the RFP process can be assured that their contracts will be renewed?

[ Page 10062 ]

[5:30]

Obviously, no regional officer can say: "I can guarantee you that your contract is going to be renewed." But if you don't have one of those problems, if you're not one of those organizations that has. . . . There are very few of them that have some difficulty. I wouldn't be worried. We will be reviewing them in a very short time. By Friday we will be reviewing those that have difficulties, and they will know if they're not having their contract renewed.

C. Clark: Well, the minister leaves herself a nice out, doesn't she? She says that after a year of beating up on the non-profits, especially in the Simon Fraser and South Fraser regions, where the non-profits are experiencing so much uncertainty as a result of the ministry's policy. . . . They lose employees; they lose volunteers; they lose their fundraising base. And then guess what. The ministry comes in and decides that it's going to review each of their contracts and find out if there are significant service quality issues identified which must be resolved prior to renewal. That's the kind of bureaucratic language this minister consistently uses to reinterpret her obligations or the commitments she makes.

I can tell you that in that region those service providers have had their staffing levels seriously undermined by the assault on them that this ministry has undertaken over the last year. They've had their service levels undermined by staff leaving, by volunteers leaving, by losing part of their fundraising base. It's not that they're not providing excellent services. It's that they've been living with so much uncertainty for the last year that they may no longer be able to, as of Friday, get themselves back on their feet and meet the significant service quality issues which the ministry may or may not identify. That's the source of their fear. They're not saying that the regional operating officer can give them a guarantee that they're going to have their contracts renewed; nobody can guarantee that. They're saying that the regional operating officer out there doesn't think that they will have their contracts renewed. The regional operating officer out there is giving them a sense that they can't have any certainty for the short term.

Today the minister is providing herself with an easy out so that she can say: "Well, you know, they weren't meeting their obligations." The fact that they're not meeting their obligations might be because the ministry has put them in a position over the last year where they have to have some time to regroup. Will the minister, at least in those two regions, where this restructuring, which has gone awry, has gotten so far down the road that very serious quality issues have probably arisen as a result. . . ? Will the minister commit to taking that into account when they're reviewing each of these contracts? It would be terribly unfair to deny the service providers in those regions contracts. On the one hand, the minister tells them that they've won this battle, and then on the other hand, she tells them that they're going to get their contracts yanked because of what the ministry has done to them over the last year.

Hon. L. Boone: This member likes to change the ground, doesn't she? Five minutes ago she said that she was concerned because the regional operating officer couldn't guarantee that contracts would be signed. Now she says: "No, I'm not asking for a guarantee. I just want to know if they're going to be signed. The regional operating officer is saying that no or very few contracts are going to be renewed." That's a significant difference.

I've told you that the regional operating officer cannot guarantee that any contract will be signed. I've also told you -- and if you listen very carefully, I'll say it again -- that only a very small number will not be renewed. The majority of the contracts will in fact be renewed. We have an obligation to be financially responsible; we have an obligation to our clients to make sure that the resources are the best possible. The auditor general and the comptroller general are saying that we have to manage our contracts better. We're doing that; we will continue to do that. I can assure you that the majority of the contracts, even in the South Fraser region, will be renewed. There are only a small number of those who do not meet our requirements who will find that they are not being renewed.

C. Clark: I understand the minister to say that she is going to make that announcement on Friday for those service providers. As I recollect, that's what the minister said: the decision would be made on Friday. I'm sorry -- if I've misheard the minister, maybe she can correct me.

Hon. L. Boone: I never said I'd be making an announcement with regards to contracts that are not renewed. I said that this Friday, Michael Shoop will be meeting with contractors in the South Fraser region, the first area that he's going into. By the end of July, those service agencies will be aware of those contracts, if any, that will not be renewed. There may not be any that are not renewed. If there some that don't meet. . .they will be a small number. I'm sure that those service providers out there that have some difficulties are aware if they've got some difficulties. If they're providing a service and they don't have the beds filled, then they know that it's not good use of taxpayers' dollars to provide those services. Michael Shoop will be meeting with the service providers in the South Fraser region by Friday to start the process to discuss what's happening there.

I want to make it clear that over the next year -- the next two years -- we will be working at the community level to determine the delivery of services. We will be working on contract reform. We will be taking some of those things to the provincial table to discuss the language that should be in the contract reform. I can tell you that service providers are quite happy to have the number of contracts reduced, to have a common language, to be dealing with things on a common basis, rather than having five different contracts under five different terms and no common language there. This is something that they support, and they will work with us to make sure it works.

C. Clark: There are, as the minister is aware, four regions where the restructuring process went well ahead before the ministry finally recognized that they'd made a terrible mistake and put a stop to it -- or said they had put a stop to it. Could the minister tell us what the time lines are for notifying contractors in the other three regions: Burnaby, the Kootenays, I think, and Simon Fraser?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't have the time frames for those regions, but I know that in each of those regions, they have

[ Page 10063 ]

C. Clark: The minister, in last year's budget -- and we went through this in the interim supply debate -- assumed that there was going to be a $24 million saving as a result of the restructuring process. What was the saving that was built into this budget for restructuring?

Hon. L. Boone: We are looking to achieve some efficiencies in the contract reform, but nothing through the program reform. In the contract reform it's $3.3 million, which is less than 1 percent. It's not unreasonable to assume that. . . . Rather than administering five contracts, when we are administering one contract with an agency, I think you can recognize that there should be some efficiencies that we can get from that.

C. Clark: Where is that reflected in the budget? My understanding is that the ministry would have drawn up its budget around February. Contract reform was well underway by then, and at that stage there wasn't any suggestion that contract reform would be suspended. So I assume that further savings from contract reform would have been built into this year's budget when it was published. Perhaps the minister could show us where those savings that were anticipated are built into the budget and how the ministry plans to make up for those savings if they're not realized.

Hon. L. Boone: Budgets are refined on an ongoing basis. In February we were working on it, and we were working on it in March, so it wasn't printed at that time. The only saving that has been booked is the $3.3 million, and that is in regional operations? I believe it's in regional operations, but Les is not here.

C. Clark: Well, I only have access to one budget and so does the public, and that's the budget that's provided for us in the blue book of the estimates, so that's why I'm asking this question. If the ministry has indeed reallocated money, if there was indeed a saving that the ministry anticipated that's built into the budget, maybe the ministry could tell us how much that originally was anticipated to be.

Hon. L. Boone: It's in program management -- $230.379 million. If we hadn't booked this, it would have been $233.6 million. But we booked that, and therefore that money was taken out. So you don't see it there because it's not there.

C. Clark: I want to be clear about this. The minister is telling us that there was an original saving that was anticipated in February, when the initial budget consultations were coming together, and then the ministry revised its estimates before the book was published. Is that correct? Maybe she could confirm that this $230.379 million in program management is indeed an accurate number and reflects the fact that the ministry recognized that there would be no savings as a result of contract and program restructuring.

[5:45]

C. Clark: The reason I'm having difficulty understanding this is because the contract and program restructuring wasn't suspended until just recently, well after the budget had been initially drawn up and well after the estimates book had been published. So I don't understand -- unless some of the ministry officials are clairvoyant -- how the ministry could have accounted for the fact that restructuring would have been suspended and that those savings would not be realized over the next year. Maybe the minister could just clarify that for me.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know why I need to clarify it, because I think we clarified it quite clearly when we did the special warrants debate. I advised you that we acknowledged that there would not be savings through CPR. I said that when we did the special warrants debate. We acknowledged as a ministry that there would not be savings for CPR.

C. Clark: How much money has shifted within the contracted sector? I want to get a sense from the minister -- not between agencies but between the kinds of programs that the ministry provides. I'm thinking specifically about supported child care, programming and global funding for special needs children. Was that part of the CPR process, as Doug Allen notes in his report? There has clearly been some shifting in the funding within that budget envelope. Maybe a good place to start with that would be to ask the minister: how much money was budgeted for globally funded special needs child care that is now being redirected and reallocated in this budget to supported child care?

Hon. L. Boone: The funding for special needs child care stays the same. There is no reduction in that.

C. Clark: Does the funding for the globally funded child care centres stay the same, as well, in this budget envelope?

Hon. L. Boone: No. As you know, there's been a move towards supported child care in many different areas. Some have already moved those dollars into it. In those areas, the supported child care is now supporting. . . . In some areas it's actually reduced the waiting lists for kids waiting for special needs child care. We have not maintained the same amount for global funding as was in the previous budget.

C. Clark: How much in total has it been reduced?

Hon. L. Boone: There's been no reduction in special needs child care. It's been shifted. Some of those agencies that have been provided with global funding have now had those dollars moved over to provide supported child care. Through that we are able to service significantly more children than under the global funding.

C. Clark: But the minister said that the budget for supported child care has stayed the same. Did she mean that it stayed the same from last year to this year?

Hon. L. Boone: I didn't say "supported child care." I said that the budget for special needs child care has remained the same this year.

C. Clark: Have all of the dollars that have been reduced from the global funding budget been transferred directly into the budget to support supported child care?

[ Page 10064 ]

C. Clark: What's that total amount?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll have to get that breakdown for you.

C. Clark: Maybe the minister, then, could just give me the straight number for special needs child care as a total number, this year versus last year -- both numbers.

Hon. L. Boone: It's $29.11 million for both years.

Having been made aware of the time, hon. Chair, I'd like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Lovick: I want to advise the House that we will indeed be sitting tomorrow afternoon. With that, I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed from 5:54 p.m. to 6:38 p.m.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we are debating the estimates of the Ministry for Children and Families.

The House in Committee of Supply; E. Walsh in the chair.

The committee met at 6:38 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
(continued)

C. Clark: The minister indicated just before we recessed for dinner that the total special needs child care budget has remained the same this year over last. Has the ministry accounted for population growth at all in its budgeting process this year?

Hon. L. Boone: The budget has remained the same.

C. Clark: Is the ministry anticipating that there won't be any growth in the number of special needs children requiring services in British Columbia this year?

Hon. L. Boone: No, we are actually going to be providing more services through supported child care, because those dollars in the supported child care can be spread further.

C. Clark: What is the increase that the ministry anticipates it will be able to service as a percentage this year over last?

Hon. L. Boone: It depends on how soon we can make the move from the globally funded child care to the supported child care, but in those areas we are very hopeful that we can provide services for another thousand children.

C. Clark: But the ministry is reviewing the process of supported child care, I thought. I understood that the move to supported child care was on hold until the terms of reference, which we never received from the ministry, determine that they'll be reporting back to the minister. Could the minister clarify for us how she squares those two facts?

Hon. L. Boone: There are only a few areas where there is difficulty in supported child care. There are a number of regions where supported child care is actually in place, where they have made the move, and there are others that are in the process of moving towards supported child care. But there are about four areas of the province where there are some difficulties, and those are the areas that we are working with -- to work within those communities to see how we can move towards supported child care.

C. Clark: Could the minister just clarify for the House which regions those are where supported child care is on hold?

Hon. L. Boone: Just for your information, supported child care is fully implemented in Central Vancouver Island, North Island, South Okanagan and the North West. We're proceeding within certain time lines, in East Kootenay, West Kootenay, North Okanagan, Thompson, Coast-Garibaldi, Cariboo, Burnaby, North Shore and Richmond. Then there are regions that have requested assistance from the supported child care resource team. We'll be working with them to move them toward supported child care. Those regions are Simon Fraser, South Fraser, the southwest, the Northern interior, Peace-Liard, Capital, South Okanagan, Upper Fraser Valley and Vancouver.

C. Clark: Could the minister just go back and clarify for us exactly what this supported child care review, which I think she announced first in this chamber, is supposed to be doing?

Hon. L. Boone: The supported child care provincial resource team will work within those regions that have requested assistance to plan facilitated consultations with community-based supported child care steering committees and additional stakeholders as necessary to identify barriers to implementation of supported child care in each region. In consultation with the steering committees and key stakeholders, they will revise regional transition plans to address implementation barriers, develop alternatives where necessary and revise implementation time lines where necessary to complete transition without disruption of service.

C. Clark: I was under the impression, as I think many parents were, that when the minister announced the review of supported child care, she would be reviewing the objectives that the ministry had originally set out for itself, which, of course, are to cut global funding and move it into supported child care. I take it that now the minister is reinterpreting her position to mean that what the supported child care review will entail is not a review of the ministry's intention to move to supported child care at all; instead it is a facilitation team that will assist the regions to ensure that they do move to supported child care. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: I never said that I was putting supported child care on hold or that I was reviewing the purpose of

[ Page 10065 ]

[6:45]

Can the minister clarify for us whether she has identified whether the problems related to the implementation of supported child care are partly related to the fact that it's more problematic in urban areas than it has been in the rural centres?

Hon. L. Boone: No, Northern Interior, North West and Peace-Liard have had some difficulties. The areas of North Shore and Richmond, which are not rural by any means, don't have any difficulties. It has no relationship to whether it's urban or rural.

C. Clark: What problems has the ministry identified, with the transition to supported child care, that they've instructed the team to resolve in those regions?

Hon. L. Boone: We're trying to figure out why certain regions are having some difficulties with the transition plans. As I said, some areas have already completed them. They're finished and done; others are having some problems. We intend to work with those communities to pull them together. We've already had an initial meeting in the Dawson Creek area, the Peace-Liard, to pull together those various partners: the service providers, the ministry and the transition team. They are coming together and trying to find some solutions to move that area into the supported child care.

C. Clark: In the places where there have been difficulties, what problems has the ministry identified as obstacles to moving to supported child care?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, it's a little early to figure out some of them. I've just had the initial meetings, and those problems will vary from region to region.

C. Clark: It was my understanding from the minister, and it was also the understanding of parents who met with the minister's staff, that until this so-called review process is complete, funding would remain in place for those agencies that are globally funded. They could expect some certainty with respect to the contracts that have been signed, and the shift to supported child care wouldn't mean that they're going to have their contracts cut before the review team has finished its work. Has the minister changed her policy on that, or is that a policy she intends to clarify with her staff to ensure that they're following her direction?

Hon. L. Boone: I said that where there were difficulties, where there were problems in particular areas, those funds would remain in place, but that we would be putting in a team to help them move forward. Once we resolve the concerns and are able to move forward into supported child care, then we will do so. But if there's no resolution to the difficulties there. . . .

Now, if you're talking about the problems that SAECE has, that goes beyond that. SAECE had been told in February that this is not child care; this is a kindergarten program. Those ten spaces would be moved over to the school, and the school would be providing those ten spaces. The funding for those ten spaces would then be put into supported child care. SAECE had been told that in February. I've made no commitment that we would go back and reinstate funding that they had previously been told was not going to be there.

C. Clark: So what is the minister's interpretation, then, of funding remaining in place? SAECE, for example, had a contract that they'd signed, which was good until the end of August, and that funding is not remaining in place for next year. I should tell the minister, too, that people from SAECE are very confused about what the minister means when she says the funding will remain in place. In SAECE's case -- the Surrey Association for Early Childhood Education -- they had a contract that was good until the end of August, and now the ministry is telling them that it is going to be cutting funding from their contract as of September. How does the minister characterize that as going backward? The contract hasn't yet expired, a new contract hasn't even been signed, and all they've got so far is the ministry telling them that their funding is going to be cut. I wonder if the minister would explain how she could characterize that as somehow going back and revising history.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't think we're going back and revising history. We have said that their funding is in place until the end of August. That's the contract that they have. However, they were told in February that the funding for those ten spaces would be moved to the school district because the school district was cost-sharing those. The school district is in fact now providing full funding for that. This is a kindergarten program; it is not a child care program. So it's entirely appropriate that the school district should provide those spaces.

They were advised in February that the funding would not be there in September. I have not said that we're going to go back and reinstate or change those things that they'd already been advised of. Yes, their contract is good until the end of August. It's there till the end of August; they've got the dollars until the end of August. But in September that contract will not continue with the ten spaces that have been taken up by the school district. They were advised in February of that, and they should have started making some plans within their own organizations around those things.

C. Clark: Lots of agencies were advised in February and January that their funding, their contracts, would look substantially different than they did before come next year or come September -- even come March. Lots of agencies were told that; that was the whole purpose of the ministry's restructuring process. The ministry went out in January in quite a few regions -- in Simon Fraser and South Fraser -- and told the agencies out there that their contracts were going to be very different. Some of them would be losing contracts, some of them would be gaining contracts, and some of them would be losing parts of other contracts. How is SAECE different, then, from all those other agencies which the minister now says have contracts that are good until the end of 24 months,

[ Page 10066 ]

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier -- and I don't see any need to keep repeating this over and over again, but I'll say it once more just for your information -- the ten spaces were kindergarten spaces, not supported child care -- kindergarten spaces. The school district was cost-sharing that and also providing the space. The school district has said that they want to provide that service -- as they should, because it's a kindergarten program. This is an entirely unique situation, having the school district say they want to take over providing kindergarten for something that they are cost-sharing, as compared to saying that we are taking spaces away from somebody. These spaces are being provided by the school district. There is no reduction in spaces in the Surrey area. There may be reductions in spaces at SAECE, but there are no reductions in spaces in the Surrey area. Now we've gone though this. You've had a briefing by the ministry staff. I see no reason to keep going through this.

C. Clark: The ministry staff weren't able to answer for me the question that I just put to the minister. The minister hasn't answered it either. The minister is quite right. She did tell me, in her first answer, the ministry's rationale for making the cut. She did explain that. What I would like to find out from the minister is how she explains the other part of her answer, which was that the reason that SAECE got their contract cut is because they were advised earlier. That's the reason that the minister offers for cutting the SAECE contract -- that they were advised, as early as February. Their contract was still good. No new contract was signed. Indeed, a contract is still under negotiation. They have no contract in place for August. In that respect, they don't differ from other organizations. Their funding has been cut for the year ahead. It's a funding cut that has yet to occur, because it won't occur until that contract is signed.

Given those facts and the fact that SAECE was advised in February -- and that's the ministry's reasoning for cutting the contract -- while at the same time, every other agency in that region and in the Simon Fraser region was advised that there would be similar changes to their contracts. . . . For some of them it would mean more contracts, and for some of them it would be fewer.

Now, most or many of those decisions, we hope, will be reversed. How does SAECE differ on that point, in that they were advised in February, when everybody else was also advised? How does that make them different from the other organizations that the minister hasn't decided will have their contracts cut come September?

Hon. L. Boone: Okay, last time. Listen very carefully. I'll speak slower. This is cost-shared with the school district. Other organizations do not have things that have been cost-shared with the school district. This is cost-shared with the school district -- second time. Third time: it's cost-shared with the school district. The school district says that it wants to take over this program. It's a kindergarten program, and kindergarten programs are universally put forth by school districts -- as they should be.

We would be left with providing more money from ours to take from other organizations to support that if we were to do that, because we don't have the cost-sharing there. We told SAECE in February that this was happening. This is a change in the contract. In September, as you say, they won't have a contract. So this is the change that would be taking place in their contract in September. We have said that we will be providing funding for the other spaces.

There are ten kindergarten spaces being provided by the school district. There is no reduction in services in the Surrey area. There is no reduction in services to special needs children. In fact, there is an increase in services, because we have been able to take the funding that was originally intended for that and put it into supported child care, which is providing services for more children.

The Chair: I'd like to caution the member on repetition and also suggest that perhaps the member would like to take a different line of questioning. Though she may not like the answer that has been given to her, perhaps she would like to take a different approach. As the minister has stated, the question has been answered and has been thoroughly discussed. Hon. member, if you could take a different line of questioning.

[7:00]

Anyway, you're quite right, hon. Chair. I don't intend to pursue that point. I suppose it would be funny if it wasn't such a serious issue. It would be funny if it didn't mean that 20 families were going to be without anywhere to go in the fall. It would be funny if those volunteers and people who have worked for that organization for so long didn't feel a sense of betrayal by the ministry. It would be funny if the ministry wasn't so committed to carrying through with this move to supported child care, depriving people of the choice between globally funded child care and supported child care. That's what the ministry is doing. They're depriving parents of choice. Both options should be available to parents: supported child care, where the parent can make the choice and that money can travel with the child, wherever they choose to find care for that child; or on the other hand, globally funded organizations, where children who are high-need and require intensive intervention can get the intervention that they require.

That's why this isn't funny; it's so serious for many parents. Those parents in Surrey think that they may just be the tip of the iceberg. If that's this minister's answer to why there's a problem in Surrey, it's not a very good answer. It's an answer she's only brave enough to offer once and not twice; she realizes she has to change her answer the second time around. That's not a source of comfort for parents out there.

I know that some of my colleagues from that region have a number of questions about what's going on out there with

[ Page 10067 ]

L. Stephens: I'm pleased to enter the debate on the estimates for the Ministry for Children and Families. There are some questions that I have for the minister, which concern primarily the South Fraser region, which is the region that I share with a number of my colleagues.

I received a call today from one of the organizations in my constituency that has some particular questions that they want to have answered. The first one is about the Allen report and whether or not the ministry has implemented or begun to implement the recommendations that were contained in the Allen report.

Hon. L. Boone: A response by this ministry to the Allen report was given last week at a news conference. Your colleague attended. A full response was handed out at that time. If you didn't get one, I'd be happy to provide you with that response.

L. Stephens: I ask this because the people in the regions don't know what's happening. They haven't been able to get any kind of information from the ROO, and from what they tell me, they don't know whether the process is stopped and whether or not the ministry is going to be implementing the Allen report. What they've said is that everything that is wrong was identified in the Allen report, and their question is: "Why do we need another review?" Perhaps the minister could answer that question.

Hon. L. Boone: There is no review. If you'll check the Hansard records, you'll see that just prior to supper, we spent an hour discussing what was taking place in the various regions and how we are moving forward.

L. Stephens: I will review Hansard, but in the meantime I have some specific questions about the South Fraser region that I would like the minister to answer. A number of contracts were let, but they weren't signed, and now the ministry has said that contracts have been renewed until September 1999. In the meantime, as the minister knows, a number of these agencies have given termination notices to their employees, and many of them in my region are effective September 30, 1998. How is the ministry going to deal with this? Is the ministry going to deal with this? Do they have any plan in place to provide those services in the meantime, for that year?

Hon. L. Boone: I answered all of those questions just prior to supper.

L. Stephens: Perhaps the minister could answer them again.

Hon. L. Boone: Ever heedful of the need not to be repetitious, I would suggest that the member should read Hansard tomorrow.

The Chair: I will also remind the member about being repetitious.

L. Stephens: Well, perhaps the minister hasn't answered the question. I have been sitting in this chamber for the last 15 or 20 minutes, and she hasn't been answering the questions that the critic has asked. So, hon. Chair, perhaps the minister would like to rethink her position and answer some of these questions. If she doesn't care to do so, that simply says to me that she has contempt for this House.

Now, the staff of these layoffs are under considerable stress, as are the agencies that this minister doesn't seem to understand. So when we're talking about the transition, has this ministry any idea of the transition plan that they're going to put in place to allow these contracted agencies and the staff that go with them to go into the new world?

Hon. L. Boone: If the member reads the Hansard Blues from tonight, they will clearly indicate that contracts will be renewed for practically all of the organizations, and there are very strict parameters for those that will not be renewed. I read out in this House all the information in the letter that went out from the assistant deputy minister to all the organizations, indicating quite clearly what the reasons for not renewing a contract would be. There will be a small number of contracts that will not be renewed, and those are the ones that meet that information. The majority of them will be renewed in September.

L. Stephens: I'd like to ask the minister about the union contracts, the employee contracts, that are in place. My understanding is that a number of these organizations do have union contracts. The organizations that bid through this bid proposal process are now trying to justify these contracts. A lot of these organizations are left with these union contracts, and those organizations and agencies that won these contracts are now having to assume those union contracts. Some of them are saying: "We can't afford it." And some of them are saying that they can't afford the programs they're expected to deliver, because the money isn't coming to them. So would the minister comment on what kind of transition she has or contemplates around union contracts and the amalgamation of those into the new agencies.

Hon. L. Boone: No contracts have been signed for new agencies. There will be no amalgamation. The majority of contracts, as I stated earlier, will be renewed. We will be working in those areas. Then those areas that have contracts or amalgamations that are deemed acceptable by the community and by Michael Shoop, as he reviews these things, will be working out a transition plan. But because of the difficulties in those transition plans, the majority of the contracts will be renewed in September. I went through all of this prior to supper for about an hour, from 5 o'clock to 6 o'clock. If you would read the records, you will find that that information has been covered quite clearly.

L. Stephens: My understanding is that what wasn't discussed were the union contracts -- the workforce transition, that's what I'm talking about. That's what I want the minister to comment on. What kind of plan does she have in place for the workforce transition -- the contracted employees, not the agencies, not the non-profit societies?

Hon. L. Boone: There is no transition, as I said, for the workforce, because all contracts will be renewed. When you renew the contracts, you do not need to deal with those issues. The team will be going into those areas where it looks like they can achieve some amalgamations. They will be reviewing those amalgamation ideas and deciding if they should proceed. If they are acceptable to the communities and to the

[ Page 10068 ]

C. Clark: My colleague's point is well-taken. We didn't get into a lot of the labour issues surrounding the contracted sector. The ministry, in the response to the D. E. Allen report, did talk about its labour transition strategy and how that needed to be clarified. I understand, though, that at the regional level the ministry has been meeting with union representatives in order to work out transition plans and the way they're going to divide up the sector. That's certainly been corroborated by a whole number of stakeholders in the South Fraser region. I wonder if the minister could confirm that for us.

Hon. L. Boone: They may have been doing so prior to the announcement last week. CPR has been cancelled. We are not following through with it as was planned. We are renewing contracts in September except where they don't meet the requirements that I originally stated. We will be sending a review team into those areas that look like they have a process or an amalgamation plan that they want to carry forward. We will be assessing that plan, making sure that there is some accommodation for moving some services to aboriginal communities. We're making sure that labour adjustment plans, transition plans and all of those things are in place. I said that prior to supper. That's why we will not be proceeding with any of those amalgamations of organizations in September. So we don't need labour adjustment plans right now. Those are the things that we will be assessing; those are the things that we will be moving forward with. But we won't be moving forward with any plans for amalgamation in September.

L. Stephens: As the minister was speaking, there was another issue that came up that organizations in my region want to talk about. That was the plan. . . . The ROO in the South Fraser has had a plan for quite some time and is well along the way to implementing that plan. The groups and organizations in my area have said from time to time, and they reiterated again today, that they believe that our South Fraser region plan is moving ahead, is being implemented. I understand that most or all of the ROOs around the province are here this week meeting with the minister to sort out some of those issues. The minister has been talking with them about doing exactly as she is saying this week or next week -- look at the plans, find out whether or not some of the regions are having an easier time than others.

Our region has certainly moved quite far down that path. So I think the minister can appreciate that our region, which has moved very far down that road to amalgamation, has some very serious issues to address. That's what the people in my region want to hear about. What I've heard the minister say is that everything is on hold; all they have to do is just sit tight and wait until the ministry makes a decision on what they're going to do next. That's not acceptable to the groups and organizations in the South Fraser region. There are all kinds of problems coming up. There are 100 new children in care this year in the South Fraser region that need to be looked after. Where are they going to go? Who's going to look after them, and are they going to be funded? So I want to make sure that the minister is aware than in our region we have some urgent and pressing issues because of the fact that we are that much further down the road than many of the other regions. I'd like to have the minister comment on that.

[7:15]

C. Clark: Before I forget, something occurred to me before dinner, a question which I didn't get to get in, and which the minister definitely hasn't even attempted to answer -- because I haven't asked it. It's about the South Fraser region and the level of services being provided there. A number of contractors have told me that the shortage of services for residential care in that region is so acute that there are quite a number of children in care who are being housed in hotels and that kind of accommodation. Could the minister confirm whether that's correct?

Hon. L. Boone: It has happened on occasion; it's happened in my region on occasion too. It's not a generalization. . . . I wouldn't say it happens on a usual basis, but occasionally, if we have no resources and we need to put a child up on an emergency basis, we will do so. That is one of the reasons why we're doing a big push for new foster parents in the fall.

C. Clark: So at any given time -- maybe at this given time, or last month, or whenever the most recent numbers are for the ministry -- how many children are being housed in that kind of accommodation?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, it's not a usual occurrence. It happens if and when we have no suitable place to put a child. I can't give you a number and say: "Each month we have ten kids, or 15 or 25" -- or whatever it is. If we find that we have a shortage of resources, we use a hotel. But it's not something we do on a regular basis.

C. Clark: Surprise! The minister doesn't know the answer to that question either. The contractors in the South Fraser region tell me anecdotally that they think there's quite a number of children in the care of the government being housed in that kind of accommodation fairly frequently and, in some cases, for fairly long periods of time. I'd suggest to the minister that she should be aware of those numbers because that would give her an idea of how short she is of resources in the various regions. That would seem to me to be a fairly obvious number that the ministry would want to track so that it could ensure that it was keeping pace with the kinds of resources that are required when it's doing its planning on a yearly basis.

I have to admit that I'm not particularly surprised that the ministry doesn't have that number, just like they don't have a

[ Page 10069 ]

I want to stay, though, on this issue of unionization in the contracted sector. The minister will be aware that the Community Social Services Employers Association, whose contracts are funded by the Ministry for Children and Families, has negotiated a 12 or 12.5 percent increase for the unionized employees in the contract sector, but a zero percent increase for the non-union employees. Could the minister confirm for us whether that's indeed the case, and if so, what the ministry's rationale is for that decision?

Hon. L. Boone: I think you're talking about the negotiations that took place last year with CSSEA. They negotiate on behalf of all of those, and they're currently in negotiations as well, I believe. What normally happens is that the following year there is some wage adjustment that is given to the non-unionized sector.

C. Clark: So the minister is saying, then, that for this last. . . . My understanding is that the negotiation was settled for fiscal year '98-99, and there was a 12.5 percent increase for the 38 unionized agencies in that sector but a zero percent increase negotiated for the non-union agencies. The fiscal year '98-99 has -- guess what -- already started. Can the minister advise when these non-union agencies will have the negotiation, the bargaining that is done on their behalf, completed for the '98-99 fiscal year?

Hon. L. Boone: CSSEA is the group that bargains on behalf of the employers in response to the unionized sector -- 600 employers, of which 200 are union. So that's the unionized sector. They bargain on behalf of all those unionized employers, and they bargain with the union. There is no bargaining that is going on with the other, because there is no group to bargain with. A non-unionized sector does not have a bargaining group.

C. Clark: Then why is it that the union agencies have received. . . ? I understand how the system works: CSSEA is supposed to negotiate with the union folks, and then it's supposed to provide a wage settlement that has parity for the non-union people. That's my understanding of the way it's supposed to work. I think there's a 2 percent differential allowed, to make up for the cost of union dues to employees, but other than that, it's supposed to apply across the sector. But the increase has not been funded for the non-union agencies, and that's funding that comes from the Ministry for Children and Families. Could the minister clarify that for us?

Hon. L. Boone: The unionized sector negotiated increases last year. They got some of those increases this year, in April. In fact, the unionized sector went on strike in order to get their wages; this was not something that was just handed over to them. Generally speaking, the non-union sector would receive a wage redress with a 10 percent differential. That would come through PSEC, and I'm not sure when they would be making those adjustments.

C. Clark: I think the minister probably meant a 2 percent differential -- or did she mean to say a 10 percent differential?

Hon. L. Boone: As a general guideline, a 10 percent differential, but it's up to PSEC to make those. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, why are you saying 2 percent? If you say it's 2 percent, then why are you asking me? The information I have is that it's 10 percent. If it's not 10 percent, we'll correct that later on. It is decided by PSEC, and PSEC then provides this ministry with the money to make that adjustment.

C. Clark: This truly is an NDP budgeting process, isn't it? If we've made a mistake, we'll correct it later on.

My question wasn't really focused on the differential. I just wanted to give the minister an opportunity to clarify that if she wanted to. That's not the issue that I'm focused on here at the moment. My understanding of the situation with CSSEA is that they have negotiated and delivered the increase for that funding to the unionized agencies, that they have indeed received the funding that would go along with the 12 percent increase. My understanding, further, is that the non-union agencies that are supposed to be given parity with the total amount that's budgeted for the union agencies haven't received an extra penny in funding, which is money that, as I understand it, would come from the Ministry for Children and Families. Could the minister confirm whether those facts are correct?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know if the 12 percent is correct. It's not that they receive parity. There is a differential, and that is provided by PSEC. It is not this ministry that negotiates the salary adjustments. That's done by PSEC, and they would put the money in our budget so that we could then provide that to the organizations. I know that the unionized sector did receive an increase on April 1, so it would make sense that the other sector would probably receive some kind of an increase next year.

C. Clark: Is it normal practice, then, for this ministry to negotiate for the unions in one year and then give a year's slack in between to provide funding for the non-union agencies? Is that the normal practice in years past with respect to this issue?

Hon. L. Boone: I just said it is not this ministry that does the negotiation; it is CSSEA. The funding is provided through PSEC. It is not this ministry that negotiates. So I do not negotiate with the unionized sector.

C. Clark: I'm quite clear on that fact, hon. Chair. My point is, though, that the funding -- and the minister can correct me on this if I'm wrong -- for increased wage costs will come out of the Ministry for Children and Families. Yes, CSSEA will negotiate the contracts, but it's the Ministry for Children and Families that will provide the funding to go along with any increases. In this case, what's happened is that the ministry has provided funding to go along with increases only for the unionized agencies and hasn't provided any money for the non-unionized agencies. So my question to the minister was this: is it normal practice for the ministry to always leave a year's lag in between when they provide funding for wage increases to the union versus the non-union sector? If it's not, why have they changed their practice this year?

[7:30]

[ Page 10070 ]

C. Clark: I want to be clear about where the money comes from in this. When I look at CSSEA's report, they indicate -- I'm trying to put my finger on it, because I read it a while ago. . . . This is their report on contract restructuring and employment transition, which they issued in April 1998. The funding does come from the Ministry for Children and Families. It may be paid through PSEC, but it's funding that's provided for in this budget. So for the purposes of this budgeting process, that's where the money should be found. If it'll help the minister, I'll indicate that's where I'm going: trying to determine where the money for those increases is in this budget -- if indeed that's where it is -- or if the minister expects that there will be a top-up from some other ministry in order to meet the 12.5 percent increase this year, and then maybe the 2 to 10 percent increase that the non-union sector might expect next year.

Hon. L. Boone: We fund CSSEA to do the negotiations. That's where the funding that you're probably talking about comes from. PSEC provides the ministry with top-up. We, then, would pay the increase. At this particular time, as I've said, there is no money in here to fund anything other than the increase for the unionized sector. I would expect that there would be some funding provided next year, because that has been the norm. In the following year the non-union sector does get some kind of an increase.

The Chair: Hon. member, the Chair believes that this subject has been canvassed at length. I would advise and suggest that perhaps you would like to go on to another line of questioning.

C. Clark: I'm happy to take your advice. Of course I'll go on to another line of questioning.

The minister has finally confirmed what I suggested in the very beginning, which is that the ministry does indeed provide the funding for the increases that are going to come along with the unionization of this. When a new labour contract is negotiated by CSSEA on behalf of the employers, the terms of that contract, if there is an increase, will be funded out of this ministry's budget. That's, I believe, what the minister has just confirmed. It's not a complicated question. I simply want some clarification on it, if the minister could confirm that I am correct in my understanding of what she said -- because I don't want to put words in her mouth -- and then tell me whether the ministry is comfortable that CSSEA went out this year and solicited the information that they required about the workforces equally from both union and non-union firms when they were putting together their negotiating strategy on behalf of the employers.

Hon. L. Boone: Yes. I've told you two or three times now that in our budget we only have the funding to provide the increase for the unionized sector. I'm not quite sure what you are asking with regards to CSSEA. I do not control CSSEA, so I'm not sure what it is that you're asking me about.

C. Clark: Could the minister, then, show us, in the budget that she's got for the contracted sector. . . ? Obviously, the total budget envelope for wages and benefits that the ministry will be providing to the contracted sector will be quite a bit larger this year than it was last year; but the total amount of money that's being provided and the total envelope to the contracted sector isn't as large. I'm guessing that -- in order to find that new money for at least the unionized employers, so that they can pay the increased costs as a result of the wage negotiations -- that money would have come from somewhere else in the budgets that are provided to the contracted sector. Could the minister show us where to find those numbers in the budget?

Hon. L. Boone: In your blue book, it would be under "Grants and contributions," under "Regional operations." You can see the increase. It is within that increase there. Not all of that is for salaries, but it's within that increase there, as you can see, from $1.046 billion to $1.106 billion.

C. Clark: There isn't, in the grants and contributions, a substantial increase. Is that the total. . . ? I guess the simple way to put the question is this: is the total cost of the increase in wages and benefits as a result of this negotiated settlement accounted for? Is that reflected in an absolute increase in the budget that's going to be provided to the contracted sector?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's within that budget there.

C. Clark: My question -- and I'd like the minister to clarify -- is whether there is a top-up on the budget from last year to this year that makes up for 100 percent of the new costs that will be accrued in the contracted sector as a result of this wage increase that has been negotiated by CSSEA.

Hon. L. Boone: For the unionized negotiated contracts, yes.

C. Clark: How much is the ministry estimating that in total. . . ? If you could just give me the quick total number of the cost of the increase across the unionized sector for this year. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: There are still negotiations going on, so it would be inappropriate for us to comment on that at this time.

C. Clark: Oh, my understanding from CSSEA is that the negotiation for the wage increase for the unionized agencies and the community living sector for this fiscal year has been completed. If that's not the case, the minister can confirm it. Could she tell me, then, if that isn't the case -- if they haven't concluded negotiations on behalf of the employers -- why the employers have received the additional funding that would go along with the increases negotiated?

Hon. L. Boone: That was for last year's negotiations. This year's negotiations are still underway.

C. Clark: So this year's budget, then, is the budget that should include the increase for the non-unionized sector. If last year's budget included the increase for the unionized sector, then presumably this year, if there's a one-year time lag, the budget would include that increase. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: No, I've said quite clearly that this year's budget has only the increases for the unionized sector. We have not had a year's lag period yet. They only finished negotiations. They got their increase on April 1.

C. Clark: So what was the total amount of the increase, in dollars, that they received on April 1?

[ Page 10071 ]

C. Clark: Well, how much does the ministry expect, then, that this will cost next year for the non-union agencies? Has the ministry done any future budgeting for that? They are going to be negotiating contracts for next year; they're going to be sending their negotiator out to settle what's going to happen for these agencies come the next fiscal year. So I assume the ministry must have some estimate of how much the non-union agencies will cost, given that it's set in CSSEA's mandate that once the union agencies are settled, there will be a similar settlement provided automatically to the non-union agencies.

Hon. L. Boone: I said that there is no money in this year's budget. It would be next year's budget and that would be next year's budgeting process. I would not say that it is set in CSSEA's mandate that they must provide funding for a comparable amount, or anything like that. Generally speaking, they do provide some funding for the non-unionized sector, but you would have to talk to CSSEA with regards to their mandate.

C. Clark: Well, I want to take this opportunity to correct myself, because I mentioned the figure of 2 percent. I believe 2 percent is the standard that they use, but CSSEA, at its board meeting on November 22, moved a resolution that they adopt a policy that the differential between union and non-union rates of pay be absolutely no greater than 5.4 percent. If the ministry wants to leave a one-year time lag between the two, I suppose that's the ministry's choice.

[7:45]

Hon. L. Boone: Well, as this ministry has only been around for a very short period of time, we don't have any historical information with regards to what's happened here. CSSEA may or may not. . . . If you say they passed a resolution of 5.4, then that's what they're going to look to. We have not been in existence long enough to have a history to tell you what we've done in the past.

C. Clark: Perhaps the minister could tell me, then, what the ministry's rationale is for making non-union agencies wait for a year before they're provided with a parity settlement that is provided for in CSSEA's terms of reference?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess if you look at the history with regard to unionized and non-unionized sectors, we could have done nothing and just watched the unionized wages increase and the non-union sector get nothing. I think there was a belief that in those areas where the union people go on strike and hit the bricks, more or less -- they take the pain, they go with a wage loss in order to gain some advantages for their people and for themselves -- it would be entirely unfair to watch the non-union sector just automatically get the same increase -- it would seem so to me if I were a unionized person there. That obviously wouldn't be an entirely fair process. So we have chosen to look at providing some funding for those in the non-union sector to bring them up to some sort of wage parity -- not exact wage parity, but enough that the wage gap doesn't get any different.

C. Clark: The minister is arguing that the reason the non-union agencies should wait for their additional funding -- which isn't quite parity, as the minister pointed out, with what is negotiated with the union folks -- is because the union folks are the ones that go out on strike. That's the reason for making them wait a year. Well, if that's the minister's reason -- punishing the non-union folks for what, in her view, would be not doing their job, not going out and hitting the bricks and fighting the hard fight, trying to live on strike pay and all that. . . . If that's the ministry's punishment for doing that, then I'm curious what the minister's rationale would be for providing them with parity at all, if that's her view of the worthiness of the two different sectors.

Hon. L. Boone: The member obviously knows that this is not an area that I'm responsible for. PSEC is under the Ministry of Finance; you should be addressing your comments to the Minister of Finance. PSEC's direction is set under them; they negotiate on our behalf.

C. Clark: Isn't it funny? The Minister of Finance, who's already had her estimates completed, said that I should ask you. That's what the Minister of Finance said. The minister may want to check with her friend who sits in front of her. The reason she said that -- and I think this makes some sense -- is because the Ministry for Children and Families provides the funding for the wage increases, which the minister has admitted. If we're going to be discussing the budgets of the ministry and the way it budgets for wage increases in the contracted sector, these are the appropriate estimates to ask those questions in.

I should tell the minister that it's my understanding -- and she can confirm this or not -- that CSSEA has negotiated and secured three wage increases for the agencies that are members. These date back to 1996. Now, given that 1996 is well past -- two years in the past -- is the minister aware that she's violating her own policy of waiting a year to provide the extra money for the non-union agencies, particularly with respect to the wage increases that were provided as far back as 1996?

Hon. L. Boone: There was some low-wage redress. You're going to have to ask PSEC about that. However, the unionized sector did not receive their increase in 1996. We've been negotiating for that period. I did not say that there were guidelines; I said that, generally speaking, what has happened is that the non-union sector has received an increase in the year after the union sector does.

C. Clark: I suspect the minister is aware that the non-union agencies are forced to be members of CSSEA. They don't get a choice in that matter. If they receive more than $100,000 worth of funding from this ministry, they're forced to be a member of that association. CSSEA is mandated to represent those groups and to negotiate on their behalf. Presumably, because of the direction of the ministry, they only represent some of those groups -- only the ones that are favoured by the government, the union groups that the minister thinks deserve the money because they go out on strike. Well, if that's the case, then don't force all these folks to be members of this association, because they don't have any choice in the matter. It seems to me that the minister is really contradicting

[ Page 10072 ]

Hon. L. Boone: The member likes to put words in my mouth, and I wish she'd stop doing that. I made it quite clear that these are negotiated settlements by the unionized sector and, as such, are being funded and paid for. They're negotiated by CSSEA.

Yes, the other employers do have to be members of CSSEA and, in doing so, they receive some assistance in labour relations, in negotiations, etc. So they are members of that. It's an employers' group, and they are among the employers around who receive those things. But I've never said that the non-unionized sector does not deserve a wage increase. I said that it would seem eminently unfair if the non-union sector automatically piggybacked them and got the same increase as those who have negotiated and, in some cases, gone on strike and sat down and been in negotiations for a year. That doesn't happen in any other organization, and it wouldn't happen here. But we certainly believe that we should be providing wage redress to them, and I guess what we've said in the past is that it's generally been the policy that those organizations receive some additional funding in the following year.

C. Clark: What would happen, then, in the minister's world if some of the unionized agencies that are represented by their employers at CSSEA went on strike and others didn't? I mean, there are -- and I can count -- one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten different unions that are represented at the employers' table at CSSEA. If some of them went on strike and some of them didn't, would the ones that went on strike deserve the wage settlement and the ones that didn't go on strike not deserve the wage settlement?

Hon. L. Boone: You know, you really do get kind of ridiculous at times. I said they negotiated, and some went on strike to get their wage increases. I never said that only those that go on strike deserve it. I said that this is a negotiated settlement. It's negotiated. We have an employer association. We have a union. They sit down; they negotiate. They come to an agreement as to what the increase should be. There is no organization to bargain with in a non-unionized sector. There is nobody there to negotiate with in the non-unionized sector. So yes, we will provide some wage redress for them, and we will do so probably in the following year, as we have done in the past. I have never said that you have to go on strike in order to get your wage increase.

C. Clark: I thought the minister was pretty clear when she indicated that one of the reasons the unionized sector should get the settlement a year in advance of the non-unionized sector is because they do all the work. They go on strike. They negotiate. Well, does that mean. . . ? If the fact that they're going on strike is one of the reasons she's going to use, then it would logically follow that the agencies that don't go on strike -- the unions of the ten that are involved with this ministry that don't go on strike -- maybe don't deserve the same standard of wages. They haven't done the work. They haven't hit the bricks. They haven't suffered on strike pay and gone on the picket line. Maybe they don't deserve the same level of parity.

The minister was pretty clear. I think that when she goes back and looks at the Hansard record of it, she'll realize that she was being pretty clear about her views on who deserves to get wage increases in this sector and who doesn't. I would like to know from the ministry, though, how much direction or what kind of direction the Ministry for Children and Families -- given that is the funding agency for these wage settlements that will be reached by CSSEA on its behalf -- provides to CSSEA about the negotiations that they are going to enter into. How did they advise them about the amount of total money that's available for a negotiated settlement? Or do they not communicate with them at all for that purpose?

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry doesn't communicate with them. It is done by PSEC.

C. Clark: Just to be clear, the ministry has no comment in advance or during negotiations between CSSEA and the unions that are represented by its employers about the total amount of money that the ministry is prepared to fund and the amount of money that they're prepared to provide in their budget. It's entirely outside the ministry's control. Is that correct?

[8:00]

C. Clark: Does the ministry have any formal method of communicating with PSEC for the purposes of these negotiations?

Hon. L. Boone: I sit on PSEC.

C. Clark: Does the minister then provide direction to CSSEA through PSEC about the amount of money that the ministry is prepared to provide to fund contracts that are negotiated on its behalf?

Hon. L. Boone: No. PSEC, through the Ministry of Finance, determines these.

C. Clark: What direction does the minister provide, then, by virtue of her position on the board? I assume that she's on the board of PSEC for a reason. If it's not to provide direction with respect to the amounts of wage settlements, what precisely does the minister contribute in that role?

Hon. L. Boone: You really should be addressing PSEC questions to the minister responsible for PSEC. I sit there as one of the employers. The employer association sits there. I sit there as government. The financial framework is established by Treasury Board. We work on that, but right now they establish the guidelines, as they have with the. . . . We've seen the results with the negotiations on the teachers. We've seen the results in the negotiations of the HEU, the zero-zero-and-two -- the BCGEU, the zero-zero-two. Those frameworks are established by the Ministry of Finance, and then the funding is provided to this ministry by PSEC -- to provide our funds.

C. Clark: CSSEA negotiates solely with employers that are funded by the Ministry for Children and Families. So it would appear to me to be fairly logical to suggest that the minister, who sits on the board of PSEC, would have a specific interest in the negotiations that are conducted by CSSEA, because at the end of the day the money to fund that is going to be coming out of her budget. The minister's quite right. When the Ministry of Education goes to the employers' coun-

[ Page 10073 ]

I'm surprised to learn that the Minister for Children and Families, who sits on the board of PSEC, doesn't offer any advice to CSSEA, which negotiates solely for ministries that are funded by her ministry, about the amount of money that she's got available in her budget to fund wage increases. Am I correct that the minister, through her role on the board, has absolutely no input on that? If I'm not correct, could she tell us what kinds of roles she does play, or what kind of input she does have with CSSEA?

Hon. L. Boone: You're wrong on a number of counts there. CSSEA does not bargain only on behalf of this ministry. They bargain on behalf of Women's Equality; they've got organizations through the Attorney General's ministry, Health. . . . There are a number of different ministries that have organizations of which CSSEA is the employer's association; it's not solely this ministry.

You're also wrong in that the Ministry of Education, for example, goes to their bargaining agent and tells them what their funding is. The Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and myself all sit on the board of PSEC. Through my dealings on Treasury Board, we would be influencing what the framework was for negotiating and what dollars would be available to provide for funding. We would be discussing some things at PSEC, but I can tell you that I would not be going to CSSEA and discussing these things with them. That would be done through PSEC.

C. Clark: So the minister does have a role in discussing with them the amount of money that's available. She says she sits on Treasury Board, and she has some influence over the framework that they'll be negotiating under. She sits on PSEC, and in that role she has some influence -- but granted, less than she has on Treasury Board -- over the amount of money that they'll be making available.

It's unbelievable to suggest that there's no link between the people that make the money available and the people that are going to be negotiating to spend the money. That would be irresponsible. The minister likes to talk about what a great business person she is. It wouldn't be responsible for the people. . . . Maybe she wants to draw the link to Treasury Board, which she sits on. Maybe it's the Treasury Board, then, that sets these parameters. That's what she's indicated for us. Is it the Treasury Board, then, that has determined that PSEC -- or CSSEA, or however she wants to draw the line of accountability on this -- should provide different settlements to union and non-union agencies and then, further, make the non-union agencies wait a year to get the parity that's guaranteed them by CSSEA in its terms of reference?

Hon. L. Boone: Treasury Board determines how much money is going to be available. The Minister of Finance, through Treasury Board, would be setting the parameters for negotiations. We would be taking some of those parameters to PSEC and working those things out at the PSEC table. PSEC would be working with CSSEA and directing them as to what the framework is. That's how it works. I suggest that if you're going to want to talk about PSEC, you talk to the Minister of Finance, because the rest of this is not within my mandate.

C. Clark: Well, the funding that comes from her ministry is within her mandate, and we're discussing the funding that's provided for in the budget for her ministry tonight. Maybe I can draw the link back there. But the minister does also sit on the PSEC board. Could she tell us then. . . ? She has a view of it from both ends -- right? She has a view of it from the end at PSEC, where she sits on the board, which has a link that manages CSSEA; she has a link through PSEC to the Treasury Board; she also has a link at the ministry end where they design the budgets that will provide for the wage increases that are negotiated by CSSEA. She has a view all through the system. Can she tell us where in that system, where in those links, the policy to provide different wage settlements for union and non-union employers, which are both forced to be members of CSSEA, came from? Also, where did the policy come from to make them wait a year before giving wage parity to the other sector? Where in the system was that policy set?

Hon. L. Boone: PSEC would be determining the policy with regards to giving some wage redress to the non-union sector. As I said, they're doing this because it is good social policy, because they don't want to see the wages get out of whack between one sector and the other. But that would be determined by PSEC.

A. Sanders: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain is discussing what for me is one of the most important issues within the Ministry for Children and Families at this time. I do recognize, as the minister has said, the crossover between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry for Children and Families. Unfortunately, with the way that government is set up presently within the ministries, we will have this crossover in a number of areas. In my area of familiarity, of course -- education -- the crossover is very significant where we have the Ministry of Finance putting the money on the table for agreements; yet it's the Ministry of Education which is actually coming up with those agreements and how they work.

What I'd like to do is kind of bring the rhetorical component of this discussion down a bit. I want to really look at what these people do who are in either the unionized or the non-unionized sector for Community Living. When we look at both of the groups, whether they be unionized or non-unionized, it is important to recognize the following. The people who are working in the Community Living sector are, to a very large extent, women. In this sector, they are women who have traditionally not been in what I would consider to be high-paying jobs. Nevertheless, from being very involved in the Community Living sector within my own riding, I can tell you that these individuals work very, very hard. Their job of dealing on a day-to-day basis with mentally handicapped folk, who often in addition have either significant psychological or physical handicaps, is a job that many of us in this House would be very stressed and stretched to be able to perform on a daily basis.

The other thing that's important about these women is that they do a good job. They do a very good job, and they do a job in an area that for any of us who have had small kids at home. . . . You would want to multiply the responsibility of having a number of small children by 10 or twelve -- or by however many individuals are in either their housing project or their mentally handicapped-run facilities for occupational therapy, so to speak. This is a very difficult job, and I do not deny any of them the right to be remunerated appropriately for what they do.

Interjections.

[ Page 10074 ]

The thing that is of concern here that the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain is trying to fractionate out, to see where in fact the debris settles and where we can look at this to fix it, has been the differential between the unionized and non-unionized sectors. What the member has pointed out, in fact, is that the unionized members of this Community Living sector got a pay raise -- a very substantial pay raise -- of 13 percent. Very few organizations at this time in this province have had the luxury of getting a 13 percent increase in what they get for their jobs. What we're looking at is a difficult sector, manpowered by women in jobs that aren't necessarily the best-paying jobs, but that are also a very vital and important part of all of our communities.

When we look at the differential that has been created between a significant raise for the unions compared to the non-union members, you are getting into a circumstance where you will find within the Community Living sector a very serious problem for women versus women. I think that if the minister looks at the statistics on who does work in this sector, she will find that it is primarily women. The other thing that's very important to recognize is that not only are we talking about women in very stressful jobs with not particularly stellar pay; we're also looking at a time when most of the people who work in the Community Living sector are in fact non-unionized. It's not that we have a teeny, tiny number of people non-unionized and the majority of the individuals working are unionized. In fact, it's well over 50 percent who do not belong to a union who work in the Community Living sector.

In those sectors in each and every one of our communities, these services are pushed to the limit. There is not one service that I have discussed this issue with in the vicinity of Okanagan-Vernon that doesn't have a waiting list. The waiting lists are not insubstantial; they're waiting lists of up to 40 people who require the services of the Community Living sector. When we look at those facts, we have to solve this problem. Quite frankly, I consider it an invalid argument that we're going to wait a year, and that this has something to do with the Finance department and nothing to do with the Ministry of Children and Families. In fact, I would urge this minister to do everything she can in her roles, where she sits on the various boards, and with the influence she can create within her mandate to get this issue settled quite quickly.

[8:15]

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

One specific organization in Vernon alone that has looked at this increase has stated that it will cost them an additional $200,000 within their one organization to fund the 13 percent increase in the unionized sector. This is an annualized increase that will not include one single second of additional service to clients. In other words, the waiting list of 40 will not go down. There will still be mentally handicapped people who live in my area who require services. What we're doing with this 13 percent increase for the unionized workers only -- and that doesn't even include the benefit packages that they may have procured from their individual employers. . . . We are not providing for the people who require the service. To me that is the most important issue.

Quite frankly, when I have mentally handicapped people who come and see me in the MLA office, or who I see in the community, I really don't care whether they are specifically looked after by unionized or non-unionized employees. I'm much more concerned that they are getting good care. Quite often we will find that within this sector, the individuals who run a group home for the mentally handicapped may also run another group home next door. In those circumstances, one of those homes may be unionized and the other one may be non-unionized -- and they're next door to each other. We actually have examples of that in Vernon. This, again, creates a disparity that I really do not feel is appropriate or in the best interests of the people who are served by either the unionized or non-unionized sector.

Let's look at CSSEA. The names of these kinds of things always boggle my mind. For those who aren't involved in this area, CSSEA is the Community Social Services Employers Association. I believe that's the correct form. CSSEA is something that all of the organizations who provide these services were, in fact, mandated to join. It wasn't a voluntary activity. They were told that this would now be the group that would negotiate on their behalf with PSEC and the Finance ministry and that the decisions and statements CSSEA brought forward would be viewed as being on behalf of all of those non-profit organizations who look after people in communities around B.C.

I think it's important to look at what the mandate for CSSEA was at its formation. These are the points that I'd like the minister to take away when she thinks back to this issue -- really, getting back to thinking about the people we serve and not the people who are employed, whether they come from union or non-union areas. The first point is that CSSEA was founded on an established policy that no wage-benefit increase would create an incentive or a disincentive to unionize. The wage lift in this circumstance clearly violates that principle. So when we're looking at whether it's a year or two years or six months, if the mandate for CSSEA was to not create a disparity between union and non-union workers in the community living sector, we have to go back to why CSSEA was created. If CSSEA is not doing that, not only have they violated their mandate, but what use are they? They need to go back to their own constitutional outline and start living up to that.

The second point of importance is that many figures were discussed by the compensation committee over three years, before it was dissolved. It was felt that the only amount that was acceptable between union and non-union shops working in the community living sector was the differential between union dues. So if you had a differential between the union and non-union people working in community living, 1.5 percent was not an unreasonable figure. That was the amount that the individual who belonged to a union paid for union dues. Therefore, if there is a differential of 1.5 percent, that is fair game. No one is talking about 13 percent, and that does create a very significant differential that is not appropriate when we're talking about the kinds of clients that we're trying to serve with this particular service.

The third point, which I've already mentioned, is that CSSEA has more membership that comes from non-union agencies. The fourth point is that CSSEA was to do the bargaining for employers to bring expertise to the table, so that large unions would not be allowed to overpower settlements with less experienced employers -- again, the small non-union organization. With the advent of provincial-level bargaining, again a CSSEA recommendation, the number of employers was limited, and the settlements are looking more and more like a master agreement. When we look at that, the obvious question to me is: who is CSSEA representing? I don't

[ Page 10075 ]

So what we're looking at here is something that is going to drive up the cost of community living to a level where perhaps reinstitutionalization will be something that people will think is the only way we can afford to do this. This is not what we want in our community. It's certainly not what we want in communities that I've talked to around the province, and it's certainly not what the organizations who provide community living -- union or non-union -- want to see in British Columbia. We have been doing a good job in this sector, providing a real integration of lifestyle back into the community for people who are mentally handicapped, and I don't want to see the demise of this due to something as simple as glossing over what has become a very large wage disparity that can only be looked at as a way to promote unionization of members and not to provide more service for the people as required. Whether we agree or disagree on how that's done, it's up to the government to provide service for those people. In my mind, those people who cannot come here and speak for themselves are far more important than whether or not any employee belongs to a union or a non-union shop.

I would certainly recommend to the minister that any wage lifts must go to all agencies -- that's the mandate of CSSEA, and certainly is the mandate that they set out in bargaining on behalf of the non-profits -- that wage lifts should not be used to create a differential that would promote unionization, that unionization should come if that's what the members wish to have in their community living sector, and that wage lifts should not be taken out of existing program funds. Those are the three points that I consider to be absolutely paramount for this minister to deal with when she's looking at the questions that the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain has brought forward.

This is a complicated issue. I think it has some reasonably straightforward resolutions, and one would be for the minister to take this issue seriously and to do whatever she can to get the level playing field back. In our community, and I'll close with this, the minister will be aware that one of the non-profit organizations that deals with the mentally handicapped in Vernon is in fact suing the government over this particular issue. It's very important for the minister to realize that most of the comments I have made tonight have nothing to do with that specific organization. In fact, they have to do with a number of other organizations, such as Pricare who have written to me personally, as the MLA for their area, saying, "Please go to the House and do whatever it takes to get the minister to fix this problem" -- because it is vital to them.

The longer that the disparity goes on, the more it's going to damage the actual services to clients. In my mind, that's really the only point that needs to be discussed here that has relevance and importance. It has to be above the partisan nature that this House tends to wear in terms of its mantle.

Hon. L. Boone: I think it's important to recognize some of the history around this, and I just want to do this very quickly. The creation of CSSEA was a very big step forward for the sector. Prior to that we had small organizations throughout the province and really huge wage differentials between them. We had a unionized sector that was sometimes making some fairly large increases, and we had the non-union sector, which was virtually not getting any increases at all, because they had no body to deal with anything. Over that time this government has pulled together CSSEA as a labour organization to deal with some of the labour issues for them. We have, in fact, put in $50 million toward a low-wage strategy to try and address some of the wage inequities there. We've seen the wages in the community living sector increase in the non-unionized sector from $11.70 in 1991-92 to an average of $14 right now. So we have seen some increases, whereas before there were no increases being had. There was no avenue to address those areas.

The principle for the differentiation -- contrary to what you were saying, that it was an incentive to unionize -- is to make it so that it is neither an incentive to unionize nor an incentive to deunionize, which could easily happen if in fact everybody automatically got the same wages that the unionized sector did. It's a difficult situation, and I recognize that the member certainly is right. These people provide a tremendous service out there, one that I don't think I would want to do. It's very difficult and stressful, and is one that is extremely valued. We recognize that. I think we've recognized that, and we've seen that recognition in dollars. As I stated earlier, the history and practice has been that there's been some increase that has been given in the future year to the non-union sector. The size of those differentials would be determined by CSSEA.

R. Neufeld: I would like to canvass a few questions around the issue of adoption, which falls under this ministry. Because I haven't asked any questions over the last couple of years, since the new Adoption Act went into place, I thought maybe I'd like to canvass with the minister a little bit how adoptions are done now. I know that they're regulated by the province through a set of regulations. Are there, in fact, adoptions done by both government and agencies that are regulated by the province? If so, could the minister break down those numbers over the last year for me: how many adoptions were completed, how many were by government, and how many were by societies?

[8:30]

R. Neufeld: Do the numbers include special needs children? Are they included in that number?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

R. Neufeld: How many societies in B.C. can now place children for adoption? How many are there?

Hon. L. Boone: There are seven agencies.

R. Neufeld: Seven agencies. Are they evenly dispersed throughout the province? Where are they located?

Hon. L. Boone: Given that you're a northerner, it's not too bad. It's not as good as what we'd probably like to see, but it's not too bad: Surrey, Kelowna, Prince George, Abbotsford, Victoria and Vancouver.

[ Page 10076 ]

Hon. L. Boone: For the ministry, low-risk infants have a fee of $2,250. At agencies, for low-risk infants, it's between $3,600 and $9,000. In B.C., with special service and placement needs, there is no charge for those placements, and the agencies do not do those. For inter-country adoptions, for the ministry it's $3,150, and for agencies it's between $2,600 and $7,200.

R. Neufeld: So the total cost, if you were to adopt a child through the ministry, averages -- I know it'll differ a bit because of the amount of home study that has to be done and those kinds of things -- about $2,000. Do I understand that correctly? I read different numbers in the regulations. I just want to reconfirm that it is actually $2,000.

Hon. L. Boone: For low-risk infants, the average is $2,250.

R. Neufeld: I know there are agreements made with the native bands on adopting children. How are they handled? Do they operate under exactly the same regulations that the other adoption agencies in the province do?

Hon. L. Boone: Currently they are within the same parameters as everybody else, but the director of child protection is working out a different arrangement for the aboriginal community.

R. Neufeld: The numbers that the minister gave me for the agencies is not quite the information that I received from some of the agencies. I know, for instance, of one person in Fort Nelson that just finished paying $12,000 to complete an adoption. I don't think that I have to remind the minister of what happened to the member for Surrey-Whalley when she was a minister and she made remarks that $4,000 was excessive. I'm not trying to dispute whether they need that much money or not, but I am trying to convey to the minister that to adopt two children at $12,000, on average, is fairly expensive.

I want to draw the comparison to. . . . I went back to 1993 to some of the records on costs. For instance, one of the adoption agencies in Victoria had a fee of about $2,500. That was in 1993, and that included a whole screening process and provided counselling before and after adoption. Today that same agency, which has to live within the regulations that are set out by the ministry, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $8,000 to $9,000.

Can the minister explain to me why there was such a huge increase between 1993 and now, taking into account that in 1993 they did the post-adoption and all those services? They provided all those in private adoptions. It's becoming prohibitive for many people. In fact, if I go back to the member for Surrey-Whalley, when she was the minister responsible, she talked about how only the rich could afford to adopt at $4,000. That was very clear in her statements at that time, but now we're running to amounts of $8,000 to $12,000, over just a few years. Can the minister explain to me and to the person in Fort Nelson why those costs would be so high?

Hon. L. Boone: If you'd like to get back to us with the specifics of the case that you're talking about. . . . There are some variables: if it's an out-of-country, there are travel costs, court fees. Various things are variables there. But if you'd like to get back to us with the specific information. . . . I really can't tell you why there's a difference between 1993 and today, but if you want to get me the information, we would be more than happy to look into that specific case for you.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that offer from the minister. What I'm trying to convey to the minister. . . . I'll deal with your office directly about the case in Fort Nelson, because what happens in Fort Nelson or any place out of. . . . This is an agency in Prince George, by the way. The people have to pay the airfare costs, meal costs, hotel costs. I think it's $145 an hour for the person to do the home study and so on and so forth, and they want the fee up front. In the information I received from the ministry, it doesn't say that that has been approved. I read in the regulations that you can't do that, yet it's contemplated to do that. They probably have some good reasons for it; I think they got burned a few times and didn't get paid for some of their services. But it makes it very difficult for someone who doesn't live in a centre such as Prince George, Kelowna or Vancouver to adopt a child, because the costs go extremely high.

For an average adoption out of Prince George, for instance, by the society's own records and own figures, it's $8,025. That's the starting point; after that you add on all the other costs. Now, when I compare that to adopting a child through the ministry at a cost of what the minister said was, on average, $2,000, there's a huge difference. Something seems to be wrong. Either the ministry is subsidizing it a whole bunch, or else the ministry has to look at other adoption services.

Just to put it on the record, the Adoption Centre in Kelowna is $7,000; that happens to be if you live right close to Kelowna. The Hope Pregnancy and Adoption Services Society -- I'm not exactly sure where that is -- costs $12,000 minimum. Those are huge differences: $12,000 and $2,000. How do you justify that to anyone who lives away from those centres or to anyone in the province? There's far too great a difference. If it costs $2,000 through the ministry, then I would think it may cost a little bit more through a society, but definitely not six times the amount that it costs through a ministry. Can the minister explain to me why we would have that system in place?

Hon. L. Boone: I remember some of the debate around the adoption services. It was clear that a lot of British Columbians wanted the option of choosing an organization independent from government to provide adoption services, so we have the licensed agencies. From the information I have, agencies charge higher fees than the ministry because regulations require agencies to provide services to birth parents at no charge; therefore they must recover all expenses from adopting parents. Because the majority of birth parents who seek services from agencies do not follow through with an adoption plan, agencies have had to pass the cost for these services on to adopting parents. Agencies have been responding to the public's need for general information on adoption and have no way of recovering the cost of providing this service. An additional cost of working with agencies is travel costs incurred by adopting parents who reside a great distance from adoption agencies. Those are some of the reasons why agencies charge more. But as I said, if you have the specific case, I'd be happy to look into it.

I guess we put the option there for people because they wanted that option when we were bringing in the Adoption Act. Although fees charged by agencies have been higher than those charged by the ministry, many families are choosing to go to the agencies because that increases the options to access an adoptive placement.

[ Page 10077 ]

The minister says that many more people wanted to go through societies, but that doesn't hold true with the numbers the minister gave me. The government completed 209 adoptions and societies only 146 in the last year. That would tell me that more people wanted to go through government. I would think that it has a lot to do with the cost.

I'll get the particulars around the one family to the minister, but I would like it if the minister could commit to me tonight that she will have her staff work on some of these issues and give a good reason to me why a completed adoption costs approximately $2,000 through her ministry and up to $12,000 through a society. That is just not acceptable to British Columbians, and I think that if that's case, we have to look back and try to see what we can do to reduce those costs so that we can have young families adopting children and bringing them up.

[8:45]

I. Chong: The area I would like to canvass with the minister this evening is in regards to youth over the age of 19. I did raise this issue last year with the former minister. The issue I raised was in regards to youth over 19 who would not necessarily fall within the recommendation of the office of the child, youth and family advocate on page 37. In that particular area, they are talking about a youth over 19 for whom there would be resources if in fact that youth was able to be enrolled in an educational or vocational training or rehabilitation program. What I am more particularly concerned about is a child with severe brain damage who would not be able to enroll in any of these programs or in a specific rehabilitation program -- a child who is in the care of government, even from birth, who has been taken care of up until their nineteenth birthday and suddenly is in a situation where. . . .

I think the Ministry of Health has an overlap. The difficulty, I suppose, is that there seems to be a lack of continuity and consistency for that individual, whether that person is a child or is now an adult. In that particular instance, a brain-damaged individual requiring constant supervision is still, for all intents and purposes, a youth, or under 19, insofar as their ability to progress. So I was wondering what the ministry does in those situations and how they allow that transition to occur. I am aware of associate family programs. We're talking about a youth in the care of government and, perhaps, in the care of a home or even a relative. But when the child becomes 19, somehow the assistance drops or is not available.

Hon. L. Boone: This is an area that I know is a real challenge to deal with and is a concern to many. We are working on these things: the development of parallel transition policy and procedures for children and youth with special needs and adult Community Living services. We're in the midst of developing a protocol with the Ministry of Health continuing-care program, regarding services to youth turning 19 with physical disabilities; that's probably the type that you're talking about. We're working on the development of planning, processes and information regarding youth with special needs leaving the school system for post-secondary training and education, and we're liaising with the Ministry of Human Resources, with B.C. Benefits, to coordinate the application process for disability benefits. We do have work to do on this; we are working at trying to bridge this change in services from youth to adult. We're working these things out with the various agencies.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for her answer. It sounds like we are in fact making much greater progress than we were at this time last year. When I canvassed the minister at this time last year, what was given to me in terms of a response -- and I don't expect the minister to have read all of the Hansards -- was that when a child turns 19, we have an associate family program, and that's what the child moves into.

I was trying to impress upon the minister last year that where we have a severely mentally disabled child -- and physically disabled, too, at times -- that transition cannot occur. I suppose that having rid our system of institutionalized care, we had to have another, more compassionate system in place. The difficulty existing was the fact that youth who had been in the care of their parents were finding that, at 19, they'd lost a substantial amount of funding. Or if there was an exception made or a program available, the funding was required to be paid to independent caregivers versus permitting the family member to use those funds as best as he or she could accommodate. That is where part of the problem is as well.

I do appreciate the information that the minister has given me and that all these new programs, protocols and such are being developed. But right now we are in a situation where I think there are quite a number of youth who are over 19. . . . This program has only been developed over the last few years. I think we were told last year that it was still a five- or six-year program and they were trying to accommodate people turning 19. Well, a year has passed, and I'm sure a number of youth have now turned 19. They cannot go into group homes, because they require 24-hour care. The point that I made last year was that if you were to place some of these people in group homes. . . . I think the average cost, the minister advised me last year, was anywhere between $31,000 a year and $126,000 a year, because of the provision of a home and the equipment for that home and the requirement for a 24-hour care supervisor; whereas, if the land and buildings and equipment were already there, in the home of the parent who had been partially raising that child, then we wouldn't have to be looking at those kinds of costs. In fact, we could look at a program where the parent could continue to take care of that youth.

My question, then, to the minister is whether, in looking at all these programs and protocols and agreements, there is consideration that a parent can still maintain guardianship or custody -- however you would like to word that -- of the youth over 19 and receive the same amount of funding, if not more, as if the youth had not turned 19 and had not had that funding diminished.

Hon. L. Boone: While it sounds nice, the problem is that to change the policy the way you want it would require a huge pot of money. What we would be doing is paying

[ Page 10078 ]

I. Chong: I do recognize that there is a cost. What I am trying to impress upon the minister -- and I know that she would certainly be looking for a solution, if there was one, that would save taxpayers' dollars, as would we. . . . Yes, I guess I am talking about a parent taking care of an adult child. But that is only an adult child as a result of time passing, chronological aging, in the sense that the adult child -- or youth, or however you would like to express it -- is still very much a one-year-old, a two-year-old or a three-year-old, insofar as if the child is brain-damaged.

The case that I am particularly concerned about, which I have been trying to deal with for two years since my election, is a child who was born brain-damaged as a result of a lack of oxygen to the brain at time of birth. For all intents and purposes, this child is still a child. Just because 19 years have elapsed doesn't change the requirements. In fact, the requirements are even greater now, in terms of physical requirements that the parent has. I know there are some difficulties here. I think it would be incumbent on the minister to look at cost savings. However, if in fact this parent were to finally decide that she could no longer take care of this adult child and turned it over to a foster care home, an associate family home or whatever, the cost would be as great, if not more. That's what the minister advised me last year. A group home situation, where there are two or three people in a group home and depending on their needs -- whether 24-hour supervision would be required and whether a home would have to be purchased -- could still amount to $100,000-plus per year. That could be more easily accommodated if the parent were given the option, perhaps, at a lesser amount and cost to government.

What you're saying -- not you, specifically -- is that you would suggest that having had their child reach its nineteenth birthday, parents, in order to ensure that their child gets a maximum amount of care and support, turn their child over to a stranger or an independent home or program. That's not what parents want to do.

I know this particular constituent is very concerned -- and she's aging as well -- that this will happen one day, and it will cost government even more. But until such time, she's willing to take on those extra burdens. What I am trying to ask the minister is whether or not her ministry is able to address this issue in any way, seeing that she is currently looking at a number of programs to address this very difficult issue. I recognize that it is a difficult issue, but it is one that we must deal with, because we have had a number of special needs children born in the past few years who are now reaching adulthood -- adulthood in the age sense but not necessarily in the mental or the physical sense.

[9:00]

I. Chong: Some concluding remarks, and maybe a question. I recognize that when the individual is a child, there is day care and respite. The difficulty is when that child, as I say, reaches adulthood. Day care is eliminated, because they're no longer considered eligible for day care -- and that's where part of the problem is. That's where the funding is diminished. But in the eyes of the parent, the dollars are still required, as if the adult was still a child. That's part of the difficulty. I have been very specific, in that the cases I'm looking at are not just youth over 19, which the child, youth and family advocate has discussed. I recognize what she is saying there.

I am looking at children with severe brain damage. The member for Okanagan-Penticton also posed a question about a child with severe brain damage who was requiring constant supervision, and who was at one point functioning well in a specialized residential home. When the child turned 19, the ministry stopped providing funding, and the Ministry of Health would take over and could not provide adequate care. So my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton asked the question: when the ministry has a child in care who is approaching their nineteenth birthday, are plans made to ensure they continue to receive required services? That essentially is the same premise on which I've asked my question. As a child, everything was available; as soon as they turn 19, the Ministry of Health would step in and that funding was gone. The child, now an adult, has nowhere else to go, or has reduced services. For all intents and purposes, we've therefore cut off the quality of life for that particular individual. I don't think that's what we would want to do.

Is the minister able to consider that as, perhaps, a separate item, in terms of severely-brain-damaged individuals? And there are a number in this province. That area hasn't been fully addressed or canvassed in the annual report of the child, youth and family advocate. I think it is timely that we do so, given the new programs that the ministry is now looking at.

Hon. L. Boone: If you have a specific case, it's been suggested that you may want to direct that information to me, and I can take it up with the Minister of Health and see if this individual would fit into the continuing-care facilities. If you've got the specifics, you could forward them to me, and then we can take it up with her.

I. Chong: I will offer those specifics to the minister, as I'm sure the member for Okanagan-Penticton will when he returns. I'll likely also canvass them in the Ministry of Health estimates, because I recognize the overlap. I appreciate the minister's offer; I will pass on some of this information to her.

G. Plant: I want to ask some questions about youth probation officers. A year ago, we debated in this House the bill that achieved the transfer of youth probation services, among other things, to the Ministry for Children and Families from the Ministry of Attorney General. In fact, I'm told that the transition or the change took effect on July 11, 1997, so it was just a little bit more than a year ago today.

There are a number of questions I want to ask, largely in an attempt to get a bit of a progress report on this transition. When we debated the bill last summer -- I think it was Bill 4,

[ Page 10079 ]

Let me begin by saying that a couple of weeks ago my colleague the critic and I had a meeting with a representative of the association of probation officers. He informed us that the association had written a letter to, I think, the deputy minister on April 17. The letter was a request for a meeting to discuss the ongoing concerns that probation officers have with respect to the impact of this change on service to young offenders. We were told that, at least as of a couple of weeks ago, the ministry had not yet responded to this request -- not yet even responded to the letter of April 17, which would be about a two-and-a-half-month delay. I think that would be unfortunate -- in fact, probably worse than unfortunate.

Perhaps I could ask the minister if she knows or if her staff could tell her whether they have as yet responded to this request for a meeting, which I think would be a good way of ensuring that there is a dialogue going on among the experts to address whatever concerns are out there.

Hon. L. Boone: We have no problem meeting with them. I think they have requested a meeting with the deputy, but I'm not sure whether it's been scheduled or what. We've sort of been up in the air with regards to estimates and such, so haven't scheduled too much in here for the last little while. But should they want to have a meeting, we'd be more than happy to.

G. Plant: I'm sure that the probation officers will be pleased to hear that.

The B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, in a survey of youth probation services in 20 MCF offices as of August 1, 1997 -- and I don't think that this document was available when we did the estimates last summer -- identifies a number of issues. Although that's a year ago, my information is that those questions, those issues, are still out there. I want to just briefly canvass four or five of them and see if the minister can respond here to the expression of concern.

The first and, I think, perhaps the most general expression of concern is that the movement of youth probation out of the Ministry of Attorney General into the Ministry for Children and Families, generally speaking, had the result of reducing service to young offenders and to the communities in which they live and, at the same time, significantly increased the cost of delivering those services. So the transition would not be fiscally neutral; it would, in fact, cost something. Yet it would actually result in a reduction of the important services provided by these probation officers. Can the minister tell us, in her view a year down the road, whether service has been enhanced and cost has been maintained or increased?

Hon. L. Boone: We have announced that we will be adding 25 new youth probation officers. That was the announcement we made. The information that I have -- now, you would probably know more than me. . . . It says that it's the most significant enhancement to these services in the past decade. So I would say that when we get those individuals on stream, when they're actually in their jobs, we will see an increase in the morale of those individuals who are doing their jobs and enhanced services. We believe that the establishment of the multidisciplinary service teams will better ensure that rehab services are provided to young offenders, thereby better protecting the public in the long run. We have not established multi-disciplinary service teams in all areas yet, but those are in the works and are coming on stream. Once that happens, I think we'll see a better integration of services.

G. Plant: The 25 probation officers that the minister spoke of -- I take it they're not all up and running yet. Is it the intention of the ministry to ensure that these probation officers are fully trained probation officers, as opposed to, say, longtime social workers who have taken a fairly short course that might relate to probation? I understand that there is a fairly specific training that is associated with probation. So my question is: is it the intention of the minister to ensure that these 25 new probation officers are all fully and completely trained probation officers?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

G. Plant: One of the reasons why there is a concern about the compromise in service has to do with the fact that formerly the people who are probation officers wore three hats, as I'm sure the minister is aware. They were youth probation officers, they were adult probation officers, and they were family justice counsellors. What the transfer has done is it's peeled off the youth probation part of the job and moved it into a different place. Generally speaking, that means that, since you can't split people into pieces yet, you have to create people who are now exclusively doing youth probation work in one place and others who continue to do adult probation and family justice work in another.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, my understanding is that the concept works pretty well in urban British Columbia, where you've got large offices with lots of staff. You may have nine, ten or a dozen probation officers. It's easy to take out four and say: "You're going to be youth probation officers. You now have to go down the street to the MCF office, and the other eight of you can stay where you are." But the real problem happens in rural British Columbia, where there were formerly offices that would have just two or three people who were doing all of these jobs over a very large area of British Columbia. What's happened, I'm told, is that the offices in a number of smaller communities across British Columbia -- like Hazelton, Dawson Creek, Mackenzie, Golden, Clearwater, Ashcroft, Sidney and Sooke -- have essentially either been closed or collapsed, which is to say they're no longer staffed full-time.

I have the example here of Bella Coola, which apparently used to be served by one generic probation officer who provided all three of these services over a huge area of little towns: Bella Coola, Anahim Lake and so on. The result of this transition is that that office has essentially collapsed, and the youth probation officer is now all the way out in Williams Lake, which is about a six- or eight-hour drive from Bella Coola. That sounds to me like, at least in rural British Colum

[ Page 10080 ]

[9:15]

G. Plant: I take it that the ministry is hoping that some or all of these graduates, the 16 graduates and the further graduates in September, are going to be the people that will make up this compliment, or part of it anyway, of 25 probation officers. Is that a fair assumption?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

G. Plant: Is it the minister's position that, after these 25 new probation officers have been hired and put in place, service will be at an acceptable level with respect to youth probation officers?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we anticipate that the changes we're making will provide good coverage. I guess, as a northerner, I just want to throw in a caveat, because I know that at any given time we could find shortages in our regions. I would hate to say that we've solved all the problems and then have a recruitment or retention problem in a particular area. Anybody that lives in the northern half of this province recognizes that those are ongoing problems.

G. Plant: One of the problems that's been identified by a number of people as a result of the transition is what's called "toxic mixing," which, as I understand it, is the term used to describe the fact that in places where there is co-location of MCF services, where you have a variety of services provided out of one office. . . . Essentially, you have a waiting room that is filled with the clients of these services, some of whom are voluntary. They're young people who are at risk because they're in fragile psychiatric or psychological condition, or whatever -- they may have alcohol or drug problems. You might say they're basically good kids who are having emotional problems or some other kind of problem.

And in the same office you have kids who are there involuntarily, who might not be good kids. They're young offenders -- sometimes people with long young offender records.

There's a concern at least on the part of probation officers that putting these two groups of people together in the same waiting room in the same office creates, frankly, a very unhappy and potentially harmful risk of harm, at least to those who are in the room who really are there voluntarily. They don't actually perhaps want to show up for a program and have to sit there in a waiting room for half an hour or an hour next to a bunch of kids who have just been released from custody for rape or whatever. What is the minister's response to this expression of concern about the idea of toxic mixing that arises in the cases of co-location?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess I don't like that term, to begin with. I think it sounds. . . . It's not a nice term to deal with when you're talking with any child, whether they're a child with problems or not. If there are concerns about safety issues with a sex offender, for example, the regions are trying to provide a separate place for those individuals to be. But we have not got a separate waiting room for all these individuals and for channelling children who are good and bad into one certain area. I recognize that people may feel uncomfortable, but unless there is a particular safety issue there I think that the regions are trying to deal with that, but they are not channelling these kids into different rooms.

G. Plant: The minister will recognize that I'm trying to cover a number of issues fairly quickly here, so I appreciate the minister's attempt to respond. It's an interesting issue and one that probably deserves a bit more scrutiny. Let's move on to another one, which I think may be more problematic -- that is, this potential conflict that exists when you have within the same ministry people whose primary responsibility is the protection of children and people whose primary responsibility is the protection of public safety. The fact is that in a number of cases those goals may conflict.

In practical terms, how this works on the shop floor, if you will, is that you have people who are probation officers who have to be pretty aggressive sometimes in advocating a position on behalf of their client which protects public safety. Yet you also have people who are now in the same ministry, who maybe in some cases are the supervisor of the probation officer, who have a much different statutory mandate. We're not talking about a mandate or a responsibility that is simply found in the opening passages of a policy book. We are actually talking about mandates that are found in the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, and I think there is a potential for trouble there. It may be something that the minister has identified and can explain how they're dealing with it, and I'd invite the minister to do that.

Hon. L. Boone: Clear direction has been given to youth probation officers and youth custody staff that their roles as officers of the court and peace officers continue in law and in practice, along with the need to give priority to the safety of the public. The recognition of the role of the youth correctional staff is reflected in one of the fundamental goals of the ministry, and that's ensuring the safety of the public. However, we now recognize that we have an opportunity through multidisciplinary contacts to provide services to some individuals. You may have a child in there that has an alcohol and drug problem or a mental problem. Through the services now within our ministry, you would be able to address those problems in a multidisciplinary approach. That's one that, I think, is in the best interests of the child -- but again, making sure that public safety is the primary objective of that probation officer.

G. Plant: I think that I understand the objective of a multidisciplinary approach. It's a good thing that services -- like alcohol and drug rehab, counselling or whatever -- are made available to young offenders who need them. What is not clear to me is how in a practical way the two mandates, which the minister described in answering my last question,

[ Page 10081 ]

Has the minister or ministry given any thought to what I think are the kinds of real-life things that happen out there? Sometimes it's hard to bring into this chamber the sense of what it means to have an office in one place where you're doing this job, and right next to you is an office with somebody else. Both individuals are actually trying to do the best job they can, but yet, of necessity, their jobs may bring them into conflict from time to time. In the old organization, that was achieved by one ministry with a responsibility for public safety dealing with another ministry that was responsible for child welfare. Now we have this potential overlap and intermingling.

In the interests of pushing the point that one step further, I shall try again and ask the minister if she's thought through the scenario I've described. Maybe it's not a problem in her mind.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't see it as a problem. These are professional individuals and they have been given clear direction that public safety is a priority. They take their jobs very seriously, and I have not been made aware of where they have compromised public safety because of some other conflict. I do not see this as a problem.

G. Plant: I have one further question. One of the points made in the BCGEU office survey was a concern about whether or not there were in fact sex offender specialists in each probation office. I won't go into any detail on the history of that, but the BCGEU study identified a concern that there were not fully and properly trained sex offender specialists in all offices. Perhaps the minister could give us a progress report.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. L. Boone: Since the transfer of youth probation services to this ministry, the training of existing youth probation officer staff in sex offender supervision has in fact been upgraded. We've also enhanced the basic training curriculum of new probation officers by increasing training from six to nine days. I think we've actually enhanced their training over and above what they had before.

G. Plant: As I said a minute ago, this has represented a fairly brief outline of only some of the concerns that have been identified. If I may say in conclusion with respect to this issue, perhaps the most important thing the minister has said is that she and her staff are more than willing to meet with the probation officers to deal with their concerns. Frankly, they're the people who can explain the problem; they're the people who will have solutions to the problems. If the minister is sincere in that commitment, then I think that there is some greater prospect that these issues won't return when we return to this a year from now. I appreciate the ministry's assistance in that regard.

[9:30]

C. Clark: I'd like to move into an area that we haven't touched on yet; it would be a glaring omission if we didn't touch on it. That's the area of addictions and how the ministry deals with that. Can the minister tell us, with respect to her budget, how much her ministry has budgeted to combat gambling addiction now that the government proposes to double the number of destination casinos in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: We have $2 million budgeted this year in services to problem gamblers.

C. Clark: How does that compare with money, if any, that was previously spent in this area by this ministry or by other ministries to combat this particular addiction?

Hon. L. Boone: Last year it was $1.7 million, and there was no program prior to that.

C. Clark: Can the minister explain why the ministry hasn't chosen to increase the budget by any more than by $0.3 million when the government proposes to double the number of destination casinos in British Columbia?

Hon. L. Boone: The study done by the National Council of Welfare on problem gambling shows that 96 per cent of people who gamble do so with no negative consequences. So far the actual uptake on this program has been quite low, so we believe that this is an adequate amount. If we find that there is a need for more, then we will deal with that at that time. But at this particular time we believe this is enough to service those clients that are coming to us.

C. Clark: So how do clients come to the ministry for counselling? How do they access any of the services that the ministry provides to deal with gambling addictions?

Hon. L. Boone: We have a toll-free helpline, 1-888-795-6111, and we also have awareness stickers and brochures.

C. Clark: I do know the ministry has a toll-free helpline. When the ministry came out with its brochures about gambling addiction, I actually phoned 411 to see if they would list the 1-800 number, and in fact at the time they didn't. This was months after the brochure had been produced. When I phoned 411 -- and I don't know if the situation is the same today -- they couldn't even tell me that this 1-800 line existed. So from the perspective of someone who's a consumer or hoping to be a consumer of services for people with gambling addictions, the way that most of them would access it is to phone 411 and find out what services existed. At that time, which was about four or five months ago, the only service that 411 listed that they could provide for someone who was seeking help for a gambling addiction was a number in White Rock for a non-profit society. The ministry's line wasn't even listed with the service provider -- with B.C. Tel -- which tells me that the service isn't well advertised, which probably means that it may not be well used. Maybe the minister can tell me I'm wrong. How many people have accessed the 1-800 line since it was set up, I think in October?

[ Page 10082 ]

C. Clark: Well, that's not very many accessing it. I suppose if the ministry hides its light under a bushel and keeps the services that it provides secret -- doesn't let anybody know that they're there -- they won't access them. If they don't access them, maybe the government can claim that there is no gambling addiction problem in British Columbia as a result of the expansion of gambling.

The statistics clearly show that the more gambling that exists in a jurisdiction, the more gambling addicts exist in a jurisdiction. That is the experience of every other jurisdiction. I'm not sure at all that it's fair for the minister to suggest that because the services provided by her ministry haven't been widely accessed in the first year and a half that they're out there, particularly given the fact that the ministry hasn't advertised them widely, that's a good enough reason to claim that gambling addiction isn't a particular problem in British Columbia. Maybe the place to start is this: if she's got $2 million budgeted for gambling addiction, how is she spending that in this year's budget?

Hon. L. Boone: The toll-free hotline would also be available if you phoned Enquiry B.C., but we'll check to find out how it is listed, because it should be available for us to find by going through 411. I want to advise you that we also have brochures and stickers that are distributed at casinos, bingo halls, racetracks, addiction agencies and a wide range of other services. So we are trying to get our information out there.

The breakdown of the $2 million is: 0.5 FTE problem-gambling counselling positions in all regions, two FTEs for specialist women and seniors positions, four FTEs for aboriginal positions, two FTEs for multicultural positions and two youth FTEs. That is the breakdown of where our $2 million is being spent.

C. Clark: So these FTEs, these counsellors that are located in the regions -- are they new staff in each of those regional offices, or are they existing staff that have been provided some training program? If it's the latter, could the minister describe for us the training program that they've undergone?

Hon. L. Boone: They are new staff, through contracted agencies.

C. Clark: The minister suggested at the beginning of her remarks that the $2 million would be adequate, or that a $0.3 million increase would be adequate, despite the massive expansion in gambling that's about to occur, because -- and again, I'll ask her to confirm whether this is correct -- there doesn't appear to be a big problem with gambling addiction in British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: I said that there hasn't been a large take-up on our program, and the number of people who developed problems remained constant at about 3.5 percent.

C. Clark: How does the ministry judge the number of people that have problems? Is it based solely on the number of people that pick up on their programs?

Hon. L. Boone: No. As I said earlier, that was done by the national study -- the National Council of Welfare study: "Gambling in Canada."

C. Clark: So how does the minister monitor or predict the increase or the decrease, if that's the case, in gambling addiction in British Columbia on an ongoing basis?

Hon. L. Boone: We would monitor our usage and the national and international information that we have on this. As I said earlier, if we saw that our usage was picking up, then we would reassess our budget. At this particular time, we have no indication that this budget is not going to be adequate for us.

C. Clark: Is it the minister's prediction, then -- and I'm assuming, based on the budget numbers, that it is -- that there will not be a substantial increase in gambling addiction in British Columbia, despite the fact that the expansion of gambling in this coming year is expected to be a very large one -- particularly with respect to slot machines, which have had an enormous impact on gambling addiction in other jurisdictions?

Hon. L. Boone: The national study indicated that 3.5 percent of the people will develop a problem. We believe that would be the same here. That's with provinces that have a large amount of gaming that goes on in their jurisdiction, so we believe that our budget is adequate.

C. Clark: Is it the minister's view that there is a relationship between the amount of gambling that occurs in a jurisdiction and the total numbers of gambling addicts -- the people who develop a gambling addiction -- in that same jurisdiction?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we are basing our estimate on the well-respected national study that indicates 3.5 percent of those who game develop a problem in gaming.

C. Clark: The point I'm getting to here, though, is that the national study, I suspect, demonstrates that the more gaming there is in a province, the more gambling addicts there are. I suspect that's one of the conclusions that's drawn by the national study. If that's not the case, the minister can inform the House. But that seems like a fairly logical conclusion to draw. If that's true, does the minister support that conclusion?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, if it were true, of course I would support it, but I have no indication that that is true. I've said that we are basing our indications on a well-respected national study that indicates 3.5 percent; that's what we are basing our estimates on.

C. Clark: Oh. Okay, let's go back to some of the basics, then. It's 3.5 percent of what? Is it 3.5 percent of the people who gamble in a jurisdiction? If those are the numbers that the minister's basing her estimates on, then the number of people who gamble will grow when the number of opportunities to gamble also grow. This means that the 3.5 percent may remain constant, but the total number of people who become gambling addicts will increase. Maybe the minister can comment on that.

Hon. L. Boone: I've already said that 3.5 percent of those who game will develop a problem. That's why we have increased the budget. It's not a huge increase, but it is a slight increase. We believe that this will be adequate. We have not seen any indications that those who are accessing our services have increased substantially.

C. Clark: Well, what the minister is failing -- I think, intentionally -- to point out is that the government is expanding gambling quite substantially in British Columbia, and 3.5

[ Page 10083 ]

[9:45]

C. Clark: The minister also fails to point out that the increase in gambling that the government is proposing -- and actually implementing -- is bigger than 17 percent; it's much, much bigger than that. The $1.7 million that the ministry provided in the first place is far too little to meet the needs of British Columbians, the needs of gambling addicts that will be created as a result of this government's policy. Starting at that baseline, it's still far too little. But topping it up by $0.3 million in the face of the most massive gambling expansion in the history of the province is pretty pathetic. It's a pretty small, paltry number in the face of all the evidence that demonstrates that the number of gambling addicts in British Columbia will increase at a rate proportionate to the expansion of gambling, which will be greater than 17 percent.

Last year, when we went through this in estimates on the Ministry of Women's Equality, that minister had to admit that they hadn't done any studies, that they hadn't put it through their gender lens, to look at the policy and the impact it would have on women in British Columbia. Can the Minister for Children and Families tell us what analysis her ministry has done of the government's policy to expand gambling in British Columbia, and whether her ministry has any ongoing relationship with bodies like the Lottery Corporation and the Gaming Commission to ensure that the interests of children and families -- the interests that her ministry is supposed to be protecting -- are protected or are not unnecessarily affected by the rest of the government's policy?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we do have an ongoing relationship with lotteries.

I don't know what this member wants. I can tell you that there's no waiting list. There's been nobody that hasn't received services. From my way of looking at it, that seems like we are providing the services. We have given an increase. . . . The dollars provide not just for treatment but for prevention and education as well. We believe that we've got an adequate amount. I've said to you that if it shows that it's not adequate, we will deal with it and assess it at that time. But as programs go, not having anybody wait for services -- no waiting lists -- I think this service is doing pretty well.

C. Clark: Well, if you don't advertise it, they will not come. That's the bottom line -- right? The ministry introduces a new service and then doesn't tell anybody about it, doesn't even list it with B.C. Tel, and gee, they're surprised. . . . Then they can say: "Well, nobody accesses our program. We don't need the money. There's no problem with gambling addiction in British Columbia; there has been no increase as a result of government policy." Well, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. The government provides services and doesn't tell anybody that they even exist, so people can't go get the help they need. Then the government can say that people don't need help. That seems to be the policy goal that this government is pursuing.

There are long waits for treatment, though, for example, in other areas of addiction. We heard this. . . . I think it would have been about six months ago in Vancouver, when they came out with their report on wait-lists for youth detox. They said that children are waiting six to eight months to get into that -- that 1,200 children went in to seek service, and only somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100 actually received it. What has the ministry done in the interim to address that problem?

Hon. L. Boone: I just want to clarify something, because the member always tends to get up and say a lot of inaccuracies. By saying that it is not something we advertise. . . . I think anybody out there would recognize that having brochures and stickers that are distributed to casinos, bingo halls, racetracks, addiction agencies and a wide range of other services is not saying that we're not advertising our programs. Nor have we indicated that this is not listed with B.C. Tel; it is with Enquiry B.C. We will check to make sure that the listing in B.C. Tel is one that is easily found. Because you couldn't find it doesn't mean that others can't find it, and obviously others have found it. I really would urge the member not to use these broad generalizations, saying that the ministry is not advertising these things.

In the youth addiction programs, we do have some additional dollars that are coming in to youth addiction. Day programs have been announced for the Northern Interior, the North West, Peace-Liard, East Kootenay, West Kootenay and the lower mainland. We also have some new youth support recovery and detox services coming on stream. But I'm not going to pretend that it's enough. I recognize that it is not enough and that we do need more services in those areas. However, at this particular time, I guess our budgets are limited. We could use far more dollars in youth addiction services, and I'm certainly not going to stand here and say that we couldn't.

C. Clark: The ministry has done, sadly, far too little since they were first notified about this problem by the report in Vancouver -- and I'm sure they knew about it long before that. Several reports have come out that have pointed out the chronic lack of detox services for young people and detox services in general.

Last year we saw the unfortunate situation where the ministry was almost forcing the closure of the last detox in the downtown east side because they had messed up their negotiations with the union. The ministry wouldn't provide them with the funding to pay their staff. It was only as the result of a last-minute intervention, after a great deal of public outcry,

[ Page 10084 ]

The last time I heard from the ministry about the issue, my understanding was that the ministry was providing some bridge funding to help the Cordova Detox deal with its funding problems as a result of the wage negotiations that CSSEA had entered into and dropped on its lap at the last minute, without notifying the management in advance -- enough money to cover that -- but that the Cordova Detox was still in trouble and required some of its issues addressed in a long-term way. For example, they needed to have the whole Harbour Light portion of their operation excluded from the envelope when CSSEA looked at the total funding of the organization. Their problem was that part of it was funded by the ministry but the rest of it wasn't, and the ministry was requiring -- through CSSEA -- that these new wage rates that had been negotiated on their behalf by CSSEA apply to the whole organization. Can the minister tell us what she's done to try and address that very urgent problem that still, I think, threatens to shut down the Cordova Detox?

Hon. L. Boone: Just as an update, we have just checked the phone number, and it is correct and it is listed. So you must have had somebody who was new on the job, perhaps, and couldn't find it; I don't know.

The detox issue is a very serious one downtown. We are working with our partners there -- the city of Vancouver, the regional health board -- to deal with those issues. The situation in the Cordova Detox is one of the issues that we will be dealing with. It is a very serious one, and we will be working with our partners to figure out what we will be doing on that in the future.

C. Clark: My understanding is that the Cordova Detox is an issue that the ministry can deal with all on its own. All they need to do is to ensure that the Harbour Light portion of the operation down there is exempted for the purpose of wage negotiations with CSSEA. It's as simple as that. It's an OIC that was passed by this government that included them in the total package. It's a simple, easy way to address the problem with Harbour Light, and the great thing about this solution is that it wouldn't require any more money. Is the ministry giving any consideration to reversing the decision of the government and CSSEA to include the whole of the operation in the negotiations and the contract, making the whole of the operation subject to the contracts that CSSEA negotiates?

Hon. L. Boone: We'll be looking at all aspects of detox in the downtown services, and we'll take your suggestions into consideration.

C. Clark: I made the suggestion, and the Cordova Detox people made the suggestion last October. It's a fairly urgent situation. I mean, we're talking about a service that is unique in the downtown east side -- it's the last one left in a city that, as I said, has one of the highest rates of HIV infection in North America. It's the poorest postal code in the nation. They desperately require these services and the longer the ministry fails to act on this, the more threatened those services become.

The ministry's own review says: "The simple fact is there is not enough of anything, there are waiting lists for everything, and we are chronically underserving many. There is not only a need for more of the same, but new and innovative approaches need to be developed to attend to emerging trends and issues." This is the ministry's own report, from June 29 of this year, on the review of alcohol and drug services in Vancouver. For seven months now, the ministry has been sitting on this suggestion to address this problem that would fix Cordova Detox's money problems -- like that! It's been seven months now since that suggestion was made, and this is an issue that cabinet could have dealt with months and months ago.

I wonder if the minister could at least tell us how far they've gotten in their negotiations or in their discussions about this issue, or if there has indeed been any negotiation or any discussion with Cordova Detox on this specific item.

[10:00]

Vote 24 approved.

Vote 25: ministry operations, $1,426,919,000 -- approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I hope that people will take this opportunity to rest and perhaps spend some time with their families. With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:03 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada