Hansard -- Tuesday, March 25, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 3 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of the Whole House		5599
	Museum Act (Bill 2) S. Orr Hon. G. Abbott

Reporting of Bills		5600
	Museum Act (Bill 2)

Third Reading of Bills		5600
	Museum Act (Bill 2)

Committee of the Whole House		5600
	Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 17) Hon. R. Coleman

Reporting of Bills		5600
	Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 17)

Third Reading of Bills		5600
	Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 17)

Second Reading of Bills		5600
	Agrologists Act (Bill 4) Hon. S. Hagen

Committee of Supply		5601
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Hogg

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

S. Orr: I wanted to just ask a couple of questions. I spoke on this yesterday, and I made it very clear how pleased I was that this was being brought forward. I just would like a couple of clarifications because this is so very important to me personally, to my constituents and to many other people in the province.

I want to ask a question on part 1, section 3 and section 4. So I can go ahead? On section 1…. This actually comes under No. 3 under part 1. Is that okay? Okay.

My question is: does the status as an agent of government ensure the protection of the collection for now and future generations?

S. Orr: Would you like me to repeat the question? Does the status as an agent of government ensure the protection of the collection for now and future generations?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the question. The short answer is yes. The change that's embraced by this bill in moving from a special operating agency to a Crown corporation or Crown trust is one that continues to ensure the safeguarding of all the collections and all the artifacts, and so on, by the corporation.

S. Orr: We know that the ability to do new exhibits and host blockbusters is vital to the economy of Victoria. Under this model, can the museum raise funds to support these activities?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, the answer to the question is yes. Under the new model that's embraced by this bill, there are many more and easier opportunities for the museum to partner with the private sector or the non-profit sector as they put together features or blockbusters, as the member said. Probably one of the best examples would be with the current exhibit, Dragon Bones, the Chinese dinosaur exhibit. The museum has put together what has already proven to be a very successful partnership with Pacific Coach Lines and a number of the major hotels in Victoria. It is a kind of win-win-win situation here. It's going to provide an opportunity for many more people to see this great exhibit at an affordable price and enjoy the great amenities of the city of Victoria at the same time.

S. Orr: This is my last question, and we're on a roll. I'm quite sure that I'm in the right area here, but I'm going to read the question. In my constituency of Victoria-Hillside we have a lot of public servants and perhaps some staff of the new corporation. My question is: can you confirm they will remain public servants under the new legislation?

Hon. G. Abbott: The employees of the Royal B.C. Museum will move from being, in a direct way, employees of the government of British Columbia to being employees of the Royal B.C. Museum as a Crown corporation. They do, however, remain covered under the Public Service Labour Relations Act. They also remain covered by the pension act. Some detail with respect to that is contained in section 12, coming up, which also notes that the Public Service Benefit Plan Act and the Public Sector Pension Plans Act also apply.

S. Orr: Thank you, minister. That actually concludes my questions. Gee, I was just getting going there. I want to, again, thank you very much for your foresight and your vision. What you have achieved here is, in my opinion, excellent.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the amendment to section 14 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 16 standing with the Clerk under my name.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 25 standing in my name with the Clerk.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

I am pleased today to speak to the new Agrologists Act. The profession of agrology was formally established in British Columbia with the passage of the

Agrologists Act in 1947. Except for minor amendments, the act has not been changed since it was proclaimed. The Agrologists Act provides agricultural science professionals with a framework for self-regulation of their profession in a manner similar to that enjoyed by professional foresters and professional biologists. The new Agrologists Act responds, in part, to longstanding requests from the British Columbia Institute of Agrologists, the governing and licensing body for professional agrologists, for updates to reflect the way the profession has evolved since 1947. The changes being made to the act are extensive enough that we have chosen to repeal the current act and replace it completely with a new Agrologists Act.

The new act changes the current act in five key areas. First, the definition of agrology has been updated to accurately reflect the full breadth of what constitutes agrology and what agrologists do in practice. In essence, agrology is a profession concerned with the application of scientific principles and knowledge to solving problems in agriculture, aquaculture, land use, water quality and use, and the interaction of working landscapes with natural or urban areas. Agrologists today also use their scientific skills to support expert stewardship of our province's natural resources.

Second, the purpose of the institute has been updated to emphasize the responsibility the institute has to account for the interests of both its members and the public. That responsibility is echoed in the mission statement of the institute, which is "to ensure the professional integrity and competency of its members and to protect the public interest in the sustainable use of resources."

Third, the changes provide a framework for the institute to work on joint standards of conduct and competence with other professional or occupational bodies where their respective areas of practice are shared or complement each other. Due to the nature of the disciplines involved, almost all resource professions and occupations have concurrent areas of practice. This is an unavoidable fact and something that can be addressed only so far through definitions of areas of practice. These complementary areas of professional practice are addressed most effectively by having the various governing bodies cooperate on protocols to ensure their members are properly qualified to practise in areas of concurrent interest.

Fourth, the processes for handling both professional and public complaints regarding conduct and competence of a member of the institute have been updated and clarified. These changes will ensure that the institute continues to be able to take effective action to investigate and resolve matters of ethics or of the professional competency of members.

Fifth, penalties for professional misconduct have been updated. The institute has also been given clear authority to use civil remedies, such as injunctions, to protect the interests of the public and profession. This change ensures that the institute will be able to take a leadership role in situations where persons are representing themselves as professional agrologists when they are not members of the institute.

Overall, the changes we are making to the Agrologists Act ensure that professional agrologists acting through the institute continue to be empowered to set clear standards of competence and conduct for themselves and to enforce those standards in the interests of the public and their profession.

The new Agrologists Act also supports the new Forest and Range Practices Act. The Forest and Range Practices Act establishes a workable, results-based code and reduces the forestry regulatory burden without compromising environmental values. The key to meeting this commitment is to ensure that the government, natural resource industries and the people of British Columbia can rely upon highly trained, dedicated, accountable professionals to make sound resource management decisions.

Professional agrologists, along with professional foresters and professional biologists, have skills and expertise that are essential to effective, sustainable management of our forest and range resources. The new Agrologists Act, along with the changes that have been and are being made to the legislation governing the professions of forestry and biology, will ensure that our resource professions have the authority they need to ensure qualified professionals are part of our shared vision of sustainable communities, resources and jobs. We want to ensure, on behalf of the public, that these groups are capable of setting appropriate standards of competence and conduct for their members and enforcing those standards.

Professional agrologists and the B.C. Institute of Agrologists have been key participants in the development and management of this province's public and private resources since 1947. I'm confident that the changes we are making to the Agrologists Act will help professional agrologists and their institute continue to make valuable contributions to our province in the future.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. L. Stephens: Mr. Speaker, I call the estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday, when we left last evening, we were on the topic of community governance — the government of the day moving to a model of regional authorities that would provide for community governance. I'm going to carry on with a couple of questions on that before we move to access to programs under the new authorities.

We talked a little bit about monitoring the community governance, because I am concerned about a new model of regional authorities being put in place at the same time as cuts. Could the minister outline what the complaint process for the public and for clients of the ministry will be during the restructuring process? Will there be a separate complaint process that the clients and the public can access while the transition is ongoing?

Hon. G. Hogg: During the restructuring the same processes which are in place today will continue to be in place. Those include the external bodies, including the ombudsman and central agencies. The complaint process will also be moving to more of a regional basis so that there will be authority for decisions to be made locally to resolve those issues close to where they occur. That would include a regional complaint mechanism going through the supervisors in the local regions as they currently do, and we're expanding the role of the service advocate in the special needs and community living sector to ensure that we have an arm's-length review process in place there.

If I may, two of the questions that the member asked yesterday, which staff, I'm sure, worked all night on to come up with an answer to…. The question with respect to the early retirement incentive program and the voluntary departure program. The question was how much was spent on that between September of '02 and March of this year. The answer is $8.863 million. The other question was with respect to the relocation — again, both of these coming from the central funds. In '02-03 the amount was $2.11 million spent from the GARI fund.

J. MacPhail: I thank the minister, and thank you to the staff for getting that information. I very much appreciate it.

This restructuring is costing money. The restructuring cost to the ministry is about $25 million over two years, and now we have an additional…. I guess that's — what? — $11 million total in addition to that for severance and office relocation costs. So we're now up to about $36 million in costs that are about restructuring and are not about services to clients. There has to be a way of making sure that this works, so I will be monitoring that very carefully.

One of the reasons I asked whether there was a complaint process that could go on during this transition was because there will be certain clients of the ministry, certain families, that receive services from the ministry whose access to services will become more bureaucratic. I know that yesterday the minister said that the community living authority didn't have a separate aboriginal authority because of the nature of the clients. However, there are families in the province who will have to move across several authorities in order to get their services.

Let me just give you an example: an aboriginal child with autism. They do exist; they exist in substantial numbers. So the parents of an aboriginal child with autism will have to deal with three new authorities — community living, aboriginal authority and the regional authority — plus the Ministries of Health and Education and their respective bureaucracies. That isn't the case now. An aboriginal child with autism deals with one part of the government, and that's it.

Children with special needs just generally will be split between the community living B.C. authority, regional authorities, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education. How is the government ensuring that the client isn't the one having to absorb the costs of this reorganization through increased bureaucracy and/or red tape?

Hon. G. Hogg: In the instance which the member highlighted, the aboriginal child with autism would be dealing with but one authority. Certainly, there would still be the other ministries. The Ministry of Health would be responsible for the assessment and determination with respect to autism spectrum disorder. However, the special needs children or the children with autism would just be dealing with the CLS authority to be working with and managing those issues. There would not be an involvement with the CFD authorities in that case.

We have created a joint policy directorate, and that policy directorate looks at and manages those issues where there may be some overlap in some issues. The principle in that is wanting to ensure that the best services are available and that there is some choice for parents and for children with respect to the authority from which they wish to have those services delivered. There are instances with parents of, perhaps, a Down syndrome child who would want to be in a process in which they may be receiving lifelong services. In other instances there are special needs children — which may be acute and may be short term.

In terms of the coordinated, integrated service delivery model that goes across the system, or whether it's one that is linear or longitudinal in nature, we've created the joint policy directorate to provide that type of option and ensure that there is the best possible coordination of services that exist for children.

I should also just point out that the member made reference to the restructuring costs. Some of those costs are costs that would be in existence whether there was restructuring taking place or not. The whole restructuring is about improving services, moving services closer to the community, closer to families and closer to where the issues are evidencing themselves so that we can have a positive response quickly and close to the issues that are evidencing.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to get into the section on individualized funding and community living now. I'm going to take a bit of time to go over this, because as the minister probably is well aware, there are many families out there who are concerned about this, are participating in the reorganization and the restructuring but are very concerned. They're strong family advocates, they're strong self-advocates, and they're a wonderful group of people, but…. No buts.

They're watching, and I've received quite a bit of information from the families who are actually bringing forward some very good items for discussion. The minister mentioned in his opening comments, his introduction, that there is individualized funding and that there will be savings. I think the minister listed some savings in his opening comments about what would result if about 250 people chose the option of individualized funding. I'm wondering whether the minister could tell us how he calculated the savings that would arise. On what basis does he make the estimate that 250 people are going to opt for option Y, as we call it, and how did he calculate the savings arising from that?

Hon. G. Hogg: One of the unique things about this whole process has been the confidence which the sector has in itself and its ability to work within the community and come forward with options. The traditional approach of government is, when we have budgetary target cuts to introduce, that we would say, "Here's a 15 percent cut or a 20 percent cut across the board," and those letters would go out to do this. In this instance, in the community living sector, the parents, the service providers and the self-advocates have come together, and we have been working with them in the committee which the member referred to yesterday.

We have had great confidence in the ability of the sector to take more responsibility and to come forward with ways that they believe they can reach those budget targets in a sensitive and responsive way. Those decisions are being made right out there where the service is being provided, rather than removed, where they are being much more prescriptive from the perspective of the ministry.

These decisions and these ideas that have come forward are ideas that are coming from the sector, are coming from joint working committees, are coming from actual service providers who are able to look at and manage them and to say, "This is what we think is the most sensitive and responsive way to be able to move forward," to create options and to move forward with a service delivery model that talks about being more closely aligned to family-based and community-based models of delivery rather than the institutional group home model. We want to shift the paradigm, the model, the structure, closer and closer to community- and family-based models, where we know the outcomes will be much better and the opportunity for a more inclusive, normalized lifestyle will be much greater.

The process has been one that has been very much collaborative, very much giving authority and responsibility to the community to work at and come forward with those numbers. These are numbers, in fact, which have been developed with and primarily out of the initiatives of the community, and the community living sector has been very proactive and positive in their ability to look at those, to manage them and to come forward with where they think the most effective areas for restructuring can be and where we can generate the savings necessary to have a sensitive, responsive system.

Included in that is the issue, which the member referred to, of individualized funding. Individualized funding refers to funding allocated directly to individuals or, in the case of children, to their parents to meet disability-related needs. There are a number of models that have been looked at around the world where individualized funding is in place. In fact, for children under six we have a model in this province now that has been in place for just over a year with individualized funding, and we're wanting to look at moving forward to that with the whole community living sector. In other areas, we looked at the model in New Zealand, where they've actually moved to some individualized funding.

One of the crucial parts, I think, in the community living sector with the developmentally disabled is ensuring that there is that edge between stability and change. Over the course of time, I think in 15 or 16 years, in the New Zealand experience they have moved to about…. I think about 60 to 65 percent of the services are still being provided in the traditional ways and the remainder through individualized funding, but as new clients come into the system, about 80 to 85 percent of them are choosing individualized funding. There's a gradual transition of the system, trying to protect the stability that we need to have for those clients and at the same time creating more options and more sensitive ways of ensuring that we're moving towards a family-based model of service delivery.

J. MacPhail: In this new model, how will the minister determine who is eligible to receive individualized funding? What are the criteria?

Hon. G. Hogg: In terms of those who are eligible for services, the criteria will remain the same. The developmentally disabled who are in need of or are applying for services will have the same test applied to

them in terms of that. The authority will develop a policy around the allocation of that, and it will create some options, again, for parents to choose that. If people requiring services come into the services, a number of them, we expect, will choose individualized funding. A number may choose the more traditional forms of service. We want to create more options and more abilities.

In some instances where it is appropriate for a developmentally disabled adult or individual to remain with their parents, to provide services is not an option which has been available in our system and in our province in the past. That's an option which we want to create. There has to be some policy developed around that option and around how that can most effectively and appropriately ensure that the best service possible is through a parent or through a relative in terms of the service provision model.

The criteria remain the same. The option in terms of the policy to respond to that is being developed through the authority. In fact, in their report, which is on the website, they had a whole committee subsection dealing with the whole issue of individualized funding. There's a very lengthy report and study they have included in their report. It's available for anyone to look at on the website, which gives a great amount of detail with respect to how that would be implemented.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting. Can the minister explain just for the record, before I ask questions about this, what the role of Willow Clinic is in all of this in terms of providing personal plans for people in the community living sector?

Hon. G. Hogg: The Willow Clinic is a 25-bed facility on the grounds of Woodlands. It was intended to be a short-term acute care facility for the developmentally disabled who may be experiencing some acute mental health issues or are difficult to manage within the context of community. It was intended to be a short-term facility. Unfortunately, over the course of the past number of years there have been a number of clients who have been there for an awfully long time.

There is a recognition that it is the vestige of institutional response which still exists in this province, the one large vestige of institutional responses. The role of it is to be eliminated as a facility, and we're looking at other ways to respond to the acute care needs of some of the clients.

There are a number of recommendations that are being looked at by the community living B.C., and our staff are looking at ways of transitioning out of that facility and creating community-based alternatives. We are, again, on the cutting edge worldwide in terms of being able to move to and look at ways of doing that.

I give credit to the past two governments for the movements away from institutionalization in this province. We're now at a point where we can make that next step. The Willow, as I say, is the last part of that. There are a number of community-based alternatives which can be looked at and can be, we believe, equally if not more effective in its response to those types of needs but be community-based in its response.

J. MacPhail: But this is one area…. I have information that there are about 50 residents of Willow Clinic.

J. MacPhail: Twenty-five? Okay. Is the move from Willow Clinic, which is a residence for people with developmental challenges…? How will that save money? What is the budget of Willow Clinic now? What is anticipated to be the budget for meeting the needs of the residents of Willow Clinic after it's closed?

Hon. G. Hogg: In January of this year I gave direction to the chair of community living B.C. to establish a subcommittee of comanagement which would undertake planning for replacement services in the broader context of the whole range of services for duly diagnosed clients from Riverview, Forensic Psychiatric Institute and with the mental health teams, and to consider potential interim measures which would enable an earlier closure of Willow.

The annual budget for Willow is about $6 million. I think, as the member is well aware, when she was in government and they were looking at the movements towards deinstitutionalization, the best services that we can provide to clients are the ones that are safe and appropriate and closer to a home-like, community-based environment. That is the intent of the closure of Willow: to move to and provide better services for these clients.

At the same time, we also know that institutional care is a far more expensive care than community-based care. We anticipate that as we move clients out of there, the cost of placing a client within a community-based resource will be less and will therefore allow us to provide better services to more clients in that venue. From a social work practice point of view, a clinical practice, it is far better to be able to move clients to a community. It is also fiscally less costly to do that and may range anywhere from $40,000 to $50,000 a client — to have them in a community-based environment than have them in an institutional-based environment. Most importantly, it is a response which is more sensitive to the needs of the clients and more appropriate in terms of their long-term well-being.

J. MacPhail: Well, I want to try and separate the wheat from the chaff in this discussion, particularly around community living. I don't think there would be a person in the world who would disagree with the fact that people with developmental disabilities should have the best possible care, that there are several models in which that care can be delivered, that it has to be community-based and that the families have to be involved, if there are families there.

Two things are happening here. Again, I go back to this point: there's a major restructuring with a major

change in governance at the same time that budget cuts are being made. These community-based services already exist. Most of the services to families in the community living sector are already delivered at the local level by local agencies. The two big changes are budget cuts and governance.

I've had feedback from several people. I know this is a very active part of our society, and thank God the advocates are there. They pointed out to me from our debate just yesterday that the governance change is about change in governance, not delivery of services, and that the change, particularly in the community living sector, has nothing to do with bringing services closer to the community level because the services already are at the community level.

Apparently, the model in Alberta, upon which I think this government is certainly modelling itself, has been pretty much panned by the head of the Alberta Association for Community Living. Maybe not panned. Maybe that's too strong a word, but Bruce Uditsky, the head of the Alberta Association for Community Living, said that the new bodies, the new governance model — unelected and appointed by government, political appointees — was less responsive to communities, not more. They had no accountabilities to the communities because they weren't elected like school boards. That's number one.

Of course, the minister will stand up and say: "Well, the ministry wasn't elected either." The point of the matter is that public employees, public servants, are directly accountable to the MLAs who are in the area. At least there's only one stutter step between a ministry service at the local level and the elected body, but moving to this model where there are unelected political appointees, it's another giant stutter step between the families, the clients and elected accountability.

In fact, the conclusion that people in Alberta came to, in the Association for Community Living, is that it was really just an exercise in providing political insulation to government cuts in funding.

I'm still searching — I'm not sure whether I'm searching for an answer from the minister, because I expect he may not be able to give me one — for reassurance that where the model has not worked successfully is not the only evidence upon which the minister is relying. So far the feedback I'm getting is that all of the models that have moved in this direction have not met the community's needs.

Hon. G. Hogg: I take great comfort in the parents across this province, the self-advocates and the developmentally disabled who have shown a great interest in and an ability to create a better environment and a better life for themselves. I take great confidence in the work.

The member made reference to a number of organizations and people in other parts of the world. I take great confidence in the fact that the B.C. Association for Community Living is a part of and a leader in the direction that we're going. The Canadian Association for Community Living is looking at and is a part of this.

I take great solace in the fact that Inclusion International, one of six organizations recognized by the United Nations to deal with the developmentally disabled, has said that the action in terms of the governance we're taking is on the cutting edge, that the world is watching the direction and the focus we are taking, that we have a chance to do something which hasn't been done anywhere else in the world — to create a place where we can look at full inclusion and full participation in citizenship by the developmentally disabled.

I take great confidence and great solace in the fact that there are a lot of parents, a lot of service providers and a lot of caring people who we have given a mandate to develop this model. It's not a prescriptive model dictated by government, but one that's done collaboratively in partnership with the people in that community — people who have been working in that community for a lifetime, people who are parents who have sacrificed and given a great deal to their children to ensure that they have the best life possible.

I can't think of a better group to be leading forward and developing a governance model that is responsive to the needs of the more vulnerable people in this province than parents who have made that type of commitment to their children to ensure that they have the best life possible — to have these type of people stepping forward and saying: "We want to be a part of this. We want to take greater authority. We want to take greater responsibility for this service delivery in a way that makes sense to vulnerable people in this province." I think they are the most caring and the best people possible for us to be giving a mandate to step forward and say, "We will take on responsibility for this, and we will develop this in a way which is sensitive to and responsive to the needs of these most vulnerable people" — rather than the state, which is somehow removed and prescriptive in the dictatorial way that we provide those services.

Yes, those services are being provided today at the community level in a community way, but they're being prescribed in ways that we dictate, rather than being generated out of the community by people who are in that community and caring for the children and the developmentally disabled. I think that's the best possible safeguard we can have — when we have parents out there involved in it, when we have self-advocates involved in their own service delivery in response to that, when we have caring service providers who spend a lifetime working in that and being a part of that.

That's why when we look at the board, when we're talking about the development of a board for community living B.C., we have on our interim board self-advocates and parents. We have the people who have lived their life in that venue, who have given their life to creating a sensitive, caring environment for individuals. We want them to be able to expand that same sense of caring and sensitivity to the whole service of delivery for the community living sector and the spe-

cial needs children which will be a part of that. I believe that is by far the best way to vest, the best place to vest that type of authority and responsibility and responsiveness to the needs of their children.

J. MacPhail: I question what the parents have to say, then. If the government is taking such pride in what the parents have to say on this model, maybe they better save their applause. We can go to the website, the Ministry of Children and Family Development website, that posts parents' comments on the reaction to the proposed model. The reaction on the website is overwhelmingly negative from the very people whose input this minister just said he values — overwhelmingly negative. In fact, every single comment on the website raises serious concerns about the restructuring plans. Then we also can go to the community consultation meetings. Again, the reaction was similar: a huge concern, substantial negative reaction.

I mean, it's all very well and good for the government to say, "These are the opinions we value," and then when the opinions come back in ways raising huge concerns, they carry on as originally proposed. Let me ask this question. Oh, I might also say that the minister says that there's been input from international experts and that he's also got his own internal expert evaluation committee. Both those groups have raised concerns that there are flaws in the model. Some have raised concerns that there are serious flaws in the model.

We've got the public website. Any MLA who cares to go see it — log on — can actually see the parent reaction and the community reaction, and it's not a pretty picture. The community living consultation meetings, the public meetings, ended over a month ago. The minister promised that he would publish the input received. When can we expect that?

Hon. G. Hogg: I have received a summary of the consultation process, and the full report has not been received as yet. There is a letter of instruction which will be going out to community living B.C., the interim board. That will be going out, hopefully, by the end of this week or the beginning of next week. It will also be posted on the website.

The member has made reference to the website. We have been very open about posting all of the comments on the website. Clearly, any time there is change of this magnitude, there is some uncertainty and some concern which is expressed. I'm sure the member is well aware of the myriad of complaints and concerns which existed with the old system, as well, and the challenges that were there. In fact, the member brought up some questions in question period around some of those issues and concerns.

We have had wonderful response to the consultations and to the website, and people putting forward their ideas. The member made reference to some of our expert panels looking at the changes that were taking place. I think the concern expressed through those — the same question and concern the member has expressed — was that at a time of changing the governance model and the service delivery model, you're also looking at cuts in terms of the budgetary requirements that we're going to.

That's what's been unique about this process: the fact that we've entered into this collaborative partnership with a broad spectrum of the community. The vast majority of this community is very much in favour of this change. You can go through the service providers, the organizations and the parents. I'm sure we don't want to get into a battle of numbers, but the vast majority — I'm sure the member's aware of this — are very much in favour of this process.

There are some that have concerns and uncertainties. I've been at those meetings. I've met with parents who have those concerns on some issues. We have to continue to listen and to be sensitive to those and to make sure that the primary goal through this whole process is to ensure that the safety of clients is protected. That has to be the principle as we make this transition: to be focused on the best interests and needs of clients.

The member, in our discussions yesterday, was talking about concern in Children and Family Development with children falling through the cracks. Clearly, that has to be the pre-eminent principle that drives this. I've talked to community living B.C. They're very cognizant of that, and they're very aware of the need to ensure that there is safety and security for clients through this transition, and that is a part of it.

Clearly, as we go through this, there is some uncertainty, as there always is when there are organizational shifts and changes taking place. We're trying to do that in as sensitive a way as possible, listening to and being a part of dialogue that takes place. The fact that we posted everything on the website, again, reflects the strategic shift we've made as a ministry to openness. We're not hiding anything in this process. Everything is out there, and people are listening to, looking at and understanding the process.

We're working our way through that, as I said earlier, with a group of service providers and parents and experts from around the world who are telling us that what we're doing is exactly the right thing to do. It's also a bold thing to do; it's a challenging thing to do. It has inherent in it some uncertainties and some risks, but that doesn't mean we should shy away from the potential of having a system which will be the very best system in the world, a system which will be responsive to moving and ensuring that the developmentally disabled move into full citizenship in this society. We want to do everything we can do to get there.

That takes some challenges to get there, and it doesn't mean we should shy away. It means we should be focused on that vision and make sure we work through the challenges that come through that, the uncertainties that exist with that, and that we have confidence and faith and belief in a community that is

out there and is well developed, very knowledgable, very competent and very prepared to do this with a degree of excellence which I don't think has been seen anywhere else in the world.

J. MacPhail: Well, the government is certainly fortunate to have this minister as a champion of the change. He does a very good job at it, but reality also has to…. [Applause.]

I agree, except that nobody in his government is listening to him. No one in his government is listening to him, because the cuts are proceeding. The change is proceeding, and the rest of his government sits here and goes: "Yeah, that's fine. That's fine."

What there is broad agreement on is the fact that the current system is inadequate — fair enough; the current system is inadequate and not even close to being able to meet the needs — but that it is rapidly slipping into a deep crisis as a direct result of the deepening confusion, the loss of control and the budget cuts.

It's absolutely unbelievable that the colleagues of this minister would sit here and pound their desks in support when the minister is rapidly losing the battle on behalf of the people that he is responsible for. That is the community perception. It's the international experts' advice that the double whammy — and that's what they call it: double whammy — of governance change and deep budget cuts forms dark clouds on the horizon. Yet the government proceeds with that.

I say this with the greatest of respect. The cheerleading by the minister is not backed up by any substance from his own government, and it's not backed up by the community coming on board with him. The community's at the table — absolutely. They don't have any choice but to be at the table. They're at the table with the best possible intention — on behalf of the families, the children, the adults who are affected by these changes — but they certainly don't say they've achieved anything positive. They're putting all of their opinions forward, and what they're getting back are the same cuts, the same reorganization without any guarantees.

In fact, the view of a number of people who have e-mailed me even from last night, and there's a lot of e-mails, is that the interim community services authority is already into the budget-cutting mode. That's what they're doing. The minister said they're working with contractors, clients and the ministry to implement a more responsive and efficient service delivery system. What they're actually doing is ordering agencies to cut their budgets. They've told agencies that they're only supposed to cut the budget with the agreement of the families. But families aren't agreeing to these cuts because they can't agree to the cuts without jeopardizing client safety. Then the agencies are told: "Oh well, then if you can't get family agreement, go ahead. You have to make the cuts anyway." So that's what the current community living services authority is doing, and the big cuts haven't even hit yet.

The other question I had from the public last night…. And I appreciate the public input on this, again. Thank God the public is listening. The minister said that…. Perhaps he could clarify this. He said the social workers were being co-located in community agencies. What did he mean by that? Is he saying that social workers may work for agencies and not the authorities?

Hon. G. Hogg: At this point what I made reference to yesterday was the co-location of a number of social workers. A number of social workers within this province are now co-located with a number of service-providing agencies and non-profit agencies. They still organizationally report through the ministry, they're still employees of the ministry, but they are co-located, so their work site is a site with whatever the service provider may be. Peace Arch Community Services has, I believe, two social workers who are co-located with them, who are continuing to do the work of the ministry but are doing that in a setting that co-locates. So they're becoming more involved in and a part of the broad-based community service delivery model.

J. MacPhail: The minister said two things. I appreciate that clarification, but here's another aspect. He said this: "The ministry is setting in place a structure that allows and provides for agents to provide those services which are now the direct services of the ministry. Social workers currently work directly for the ministry. Youth justice workers and mental health workers work directly for the ministry. They will now be agents working through an agency…." What did the minister mean by that?

Hon. G. Hogg: What I mean by that is that as we move to an authority, the authorities will in fact be the agency or the employer of those social workers as they provide the services in the community.

Hon. G. Hogg: We have joining us in the gallery, and continuing to join us, students from H.T. Thrift Elementary School in south Surrey. They are accompanied by a number of parents and by their teachers, Anna Ferguson and Corinne Issel. They are 42 grade 5 students along with parents. I would ask that the House make them most welcome and wave to them. I actually got to spend part of one school year of mine at H.T. Thrift — just a couple of years ago.

Welcome. Thank you for coming to our Legislature, and I'm sure that you'll find our discussion and debate both stimulating and interesting. Hope you have a wonderful visit to Victoria.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that every single social worker or support worker — service provider — who now works in the Ministry of Children and Family Development will work for an authority and not an agency?

Hon. G. Hogg: At this point in the process we'll be transferring them to work for the authority, so there will be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,800 social workers who will work for the five designated authorities — or the 11 designated authorities if we include the aboriginal and community living authorities. That is the transfer process, and we're in the process of negotiating that transfer in terms of what it will look like, as we discussed yesterday.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister assure the public that there won't be any privatization of social work services?

Hon. G. Hogg: The funding process will continue to be…. It will be the responsibility of the state to fund these. These are not social workers who will be going to for-profit agencies or into circumstances where they would be funded by organizations other than the state. The direct relationship in terms of the funding responsibility will exist with the state, who will provide the funding to the authorities that will be the employers of the social workers. That's the logical transition that takes place. There's no intent to move towards privatization, unless the understanding of somebody may be that privatization means being employed by an authority or a non-profit agency in society.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll leave it at this. The minister gives comfort for 90 percent of his answer and then sends chills for the last 10 percent. I'll leave it up to the public to decide whether it's acceptable when he says that social workers will be working for an agency. Somehow he talks about authorities, and then he adds "or working for an agency." I think what the current families and clients are looking for is an assurance that the only devolution will be to authorities — to the regional authorities — and not beyond that.

So I leave it at that. I think the minister…. Anyway, maybe he needs to tighten up his responses to give comfort to the people out there. People will be watching, when this new legislation is brought in, what the devolution of employees actually means. I'm sure everybody will be watching it with great interest.

Now, we are looking at part of the addition, I guess the minister would say, although it isn't entirely brand-new by any means. It's an expansion of individualized funding over sort of institutional care funding, whether that be through group homes or actual institutions. Everybody's in favour of that where it meets the needs of the client. But let me ask this. The emphasis on individualized funding leads families to believe that…. Families want to know what happens when they oppose individualized funding.

Hon. G. Hogg: This is an issue of choice, so we're creating another option for parents and for clients. If a client or family does not choose to go with individualized funding, they would go with the more traditional funding models which are currently in existence by way of the many service providers out there today. This is creating another option within a context of service delivery which has a continuum that goes from individualized funding, living within a home, to a more institutional-like service delivery model on that continuum. We want to move everyone as close as we can to the community-based or the family-based model, because we know that the outcomes and their ability to participate fully as citizens in our society are much better as we move closer to that. So if they don't choose individualized funding, then they will choose some of the other options which are currently in existence today.

J. MacPhail: So families who have fought for years to have their family member in a group home will not be dislocated from that group home? They will be able to continue residing in the group home?

Hon. G. Hogg: I obviously can't make decisions about what will happen. There are social workers out there making decisions with individual families and individual clients. But group homes will still be an integral and important part of the service delivery model of the authorities and of this ministry in response to the needs of the developmentally disabled.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but I guess that's why my series of questions is leading in this direction. If families or clients themselves oppose individualized funding and they're in a group home, and that's what the family and the community want, will that person be able to remain in a group home, or will a social worker be asked to limit the options and remove that client from the group home?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, it's not the intention of the process to disrupt and cause hardship in the lives of families and the developmentally disabled. We want to have some degree of consistency, some degree of certainty, that will exist there. Decisions should be made, as they always should be made, in terms of the best interests of the client and the family. If the best interests in terms of a case management plan or case conference is that they remain in a group home, then that's where the placement should take place, or it should continue.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move into the area of child protection as it flows from this topic, as well, in terms of restructuring the ministry is undertaking. The minister yesterday suggested that children in care have

increased, I think he said, in the last seven years. I could probably pinpoint the date on which children in care increased. It was as a result of a change in public attitudes arising out of the Matthew Vaudreuil inquiry — a very, very troubling time for all of us, including the ministry. The ministry put its heart and soul into ensuring that child protection met not only the needs of society but also the needs of the public standards of the day. Perhaps the minister could tell me the number of children in care in the years from '00 through to '02.

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the comment the member made regarding the Matthew Vaudreuil instance and the activities and actions that the government and ministry took in an effort to respond as sensitively and appropriately as they could to the tragic case of Matthew…. The member made reference to the media coverage that took place, and certainly there is abundant research in other parts of the world. I've recently read a couple of articles coming out of journals in England that actually talk about and are able to specifically correlate the number of children coming into care to media coverage. As we look at and track the 60 percent increase in the number of children coming into care in this province over the past seven or eight years, you can see the spikes occurring when there is large media coverage.

Certainly, I concur with the member's comments that that growth probably started at that point in time, and that was one of the precipitating factors. There are clearly a number of other factors as social workers are lacking in the confidence that they have the support of the ministry, that they have the support to make the decisions they need to make. The research is also pretty clear that the very best trained social worker applying the best risk techniques and analysis is going to be right about 80 percent of the time, and that doesn't account for false positives or false negatives. We're working in an environment and in an area that even where the application of skills is at its peak, we're not going to be 100 percent accurate in terms of what happens with that. It is media coverage, and there are a whole range of issues in terms of the mix that takes place out there.

We want to ensure that we do support social workers. We want them to know that they have the right and the freedom to make the very best decision that they possibly can, and that shouldn't be dictated by a number of external factors. We need to support them when they make those decisions and know they have the confidence and support of this ministry and this government as they go out doing perhaps one of the most difficult jobs that we ask anyone to do in our society, which is going into a family and making judgments with respect to abuse and neglect of children, and in some cases having to apprehend those children.

The numbers I have are for June 2001. There were 10,748 children in care. January 2003: 9,616. That gives us sort of a current figure of about 9,616. We can go back and I can pull off a graph, an estimate, as to what those numbers are. The member asked that we go back to 2000. It was roughly 10,000 children in care in 2000. In 2001 it was up probably 200. In 2002 it was up again slightly. Then about halfway through the year of 2002 we started to see a decline. That decline arrived at the number which I made reference to, of 9,616 in March of 2003.

If the member would specifically like to have those off the graph and put down in specific numbers, I can certainly have that provided or provide you with a copy of the graph. The graph does show that the numbers were running at about the range of 6,000 children in care or a rate of about 7.5 per thousand of population pretty consistently from '91 to '94.

The Gove inquiry started in late 1995, and the numbers start to climb up there. The report was issued in '97. There had been a steep climb in the number of children in care, and that continued right up and well into the year 2000. If the member is interested in a copy of that graph, we would be happy to provide that to you.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I would appreciate that graph. I'm sorry. Maybe I could just ask for the figure again. What is the current number of children? Was it January '03 that you said 9,616?

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could answer: what is the current average caseload number per child protection social worker now? Does it vary from region to region? How does that compare? Maybe the minister can tell me how that compares with last year's figure. I don't know how the ministry calculates this. Is it on an annual basis ending December 31? Is it a calendar year or fiscal year? If I could have that, please. However the minister calculates it, could you just tell me what it is? That's all.

Hon. G. Hogg: We'd have to do some work to get the specific breakdown in terms of the average caseload for a social worker. That is because a number of social workers do intake and do other parts of the responsibility.

There are about 1,250 social workers, and that number has been relatively consistent over the past number of years. We actually have all of the positions filled now, which is a unique thing within the ministry — that we were able to get virtually all of the positions filled.

The number of allegations of abuse and neglect over the past number of years has averaged about 100 per day, and each one of them has to be responded to and looked at. Over the past six or seven months that's

down to about 90 per day. While the number of social workers has remained the same, as I've said, the number of allegations has reduced, and the number of children in care is down by roughly 1,000.

It would be inappropriate to divide the number of children in care, at 9,616, by the number of social workers — 1,250 — and from that deduce that the caseload was consistent with that. I think that would give a caseload of something like seven or eight. Obviously, that's not an appropriate reflection of the workload because of all the investigations that go into it, the number of children not coming into care as a result of those investigations, a number of other strategies that are put in place by social workers who are resource workers, and a number of other options.

If the member wishes, we could find the number of social workers who are actually carrying specific caseloads and be able to work that out on a regional basis and give you some sense of what those numbers might accurately be.

So none of the 300 people who left the ministry…. All the 300 people who were social workers in child protection who left the ministry from September till now have been replaced in child protection?

Hon. G. Hogg: None of those have left yet. They will leaving March 31. That is the date for them. If the workload dictates that they need to be replaced, then they will be replaced. That will be a determination which will be made based on the impact of workload in the various areas of the province.

J. MacPhail: Well, then let's go through what that means. I want to figure out in a moment how the government's going to determine what is an appropriate caseload.

It's interesting that there's been a 10 percent reduction in allegations of abuse and 1,000 fewer children in care. I want to explore both of those in a minute, if I may, but let me ask this one question about…. I'm trying to get a handle on staffing levels throughout the various regions and what it means for services. We know, because in a recent interview with Doug Hayman, the interim CEO for the interim northern regional authority, he said there were 1,245 children in care in the northern B.C. region, 73 percent of whom are aboriginal.

Let me ask this: is there a change in the number of aboriginal children coming into care?

Hon. G. Hogg: Out of the total volume, the total number, the number of aboriginal children has remained roughly the same. The reductions we've seen have been primarily in the non-aboriginal children, which means that the overall percentage within the whole caseload has increased for aboriginal. I think it was about 40 percent a year ago. As we've seen the reductions, it's gone up to about 45 percent. The numbers have remained relatively consistent in terms of the number of aboriginal children in care, while the number of non-aboriginal children has dropped off. It's an increase in the percentages, but the numbers have remained roughly the same.

What has changed is that we've been able to move more of the aboriginal children into the care of delegated aboriginal agencies. Our numbers now, in terms of those in delegated agencies, are…. Provincewide, about 23 percent of the aboriginal children are in the care of delegated agencies. That represents about 1,000 of the aboriginal children out of a total of just over 4,300 aboriginal children in care.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain the relationship between aboriginal delegated agencies…. I assume the minister is calculating the number of children in care who are the responsibility of a delegated agency in the overall…. The minister is nodding, yes. That's what I assumed. What will be the relationship between the aboriginal-delegated agencies and the aboriginal health authorities?

Hon. G. Hogg: I assume the member means the social service authorities rather than the health authorities, in the relationship with the delegated authorities. The delegated authorities, the aboriginal social service agencies, will be boards composed of aboriginal people who will be making overall policies with respect to their regions for the delivery of services to aboriginal children. They'll be able to develop a coordinated, integrated service delivery model that will respond to the best interests of aboriginal children.

I think it's fair to say that the government of British Columbia has not been as responsive as it could have been or should have been to the needs of aboriginal children. We have in many ways failed them, and we need to get more involved with the aboriginal community in terms of the provision of those services.

The aboriginal community is developing its capacity. It certainly has an interest, a willingness and an ability to provide better services that are more responsive to the needs of their children. We have a great deal that we can learn from aboriginal communities in terms of their utilization of extended families and communities to work with and to manage the issues of protection that arise within their communities. They're prepared to do that. We need to assist and support them to develop the capacity and ability to do that.

As we move to authorities which are aboriginal, the aboriginal-delegated agencies will be funded by the aboriginal authorities in those regions. The aboriginal authorities will ensure that there's a coordinated policy direction that looks at being able to reunify families and to develop safe responses to the needs of at-risk children.

The delegated authorities receive funding directly from the state today. They will in the future receive their funding directly from the aboriginal authority. The aboriginal authority will ensure that there is a coordination of service delivery which meets and focuses

upon the statutory requirements of the act, as well as the community needs of the aboriginal communities, to be able to ensure that they are responding within the context of their families' safety within the context of communities.

J. MacPhail: In terms of the 23 percent of aboriginal children who are in care with delegated aboriginal agencies, amongst that community cohort, has there been a reduction in the number of children in care or an increase?

Hon. G. Hogg: I assume the question to be: is there a difference between the response of aboriginal children within a delegated authority as opposed to those who are not delegated? A very good and interesting question, and I don't have the answer for that. We'd have to go back and do some research to get that, but I think that's a most interesting question.

J. MacPhail: There are three trends here that I find very interesting. I've already mentioned two: the reduction by 10 percent of allegations of abuse and the almost 10 percent reduction of the children in care. Although, I just might say the chart is a little bit confusing. It says here, I think, that as of February '03, which was last month, there were…. Oh, number of children in care and rate per thousand. All right, so it's 10.3 children per thousand that are in care, for a total of 9,616 children. Okay, thank you. It's not confusing.

There's been a reduction of more than a thousand children in care. However, there's been no change in the reduction of either, absolutely or percentagewise…. The percentagewise of aboriginal children in care is increasing — so, boy, some interesting trends that I expect should pique the interest of the ministry.

Is the lack of reduction in the number of children in care because there are more aboriginal children per thousand being born? As I understand it, first nations aboriginals have a higher birth rate. Is that still the case?

Hon. G. Hogg: It is still true, and the birth rate in the aboriginal community tends to be about one and a half to two times the birth rates that exist in non-aboriginal communities. We are seeing a growth in the percentage of children and youth who are aboriginal in this province, and that perhaps is part of the factor that relates to the percentages and numbers the member refers to.

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the hard data, we are certainly working with Vital Statistics to get those numbers. We've also formed a Joint Aboriginal Management Committee which has representation on it from the heads of the First Nations Summit, the Métis nation, the United Native Nations and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs as well as about 12 service providers across the province. The leaders of those service providers meet with me on a regular basis to look at these trends, to look at strategies and to look at models which will ensure that we have a better and more appropriate response to the number of children coming into care.

The aboriginal community is well aware of these numbers and is very concerned by them. As I said earlier, they have an interest, a capacity and an ability to start influencing the outcomes within the context of their communities. As we're looking at it from a statistical basis, a policy basis and a practice basis, it really is important that we start moving to ensure that we're actually having an impact within the context of some of the more rural and remote aboriginal communities in this province and have a response in those communities that is positive and has an impact for the best interests of children.

The strategy that we're employing is one of providing all of the data, information and practices that we can find in other parts of the world and sitting down with the aboriginal leaders on a regular basis to look at how we manage and work towards those. We have provided some funding to the aboriginal leaders to look at some models, to look at reunification of families, and to look at the ECD. I'm sure that my learned colleague, when you discuss with her the issues around early childhood development, will be able to give you a number of the strategies that we've employed in aboriginal communities to look at early childhood development to ensure that we are having positive, healthy starts to the lives of aboriginal and non-aboriginal children across this province so that we can see a reduction in the number of children in care.

There are a number of studies and programs around the world, which I'm sure the member is well aware of, that have actually seen reductions of high-risk and vulnerable families coming into care as a result of positive and healthy Head Start programs. That's part of what we're looking at and managing as we're going around the province and creating a number of help sites to help with the early learning initiatives of aboriginal and non-aboriginal children.

J. MacPhail: Yes, the ministry did say it would reduce the number of children in care by administering family development programs. Perhaps the minister could tell the House what programs are currently being offered. What's the current budget for family development programs, and how does that compare to '02…? Well, let's see. Family development programs — the budget for '02-03, '03-04 and perhaps even '01-02.

Hon. G. Hogg: The budget for family development in '01-02 was $88.28 million. For '02-03 it was $101 million, and it remains at $101 million for '03-04 and '04-05. The reason for this is that we recognize that family development is a crucial part of being able to provide support to families and to ensure that the

best interests of children in terms of social work practice are being addressed by being able to support them within the context of their families. Through that process we are reconfiguring the whole family support funding.

The range of preventative and support services for families. Some examples of those are probably such things as parent self-help groups, family enhancement worker programs, family preservation programs, 1-to-1 child and youth care worker programs, homemaker home support programs, respite care — those types of services which become available to social workers as they are providing services in at-risk families so that they can develop a safe environment for children within their families through the utilization of those types of supports. That's why we have maintained the budget and are looking at and putting greater emphasis on that — so we can ensure that we have better outcomes in safe environments for at-risk children.

J. MacPhail: What role is adoption playing in the reduction in the number of children in care?

Let me put my next question for staff. The minister has acknowledged that there's been about a 10 percent reduction in allegations of abuse. A freedom-of-information request revealed that the number of investigations has dropped by about 20 percent. First of all, what is the minister's explanation for a reduction in the number of allegations of abuse? And why is there a difference between…? Why is there double the drop in investigations as opposed to allegations?

Hon. G. Hogg: With respect to adoption generally, the figures I have are for '97-98 and then 2001-02 and 2002-03. In '97-98 there were 111 children in care that were placed for adoption. In 2001-02 the target was 225 placements, and there were 243 children placed for adoption. This fiscal year, 2002-03, there have been over 300 children in care adoption placements In addition, there are about 267 children already proposed for specific families.

There have been 1,512 children of the 5,000 who are in continuing custody of the ministry that have adoption as their plan of care. Of these, 848 children are registered for adoption, and adoption homes are actively being sought for them. The figure for '01 is 163. In 2000-01 there were 163 adoptions. We do not have those numbers broken down in terms of aboriginal and non-aboriginal children. I suppose we could do that if that's of interest to the member.

J. MacPhail: That is absolutely wonderful news, absolutely wonderful news. I assume, because it's like every year — well, at least every couple of years — there's almost a doubling of the number of children who are being adopted, which is…. I can't tell you how wonderful that is. I assume that must go some way to explaining, partially, a reduction in the number of children in care, which is good news. That's the positive side of the reduction, not that I'm assuming there is a negative side yet.

Can the minister then…? I think this will probably be the last question, or we can do it after lunch if that's the wish of the minister — the explanation of the difference between the reduction in the allegations of abuse versus the number of investigations.

Hon. G. Hogg: I guess I would optimistically suggest there's been a reduction in the number of allegations, hopefully partially because society is becoming better educated and parents are more aware of their obligations and needs with respect to dealing with and working with their children. Also, in terms of the overall numbers, we're seeing a reduction in the number of children in the province. Those may well be factors.

Combined with that, in terms of looking at the reduction in the number of investigations being greater than that, we changed the legislation last year. The legislation required the reporting of such things as bullying in schoolyards. The legislation was changed last year to ensure that it was focused on the issues and allegations that had respect to parents and guardians and the way they were working with their children, so we're no longer investigating those. In fact, those hopefully are also not being reported, so there will be a difference attributable to that.

Also, hopefully, the work that we've been doing in terms of putting more money into family development is creating more options for social workers to work with the needs of families without having to go to a full investigation — as an example, perhaps providing some respite care, perhaps providing a child care worker to assist and support a family so we won't have to be going into full investigations.

When the report comes in, they would have the ability…. The social workers can use that family development budget, which was increased two years ago and will be maintained, to provide supports around the family and not have to go into full investigations, thereby being able to develop a safe care plan for the children within the context of their family with the resources that are provided.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY