Hansard -- Wednesday, March 26, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 5 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5639

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5639
	Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) Hon. M. de Jong Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) Hon. M. de Jong Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27) Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5640
	2010 Olympic Winter Games benefits to B.C. E. Brenzinger High school graduation B. Suffredine University of Victoria Vikes women's basketball team I. Chong

Oral Questions		5641
	Rent increases and consumer price index adjustment J. MacPhail Hon. R. Coleman Amalgamation and integration of police services I. Chong Hon. R. Coleman Streamside protection regulations R. Hawes Hon. J. Murray Physical education in high school curriculum S. Brice Hon. C. Clark Tulsequah Chief mine and Alaska–B.C. relationship D. MacKay Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt Public information on severe acute respiratory syndrome J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins Biotechnology industry in B.C. P. Sahota Hon. R. Thorpe

Tabling Documents		5644
	Brilliant power plant expansion project, major capital project plan

Committee of the Whole House		5644
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2003 (Bill 26)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5645
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2003 (Bill 26)

Committee of the Whole House		5645
	Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid J. Bray

Reporting of Bills		5649
	Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18)

Third Reading of Bills		5649
	Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18)

Second Reading of Bills		5650
	Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22) Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of Supply		5651
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) Hon. G. Hogg J. MacPhail Hon. L. Reid

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from Greece. Petros Tatoulis is a member of the Greek parliament who is visiting Vancouver and Victoria from Athens, and he is taking this opportunity to learn about our system of government. He is accompanied by Eleni Lianidou, the well-known Consul of Greece at Vancouver; her husband, Konstantinos; and George Bonis from the Vancouver Hellenic community. Will the House please give them a very warm welcome.

W. Cobb: In the gallery today is a friend of mine and a community leader, His Worship Mayor Rick Gibson from Williams Lake. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

R. Visser: Today in the gallery is Dr. George Hoberg from the University of British Columbia, the head of forest resources management within the department of forestry. I've got to know Dr. Hoberg over the last year, or year and a half, and have found him to contribute greatly to the discussions of politics and forestry in British Columbia. I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's not often I get a chance to rise and introduce a few people to the House, so today I thought I'd take a moment and introduce to you a dynamic group of women that are here today with my wife, Anneke. These are the movers and shakers of our community in that great Cowichan Valley up the way. With my wife today are Maureen Wince, Norma Williams, Denise McKinlay, Noreen Butt, Lois Cartledge, Liz Hoole, Joan Bronson, Judy Hill, Charlene Swanson, Sylvia Espey, Betty James, Sheila Hobbs and Rosalind Leroy. Would the House please make them very, very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Today in the gallery we have Dan Eisner with the Alzheimer's Society of B.C. Elaine Wright is also with that group. Lynn Jackson, Larry Redoscky and Barbara Lindsay are all here to visit with MLAs and talk about the issues facing people living with Alzheimer's disease. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Bennett: Last night in Cranbrook the Kootenay ICE and the Kamloops Blazers played the longest playoff hockey game in the history of the western hockey league. They played for 136 minutes and 56 seconds, setting the record. The Kootenay ICE prevailed by a score of 2 to 1.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forestry Revitalization Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 28 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm very pleased today to introduce Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act. This legislation is a critically important step in enacting this government's forestry revitalization plan. The plan is a comprehensive one, designed to reinvigorate B.C.'s world-class forest sector so that it can continue to provide its many benefits to the people of this province. As part of the B.C. heartlands economic strategy, the forestry revitalization plan will open up opportunities for new participants in both forest management and wood processing, communities, first nations, woodlot owners and entrepreneurs, thereby creating a more diversified and innovative forest sector that is better able to provide employment and wealth.

The bill I'm now introducing is intended to achieve two essential goals. First, it will allow us to open up new opportunities for British Columbians. Second, it will enable us to introduce a more sensible timber pricing system. This act delivers directly on two of our new-era promises: (1) to increase access to Crown lands and resources to create jobs, and (2) to create a truly market-based timber pricing system. Through this act the government will reallocate harvest rights held by the largest tenure holders to new players and, through an auction, to anyone prepared to pay market rates. About half the tenure reallocated will go to new entrants, including first nations, woodlots and community forests. The other 50 percent to be reallocated will be sold at a competitive price via sealed bid at public auction in B.C.

These are necessary steps. They are difficult steps, but they are necessary to revitalize our forest sector. We are doing so in a way that's fair, open and accountable. That's why the act also seeks to mitigate the impacts of a reallocation of tenure. Two hundred million dollars has been set aside with respect to compensation for companies whose harvesting rights are impacted and a further $75 million for a trust fund to mitigate the effects on workers, to be administered by a trust board. This bill will contribute to a revitalized B.C. forest sector, and everyone in this House understands that that is still the engine that drives B.C.'s economy.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 28 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 29 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: It is equally my honour today to introduce Bill 29. This legislation is also part of the forestry revitalization plan and part of our government's heartlands economic strategy for forest communities.

Today's bill will repeal and replace several sections of the Forest Act, and is designed to ensure that British Columbians get the most from their publicly owned forest resource. With this bill, the government will change cut control requirements. These changes include the removal of minimum cut control requirements that can force licensees to log public forests at a loss. It doesn't make economic sense or environmental sense for forest companies to log when there's no market for the product they produce.

In addition to removing the requirement to harvest even at a loss, the changes to cut control are designed to increase management flexibility. Increased management flexibility is not, however, created at the expense of good forest management.

The bill will also repeal appurtenancy and timber-processing requirements that force licensees to process timber at specific sawmills — or at sawmills they own or operate — even if other B.C. operators might be able to put the timber to better or higher-valued use. Removing those provisions will allow us to follow through genuinely on the desire that I trust we all have to maximize the value for every stick of timber we harvest within British Columbia.

The bill will repeal and replace the requirement that licensees must have written consent from the Minister of Forests before tenures can be subdivided or transferred. It will allow those licences to be more freely subdividable. Tenure holders will be able to transfer licences without penalties and without going through the unnecessary, burdensome task of getting approval and will, for the first time, have another option in accessing fibre besides going to the Crown.

I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 29 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 27 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, my pleasure to introduce Bill 27. This legislation fulfils the government's new-era commitment to make the Ministry of Forests small business forest enterprise program more effective and to put it on a sound commercial footing. The bill establishes the legal authority for the new B.C. timber sales organization. In addition to formally changing the name of the program, these amendments will also establish the position of the timber sales manager and provide the manager with the appropriate authorities to carry out his or her duties and functions respecting B.C. timber sales agreements and program administration.

This bill also is an essential part of the government's forestry revitalization plan, and as such, it is an important element of the government's goal to reinvigorate B.C.'s number one industry: forestry.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery are 28 grade 8 students from Rutland Middle School, and they are accompanied by Ms. S. Neilson. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Brenzinger: Recently, I came across a write-up in our local paper on a Whalley businessman. It's a story about a man who's always brainstorming and thinking up new ways to take advantage of opportunities. Les Victor is a tradesman by day and a toy-maker by night. He is always coming up with new ideas. His latest

creation is a Mukluk Buck, a deer in a moccasin that he believes is a natural for Vancouver's Olympic mascot.

It reminded me that we have people, not just in Surrey-Whalley but in communities across this province, who are eager to take advantage of the opportunities the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games have to offer. We are limited only by our imaginations.

Each community has its strengths, and we need to look at ways to unite those strengths to make Surrey a winning team for 2010 and beyond. We need to work to get the message out that hosting the Olympics in Vancouver-Whistler will bring many benefits to Surrey-Whalley and to communities across this province.

Certainly, Vancouver and Whistler will be the global spotlight, but Surrey-Whalley and the rest of the province have a chance to shine. With the world's attention on B.C., it will be time to showcase all this province has to offer. During the Salt Lake City games, a Surrey sign company had a very lucrative print contract. Maybe Les Victor's idea for the Mukluk Buck mascot will also make the world stage.

We need to find these opportunities. Our businesses, our communities and our entrepreneurs like Les, it's our chance to shine. Now is the time to come together, support the Olympic bid and make plans that will benefit Surrey well into the future. After all, it's a game we are all in together, and we should be all on the winning team.

B. Suffredine: We in this House all know the importance of a good education. Today I have five success stories to share from schools in my riding of young people in the Kootenays who know the importance of getting a good education.

The 2002 Fraser Institute report card on B.C.'s secondary schools shows, in comparing 2002 to 1996, that Salmo Secondary School had a 100 percent graduate rate. Now, that's remarkable, considering that in 1996 that school had a rate of 72.2 percent. J.V. Humphries in Kaslo had a 100 percent graduate rate as well, with a graduation rate in 1996 of 95.5 percent. L.V. Rogers in Nelson had 98.9 percent, compared to 93.6 percent. Prince Charles Secondary in Creston, 99.2 compared to 87.8 percent. Nakusp Secondary had a 92 percent graduation rate in 2002, compared to 77.4 percent. Congratulations to those students and their teachers.

Graduating from high school is a major milestone in an individual's life. Graduates have a far better chance to obtain long-term, stable employment to support a secure, healthy family. We must continue to look for ways to give every single student in our education system the opportunity to graduate with meaningful skills. As Will Rogers once said: "Find a job you like, and you'll never work a day in your life."

This government intends to change requirements so students can take relevant courses that interest them, so they will want to graduate and obtain fulfilling, successful careers. To students entering the stretch this year to final exams, I say: graduation isn't easy, but persevere. It takes commitment and hard work, but the doors that will be opened to you will be far greater when you achieve this goal.

I. Chong: I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the pride and joys of my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the University of Victoria Vikes women's basketball team. On March 10, in front of a capacity crowd, this team of talented young ladies fought their way through a field of tough competition to win the Canadian inter-university sport championship held at McMaster University in Hamilton.

Seeded sixth going into the competition, the Vikes beat the No. 4 seeded University of Winnipeg Wesmen 60-to-51 in the final game, thereby claiming their first championship since the 1999-2000 season. Clearly, this kind of success does not happen overnight. UVic Vikes former head coach, Kathy Shields, did a fantastic job over the years before she passed the torch over to the new head coach, Brian Cheng, a couple of years ago.

Ms. Shields, famous in Victoria for her coaching abilities, groomed Cheng for the job over several successful seasons. When he officially took over the reins for the 2001-02 season, we all knew that it wouldn't take long before success would be had. The combination of gifted players and a talented coach has proved to be a winning one, and the Vikes are lucky to have had one great coach replaced by another.

The proud team returned home to a boisterous reception at the Victoria Airport, where Victorians showed just how supportive we are of our local athletes. For tournament MVP Lindsay Anderson, it was a particularly sweet victory as she was playing her final season with the Vikes.

It is no secret that Victoria produces athletes of Olympic calibre in many areas of sport. Although our temperate climate generally leads athletes to choose summer Olympic sports, winning the Olympic 2010 bid will inspire all athletes to achieve their very best. In Athens in 2004 we will witness talented young athletes, such as Lindsay Anderson, strive to do better than ever before as friends and family cheer her on. But I also look forward to 2010 when I am confident that we are going to have the opportunity to watch athletes come together from all over the world to show their potential and personal best in Vancouver and Whistler.

J. MacPhail: The member for Vancouver-Burrard is running around promising renters in his constituency that rent increases will not include a consumer price index adjustment. To the minister responsible: is his colleague the member for Vancouver-Burrard correct

Hon. R. Coleman: At this point in time we're in the process of drafting the regulation in consultation with the public. We have not made a final decision on the CPI in addition to the rent, and we'll be moving forward in our consultation. The member for Vancouver-Burrard was incorrect in quoting the fact that it was a 3 to 4 percent increase that was anticipated as we said in our press release when we did the act, as the member knows, in our debates. We are moving forward in consultation. The member has certainly brought back the concerns of his community. We're taking those into consideration as we deal with the regulations.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting, because on March 12, 2003, the minister wrote this to the city of Vancouver: "Bill 70 replaces the existing rent review system with a simpler formula to calculate rent increases. These increases will be set by regulation…"

J. MacPhail: "…and will be limited to a small annual increase typically in the range of 3 to 4 percent, plus a consumer price index adjustment." It's signed by the Solicitor General just days ago. So that's the law. That's what was debated. That's what this minister put over his signature. Perhaps the minister could explain to this House why, now, he's somehow saying something different. Is he trying to cover the butt of the member for Vancouver-Burrard?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I wrote in the letter was what I had quoted in the debates. The question had come from Vancouver as to basically what had been said. As I told the member in the debates in the Legislature and as I've said all the way through, including talking to members of Vancouver city council, we are going to listen to the consultation process before we make a final decision.

Regulation, as the member knows, will go before cabinet, and I'm not prepared at this point in time to tell you where that consultation and drafting is, because that's confidential. I can tell you, as I've told everybody, that this will be fair, and it will reinvigorate the rental housing industry in the province. I'm confident the plain-language rewrite in this act is the right way to go, and I believe that when we are finished with our consultation, we will come up with formulas that will satisfy both sides of the public.

J. MacPhail: Once again, we see a new definition of plain language by this government. On March 12 plain language was that it will be limited to a small annual increase typically in the range of 3 to 4 percent, plus a consumer price index adjustment. That was plain language on March 12. Then we had the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who voted for the law, going around to his own constituents, saying: "Oh, don't worry, you'll be exempt from the law."

For the record, will the minister now tell the House: is the member for Vancouver-Burrard correct when he says, "Don't worry, you won't have to pay a consumer price index adjustment," or is the minister himself correct when he wrote on March 12 to the largest city in the province? Which is it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Like I said last fall when we passed this legislation, we would go out for consultation. So we've been in consultation with the Tenants Rights Action Coalition and in consultation with the industry as we moved forward with the formula.

Hon. R. Coleman: In debates with the member, I clearly outlined that we would discuss that formula as we went through to the development of regulation…

I. Chong: Recently, there has been much talk throughout my riding that the government is planning to amalgamate the Oak Bay police department into a larger greater Victoria police department. There has also been talk that Oak Bay police services are to be integrated. This is causing much confusion and concern. Many of my constituents want to know what is meant by the term "police integration." Will the Solicitor General clarify once and for all, for my constituents and others, the difference between police amalgamation and police integration?

Hon. R. Coleman: Amalgamation is usually when one or more police forces come together under one command structure, one administration and one uniform. Integration is when you take the operation of various police forces and integrate them outside of

Hon. R. Coleman: …where you deal with things like ident, forensics, homicide investigation, sexual assault and those types of serious crimes that would be dealt with. Both options always require a great deal of leadership. We are presently in discussions with regard to models and policing across the province, but at the very basis of policing, integration is the minimum, including the fact that we have to have data communication management integrated, which we're doing through PRIME and CREST and E-Comm. I'm confident that we are building models so we won't have silos and borders in policing, and we are working on various models in policing in regions across the province so we can build strong policing in the future of British Columbia.

R. Hawes: In the dying days of the NDP government, they implemented a non-scientific, prescriptive streamside protection regulation that robbed thousands of British Columbians of the use of their property. That regulation, in fact, is so nonsensical that you could build an oil refinery 31 metres from a creek, but you couldn't build a picket fence 29 metres from that same creek.

R. Hawes: In our New Era document the government committed to implementing a new streamside protection regulation that was based on science. It's sustainable and principled and will actually benefit the environment. To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: can she tell us when she will be prepared to deliver on this promise?

Hon. J. Murray: I agree with the member opposite that protecting streams and fish habitat is an important objective. Yes, the regulation brought in just before the election was a clumsy attempt at meeting those challenges. It led to confusion, it led to uncertainty, and it led to problems.

We've been working to address this problem. We've been working to create a science-based, results-based approach that will actually improve and protect the condition of streams and fish habitat. I'm very pleased with the progress that we're making in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on this issue, and I hope to have more to say in the coming few months.

S. Brice: My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister will recall that last year I suggested that the government make physical education mandatory for all students in the province. The minister responded at that time by saying that all grad requirements were under review, and the fact that physical education would be considered in that review. Would the minister advise when the results of that review might become available?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, we expect to be in a position to announce the results of that review in the coming month or so — certainly this spring. We've wrapped up a very long, involved, extensive consultation on all of the matters that we've proposed. We had great input from teachers, administrators, school districts and from parents and students themselves.

This particular proposal attracted a lot of interest amongst students, in particular. It attracted a lot of interest from parents and from school districts who were concerned about, perhaps, the costs. Our goal in this is to make sure that kids who graduate from high school go into the rest of their lives with a love of physical activity. Our goal isn't necessarily to teach them a sport or to get them to run around the field a couple of times every day. We are looking at everything that we heard. We'll make the decisions based on all the input we had, and I certainly appreciate the input that we had from this particular member on what is a very, very important topic.

D. MacKay: My question is to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. The project approval certificate granted to Redfern Resources for the Tulsequah Chief mine near Atlin, British Columbia, offers a tremendous opportunity for my constituency and all of northwestern B.C. The construction phase alone for this mine is expected to create 300 jobs, with 260 jobs to come once the mine is in operation. This economic activity is critical to my constituency, but it's dependent on the cooperation of our Alaskan neighbours. What steps, if any, has the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations taken to ease Alaska's concerns surrounding this project?

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: As the member is aware, Alaska has historically been very negative on the Tulsequah Chief mine project and has repeatedly called for review of this project by the International Joint Commission. However, over the past 22 months we've been working very hard to repair our relationships with Alaska.

I'm happy to report that by engaging Alaskan and U.S. federal representatives on the mine committee and in related review processes, the Alaskans are no longer

interested in referring the Tulsequah Chief project to the International Joint Commission. I think this speaks volumes to the open and cooperative relationship that our government has been building with the state of Alaska.

Just a few weeks ago I met with Alaska's Lieutenant-Governor, the economic development commissioner and other Alaskan officials on this issue. At these meetings the Alaskans expressed support for the Tulsequah Chief mine project and indicated that they were looking forward to continuing good relations with the province of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I wish to do a little bit of public service right now to the Minister of Health Planning. There's increasing concern about SARS, particularly as people move between Pacific Rim countries. Ontario is taking steps, but in my view, to the credit of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, Ontario is merely catching up to what B.C. has already done. But the problem is going to increase.

One aspect, though, is that all of the work that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control is doing is not linked, as far as I can tell at this time, to the government information website or telephone line. I'm wondering whether the minister can inform us of her plans to actually ease the path by which people can obtain information about SARS and if the minister could use this time to inform the public about what action is being taken, particularly around airport entry.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Very important question. SARS is severe acute respiratory syndrome. We have 19 cases in Canada, 18 of which are in Ontario and one suspected case here. I can tell you that our provincial health officer, our B.C. Centre for Disease Control, public health officials, health authorities, physicians and labs — everyone — are on high surveillance, very vigilant in making sure that we are identifying cases.

Health Canada, as well, has sent out a travel advisory saying not to travel now to countries that have been affected: China, Hong Kong, Asian countries and some countries in Europe where we know the pathogen, the disease, is showing up. Health Canada as of yesterday has put officers into airports. One of them is in Vancouver Airport giving travellers an advisory on what to look for as far as symptoms and what to do — to report to a doctor or a hospital or a physician. Certainly, the symptoms are shortness of breath, high fevers, difficulty breathing. Our public health officials are screening cases.

You're absolutely right, member. Perhaps there needs to be more information on the website. I'll ask the provincial health officer for ways to get that information out. I thank you for that question.

P. Sahota: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. I understand the minister recently met with members of the B.C. biotech and biotechnology community. The growth of this industry is especially important to the city of Burnaby, as it is home to a large portion of the province's biotech firms. Can the minister provide my constituents with an update on the outcome of this meeting?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, I met last week with senior members of the British Columbia biotech sector on ongoing discussions on how we can grow and work together so the biotech sector is a global leader right here in British Columbia.

Since June of last year, our government has committed over $900 million to advanced education and research which is going to drive the development of the biotech sector in British Columbia. This was a new-era commitment we made to British Columbians, a new-era commitment we're keeping to British Columbians. Under the leadership of the Premier, we are working with the biotech sector to bring the very best and brightest back to British Columbia and to retain the very best and brightest here in British Columbia.

The industry has provided me with a document called Getting There, and working together in partnership, our government will be moving forward with the biotech sector to grow that industry in British Columbia, to create investment in British Columbia and to have more jobs here in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I wish to submit the major capital project plan for the Brilliant expansion project, pursuant to section 14 of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 26; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 26, Supply Act (No. 1), 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The Chair: Members, we're going to recess the House just for five minutes to allow the Leader of the Opposition to finish her media scrum. We'll recess until 3 o'clock.

J. MacPhail: This is the section that is entitled "No discontinuance without authorization." That's a way of saying that if a ferry operator is going to shut down a route, they have to have the authorization of the commissioner.

What legislative requirement is there for public consultation around the elimination of ferry services?

Hon. J. Reid: It's subsection (5) that talks about the public hearing, and subsection (4) that gives the authorization for a public hearing.

J. MacPhail: But it's up to the commissioner. It's permissive. Public hearings are not mandatory.

I'm sorry. I apologize. I can't remember exactly what the minister's answer for this was. Is this commission modelled after the Public Utilities Commission? Okay. In the Public Utilities Commission, hearings are mandatory. Why are public hearings only permissive here?

Hon. J. Reid: We looked at different models with commissions and how they worked. One of the concerns is that public hearings can be very time-consuming and costly. We tried to anticipate under what circumstances…. There might be a circumstance where there might be a bridge where the ferry would no longer be needed. To have a requirement that they must could, again, be a very redundant situation. Clearly, the commissioner's role in protecting the public good, we believe, is laid out. In order to try to have a model that's going to be cost-effective and relevant, we believe that the language here is a "may" instead of a "must."

J. MacPhail: In the circumstances the minister describes, it makes sense not to hold a public hearing. But is it the minister's understanding that where a route that exists now — let's say one of the core services — is being discontinued, a public hearing will be held?

J. MacPhail: Section 50 is how one appeals the decision of a commissioner. One has to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal on a question of law. Why was this determined as the route for appeal?

Hon. J. Reid: We have the full intention that the commissioner is independent and certainly independent from government. We do anticipate that people could be unhappy with the commissioner's decisions, including ferry operators. We believe that the commissioner's decisions need to be able to stand. We want to take the "political" out of it. We want to make sure that if there is an appeal, it's based on a question of law.

J. MacPhail: This was a section that caught my attention. We'll start with the word "interesting." The commissioner's expenses are to be paid for by the ferry operators. We have a situation where the commissioner is independent, as the minister just acknowledged in her previous remarks, yet the expenses are paid for by the ferry operators. Why?

Hon. J. Reid: Again, in looking at commissioners — how they're set up, what works, what doesn't work — this is consistent with the BCUC model. This is one place where that model does work and does seem applicable. As well, in the transportation sector this is a model that's commonly used.

J. MacPhail: How does one then guarantee…? I guess the reason why BCUC doesn't…. The link with BCUC expenses being paid by, for instance, Hydro is

that it is a Crown corporation. It is subject to public scrutiny — the relationship between those two. The ferry operator is not going to be subject to public scrutiny at all. We'll get to that in a moment. How does one ensure a proper relationship, a relationship without interference, when there is no public scrutiny?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm not entirely sure that I've got the full context of that question. The budget of the commissioner will be transparent in that it will be part of government estimates. With regard to BCUC, it does have authority over non-government entities as well — that pay for that. Again, I'm not sure if I'm missing something here in the context of the question.

J. MacPhail: Maybe I just need more information, then. The commission will be subject to public scrutiny through estimates — the budget of it — and subject to FOI?

J. MacPhail: Section 65 is the first clause of division 7, "Obligations of Ferry Operators," and it requires the ferry operator to provide to the commissioner quarterly reports. What requirement is there to make these reports public?

Hon. J. Reid: Two parts to this. One is that every decision order that the commissioner makes is made public, but as well, everything the commissioner receives is subject to FOI.

Hon. J. Reid: I move the amendment to section 69 that's in the possession of the Clerk.

J. Bray: As I discussed yesterday, I had some areas with respect to Bill 18 and how it will deal with new opportunities for ferry operators and for economic activity and entrepreneurship. Certainly, the minister was very, very helpful in her questions.

Just a few more, Mr. Chair, on section 69 that I would like to canvass, if I may. Section 69 talks about additional or alternative service providers. Subsection (1) talks about how the ferry operator must on an ongoing basis seek additional or alternative service providers to provide, under contract — franchise agreement or otherwise — ferry services on the designated ferry routes serviced by the ferry operator. Clearly, my reading of this would be that this is an opportunity for entrepreneurs and other business operators to engage in negotiations with the ferry service operator around the ability to provide services on designated routes. Is my understanding there correct?

Hon. J. Reid: There was an amendment to section 69. The addition to this section refers to a plan that is required for every performance term, so that the commissioner has something to work from to ensure — exactly as the member said — that competition is indeed fostered, that there is an active pursuit of alternate delivery in order to get the best service for the most cost-effective means.

J. Bray: This section also talks about additional service. Certainly, any entrepreneurs who are watching would be interested to just understand that there is the potential, I would suspect, given especially what the

minister has just said, that additional could mean that on some non-designated routes there may be some form of competition should entrepreneurs look at different ways of delivering ferry service for different types of customers, and that there is an obligation under this section to ensure that the Ferry Services operating company does deal with any of those proposals in a fair and open manner, and that is what the intent of 69 is to ensure.

I just want clarification. Is my understanding of section 69 with respect to that correct — that the ferry service operator does have an obligation to deal with people who have proposals in a fair and competitive manner to allow those opportunities in various coastal communities to occur?

Hon. J. Reid: The intent here is that the B.C. Ferry Services would be looking at alternative means of providing service that are commercially viable. So when we're talking about alternative service providers, for them to seek an alternative service provider that would actually make their routes not commercially viable would not be in accordance with what the commissioner has set out to do and what the intent here is.

I would like to refer the member back to section 40(1)(f). This is talking about, again, the requirement that the commissioner looks at with regard to the proposals that the Ferry Services has received and how they've handled it to make sure that they're looking at every efficiency, and they're truly looking for ways of reducing costs for the benefit of all people in British Columbia. So that's here. Again, I just want to clarify the member's words. This is to make sure that the service is commercially viable, and certainly not to foster competition in the sense that would render the current core service as not commercially viable.

My final question on section 69 is with respect to the discussion about alternative and additional. Certainly, it is anticipated that the ferry service operator may well be looking to expand opportunities and expand services on non-designated routes, so that in fact we may get enhanced ferry services throughout the coast. I just want to sort of make sure that I finish on that. My understanding of section 69 fosters that and ensures that the ferry services operator has an obligation to ensure they're dealing with those, so it in fact enhances services and opportunities for existing routes but also for potentially new routes that aren't currently in the system. I just want to make sure I understand section 69 correctly.

Hon. J. Reid: Absolutely. The intent is to provide better service overall to the people of coastal British Columbia, and that there is a diligent effort to search for new ways of providing customer service. The more people travelling on ferries, the better off we're all going to be served and the healthier our economy. So built into this is the requirement that those opportunities are diligently pursued and that the commissioner, in fact, has the opportunity to take a look at that and offer a punishment if that hasn't been the case.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting — the questions from the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. We're not talking about the provision of lattes here; we're talking about transporting passengers. Or are we talking about both, in terms of having to provide alternate service?

J. MacPhail: What's the thinking behind this clause? I mean, I understand what the minister just said about wanting to expand service. It's an admirable goal, and it's one that I support completely, but I thought that's why we're creating the authority. I thought that's why we're doing what we're doing here. What's this next step all about?

Hon. J. Reid: Indeed, the intent of this is that B.C. Ferry Services is going to be responsible for delivering coastal ferry service for British Columbia. They have many different ways of being able to accomplish that within the contract they're going to have with government. So that's the intent.

What we've done here with the legislation, in spelling this out and building it into the role of the commissioner, is to make sure, indeed, that happens, that the public good is served, that people have the confidence they're not going to be taken advantage of in some way and that there's a responsibility back that we are…. This is a large move for the province to send this out to a private sector company that's governed by the authority. To make sure people have the confidence that their rates are going to be kept as low as possible, this new corporation has to look for every means possible in order to achieve that.

I'm sure the member opposite trusts the good intentions of businesses, but we also believe it's important to very carefully make sure that that intent is very clear, because the result at the end of the day is that people on the coast will receive good services at the lowest cost possible.

J. MacPhail: This is where the Washington Marine Group will be able to use the fast ferries and provide a bid on alternative service. That's good news.

But what happens to the workers who are providing the service that will now be contracted out?

Hon. J. Reid: In looking at the provision of services, currently, as the member is well aware, services are contracted out, and workers' rights are protected through the collective agreement. That doesn't change, going forward. We're looking at the possibility of other services, but again, the workers' rights are going to be protected under the collective agreement.

J. MacPhail: This is "Offences"; it's the section that deals with offences and penalties. It says that section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply. Why?

J. MacPhail: I'll try and move on until…. I don't want to pass the clause, but it's just a technical question anyway.

J. MacPhail: Section 74 exempts the B.C. Ferry Authority from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I'm going to read into the record some concerns raised by the office of the information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia. It encompasses section 74 but also has some questions under section 83 as well.

I'll just read into the record the concerns, if I may, to get the minister to answer them. It's dated March 13, to the minister, and it was copied to me by the commissioner, along with several other people as well. It's his comments on Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act.

I'm going to stop here. This is from the information and privacy commissioner. He has another point, but I'm going to stop here. The minister has just acknowledged that the commission and the authority would be subject to FOI, but as I understand it from this letter, there's no legal reinforcement for that.

Hon. J. Reid: We certainly take the comments of the office of the freedom of information and protection of privacy commissioner very seriously. I would just like to read into the record some four parts in response to the general questions that have been asked. Indeed, as the member has raised, these are important questions and deserve answers.

With regard to the new ferry service being exempt from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, this legislation does not apply to independent companies that are not agents of the Crown. While the new company will not be subject to the legislation, B.C. Ferry Services will have multiple points of public accountability, which include an annual general meeting of the authority, annual public meeting of B.C. Ferry Services, publication of an annual report with audited financial statements and the Web posting of annual public surveys. The commissioner will also issue a report annually to the Legislature.

The freedom-of-information legislation will apply to the coastal ferries services contract, and records of the B.C. Ferry Corporation prior to conversion to a company under the Company Act continue to be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. B.C. Ferry Services will be subject to private sector privacy legislation in January 2004.

Another question raised by the letter is about the operating agreements entered into between the province and the operating company that require the operating company to make available to the public, on a regular and timely basis, reports and records relevant to the safety activities and experience of the operating company. B.C. Ferry Services will continue to circulate reports on safety incidents to the fleet and to its library, as in the past.

In looking at the coastal ferry commissioner and the B.C. Ferry Authority and their status, the coastal ferry commissioner will be added as a public body under the Freedom of Information Act by regulation of the Minister of Management Services. This regulation is being processed to be effective April 1, 2003, and no consequential amendment is needed. The B.C. Ferry Authority will not be a public body under FOI. The records of the authority will be limited and will largely relate to the business of the authority board — that is, bylaws, nominations, appointment processes for the authority, the B.C. Ferry Services board of directors meeting minutes, etc. All these records will be kept in the head office of the authority and made available to the public as per section 17 of the act.

With regard to safety and transparency regarding safety issues, the regulation of coastal ferry safety is a

responsibility of the federal government through Transport Canada. Each vessel is issued a safety certificate on passing inspection. This certificate must be displayed in a public place on board the vessel pursuant to the Canada Shipping Act and regulations. In the event of an incident or accident, the Transportation Safety Board investigates and publishes a report pursuant to the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

That covers off a lot of different points in the letter. If there are any further questions, I would be glad to take them.

J. MacPhail: Just in reverse order, then, the safety record and the activities of the operating company, which was the next point the FOI commissioner made in his letter, will not change, then. It is now the responsibility…. As B.C. Ferries is a provincial Crown corporation, the safety activities are judged and recorded and reported by the federal government now, and that won't change.

J. MacPhail: The commissioner's other point was: why not make a consequential amendment now for the commission? But the minister is offering assurances that the Minister of Management Services is, by regulation, making that change effective April 1, 2003.

Hon. J. Reid: On section 70(5), about "section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply." The offences are spelled out here. The legality around this would be that every place in the act where it says "must" would be an offence, and we don't see that that's appropriate. What's technically an offence is spelled out, but it doesn't mean that every single thing where it says "must" actually automatically becomes an offence under that definition.

J. MacPhail: Section 81 exempts the B.C. Ferry Authority from the Financial Administration Act. Is it 81? Yes.

Then section 82 exempts the Ferry Authority from the Financial Information Act. Is it the minister's understanding that the role provided by publicizing activities — the role played in both of those pieces of legislation by publicizing activities — will now be taken over by the commission?

Hon. J. Reid: The answer is pretty straightforward. I think maybe I was looking for something more complex.

As it's no longer a public body, it then no longer gets treated as a public body. For example, there isn't a role for the auditor general. It moves into requiring its own auditor. It just announces those changes. It is no longer a public body.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I understand that that's why those consequential amendments…. I actually thought I was doing a soft lob to the minister.

The information that's provided by those acts will now be the jurisdiction of the commission. In other words, what financial information does and financial administration does is demonstrate publicly, in a very technical way, how expenditures have occurred in a certain range, etc., and what information is available. I assume that the commission now will examine every aspect of accounting and money flow in terms of reaching its conclusion on an appropriate price level. In other words, I'm hoping that the commission will play that transparent role.

Hon. J. Reid: Very clearly, the commissioner does not take on the role of auditor, but the financial statements of the B.C. Ferry Services have to be filed with the commissioner and, therefore, become public at that point.

Hon. J. Reid: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

I'm pleased to present Bill 22, the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, for second reading here today. This act is part of our commitment as a ministry to streamlining regulations, cutting red tape and providing for safe, sustainable and liveable communities. This bill makes several minor amendments to five different acts: the Heritage Conservation Act; the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act; the Local Government Act; the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3); and, finally, the Vancouver Charter.

First of all, with respect to the Heritage Trust, I think this is probably the most substantial change that's contained in this amending bill. With the legislation we're enacting here — the Heritage Conservation Act amendment — the Heritage Trust will wind up its operations by the end of fiscal year 2002-03. The core review process and our fiscal realities indicated that this small Crown corporation is no longer effective or sustainable. With this amendment, some of the remaining funds of the trust will go toward the new B.C. heritage legacy fund.

I was delighted just a couple of days ago to join some of the leading heritage organizations in the province to sign a memorandum of understanding at Emily Carr House — a very suitable location for that. We signed an MOU that would have the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ministry contributing a total of $5 million to a new endowment fund for the creation of a new B.C. heritage legacy fund. That includes a $500,000 contribution from the outgoing B.C. Heritage Trust towards that $5 million endowment fund.

We believe and are very confident that this amount will be matched in the months ahead through the fundraising efforts of the heritage community in British Columbia. The $5 million is going to be placed with the Vancouver Foundation, and of course we're looking to see the vigorous efforts of heritage organizations in the province as they move to build that new non-governmental trust to perhaps a $10 million or $20 million level.

The two partners that we have in the new trust are the Heritage Society of B.C., the largest of the heritage groups in the province, as well as the Land Conservancy of B.C., again another well-respected conservation organization joining with certainly a very large, very well-respected heritage group in the Heritage Society of B.C. Together they will establish a new non-profit entity to direct the development and stewardship of the B.C. heritage legacy fund. This new body will be a non-profit, non-governmental entity, like many trusts around the world. Perhaps the best known of these is the British National Trust, started back in 1893 with just three members and very small resources. We're hopeful that we will see the same kind of future in the new heritage trust that we have created outside of government.

This, we believe, is the best possible way to conserve and build heritage resources in British Columbia and to bring on or spur greater public involvement. The outgoing B.C. Heritage Trust, which this amendment deals with, has not been a popular recipient of bequests, donations or endowments from individuals, families or corporations. That's because it's part of government. People don't generally feel that they need to give more to government directly. I think they will be far more supportive of the new trust, which we are creating outside of government.

Prior to March 31 the Heritage Trust will also be issuing several important grants to support heritage initiatives among a variety of organizations in the province. In fact, all existing trust project commitments will be respected, with funding in place before the trust winds up at the end of the month. We are looking for great things here, and I think all British Columbians will welcome this change as a great step forward.

In terms of the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, the amendments we are introducing are minor in character. The act will be streamlined with changes to the advisory council appointments and will be modernized with references to first nations.

There will be two amendments to the Local Government Act. One will clarify that local governments can waive development cost charges for not-for-profit supportive living developments, which is part of our commitment as a government to providing new supportive living units — 5,000, in fact — in British Columbia. This is not a policy change. It's a clarification of something that many municipalities have already done around the province, which is to assist in the development of new not-for-profit supportive living developments by waiving development cost charges. This simply clarifies that that is something they will be able to do.

It will also remove the requirements for the provincial government appointments to a board of variance — again, a piece of red tape removed, which I think will be quite universally welcomed as we move forward. These boards deal with the individual appeals of local zoning and land use bylaws, and these are, of course, matters which are local in nature.

This amendment is consistent with the principles of the community charter. It preserves an important citizen appeal mechanism at the local level but removes

the provincial government's role in that process. This is also seen with today's amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. As with the Local Government Act, we're responding to local government requests to address specific local issues, including validating the industrial park development service provided by the Sunshine Coast regional district since 1989; enabling affected municipalities to carry out the terms of the court-ordered arrangement for the sale of Skeena Cellulose to the NWBC Timber and Pulp Ltd. and finally, under the Local Government Act, helping the Northern Rockies regional district better meet the governance needs of their community through a new approach to elections. Of course, we'll be providing greater detail with respect to this as required at the committee stage of our discussions.

We've also had requests for changes from Vancouver through the Vancouver Charter. These amendments mean that, for example, security alarm permit appeals can be heard by a member of the Vancouver police board rather than by the entire board, obviously allowing the police board to concentrate on other matters not requiring the whole board to be there for the consideration of something that doesn't require the full-board consideration.

As well — and again, this is a request from the city of Vancouver government — under the Vancouver Charter business improvement areas can remove graffiti on private as well as public property in their areas. This will save time, it will save money, and it will certainly help in maintaining the health, safety and security of the community of Vancouver.

In conclusion, today's amendments reflect our commitment to reducing red tape and onerous regulation, and are certainly part of our continuing work with other governments and with communities to improve the day-to-day lives of British Columbians and, of course, to build through strong communities a stronger British Columbia.

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

Hon. G. Abbott: 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 22, Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, 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. Reid: I call estimates debate, Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. G. Hogg: If I may comment, the member had asked a question with respect to adoptions and the number of aboriginal children that were placed with adoptions. The number as of January 31, 2003 — within that year — was 111, which is 44 percent of the adoptions. The non-aboriginal children placed were 139, which was 55.6 percent of the adoptions.

K. Stewart: Today we have with us, from the beautiful town of Maple Ridge, councillors Jon Harris and Judy Dueck. Accompanying them today, for the Municipal Finance Authority, are Jake Sorba and Paul Gill. Will the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: That information about adoption is very heartening. Congratulations to the ministry.

The minister was explaining why there's a difference between the reduction in the allegations of abuse by 10 percent versus the investigations of abuse, which have been reduced by 20 percent. He explained that it was amendments to the definition of "abuse" under the amendments introduced in the Child, Family and Community Service Act.

I must say that concerns have been raised about last fall's amendments to the Child, Family and Community Service Act. The old guidelines said that any suspected abuse of a child is to be reported to social workers. But teachers are now worried that they're not able to report abuse that happens in the form of bullying at the school. Therefore, they are not able to report any potential abusers other than parents.

There are two things that arise. One is the issue of bullying at the school. Secondly, if the teacher suspects a relative or another party of abuse, there is no avenue to report that. What has the minister done to address those concerns?

Hon. G. Hogg: We certainly are aware of the issue and have had discussions with the Ministry of Educa-

tion and the B.C. School Trustees Association. The provincial director of child protection is in discussions with them currently. We're developing a protocol to ensure that there is no slippage with respect to that.

I should point out that the amended legislation ensures that the responsibilities and the duties do parallel the child protection workers' authority to act. It is consistent with the practices as they exist in other provinces in Canada. Certainly, if there are any issues which take place, they can still be reported. There is a responsibility for the social worker to be satisfied with respect to those.

The issues that the member highlighted, those within the bullying in the school yard — the police are usually involved in those. The police will make decisions about whether or not they believe that a social worker should be involved in those, in many instances.

This came forward as a result of social workers being called, in many cases, to bullying instances with the police there — then the police being fully involved in the matter, and the social workers not having any responsibility or involvement. We were trying to focus the responsibility of the social workers with respect to issues of abuse and neglect, specifically around the areas where they have a duty and a responsibility to work under the act, rather than the investigative part of it — which is in the bullying section I'm referring to — where the police have a responsibility. We're trying to make it clearer and more specific in terms of the response.

J. MacPhail: The minister says that there's a protocol being developed with the Ministry of Education. What are the time lines of that being completed, and how will the protocol be distributed to teachers so that they understand the new guidelines?

Hon. G. Hogg: It will certainly be completed before the end of the school year. The B.C. School Trustees Association is a part of it, and the school trustees, so it will be circulated through them. I assume the BCTF will also be a part of the circulation of that information. Certainly, the BCSTA is at the table with respect to this.

J. MacPhail: I have two more areas of examination in the area of child protection. The first one is almost some case work. In the fall of 2002 we heard about a two-year-old child who died while in the care of Shawn Mackinaw of the Stó:lô nation. He's been charged with second-degree murder. There was an issue, as I recall, that the agency responsible for child services with the Stó:lô nation had been contacted about this child, but no significant action had been taken. What is the investigative role of the ministry in this particular situation where, I believe, there is a delegated authority?

Hon. G. Hogg: The director of child protection is still responsible for a full review and investigation. We did, over the course of the last year, delegate the role of director of child protection into each of the regions. There are five directors, one in each region, as well as the provincial director. The director for the Fraser region is fully responsible for ensuring that the ministry protocols, the ministry standards and legislation were followed and that practices and procedures were followed in terms of investigating that. It's the same investigative process that would take place should the death have occurred in a non-delegated agency.

J. MacPhail: What resulted from the investigation? What changes, if any, were made?

Hon. G. Hogg: The investigation is not complete as yet. In some instances these types of investigations can take eight or ten months or more. This one is more complex inasmuch as there is a criminal investigation that is paralleling it, and so there has to be some coordination with respect to that.

Hon. G. Hogg: The information that comes out as a result of the investigation will be confidential information which will be protected under the act. It is common practice to do a summary of that, and so a summary would be provided. Certainly, if there were anything to be learned out of it in terms of policy or practices, those would be acted on, and those could be made available if the member is interested. We could certainly do a severed copy of the report as well — not knowing, obviously, how much would have to be severed in order to meet the directions of the act.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the offer. My reason for raising this is to ensure that what is already in place in terms of delegated authority and responsibility for children by the aboriginal community is working, and that before we move even beyond what's in place now, we learn from the practice that's existing now.

My last area of questioning, in terms of child protection, is in the area of the safe care act. When can we expect a safe care act to be introduced?

Hon. G. Hogg: It should be introduced in '04-05 — is the intent. There is a discussion paper which is being developed and will be circulated within the context of this year, and further discussion with respect to it. We would then be going forward through the traditional RFL, request for legislation, and the processes which are followed with that, and then have it introduced in '04-05.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister…. I understand, Mr. Chair, that future policy is not a topic for discussion in estimates, but can he say what the issues are that are causing delay on this?

Of course, there was a piece of legislation that had been passed by the previous government. This gov-

ernment said the implementation of that legislation was difficult and therefore repealed it, as far as I can remember, or didn't proclaim it. Then there was a promise that the bill would be introduced last spring. Then the introduction was delayed to 2004, and now we hear that it will be '04-05, which I expect may mean…. With the addition of the '05, it could mean closer to '05 than '04. What is the process that the minister is engaging in to reach an introduction date, and with whom is he consulting?

Hon. G. Hogg: As I mentioned, there is a position paper which is being developed and will be developed over the course of the next few months. That will be posted on our website. It will be circulated to stakeholders, and the proposed tabling of legislation will be in the spring of 2004.

I'm going to move to special needs. I'm going to begin with children with autism. A group of 23 parents have filed a lawsuit against the province seeking full funding for the…. Actually, I can wait if…. Sorry, is this the…? Oh, okay. Is it okay if I proceed on this? All right.

Twenty-three parents have filed a lawsuit against the province seeking full funding for Lovaas therapy for children with autism. They argue that the ministry has not provided sufficient funding. One-third of the families in the northern region who need it are receiving some funding, but apparently there are over 100 families in total who need it. So what is the status of the funding for children with autism?

And I believe that the Supreme Court of B.C. has recently ruled that…. No, I'm sorry. I think the original ruling was that the Supreme Court said that funding for autism programs is a constitutional right, but I understand that the Liberal government appealed that decision and is now proceeding. What level of court are they appealing that to?

Hon. L. Reid: I thank the member for the question, but I can tell you that the government is not taking issue in terms of the funding of services for autism, so that is proceeding.

We currently have 500 children with autism spectrum disorder, and their families are receiving early intensive behavioral intervention services. The community living services authority is committed to the provision of individualized funding. The ministry and the interim authority are providing an assurance that funding for early intensive intervention will continue after March 31, 2003.

The interim early intervention and early intensive behavioral intervention initiatives receive a combined $13.7 million in funding to provide services for just over 600 children. So in terms of the information you have sought, I believe that covers it.

J. MacPhail: Well, what level of appeal is this lawsuit at now? I thought the government had appealed the…. While the minister distinguishes that it's not the provision of services, there's some other grounds for appeal then, because…. Is the government actually taking this to the Supreme Court of Canada?

Hon. L. Reid: May I take the opportunity to introduce Robin Syme, executive director for early childhood development.

J. MacPhail: I thought there was a budget of $37 million for treatment for children with autism. Is the minister saying it's about $13 million going for Lovaas therapy? I thought the overall budget for autism spectrum treatment was $37 million.

Hon. L. Reid: The entire allotment, $26 million, is spent on services to children with autism spectrum disorder. The $13.7 million, the figure I quoted earlier in my comment, is for the early intensive intervention, $9 million for the new extended autism intervention and $3.2 million for behavioral support programs in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: For those of us who have not examined this issue for a while, in what category does Lovaas therapy fall?

Hon. L. Reid: Under the umbrella of applied behavioral analysis, Lovaas is one of the techniques that's employed.

Certainly, we know that autism is a very complex disorder, which is indeed why we've gone to the term autism spectrum disorder. It covers an enormous spectrum of challenge for children. In terms of families seeking service and seeking to purchase Lovaas therapy, we do have families today purchasing Lovaas therapy in British Columbia under the direct funding model. We also have families purchasing speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy. We have the entire range.

Lovaas is not the treatment of choice for every family in British Columbia, and certainly it's not, frankly, appropriate for every child in British Columbia, based on the insights that have been provided to us from their physicians and from their providers. Indeed, it is an opportunity to add yet one more tool to the toolbox — one more opportunity, one more strategy into the basket — in terms of providing families a range of choice.

The Premier's contention certainly was to expand parental choice and opportunity to seek the very best service and a range of services, if you will, that might indeed reflect the child's current need. It's an opportu-

nity, I think, for us to reflect on a particular therapy that might be appropriate at a particular time in a child's life may well change a month out or six months out or a year into that child's program. It requires enormous flexibility and enormous innovation to continue to adapt those programs to the ever-changing needs of the children.

J. MacPhail: How many families have applied for funding to provide treatment for children with autism? How many have been accepted? How many have been rejected?

Hon. L. Reid: I can absolutely tell you, with some pleasure, that we don't currently have a wait-list for diagnosis in the province. Indeed, the individuals who meet the eligibility requirements through the Ministry of Health Services and who have been diagnosed as having autism, requiring this service…. We indeed have met that need under the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. MacPhail: Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder have recently, I think, contacted the ministry, though, regarding lack of services for youth with this disability. They argue that there are no programs in place to deal specifically with children aged seven to 19. What are the minister's plans for provision of services for children between the ages of seven and 19?

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly, it has been an ongoing consideration on behalf of the people-serving ministries of this government, in terms of how best to craft a response for children with autism who are seven to 19 years of age. I'm pleased to tell you that come April 1 — and that's when I indicated earlier in my remarks, hon. member — that $9 million for new extended autism intervention is the seven-to-19-year-old program.

J. MacPhail: This group of parents proposed a continuing individualized intervention treatment program for the minister's consideration. Will this continuing individualized intervention treatment program be permitted under the new $9 million? Perhaps the minister could confirm: is that a new $9 million targeted toward this age group?

Hon. L. Reid: The $9 million is new money in British Columbia and indeed can be folded into our individualized funding model.

J. MacPhail: Under the new community governance model, as the minister has noted and as we discussed earlier in these estimates, people with disabilities will receive assistance through the community living authority of B.C., which is a provincewide authority. What happens to families who do not qualify for community living services? For instance, in my discussions with parents of children with disabilities, Asperger syndrome qualifies for, as I understand it, B.C. disability benefits but not the extra community living services.

Hon. L. Reid: In fact, the health diagnosis assessment piece remains the same, so there is no anticipated change to the eligibility requirement.

J. MacPhail: From my meeting with the parents, it was that they…. Asperger syndrome — they don't qualify for the extra community living services. What happens to those people?

Hon. L. Reid: That's not our information. I would happily follow that up for the member if she wishes to give me some detail as to exactly which group of individuals that might be.

Actually, I want to be clear for the minister. People with Asperger syndrome qualify for B.C. disability benefits but not for the extra community living services, which means that they're basically on their own. They get the cheque every month that we've been talking about — I think it's about $800 a month or something — but they don't qualify for the extra support in the community.

Let me just go on, then. I'll carry this through. This is everything that I learned, and it's as up to date as last week, when I met with families with children with autism. Some community programs are not appropriate for all people with disabilities, particularly as it comes to people with autism or Asperger syndrome. For example, some adults with autism have an IQ over 70, but many of the community programs are for adults with autism who have an IQ of 70 or lower. The programs are geared, appropriately so, toward lower-functioning individuals, but they're not appropriate for people with autism or Asperger syndrome who have an IQ of above 70. This is the issue. How does the ministry intend to address this issue?

Hon. L. Reid: If I might seek clarification from the member opposite, when she referenced in her earlier comment the adult benefit under DB-2, that would be folks who are over 19 years of age. Our responsibility is, in this case, the zero-to-19-year-old population, so indeed that would fall under the Ministry of Human Resources.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, all right. Let me just try to see whether I can make this clear.

Let me ask the minister a question. Community living services for children, whether they be adult children or children under 19…. I understand that the services are delivered on the basis of an IQ test and that the dividing line is 70. If you have an IQ of under 70, you get the programs, and if you have an IQ above 70, you don't — whether you're a child or an adult child. I checked this out with the families to make sure I wasn't

Hon. L. Reid: At this stage in the discussion, it is the international standard under the DSM-IV guideline, if you will. The reality is that the guideline isn't hard and fast at 70. It's supposed to be 70 plus or minus 5. That standard deviation is supposed to be considered in terms of functional assessment. My colleague assures me that process is underway in terms of people finding better ways to approach that.

The member opposite is correct. It is clearly not in people's best interests to have a hard-and-fast number in all instances.

J. MacPhail: That's good news. I'm sure the parents will be happy about that. I met with one parent, for instance. Her child is just an adult now, 19 or 20, and with autism. The child is diagnosed autistic and is able to actually attend a post-secondary education institution, but is every day having to learn how to take the bus, cannot live independently and yet does not qualify for services because his IQ is — if I recall correctly — higher than 75 even. It's not much higher, but it's higher than 75. Because of this arbitrary cut-off point, as the minister describes it, he is unable to maximize his independence. It would be a maximization of independence in a way that would actually save the state money in the long run, because he will be able to get an education and probably be able to get a job as well, but he needs community living support.

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite's comment is well taken. There will be ongoing challenges around the folks who don't quite meet the existing criteria. Our challenge is to find community supports. Frankly, a lot of individuals receive supports from the Canadian Mental Health programs in terms of life skill development, the handling of money, the telling of time and the transportation issues. Is it a foolproof system? It's an attempt, I think, by a local community to come together and recognize that those kinds of ongoing supports may indeed be required for the lifetime of that individual.

J. MacPhail: When the minister suggests that this is in transition, how do the parents get involved in perhaps altering the programs? Will the B.C. community living authority be mandated to actually address this issue as well?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, we've been in many discussions with the interim board of community living B.C. around the definitional issues. Certainly, as the member appropriately points out, there are a number of parents who have concerns around the hard-and-fast guidelines. We have to have some standards by which we start to evaluate and provide services.

At this stage, the best standard is the international standard through the diagnostic and statistical manual — DSM-IV — of the American Psychiatric Association. We have had discussions with them. They're well aware that there is needed to be some flexibility in terms of how….

They have been having a number of consultations. They've held, I believe, 15 consultations around the province, which we discussed previously. There have been a number of submissions from parents about that — about the definition, about the flexibility. They are looking at ways they can provide the greatest range of services with the greatest amount of flexibility that they can have.

As I spoke on this yesterday, we talked about the involvement of parents in terms of being able to sit on this board. They bring to them their experiences and the frustrations they've had in terms of their trying to access services from government over a number of years. The board is very aware of the issues and concerns there and has had a number of discussions with us around that.

They are still having further consultations and discussions around how they can find an operational definition which is allowed to be based on the DSM-IV standard as well as giving them some flexibility — flexibility that also allows them to control or have a bar that makes some sense in terms of what the access criteria to the services are.

They are still consulting with that. They're still working on that. We expect that there will be some resolution of that as we get their service plan coming forward to us in the next few months.

J. MacPhail: One of the issues that the parents made clear to me — parents of children with autism or Asperger syndrome — is the savant nature of the disorder and that the combination of doing an IQ test and the savant nature of the disorder leads to distorted results. For instance, I had several parents describe to me that their children literally have a photographic memory. Lots of us claim to, but we don't. These children have the ability to memorize pages at a glance, and the ability to feed back that information in an IQ test distorts their real abilities. Also, as I understand it, there's a distortion in the area of math as well.

Is the minister of aware of this? Is this the kind of adjustment that will be taken into account when examining the threshold by which people with this disorder qualify?

Hon. L. Reid: We hope to fold in as much of that information as we possibly can. I will welcome the member sending over any information she would wish us to have in terms of that ongoing dialogue. She is absolutely correct in terms of the Asperger syndrome and the savant capabilities of some of these individuals.

We had the absolute pleasure of meeting the Rain Man when he was in British Columbia. This was the individual, indeed, that the film was modelled after — an enormous skill set, a photographic memory for the entire map of the United States of America, every exit

to every city that anyone in the audience asked him. Incredible skill set. Can he do extremely well at traditional testing? No question. Absolutely no question. Are there life skills and functioning abilities he needs constant ongoing care with? No question. Your points are well taken.

J. MacPhail: The Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health recently had to close a special needs ward. That's a ward where the children would receive a variety of rehabilitation services under one roof. The program was eliminated due to budget cuts. Where have the children who use this facility been relocated for rehabilitation?

Hon. G. Hogg: I am assuming the member is referring to the respite care which was at Queen Alexandra.

J. MacPhail: It was a facility for rehabilitation services, as I understand it.

Hon. G. Hogg: I believe that if there were a closure, it must have been with the Vancouver Island health authority. The respite that was being run there was funded by the Vancouver Island health authority at Queen Alexandra. There were some issues with that, and some funding came to our ministry to take over the provision of the respite care there, but there wasn't a wing that was under the care of this ministry.

J. MacPhail: Okay. And yes, it was funded by the Vancouver Island health authority. It was closed. Now there are children with special needs out in the rest of the world. I assume they will now become the responsibility of community living services. I'm just wondering: has there been any follow-up to say where these children have ended up? Has there been an uptake by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and what funding has been provided through the MCFD?

Hon. G. Hogg: To the best of my recollection with respect to this item, there was an extension of some of the children at Queen Alexandra to ensure that the respite was maintained for them. They, along with a number of parents of other children who were high-needs children in terms of respite, were meeting with the interim chief executive officer for the Vancouver Island region. They were putting together a request for proposals for the development of a more community-based response to the respite needs of these special needs children, and I would have to find out the current status of that.

If I may also just respond briefly to the question the member stated previously with respect to what happens with some of the special needs adults. I think the premise that we've developed, and the premise that community living B.C. has come forward with through the parents and the service provider, is one that talks about recognizing, as the member brought up, the issues of savants and photographic memories and things. I think that as a society generally, hopefully, we start to move to the sensitive appreciation of people and to citizenship that reflects an ability to recognize people for the gifts they bring, rather than for some of the deficits they might have. I think that's a principle that should apply across all of society.

As we're trying to move some of the developmentally disabled more into full participation and citizenship in society, I think that same principle should apply. I think a caring, sensitive, responsive society is one that does start to look at, recognize and appreciate people for those gifts, rather than having them in some ways penalized for some of the things which may not be gifts. I think that's an underpinning or a principle that should reflect the things we do. That's why I think we should look at the issues of savants and the gifts that so many people have, which have not traditionally been recognized by mainstream society.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I couldn't agree more. In many of the cases of the families that I met, these adult children are making substantial progress up to and including being accommodated by post-secondary institutions in a way that is overwhelming. My only point is that the gifts sometimes mask the special needs.

I'm going to move to early childhood development. We've had a lot of discussion about what's being paid for out of the early childhood development agreement. I'm working from the most recent publication of the ministry on early childhood development activities. It was just released a few weeks ago. It's the '01-02 report. I've gone to the website. I've talked to people in the community about this issue. I must say that I have not had a chance to discuss the issues of child care with the Minister of State for Women's Equality, so I am just focusing my comments on early childhood development.

The report actually did deal with the early childhood development agreement. The early childhood development agreement is a federal-provincial-territorial agreement in which B.C. receives $591 million for early childhood development from the federal government. It's to be spent on early childhood development and early learning programs.

The annual report accounts for $35.7 million in spending. Broken down over five years.… Let me see. Sorry. I want to make sure my notes here…. I've just got these scratched out. If you take the $591 million federal-provincial agreement, the portion for B.C. of the five-year agreement is $58 million per year that flows from the federal government. But the annual report only accounts for $35.7 million. This is a point of huge interest amongst the community and certainly amongst us. The question gets asked all the time: where did the money go?

What is happening? Can we not just have a piece of paper or a website that accounts for everything that's

supposed to flow from this federal-provincial agreement? As I calculate it and as the community calculates it, at a minimum, $22.5 million is unaccounted for.

Hon. L. Reid: The agreement is for $291 million over five years. The first year of the agreement was $39.6 million in the '01-02 year. That is, in fact, the contents of the book that you were referencing in your remarks. That's the year we're reporting out on. That's the annual report. For '02-03, $52.8 million is yet to be expended. That is in this coming fiscal. The year following, $66.1 million. That would be '03-04. In '04-05, it's $66.1 million, and '05-06, it's $66.6 million, to equal $291.2 million. Indeed, it is our intention to expend the $291 million over the course of this five-year agreement.

J. MacPhail: I thought it was cost-shared. I thought the provincial government had to put in 50 cents on the dollar as well. No?

J. MacPhail: The annual agreement, the five-year agreement, is $291 million? Then my information is different. How can I confirm that? I couldn't confirm it from the website. The website actually only accounted for $35.7 million, which is a lot closer to $39.6 million, but it still is $4 million short.

Hon. L. Reid: The member will know that this is a five-year agreement, so the obligation is to expend $291 million over the course of five years. Will there be fluctuations in any given year? There may well be, but our intention is to have $291 million as reflected under this partnership — the four tenets of this partnership — expended year end '05-06.

J. MacPhail: By the minister's own accounting then, the $35.7 million for '01-02 is about $3.9 million short in expenditure. That flows through in the next year? The minister is nodding yes — so $52 million for '02-03. Can the minister say where that was spent? On what was that spent?

Hon. L. Reid: I certainly will commit to the member that this information, if it's not on our website, will be. In terms of the '02-03 spending, the $52.8 million, it has not currently been all expended because it basically is beginning this fiscal year, April 1. We will report out on our new initiatives and our new undertaking as we go forward. Our challenge will be, frankly, to get to almost $57 million worth of spending because there were programs that didn't come on line, as you know from your past ministerial experience, on the actual day that we would have wished. By the end of '03 we will, we believe, have indeed expended the first two years of the allotment.

J. MacPhail: So '03 ends in a week or so. It is those estimates that we're actually…. I mean, we're going into the '03-04 estimates, so theoretically the information should be available on '02-03. Can the minister just give me some examples, then, of what was spent in the '02-03 year?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to provide some examples. In terms of where we've been, the process is reflective, if you will, over the provincial government and the federal government's relationship because, indeed, our first report was the baseline report. Each year we're in fact building on that report.

But certainly we have increased the spending around the Building Blocks programs in British Columbia, and the member will recall a lay home-visiting program that indeed looks out for children at risk who are vulnerable and that has someone visit them on a regular basis. It's a vitally important program, and I believe we're having great success with that program.

Enhanced funding this past year and this coming year for family resource programs in British Columbia. It is vitally important that families have a comfort zone so that they can be in situations where they'll have mentoring opportunities for parenting practice, new insights, health and education models passed on to them, and will learn new things about children's nutrition and vaccines — the early childhood development indicators of health. All of that is something we trust our family resource programs are continuing to impart to families on a regular basis.

We have Children First learning initiatives across British Columbia. We had three in the past calendar year: Port Alberni, Prince George and the Hope–Boston Bar corridor. This year we're bringing on an additional eight learning sites. It's a fabulous opportunity to craft centres of excellence across British Columbia and to allow communities to mobilize, to encourage community mobilization, to suggest that every child in our province deserves the best possible childhood and to ensure that the programs in place are actually connected, integrated and coordinated. That's the challenge that the Premier gave me: to create a cross-government integrated strategy. The learning sites allow communities to build on what they have as excellence in their communities and to expand.

The infant development program in the province, led by Dana Brynelson — a first-class program — allows parents to be supported in terms of seeking services for their at-risk infants and, frankly, to raise a question if they have a concern as to whether their child is at risk or whether their child is vulnerable to a particular learning need that we can in fact address — so ongoing, exceptional programming.

This government has taken a great interest, a great passion, to do better by the aboriginal communities in our province around aboriginal early childhood development. It is vitally important that we do that. We provide support in 37 communities today, and we are always looking to enhance the number of communities coming on in terms of better learning and living environments for very small aboriginal youngsters.

The human early learning partnership through the University of British Columbia with Dr. Clyde Hertzman. It is vitally important that we actually take the best possible research, if indeed our objective is to get to best practice, and allow that information to guide the development of better public policy. It's a glorious achievement on the part of Clyde Hertzman that he's continuing to provide that level of expertise to the province. It is our challenge to fold that into our planning as we go forward so that all of these programs meet the needs of the most vulnerable children in our communities.

J. MacPhail: I'm interested to know what changes will be made in the delivery of programs, given the new regional authority model.

Hon. L. Reid: These programs and many others under the early childhood development initiatives are core programs, and that has been communicated to the regions and to the authorities. We envision that this level of programming will continue.

Hon. L. Reid: In fact, the programs are regionalized now in many instances. The only thing that will change is the governance structure.

J. MacPhail: I'm interested to know the programs that remain in early childhood development that are targeted toward the multicultural community.

Hon. L. Reid: We continue to have the expectation that all of our programming will have a multicultural component to it and that it will be woven into the kind of service that's delivered, because we expect that a lot of these programs will grow up with the community. If they believe there's an interest or need that must be met around a particular multicultural aspect, they will certainly bring that information forward.

I am happy to tell you that we have a number of programs in the learning site model. One specifically will focus on how best to get to best practice in a multicultural role around a learning site. It is a great opportunity for us to learn some things about what the community asked for, how we deliver on that and how the community derives best practice from the sense of multiculturalism.

We certainly have learned some very good lessons around how best to integrate that knowledge with the aboriginal communities. I'm delighted to tell you that I think we have a really, really fine partnership with the Crabtree-Sheway co-location, in terms of respecting and having respectful engagement, if you will, around dealing with aboriginal moms and babes. In fact, we are going to enhance what we know about the health of that dyad by keeping those two individuals together.

If we can build that kind of comfort zone and respect the multicultural teachings — the aboriginal teachings that go on — to strengthen that partnership, that's exactly what we should be doing. The Premier's sense of all of this is that if we strengthen family, we can indeed strengthen community. That, to me, is a very critical piece — that we honour the relationship that moms and babes have, whether they be aboriginal, Cantonese or Punjabi, and we find ways to much more effectively interface with those communities.

J. MacPhail: There was a new federal-provincial partnership just announced where the federal government will transfer $935 million to the provinces for regulated early learning and child care spaces. I think the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada, Jane Stewart, was actually out here. Can the minister tell us how much of this money will be coming to early childhood development here in British Columbia, and does the minister know the division that will be made between early childhood development and child care in this province?

Hon. L. Reid: It was my privilege to meet with Jane Stewart when she was here. Certainly, her expectation is that those dollars exclusively go to early learning and care, which she perceives to be the regulated child care program — which, as you know, was operated under the CAWS ministry.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I know that. Let me ask a process question then. Has the minister met with other ministers here in British Columbia first, about how the B.C. money will be distributed? Could the minister also tell us what portion of that $935 million flows to British Columbia?

Hon. L. Reid: I believe it's Jane Stewart's expectation that those dollars will go exclusively to child care — certainly for regulated care in family and group care. The discussions that are ongoing among the people-serving ministries of this government will continue. Has a particular determination been made by MCAWS in terms of which for family care and which for group care? I don't believe at this juncture.

J. MacPhail: All of that money will go to child care, not to early childhood development? The minister's nodding her head — okay. Well, then I'll save those questions for the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

Is there any role that the ministry will then play in this, because of the minister of state's focus on aboriginal early childhood development? Is there any money that would be her responsibility, from the federal-provincial agreement? I understand that there's actually targeted money for aboriginal child care.

Hon. L. Reid: Aboriginal child care would, as well, fall under MCAWS. I trust that those discussions will

indeed figure prominently in the groups of ministers that come together and that are people-serving ministries of this government. I'm prepared to tell you that I believe the ministry and the minister responsible for women's equality will indeed invite some collaboration as we go forward.

J. MacPhail: Does the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development ever attend those federal-provincial-territorial meetings? Who does attend those meetings on behalf of this government?

Hon. L. Reid: In fact, the Minister of Children and Family Development has attended, as has the Minister of Human Resources. Most recently, the Minister of State for Women's Equality attended the meeting in Ottawa with Jane Stewart of HRDC. Indeed, I believe we have some meetings underway — hopefully this spring — around aboriginal early childhood development, which I'll be attending.

J. MacPhail: The last question I have in this area for the expenditure of early childhood development money that flows from the federal government is: what is the community consultation that's in place for determination of the expenditure of this money?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to tell the member opposite that we have had much ongoing dialogue around what the community would wish to see. The learning sites are probably the best model of how that dialogue flows from the ground up.

Indeed, what communities have said is vitally important to them. In terms of the four tenets of the accord, whether it is the pregnancy outreach piece or whether it is the early learning piece, they have indeed said that this particular aspect or this particular issue is the most important to my community. We have had numerous individuals give their feedback on the website — all kinds of correspondence.

I'm pleased to tell you that I have had the absolute privilege of chairing a minister's advisory committee on early childhood development which has been across the spectrum in terms of seeking insights from a whole array of individuals who have enormous experience. I think if we were to collectively take the combined experience of the individuals at that table, we'd have well over a thousand years of individuals who have given their heart and soul to advancing what they believe to be the best for the early childhood development of our youngest learners. I think the opportunities for dialogue are ongoing. Certainly, the minister's advisory committee meets quarterly and will continue to do so.

We continue to have all kinds of targeted discussion with a variety of different stakeholders across the province. In terms of travel, particularly around the aboriginal early childhood development piece, we have been in upwards of 30 communities that I have attended personally to see exactly what it is they would wish us to do in terms of crafting respectful engagement, what that looks like for them, how indeed we can be much more respectful of aboriginal teachings and aboriginal practice.

The goal for any community is to have healthy, happy infants. If indeed we can get to full-weight, full-term infants in the province, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, we will have made a dramatic difference in the demands on the school system. The research suggests you can reduce the incidence of learning disabilities dramatically if, indeed, you can get babies at full weight and full term at birth. That's the research from Children's Hospital and British Columbia's Women's Hospital, and that's the research that is replicated across the country.

If we're going to make decisions today that are about a legacy piece and that are about indeed providing the safest possible start for these youngsters, we start at the pre-pregnancy outreach planning piece in British Columbia, and we follow that through regarding the fetal alcohol syndrome disorder that we are engaged in, as well as the entire gamut of needs that young learners would demonstrate. Indeed, individuals have no difficulty in reaching us, in reaching members of this ministry, in terms of giving us their guidance as to how they would wish us to proceed. We are absolutely open to that, and I continue to invite that level of dialogue.

J. MacPhail: Will there be an appointment on the regional authorities that, for lack of a better term, specializes in or brings in expertise in early childhood development both at the regional health authority level and at the aboriginal regional health authority?

Hon. L. Reid: The interim CEOs have indeed identified an individual in each of the five regions that will be the targeted ECD person. Our goal is to enhance that, to expand that, and I intend to meet regularly with the boards as we go forward in terms of ensuring that this focus is maintained.

I mean, I think this government has done amazing things in terms of placing such focus on youngsters zero to six years of age in our province. We're not prepared to lose that focus as we move into a new governance model. If we enhance that focus, we can indeed have stronger communities and have individuals that have more choices and more opportunities. So is it really important that we continue the fine work that's begun under the guidance of the Premier in terms of placing a real focus, a real emphasis on very, very young learners? That's absolutely my expectation. I know my colleagues share that view, because they are regular attenders when Clyde Hertzman comes to speak to the caucus, when we have opportunities for advanced learning opportunities, so that indeed every single member of this Legislature can go forward and suggest how important it is to have incredible young learners being successful in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly, the aboriginal authorities are not as far along in their planning in terms of that change to governance. But that is our goal — that indeed we will have individuals who are vitally concerned with the health and well-being of aboriginal youngsters; full-weight, full-term infants that have opportunities. So, indeed, we will trust that the process will unfold in a very similar vein to the non-aboriginal governance authorities.

J. MacPhail:. I'm moving to the service plan now for early childhood development. The minister of state's accountability statement says that she will increase the number of public-private community partnerships created to promote early childhood development initiatives to a total of four. Perhaps the minister could give a status…. Well, first of all, explain what this means, how many are in place now and what will the four will be.

Hon. L. Reid: We certainly, within this government, have the understanding that early childhood development is a partnership and that if we're going to have outcomes that we would desire, we have to involve more people, more individuals, across the spectrum. Indeed, we do have at least four partnerships underway and many more to come.

We have the early childhood development legacy fund at the Vancouver Foundation, which was an investment on behalf of this government of $5 million, which is a capacity-building fund. It's an opportunity for communities, agencies and individuals who are interested in enhancing opportunities for this population — from pre-conception to six years of age — to make application. We have, very recently, a donation of $25,000 that's come to that fund from a private sector partner. We continue to seek that level of support, that level of funding, because it's vitally important. That is, the fund in perpetuity will pay out dollars annually and, frankly, will be one of the best legacies we can leave as a province in terms of looking out for the youngsters that will come after us.

In terms of another partnership fund that's been established…. The $10 million community partnership fund established in concert with the Central Credit Union movement in British Columbia is coming on-line and is, in fact, a matching fund. Individuals across this province will see an infusion of $20 million into the area of early childhood development over the next number of years — $10 million that the province has put on the table and the $10 million that will be enhanced funding around that. Again, it's a great opportunity for capacity-building in the community and for individuals to deliver on the things that they believe to be vitally important, which is the learning of youngsters. At the end of the day, we're creating opportunities for children to have an enhanced skill set when they cross the threshold into their first kindergarten classroom — vitally important.

If you think about it as a curriculum vitae or a résumé, what is it that we want to see on the curriculum vitae of every five-year-old in British Columbia? Some solid communication skills, some solid socialization skills, some ability to interact, some ability to have some enhanced learning. We want kids to make some good choices as they go through.

We've had the opportunity to partner with the Ministry of Advanced Education around a leadership chair. One of the 20 leadership chairs in British Columbia has been designated for early childhood development — vitally important. That will see a private sector partner come to the table in terms of matching that level of funding.

Indeed, most recently, in early childhood development, an aboriginal chair which will see ongoing support for traditional teachings for what aboriginal communities believe to be important in terms of the durable parenting piece…. It's vitally important for us that we enhance the parenting piece, the mentoring support piece and the families. We're going to focus those resources on the aboriginal community as we go forward.

Four partnerships there — welcomed partnerships of individuals who want to come forward and say publicly and proudly to this government that they are in partnership with us in terms of moving forward on the agenda for early childhood.

J. MacPhail: Just to clarify, there's one $5 million fund put out of the budget of this ministry that is to go toward public-private community partnerships. Can the minister say how one accesses that fund? Is it matching dollars? Who is the adjudicator on what partnerships are eligible? How does it work?

Hon. L. Reid: When Joyce Preston was the children's advocate, her vision was a fund independent of government. We have actually met that challenge and honoured her desire that that in fact happen. Individuals who would seek funding from this particular fund would apply directly to the Vancouver Foundation, and the adjudication process is through the health committee of the Vancouver Foundation. They indeed receive a plethora of applications through the course of the calendar year and would make those disbursements through the course of the calendar year.

It is a $5 million investment that the province has made and placed at the Vancouver Foundation. Those dollars are almost launching-seed-capital kind of dollars, if you will. They do not require a match on behalf of the community.

Frankly, there's wondrous community involvement out there, but the fundraising capacity and fundraising

ability are just not there. For us to create a fund that is just about launching some new ideas, we believe to be vitally important. The Central Credit Union fund of $10 million will indeed have some matching capacity with it.

J. MacPhail: Is the B.C. Central Credit Union managing that fund, and do they do the adjudication and operate the application process?

Hon. L. Reid: The adjudication process for the $10 million community partnership fund is indeed a partnership with the United Way under the Success by 6 initiative. That process, in terms of how they reach a conclusion as to how they will disburse those dollars, will be in concert with the United Way and with the Success by 6 initiative. Indeed, the Central Credit Union, I believe, will have some ongoing involvement as well.

J. MacPhail: On page 21 of the service plan, it talks about a $20 million spending increase in early childhood and family development in '02-03. Could the minister please break out for me the budgets for '03-04? Well, perhaps she could just put on the record what the budget is for '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05.

Hon. L. Reid: The member was correct — in '02-03, an enhancement of $20 million into early childhood development. Those were the initiatives I listed earlier in an increase of funding for the Building Blocks program, the family resource programs, the Make Children First learning initiatives, the infant development program, the aboriginal early child development programs and some ongoing work around the human early learning partnership funding mechanism. Our challenge will be to maintain that level of funding into '03-04 and beyond.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I see that. I'm asking for specific numbers for early childhood development. I can't find it in the blue book. It's not broken out in the blue book, and even the resource summary on page 20 of the service plan of the Ministry of Children and Family Development does not break out early childhood development. I have no idea whether there actually was a $20 million increase or not, and I'm just asking for the numbers.

Hon. L. Reid: I will happily provide that information to the member opposite at the earliest opportunity. Our challenge has been in terms of attempting to apportion that out — because it's not a finite sum of money when it comes to the zero-to-six program and because there are lots of programs that extend well beyond six years of age — to collect that information across all of the ministries of government. But we are attempting to do that.

J. MacPhail: I thought the government must have had that, because not once, not twice, but thrice they've quoted in their service plan that the government added $20 million in new funding for early childhood and family development in fiscal '02-03. You'd assume that if you're adding something, you know the base to which you're adding it. That was the only reason. I didn't think it was that complex a question, but I would appreciate that information before estimates for the whole ministry conclude.

I think that concludes my questions around early childhood development, but I would appreciate that information from the ministry.

Hon. L. Reid: Many of you will know that the area of early childhood development is a passionate focus for this administration, that indeed we want to do the very best by the youngest learners in our province. Currently, there are 271,000 children aged infancy to age six, and certainly you will know that responsibility for this age group crosses all boundaries of age, gender, society, economy and governance. When this government came to office in 2001, we were already focusing on the challenges and opportunities arising in this area of public policy. You will have heard me speak many times on the necessity to do better in this area of public policy so that indeed we can have children and families in our province with greater choices as they move through the process.

We know that in order to meet the needs of families in our fiscal targets, we need to make strategic investments based on evidence. Research has shown that investment in early childhood development can produce dividends and lower costs to child welfare and youth justice, as well as broader human and social benefits. In the last fiscal year the ministry increased spending for child and family development by $20 million. As more children receive quality care in their early years, we expect more children to be better equipped to meet the challenges of life. This, in turn, will lead to fewer children coming into care and less reliance on government services. As a parent, I understand that we all want our children to have more opportunities in their lives as they move forward.

We are approaching the challenge of early childhood development using the best available research and professional advice, combined with the knowledge and strength of community partners. In aboriginal communities, through innovative programs like Sheway and Crabtree Corner, Make Children First learning initiatives, family resource programs, a range of initiatives to address the special needs of children with autism spectrum disorder, the fetal alcohol spectrum disorder prevention and awareness activities, Building Blocks, the early childhood development partnership agreement and numerous family literacy supports…. All of these things allow us to go forward and craft better learning environments for our youngest learners.

Staff, child-serving ministers and I are doing all we can to get B.C. children off to the best possible start in life. Today I want to share with you how B.C. is devel-

oping some of Canada's most innovative strategies and policies in early childhood development.

Over the next two years one of the most important focuses of the B.C. government's work is with the aboriginal community. Currently, in this province there are 25,000 children of aboriginal origin under the age of six. We know that family supports are much more effective when delivered within the context of culture.

In the past non-aboriginal service providers delivered the majority of services to aboriginal communities. This is changing. We are working towards strengthening the capacity of aboriginal families to parent their own children. Aboriginal communities across the province are benefiting from annual funding of $8 million for early childhood development services. The program focus includes supports for FASD, parenting, family, healthy pregnancy, birth, infancy and community.

To ensure services are most closely attuned to what families really need, agencies delivering these services are consulting with the communities. To help us with program delivery, we have been looking for the very best people and input, and I am pleased to tell you that we are enjoying some success. This year we appointed the first position for B.C. aboriginal infant development program adviser. She's been working with the 19 aboriginal IDP programs across the province to focus and implement their vision of an IDP program that is tailored to meet the needs of aboriginal families and communities. Her energy, enthusiasm and commitment are helping us to identify more opportunities for collaboration and partnership. Ultimately, this will improve services for aboriginal people.

Later on I will have more to say on the infant development program, but first I would like to continue with outlining our services for aboriginal children.

In December of 2002 the hon. Minister of State for Women's Equality and I were honoured to attend the groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of a building to co-locate Crabtree and Sheway programs. The Ministry of Children and Family Development provided $600,000 to the YWCA of Vancouver to help build this new facility. This co-location of Crabtree and Sheway will allow women dealing with a variety of high-risk activities, including involvement in the sex trade and drug and alcohol issues, to remain connected to their community and their children. This continuity of service for women transitioning from Sheway to the Crabtree Corner program will mean better outcomes for the children of women battling poverty and battling substance abuse.

As announced by the Premier, we've also made a strategic investment with the establishment of two regional innovation chairs. These chairs will be located at B.C. colleges and universities. They will support research into culturally appropriate services, provide training and help increase awareness of the importance of early childhood development.

The Make Children First learning initiatives in our province respect that diversity and difference on all levels need to be recognized and valued. A one-size-fits-all rarely fits anyone and is not effective for the health and well-being of children and their families. Making a difference in the lives of children often means early identification and quick action when their needs are not being met. Make Children First learning initiatives are one way to get help to children who are at risk for poor social, emotional, cognitive and physical outcomes. Currently, these projects are operating in Prince George, Port Alberni and the west coast, the eastern Fraser Valley, Grand Forks, the Sea to Sky corridor, Kelowna, Cranbrook and Kamloops.

Through consultation with service providers, educators, parents, caregivers and other community members, each learning initiative is developing an integrated, community-based network of services for early childhood development. By the end of the year, it is anticipated these initiatives will be available in all regions of the province.

Family resource programs are one more way we are working with our community partners. Research indicates that the need for knowledge about early childhood development is not bound by social, economic or cultural factors. We know that a loving, secure connection between babies and parents in their first 18 months develops trust, self-esteem, emotional control and the ability to have positive relationships with others in school and later in life. Infants and children who are neglected or abused are denied the stimulation and nurturing they need in the early years. This puts them at higher risk for behavioral, social and learning problems throughout life.

Family resource programs in many communities are already established and play an important role in sharing this kind of knowledge and information. These programs provide parents with information, education, support, referrals and other early childhood development services. In November of 2002, grants totalling approximately $1.4 million were allocated to 122 family resource programs around the province for establishing new programs or enhancing existing ones.

Programs for children with autism spectrum disorder have also been enhanced. Autism spectrum disorder occurs in approximately one in 500 children and is four to five times more common in boys than girls. It is a neurological disorder affecting the functioning of the brain. It is usually evident before a child turns three years old and may prevent individuals from understanding what they see, hear or otherwise sense. Autism is a spectrum disorder. Although defined by a certain set of behaviours, children and adults can exhibit a combination of the behaviours in any degree of severity. That is why it is important to have a range of interventions and supports.

Currently, the ministry serves approximately 1,700 children and youth with autism spectrum disorder, up to the age of 19, with a range of services including respite, supported child care, speech and language, occupational and physical therapy, parent support, child care workers and behavioral supports. As well, pro-

grams and funding specific to children under the age of six are provided to eligible families.

The early intensive behavioral intervention program currently serves 75 children under the age of six with autism spectrum disorder in eight communities throughout British Columbia. The ministry has contracted with the University of British Columbia to evaluate child and family outcomes related to these early intensive intervention services. We anticipate having the evaluation data by the end of April of '03. These findings will be posted to the ministry's website.

Families of children with autism spectrum disorder said they want the right to choose from a range of early intervention service options, and indeed it was the Premier's commitment that enhanced parental choice was certainly a desire on the part of our government. Eligible families now have access to interim early intensive intervention direct funding for their children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder up to the age of six. This funding assists families with the purchase of interventions and supports for their children with autism. Treatment options made available during 2001-02 have increased the number of children age six and under who receive early intensive therapies for autism from 75 children to over 600 children.

Beginning April 1, through the Ministry of Children and Family Development, direct funding of $6,000 a year will be available to eligible families for the purchase of autism intervention services for out-of-school hours. British Columbia is the first province to provide this type of service for children in this age range. There are currently over 1,700 children identified as having autism in the school system. This funding will be in addition to their educational program and special education services provided through school boards and other services available through MCFD. It is anticipated that this funding will be administered to families biannually to provide maximum flexibility. More information for parents will be posted to the ministry's website.

Responsibility for autism and other community living services is scheduled to be transferred to the community living services authority once it is established. These options will be available to families and individuals under the CLS authority.

As a society and in our communities, we can dramatically improve children's development by emphasizing the importance of maternal health in shaping the environment for fetal growth and development. Social support to pregnant women, as well as positive prenatal nutrition and other personal health practices, can help reduce low birth weight and other associated problems.

We know that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is preventable and that programs such as Sheway offer women a supportive and culturally appropriate environment to reduce or eliminate their substance abuse. We are committed as a government to take a compassionate stance. Indeed, if we wish a different outcome for individuals who are substance abusing and we want healthier babies in our province, it only makes sense to support those women.

Frankly, we have a very successful program in the province in Burns Lake, where indeed 94 percent of the women either cut down or eliminated substance abuse during their pregnancies. In fact, their second babies today are being born fetal-alcohol-free in Burns Lake — an enormous accomplishment in British Columbia. I provide enormous accolade to the community of Burns Lake who continues to excel and is, frankly, a national leader in this area.

We have much to be proud of in British Columbia. We have pockets of excellence when it comes to individuals giving their heart and soul to ensure that babies have the best possible start.

For infants and children affected by prenatal alcohol exposure, diagnosis and support before the age of six years reduce the likelihood and severity of secondary disabilities. In October of 2001 — I'm delighted by this as well — British Columbia joined the provincial-territorial Prairie Northern Pacific Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Partnership. A brand-new name, very recently…. It's now called the Canada Northwest FASD Partnership. As part of this western and northern team, we are working with our partners towards increasing public awareness in the prevention of FASD.

Our partners are Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, here in British Columbia and the three territories: Nunavut, Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I can tell you I just returned late yesterday from Iqaluit, in the Nunavut territory, from a ministers meeting around fetal alcohol syndrome spectrum disorder prevention — incredible experience.

It's a small community — 6,200 people — at the tip of Frobisher Bay, who indeed are connected to the necessity to band together to integrate service delivery and to reduce the level of alcohol consumption and substance abuse in that community. It's an incredible commitment that community is making. Minister Ed Picco has responsibility for that area. An unbelievable amount of knowledge was passed on in terms of how they address their issues and how those areas of learning can have some generalization to British Columbia and to this partnership that will indeed make a difference in the lives of babes.

We have a tool in terms of crafting better information systems and sharing this information more effectively across government, and we have certainly had a webcast of some ongoing educational opportunities around fetal alcohol syndrome. Certainly, we had the fetal alcohol Canada expertise round table known as FACE, which was recorded by webcast for B.C.'s Knowledge Network this past fall. It's available, and we certainly have linked it to the early childhood development page on our website because we want individuals to have access to the best possible information in the field.

Now, the newest developments in FASD research are more accessible to current and future parents, public health professionals, educators and front-line care providers of children affected by FASD. It provides

users with links to articles, research and resources. There have been over 12,000 page views since the webcast was first launched at the end of September. That's 12,000 individuals who have had an interest in learning more about this area — a phenomenal undertaking.

The Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Knowledge Network have received a lot of positive feedback, and the Knowledge Network's program, FAS: When the Children Grow Up, is also a video segment anyone is welcome to view. The response speaks to the need to better share information on prevention and support to those living and working with FASD children and adults.

One of the challenges the Premier put before me was interministry collaboration, how indeed we can have a resolve across government that would matter in the life of a child. The linkages between ministries responsible for FASD are also being strengthened. There are nine ministries involved in FASD prevention or in providing services to those affected by FASD. A cross-ministry committee of assistant deputy ministers is developing a provincial strategic plan for FASD. When complete, it will reflect this government's direction to initiate and strengthen activities that aid in FASD prevention, early identification and support services to children and families.

Our Building Blocks program was established in 1997 to help parents in need to cope with the demands of child-rearing through education and support. These programs currently serve 52 communities with resources, education and supports for families who need assistance to provide a safe, nurturing environment for their children. Elements of the program include home visiting; someone comes to your door and offers you some support. If you're the parent of a vulnerable, at-risk infant or if you yourself are at risk, that is an enormous gift — that someone has appeared at your door to offer you some supports and to work on FAS prevention, advanced infant-toddler stimulation and mentoring of new or expectant families by more experienced parents.

It's a vitally important program in our province, and I can tell you that it's doing great work. I'm incredibly proud of the individuals who continue, day in and day out, week in and week out, to deliver this program in the homes of British Columbia families. In addition, a broad range of evidence-based child and family service, and I can tell you it's doing great work. I'm incredibly proud of the individuals who continue, day in, day out and week in, week out, to deliver this program in the homes of British Columbia families.

In addition, a broad range of evidence-based child and family service options have been identified, such as Mother Goose and the Roots of Empathy program. The funding for this important program has increased by $2.6 million to a total of $4.8 million annually.

For those of you not familiar with the Roots of Empathy program, it's a parenting program, if you will, for very young learners. It exposes very young children in the school system — kindergarten and up — to the understanding of very vulnerable infants. A baby first appears in a classroom in British Columbia today when they are seven, eight or nine weeks of age, under three months of age, and they make a monthly visit to that classroom Those youngsters are exposed to the growth and development and the vulnerability of those very young learners — incredibly important.

When this program was underway in the province of Ontario, what they discovered — a completely unintended but fabulous consequence — was that the incidence of bullying went down in public schools in Toronto. Children finally understood the vulnerability of very young infants, and rather than spectate at a bullying incident, they would actually intervene. It's a huge win for school districts, for communities and for families that children won't stand by and see another soul maligned or beaten in the process.

That is an incredibly effective program. It is a program that we are having evaluated today through the University of British Columbia. Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl is evaluating that program for us. We trust that we can expand the reach of that program into British Columbia public schools. We certainly continue to have ongoing regional collaboration in terms of how best we go forward.

We have increased the investment for another crucial program, the infant development program, by $2.1 million, bringing the total to $9.8 million annually. For parents in British Columbia who have a high-risk infant or an infant who needs specialized supports, it is a program where individuals come to your home and provide services, mentor you as a parent, give you guidance on how best to stimulate the learning of that very young soul that you have — an incredibly important program in the province.

The program provides home-based services to infants who are at risk of being developmentally delayed. Services are targeted to children's first three years, which are particularly critical to a child's development. Overall development and health is enhanced by beginning early to identify a child's specific needs. Staff and caregivers work together to optimize the child's development.

Success by 6. It's the moniker today, if you will, of the program that we have partnered with in terms of the community partnership fund. Our goal is to enhance early childhood development opportunities for all children in British Columbia. On February 18 the Premier announced $10 million for early childhood development partnership, Success by 6, with the United Way of the Lower Mainland and the credit unions of British Columbia. The Success by 6 projects, piloted by the United Way of the Lower Mainland, achieve excellent outcomes for children in the 19 communities they serve. The programs focus on creating environments for young children that improve aspects of stability, stimulation, support and nurturance.

Funds raised in communities through this United Way–Central Credit Union process will remain in those communities. Government and participating credit unions will match funds raised in the communities on

behalf of Success by 6 projects. This approach is consistent with the Ministry of Children and Family Development's vision of a province of healthy children and responsible families living in safe and caring communities.

We'll also provide a safety net for the period of transition from centralized decision-making to regional and community governance. The government fully understands that the decisions we make today will affect the direction we take tomorrow. It is my hope for early childhood development in British Columbia that we will leave a substantial legacy for those who will come after us.

As we build on our community supports, we will see an increase in each family's capacity to parent their own children. That is the Premier's intention — that families in British Columbia are stronger and have the ability and the capacity to parent their own children. That is the mission we are on — to put in place the basket of service so that as the needs of a particular family change, they can alter that service delivery and continue to enhance their skill set as parents.

It is a vitally important job. There is probably no more important job in the province than being a parent. All of us in our communities and all of us in our constituencies understand that necessity. The folks who fill these MLA chairs after us — some born today, some yet to be born…. The impact for those young learners is the focus of this administration. The reason we are taking the decisions we are taking is to ensure that we have the resources to provide the best possible outcomes for our youngest learners.

J. MacPhail: In my order of discussion of issues, I'm on aboriginal issues now. We've had some discussion on aboriginal issues, but I wanted to talk specifically about the announcement made in September of last year, where the Premier brought together aboriginal leaders and made the announcement that too many of B.C.'s aboriginal children are in government care. That announcement also said that there will be a 13-member committee representing B.C. native groups and that government will guide the children's ministry in areas affecting native children, as the government transfers child protection and family development resources to regional authorities. The minister was also present.

I've had some discussion subsequent to that with aboriginal political leaders as well as aboriginal service agencies. Could the minister please update on what's happening as a result of that announcement of six months ago?

Hon. G. Hogg: Just to put that into context, we started a two-stage consultation process about a year and a half ago, and I believe there were something like 60 meetings around the province in different aboriginal communities. The first meeting was: "We need to do things differently. We're not doing well. What type of things can we do?"

That resulted in a meeting being held in Tsawwassen in May with the aboriginal leaders from all over the province. The aboriginal leaders described it as a historic accord, which they called the Tsawwassen accord. It took place there. The historic nature of that was the fact that the United Native Nations, the off-reserve aboriginal people, the Métis, the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — so the four elected leaders, aboriginal leaders of the province — combined with the service providers from all over the province, agreed that they want to work together and have a concerted approach to providing a better form of care for their children, trying to keep their children at home and recognizing that they were so terribly, disproportionately represented in the number of children in care.

As a result of that agreement, the Tsawwassen accord, which they tell me is the first time they've actually been able to come together and come to that type of agreement, we worked with them to build towards a memorandum of understanding. I hosted a feast at the Semiahmoo first nations in August, and we came together at that feast and talked again about what a memorandum of understanding might look like and how we would actually be able to put into place an operational way of dealing with and working with the issues. The signing took place, as the member appropriately puts it, in September, and there have been a number of meetings of that committee since that point in time.

There are aboriginal interim working groups in each of the five regions, and this is called the JAMC, the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee. The JAMC provides an overview, direction and focus for the services to aboriginal children in the province. We have entered into a comanagement model. A lot of the responsibilities which I have statutorily delegated as a member of the executive council I am sharing with the JAMC to make decisions in terms of the initiatives we should take to move forward to provide a better future for aboriginal children.

I give full credit to the aboriginal community for their willingness to come together, their commitment to having a better future for their children and their drive to ensure that happens. We recognize that they need to build more capacity. We have to help them build that capacity and that ability to take on those responsibilities. We're doing that through these meetings of the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee and through the service plans that are starting to be developed within each of the regions. Ed John, who is one of the representatives who sits on that committee, has been particularly helpful as a leader in this whole direction. He's been very good at reminding us of the history of the ministry and the direction that we're going. He had some ideas for starting something like this when he was with the ministry, when he was the min-

ister. He's been very good, also, at pushing and saying that we've got to make sure the resources don't sit with JAMC, that the resources are out there in the community where they'll make a difference to children. He's been a real leader, and his experience has been very helpful in terms of being able to move along the whole direction of services for aboriginal children in this province.

J. MacPhail: One of the interesting and, I think, good-news pieces out of the last provincial congress held by the Premier was the progress being made around treaties. I thought it was a very positive update. Even after that report, though, I still need to understand how all of these pieces are fitting together. I'd like to look at the piece of transfer of responsibility for child welfare and family services to aboriginals, either through the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee or through incremental treaty-making, and how this all works. The same language — capacity-building — is used in both circumstances, so I assume capacity-building under the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee will be capacity that then will be transferred through a legal treaty. How does it all fit together?

Hon. G. Hogg: We have been meeting with the Attorney General's ministry and those people responsible for the treaty negotiations to make sure that everything we're doing is compatible with the direction and focus that treaty-making is also taking. I'm sure the member is well aware that the treaty-making is different in different parts of the province and with the different tables that are meeting. We are being sure that we're a part of the direction that takes place in those.

As an example, the Nisga'a agreement is signed and ratified, and we are very close to an agreement with the Nisga'a with respect to how we will provide services for their children as they're able to, through their agreement, make arrangements for the provisions of services to them. They're meeting with our ministry, and they're meeting with the northern authority. They have an agreement; they have a treaty. As part of their treaty and the delegated responsibility, they're entering into an agreement to have the child protection services provided through the ministry and, ultimately, through the northern authority as part of that. Those types of accommodations are being made at each of the treaty tables that exist around the province.

J. MacPhail: Am I to understand, then, that the work that's done, as Chief Ed John says — pushing the services out, not just resting them with the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee…? Those services will be the precursor to the transfer of responsibility through treaty-making? Or is there another step that needs to occur?

Hon. G. Hogg: I just want to reinforce that the focus of the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee is specifically on the issue of the best interests of children and working on child protection. Where that comes together at some point at a table because of responsibilities that…. That happens in ways I'm not familiar with because of the negotiations that go there.

We have continually been focused, and the reason I think we've had success is that each one of those aboriginal leaders has said that independent of anything else that's going on, we want to be sure that we focus on and provide better services for our children. We want to make sure that we provide resources for our children within the context of their families and their communities. That has been the success of this program or this process — that we've been able to…. The aboriginal leaders have been able to divorce themselves from all of the other negotiations and issues that they're a part of to focus on and work towards this.

We're continuing to do that, and where they happen to come together at different points in time, there are appropriate accommodations made for that to happen. We are in the process of setting up in each of the regions and have these aboriginal authorities, our aboriginal planning groups that are working away at developing a service plan for each of the regions. Ed John chairs the one in the north, and they have a committee that is working on the development of a service plan for the north. When that service plan comes forward and they're able to meet the readiness criteria — and we continue to resource them to do that — then they will take on responsibility for service delivery, just as the non-aboriginal regions will.

The only step is: how do we build that capacity? How do we have…? With the provincial rubric, the provincial policy framework as provided for the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee, each of the regions is developing their model so it's responsive and sensitive to the needs of each of the aboriginal communities that make up the region.

J. MacPhail: In terms of capacity-building, I am referring back to this area. There was an article. Well, it was an analysis done of the February '02 budget. I'll just read the stats about capacity-building: "$2 million will be spent this year" — meaning '02-03 — "on community services to first nations." That "will jump to $4.1 million in each of the next two years." That would be '03-04 and '04-05. After that, "it drops to $1.4 million," which I guess is '05-06. I'm assuming I've got those numbers right. Perhaps the minister could tell the House what he has set aside for capacity-building in the budget just passed — how that's worked — and if indeed there will be a three-year capacity-building allocation that then basically drops off.

Hon. G. Hogg: Could I ask the member to be a little more specific? I'm sorry. I'm not familiar with the references. Is this specifically about capacity-building that was made reference to in last year's budget and the service plan growing out of that?

J. MacPhail: It's on the point of what we're discussing now. Now, it is a full year ago, so the announce-

ment about the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee had not yet been made. It's talking about building up capacities. I'll just read it to you. It says:

It looks like once aboriginal agencies have the capacity, they'll be expected to generate some of the funding as well.

Hon. G. Hogg: I think the memorandum that the member is referring to is one which was developed, as the member said, prior to the signing of the memorandum of understanding. Subsequent to the memorandum of understanding and as a result of discussions with the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee and with each of the regions, there has been an allocation of $2 million to each one of the five regions — for a total of $10 million for capacity-building as part of this process. On top of that there has been the aboriginal social work training that we've been working on with Advanced Education.

There have been specific programs in individual communities that we've worked with. The most graphic one, to my knowledge, is the one in Nak'azdli near Fort St. James, which some of our staff actually went into and were able to build the capacity there around some fairly traumatic events that had taken place.

It's been seen by the aboriginal communities in the north as a good way to respond to their types of needs — rather than apprehending a number of people, actually being able to work within the context of the community. There have been specific responses, as well, to specific needs, but more broadly it has been the $2 million allocation to each of the regions for a total of $10 million.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to ask my final question in this area of aboriginal issues around foster care, even though I have other questions around foster care.

Aboriginal foster care is a huge issue in my own riding and my colleague's riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Progress has been made, but it is interesting to note that with these statistics around children in care and the proportion of children in care rising — just because the number of aboriginal children in care is remaining static, but the overall number of children in care is being reduced…. How does the ministry meet the need for increased aboriginal foster care homes?

Hon. G. Hogg: That is certainly an ongoing challenge: to continue to find and have enough aboriginal foster homes. We, over the course of the last year, delegated the first urban aboriginal delegation for family and children services in Canada, which was VACFASS. They have been working very diligently and very hard at developing and expanding their range of resources and their range of foster homes. We believe, and I believe, that the best way to do that is through the aboriginal communities and the connections that they have. Certainly, VACFASS has been working at developing a set of resources for doing that.

There are similar delegations and similar organizations around the province which are working, including the aboriginal foster parents association, which we work with to try and continue to manage that. But it continues to be a challenge, and as the member has correctly put it, the numbers have remained stable as a percentage. The numbers have increased in terms of the number of children in care.

There are still a number of aboriginal children who are in non-aboriginal homes. Part of the direction and focus of the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee has been to look at and to find placements which are within the aboriginal community to respond to the cultural sensitivities of that. It's an ongoing challenge, and we're working with the communities to try and improve that.

J. MacPhail: What progress is being made outside of the urban areas in providing aboriginal homes for foster care?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are about 21 aboriginal delegated agencies around the province, which are developing and managing and dealing with aboriginal children in care. The delegated agencies have about 993 of those.

I'd be happy to provide the member with a list of those agencies and the number of children they have in care and the work they're doing around the province. Similar to what is happening with VACFASS in Vancouver, there are similar organizations — aboriginal communities around the province — which are doing exactly the same thing in various parts of the province.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to mental health for children. Of course we have a Minister of State for Mental Health, but mental health services for children rest with the Minister of Children and Family Development.

There was a new mental health plan for children introduced in February, I think, of this year. Could the minister bring the House up to date on what stage the ministry is at in implementing this program?

Hon. G. Hogg: As the member appropriately comments, there was the introduction of a child and youth mental health plan, the first such plan in Canada. It is a plan which has been developed with the cooperation, support and assistance of people across this province, with an extensive consultation.

The first phase of that plan is the infrastructure development, which will occur over the next two years

and be accommodated primarily within existing resources. The infrastructure development includes ensuring that there are the appropriate tools developed and put in place and that there's appropriate training and infrastructure in terms of the evidence-based practice — the website, the libraries, the networks and the resource material. This phase includes a $9 million grant to the University of British Columbia's mental health evaluation and community consultation unit to work with and develop those startup costs, and that is the stage which we are in currently.

J. MacPhail: But Maples is closed, as I understand it, or Maples is on the verge of being closed, and of course Maples is a longstanding facility in the lower mainland that is residential care for youth with mental illness. So, is the minister saying that in phase 1 there will be a provision of building of infrastructure? Is that to replace capacity lost by the closure of Maples?

Hon. G. Hogg: The Maples is not being closed. However, at one point I may have mixed up the word "maples" with the word "willows" when I confused my trees some time back. I think I was quoted as saying that the intent was to deal with the Willows, not the Maples. The Maples is remaining open as our institutional response to child mental health…who require that type of care.

J. MacPhail: So Maples is staying open. Okay. Then what is the infrastructure? The minister said in phase 1 there's a building up of infrastructure. What does that mean?

Hon. G. Hogg: That means the development of the evidence-based practice. This is the work with UBC and their mental health evaluation community consultation plan. It's the development of the evidence-based practice guidelines and the training support. It's the establishment of the web-based libraries related to children's mental health disorders for access to each of the regions. It's the establishing of a formal children's mental health network to ensure planning and coordination across the ministry and with other regions and thus develop the resource material about children's mental health disorders and make sure that information is made available. It's the training of staff to be able to respond to and look at these issues. Within that there are information technology costs, as well, to ensure that we're connected in a way that allows there to be that type of coordination necessary for this type of service.

J. MacPhail: Now, I understand the costs for the program are going to be $9 million in startup costs and then $64 million over the next five years. Who pays for that?

Hon. G. Hogg: All the money in the three-year service plan is contained within the budget of this ministry.

J. MacPhail: I assume this is new money. Is this new money directed toward mental health for youth?

Hon. G. Hogg: There is new money in it. There's some reallocation of money within the budget currently, and there is for '05-06, where it starts to ramp up — a further $12 million being introduced into the program.

J. MacPhail: Well, I actually want to be clear on this. I think I'm going to ask the minister to be precise because, of course, his own budget is being reduced by $305 million over '03-04 and '04-05. Let's just deal with '03-04 and '04-05 — about how much money is being directed to the child and youth mental health plan and how much of that is new money and how much of it is just reallocated money. I'm sure the minister knows where I'm going on this. How do you start up new programs when the overall budget is being reduced? It is interesting that if it is reallocation, then it means services to children elsewhere are being reduced.

Hon. G. Hogg: The reallocation includes from youth custody. Our youth custody counts are down dramatically, as are youth probation numbers, so there's some reallocation from that. There's a 42 percent reduction in administration, which is a reallocation.

There was a decision made with respect to the overall target figures for our budget that there were some areas which we should be protecting and should not be receiving any reduction because of a number of reasons, and youth custody was one of those, which we don't control the intake on yet. We have seen a reduction in the overall numbers.

Early childhood development and mental health. Those have been areas that we see as part of capacity-building, as part of building within community development to ensure that we have some options available prior to the need to take children into care. Those are areas that we've looked at, focused on and protected budgets.

J. MacPhail: Is the first new money that's being allocated to this mental health plan coming in '05-06?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, the first new money into the budget will come at that point in time. That's the $12 million I made reference to. Any other moneys are part of the reallocations we've just discussed.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me explore a certain area with the minister then, and that is the issue of the relationship between youth custody and mental health. It's my understanding that youth custody now only occurs upon the committing of a third criminal offence. Is that correct? It used to be that…. Let me just shape where my argument is going on this. There is a correlation between youth activities requiring custody and mental health. Often the activities committed by youth that are

of a dangerous nature are related to mental illness, just as they are in the adult area.

What this government has done is that in order to reduce youth custody and the costs associated with it, a ruling has been made that it is only on the commission of a third criminal offence that a youth is taken into custody. But the consequence of that is, then, that youth who may be mentally ill are left to their own resources without any adult capacity to seek services in any way.

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, with respect to sentencing, the courts make determinations with respect to sentencing, and judges make those decisions based on the criteria that are before them. There's no criterion within legislation, our policy or practice that says there must be three offences before someone is sentenced. It's dependent upon the individual before the courts, the circumstances of the individual, the circumstances of the offence and the protection of society. All of those issues are a part of the sentencing process, and that is distinct and separate from government.

With respect to youths coming into custody, there is a psychological survey that is done when children come into custody. There is an initial analysis to see whether or not there is a severe mental health issue and/or any type of suicidal behaviour that may be there, so there is some initial screening that is done to make a determination with respect to what should be done. There have been instances. The last study I read, I think, was the Carlson psychological survey that was done by Simon Fraser University of an institutional population as sentenced and a remanded population of youth.

It did not suggest that the majority of youths had severe psychological or psychiatric disorders to the extent that it would impair their functioning. It did suggest there was unsocialized behaviour. The member may well be aware of some of the work that is being done primarily in Canada by both Andrews and Gendreau, which talks about what happens when a youth comes into custody or when a youth is caught.

I think the research is pretty clear that if a youth who is high risk and low need in terms of the splits that they do in these, often if you take a low-risk, low-need child and bring them into custody, the chances of them…. If you leave them alone, the chance of recidivism is about 30 percent. If you get them involved in services, then the chances of them being involved in recidivism doubles, I think, so sometimes the system has an unintended negative consequence in terms of the performance of youth who come into custody.

However, there are some who are high need, high risk. They need to be in custody and need to have a response system that does address their psychological needs. That is why there's an initial survey that is done, a psychological survey. That is why there are mental health professionals within those institutions to be able to respond to and look at. Certainly, I haven't read or seen any studies that would suggest there is mental illness to the extent that one would want to suggest that these are mental health facilities — over 50 percent of the population. In fact, the last studies I looked at, I suggest, were under 20 percent, and those were being managed and looked at within the context of the institution.

J. MacPhail: Why has there been such a dramatic reduction in youth custody if, indeed, it's just sentencings of the court? Why is it that the minister has been able to glean huge savings from the reduction in youth custody to transfer to payment for his mental health program?

Hon. G. Hogg: In fact, I think the research shows it is continentwide that there's been a reduction. Certainly, it's not just in British Columbia that it has taken place. But in British Columbia we now also have the population under age 18 shrinking, so we have fewer in that cohort. Also, as the member I'm sure is aware, the new Youth Criminal Justice Act is coming into effect on April 1. It talks about the development of a number of community-based alternatives to look at and to respond to the needs of high-risk youth.

Part of the program that has existed within this province, formerly under the Ministry of Attorney General and now under this ministry, has been one that has been on the forefront, on the cutting edge of looking at community-based alternatives to institutionalization. This province has been a leader in the development of community-based programs, and it has consistently been among the lowest provinces in Canada in per-capita institutionalization.

At one point there were about 4.03 children per 100,000 of population that were coming into custody. The prairie provinces were at 17 or 18, and Ontario was above that. Some of the Maritime provinces were well above that. We were amongst the lowest and have consistently been amongst the lowest. That's primarily because we have had a number of community-based alternatives to look at and to work with youth.

Today, as we look across the continent, there are fewer youths in custody and fewer youths committing those offences. There are some more dramatic offences that are taking place, the high-profile ones that seem to glean all the media attention and make us believe that perhaps there is much more going on than, in fact, there really is.

J. MacPhail: The Youth Criminal Justice Act comes into effect April 1. Is there any capacity in this new act to treat youth who have committed a crime and who are mentally ill in a different way than those who are not mentally ill?

Hon. G. Hogg: The court procedures change significantly, and judges will have a wider range of sentencing options. All custody sentences will be followed by periods of supervision in the community, which can also be revoked if the youth is not performing well.

It also promotes intensive intervention and treatment for serious violent offenders who may suffer from mental disorders and/or addictions. It promotes that. There is some cost-sharing from the federal government with respect to providing programs such as that. We also have Juvenile Services to the Courts, which is the psychiatric support system that exists for the court system and is available to them for different types of assessments and treatment programs to be developed.

Hon. G. Hogg: The act references providing further support, particularly, for serious violent offenders who suffer from mental disorders as well as addictions. Those become available through Juvenile Services to the Courts as well.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I missed phase 2 of the mental health plan for youth. Perhaps the minister could just reiterate what phase 2 entails. I couldn't find any funding for phase 2 in the service plan. Where will the funding come for that?

Hon. G. Hogg: Phase 2 is the $12 million which comes in '05-06. That is when we're moving into the full service delivery that will reflect the infrastructure which has been developed and the staff responding to that.

J. MacPhail: Is any funding at all coming from the Ministry of Health Services for this program?

J. MacPhail: At what age do young people transfer to the services of the Ministry of Health Services for mental health treatment?

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move into the area of foster care. On March 12 in question period I asked the minister about 15- and 16-year-olds who are being diverted from foster care to the welfare rolls. I mean, question period is question period, but this is a real issue. Since raising that issue in question period, I have actually had feedback from both service providers and young people themselves that this is happening.

Why? What's being done about this issue? It's a particular problem in Vancouver. Well, I shouldn't say it's a particular problem; I shouldn't take away from the fact that it may be happening elsewhere. As an MLA, I know that this is a problem. I can describe why it's a problem to the minister after we begin this discussion.

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, the guidelines in the legislation have not changed. If there are some specific examples of those, then I'd be happy to follow up on them. There is a slight increase in youth agreements, in which there is the independent living. That may be equated with it. With the independent living, the payment portion of it is tied to the income assistance rates, but not the program part of it.

If they're able to find me the numbers…. There currently are 385 youths living independently under that type of arrangement.

Hon. G. Hogg: Perhaps I could, but I cannot do that right now, so we'll have to ask the staff to do that. I should add, however, that the figure which I just gave you is for the number of children in care. There are also active clients, 160 youth who are on youth agreements. They're not in care, but they are on agreements and living independently. In Vancouver-Richmond there are 34 such youth on youth agreements and living independently.

J. MacPhail: The youth living independently but under agreements — is the relationship for payment with the welfare office?

Hon. G. Hogg: Those are provided through the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The income assistance level is the reference point for the payment for living which is provided to the youth, and then any other services which were provided to them, or any other funding, is case-specific.

J. MacPhail: This is an article in my local paper, the Vancouver Courier, on March 11 of this year, but it also confirms the evidence coming into my own constituency office. I'll read just the beginning of it to the minister: It's called "Younger Teens Sent to Welfare."

Hon. G. Hogg: Well, as I said earlier, there has been no change in policy or legislation with respect to that, but certainly that's a figure which interests me. I will ask our staff to look, with the Ministry of Human Resources, to see if there are numbers or if we can see any type of trends with respect to that with children who fall under the auspices of this ministry.

With respect to the issue of independent living, there is a certain set of criteria that must be met before someone would qualify for independent living, includ-

ing that they must have some degree of maturity and perhaps have employment. There are a number of criteria or checklists that social workers go through before they would authorize or approve someone for independent living, and it would have to be that that is the best and most appropriate living circumstance for the young person at that point in time.

With respect to the other issue, I'll ask that our staff meet with the Ministry of Human Resources and see what those numbers are. I had a preliminary discussion with the Ministry of Human Resources previously. Their indications at that point to me were that, in fact, the numbers were down of youth who were applying for and/or receiving any type of income assistance, but we haven't been able to get that specific as yet.

J. MacPhail: With respect, I did raise this issue March 12, two weeks ago, in question period. I'm hoping that we're two weeks into an investigation around this matter. It would sure be appropriate to talk to Dina Franks. I'm sorry. This is from the March 9 Vancouver Courier paper. I gave you the wrong date. I said March 11. I guess I'll put the Minister of Human Resources on notice that this will be a topic we will be discussing in his estimates.

Of course, when numbers are down, when overall enrolment is down, one then has to look behind the numbers as well. The evidence I have received in my office is that there is an increased number of youth being identified in the downtown east side by police, who are using their money to buy drugs, and that there is an increased activity amongst young…. They're girls, but they're being pimped, and there's been an exchange of the welfare cheque to the pimp.

I'm sure this is not an issue that we need to disagree on. If it's occurring, it needs to stop, even in the context of cuts in government. If the minister doesn't have any knowledge of this, even after being notified of it two weeks ago, then I assume it will be up to the Minister of Human Resources to answer these questions.

Hon. G. Hogg: Our staff is aware of it and has been looking at it and just does not have those results as yet. When we get them, we will make those available to the member. The issues which the member brings up in the downtown east side and other parts of downtown Vancouver, where we are looking at issues of pimping and are certainly concerned…. Our primary concern has to be the health, safety and well-being of young people. We should be taking any measures and implementing any strategies necessary to ensure that we are able to keep them safe.

J. MacPhail: In terms of foster care, what is the ongoing relationship? What are the organizations that the minister works with in terms of provision of foster care?

Hon. G. Hogg: The organizations are the Federation of Foster Parent Associations, which is the provincial body. Then there are regional groups or local groups, and I've also met with a number of them — the aboriginal federation of foster parents and the foster parents network. As we're going to a new regional model, there have been…. Not all foster parents were enamoured with or pleased with the services they were being provided with originally through the federation of foster parents, and so we've been looking at and working with them. David Young has had a number of meetings with them as we've been looking at trying to develop a system which is more responsive to the needs of foster parents.

We're going to move to a process of regional service delivery, which will be more responsive to local needs. They pointed out to me, when I met with them about a month ago, that the administration had spent an inordinate amount of its time with, I think, 15 or 16 board members flying to meetings around the province. A lot of their money was eaten up in that, rather than in providing direct services to foster parents. They've gone to using telephone conferences to help facilitate the arrangements and meetings, and they feel that they've become much more efficient and effective and are being much more responsive to the needs of foster parents.

They are the main organization, the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations, and they are developing and working at regional models now to come up to and be responsive to the needs and be a voice for foster parents, in terms of the issues and concerns that affect them generally.

J. MacPhail: As I recall, it was a bit rocky about a year or ten months ago — the relationship between the B.C. Foster Parents Federation and the government. I'll ask a series of questions around that, then. Does the government still provide funding to the B.C. Foster Parents Federation? If so, how much? How many foster parents are members within the federation and how many without?

Hon. G. Hogg: The member is correct. There was quite a rocky relationship. It's my recollection that at that time, between 30 and 40 percent of foster parents were actually participating and having some involvement in the issues of the federation. There was the foster parents network, which was saying that the federation was not responding appropriately to the needs, and there were a lot of foster parents moving into looking at the network as an alternate response mechanism. We don't have the specific amount of funding that happens provincially now, because we're starting to sign contracts in regions with the federation and its regional representatives, but we'll be able to pull that figure together and get that for the member.

J. MacPhail: How many active foster parents are there in the province now, which have had a contract in the last six months, say?

Hon. G. Hogg: The last figure we have is about 3,400, but that number will have reduced somewhat as a result of the reduction in care, which the member canvassed previously.

Around this time last year, maybe a bit later, there was a change in the way that foster parents were to be paid, particularly at the levels 2 and 3 of foster care. It was controversial. I'm wondering whether it was just controversial because of change or whether there's been any massaging of the way foster parents are paid.

Hon. G. Hogg: Actually, there was not a change in the way that foster parents were being remunerated. The fact is that the policy that was in place and that was negotiated with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations, I believe five or six years ago, was not being equally applied around the province. As a result, some foster homes that had multiple children in them were receiving funding above what the rate structure and policy developed and signed off reflected that they should. We have brought the practice in all regions of the province in line so that it is consistent with the policy.

The outcry that the member is referring to…. There was an outcry, and that outcry came from those regions and parts of the province where foster parents were being paid at a rate above the rate that had been negotiated. That was primarily with a second and third child that were into a home, in which the rate or agreement that was negotiated with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations showed a slight decline in terms of the amount of payment for a second and third child. Yet in some parts of the region, that was not being implemented. As we implemented it and brought that in line, we made it fair and consistent across the province, but there was some concern when that was going on.

J. MacPhail: The ministry used to do a recruitment campaign for recruiting foster parents. Is that ongoing?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, there is an ongoing campaign that happens regionally, and there are appreciation dinners that happen every year for foster parents. We've sent out information to virtually every municipal council in the province around foster care and Foster Care Month and the declaration of that.

I have been to a number of the luncheons which have endorsed and celebrated the work of foster parents. They are the most integral and important resource that we have in the service delivery model for children in this province. With the reductions in the numbers of children in care, there hasn't been the same demand and pressure which there once was, so there is a better ability at this point in time to actually more appropriately match children with the foster home that would be most appropriate for them.

Consistent with that, there are staff in each region who work to support foster parents, to find more foster parents and to recruit them. About a month ago I attended one such recruitment and celebration in Surrey, where we talked with foster parents. Many foster parents came with their foster children and had a celebration of the work they're doing and talked to other foster parents. There is ongoing local participation and recruitment.

I think one of the reasons the adoptions, as we've talked about, have been so successful is because it has also been very localized. The staff in regions have been very good and focused on looking at, responding to and recruiting parents who are the most likely parents to want to adopt a child. Often a foster parent is the most likely person to adopt a child who they have within their care. That happens very, very regularly. It's been the local focus for both adoption and searching for foster parents, which has been much more effective than sort of more blanket advertising or campaigns. It's been the personal contact which has been most effective.

J. MacPhail: In terms of foster care and the relationship to adoption of children, is the minister…? Where are we at? Sorry. That's not the approach I want to take.

In terms of our growing success in the area of provision of foster care, how do we stand in relationship to the rest of the country?

Hon. G. Hogg: We talked a couple of days ago in estimates about the capacity of other provinces to be able to integrate and provide coordinated information and their inability to do that because they have a number of societies and agencies and don't have a central network for being able to maintain that information. That's something which, as we move to a regional model, we want to ensure this province maintains so that we will have that ability. So we don't have accurate numbers to compare with other provinces.

We are in the position now of being able to actually close some beds in foster homes around the province, because our capacity currently exceeds our needs. When we did the evaluation looking at the rates again and did some comparisons, we do pay amongst either the best or the second-best rates in terms of rates to foster parents in British Columbia when compared to other provinces.

Having been a foster parent, I'm aware of the challenges that exist in that. I think foster parents certainly earn every cent they get, and most of them are doing it out of love, compassion, commitment and caring, and wanting to improve the lives of children in this province. We've been fortunate to have a lot of very dedicated and committed foster parents in this province.

J. MacPhail: I recall that one of the growing areas of children in care in the nineties was conflict between parents and teens, and children being taken into foster

care as a result of that. I thought it was a bit controversial at the time, although I fully understood it because, of course, it wasn't necessarily a situation where children were at risk in what I would call the traditional sense — and forgive me, I'm speaking as a lay person here — but there was an increase, almost by agreement, of children being taken into care. Can I have the statistics on that, perhaps, for over the last couple of years?

Hon. G. Hogg: We apparently do not have or keep figures associated with that, but that may well be a remnant…. I'm sure the member remembers that under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, there was a section of the act called "Unmanageability" or "Incorrigibility," in which if a parent had some conflict with their child, they were able to take them to court and had to prove in a court of law, in a youth court, that a child was unmanageable. As a result, the child could be made a ward of the superintendent of child welfare in those days and could avail themselves of the resources that the state had.

That created all kinds of conflicts within families, which were never, ever reconciled. It was recognized that that was a poor piece of legislation. I think the member may be referring to a remnant of that and the type of conflicts that often occur as teens are developing their ego identity and moving away from the supports and values their parents have — moving more to the peer structure and the supports, getting their sense of well-being, knowledge and ego identity through the peer structure — and the challenges that exist within that.

As a result of that, there certainly have been teen conflicts. We have been emphasizing a lot of our funding in family development. We have resource and supports to deal with teen-parent conflicts and trying to manage that. We don't have specific numbers with respect to those children who may be coming into care either by agreement or through a protection hearing.

J. MacPhail: My last question in the area of foster care relates to the class action suit filed in the Supreme Court against the province in relationship to the Winter foster parents situation — foster parent Alan Walter Winter. What is the status of that class action lawsuit against the province? It was by former foster children who alleged that they were sexually abused while in care.

Hon. G. Hogg: I don't have the answer to that. I assume that will be within the Attorney General's ministry. Perhaps that can be asked in the estimates for the Attorney General.

J. MacPhail: I'd like to move on to group homes. Part of the way the minister said that there would be savings with the new way of doing business was to add a person to a group home — make a four-person group home a five-person group home. How does that happen? How does that happen structurally and staff-wise?

Hon. G. Hogg: It's certainly not something which is obviously suitable for every group home. If a group home feels that it has have the resources necessary to be able to do that in terms of bedroom and space and square footage, then they can apply to have another…. This would primarily be in the area of the developmentally disabled and the group homes that exist there. They could apply, and then the authority would meet with them and make a determination if that were appropriate. If it were appropriate, they could place another person in that group home.

J. MacPhail: I know it was when we had the discussions around class size during Education estimates last year that…. Just add one child to a classroom, and everything would be okay, and there would be huge cost savings. But for those of us who don't do this on a daily basis, that has implications. I had one teacher explain to me that she taught 17 blocks, and adding one child to a class meant that she had 17 extra children — which is two-thirds of a class — and it took away all of the extracurricular ability to tutor. I use that only as an example that it seems pretty easy to just add one, but there are zoning bylaws, and there are community facilities regulations and staffing levels. Where are the break points on all of those?

Hon. G. Hogg: Any changes will be consistent with all of the legislation and regulations which are in existence. This is not something which is being imposed. This is something which is being proposed as an offer.

There have been a number of group home operators who have approached me over the past year saying: "We would like to be able to take another person in." It may be another family member — in one instance, it was another family member — but because of the limitations that existed through the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act and other regulations, that was not possible at that point in time.

There is currently a joint working group between the Ministers of Health Services and Health Planning and our ministry and the representatives of the interim community living services governance authority, which are developing standards and guidelines to ensure that…. Again, it is something to ensure that we're addressing the health and safety needs of any of the individuals who might be placed in a group home. All of the standards are the same. All of the regulations are the same, except there's an ability to allow that to expand.

One of the issues — I believe it was in the instance where a parent came to me about wanting to have a sibling of one in their home — was that they had a large bedroom and wanted to have two people in the bedroom. That has traditionally not been allowed, but there are instances where that may seem quite appropriate, and it certainly is a practice in many of the

homes that exist around the province. That is one option or one example where it may be appropriate for the placement of another person within that context.

I'm being told that we have over 400 group homes currently with fewer than four beds in them.

J. MacPhail: Just to, I think, repeat what the minister offered before, the Child in the Home of a Relative program remains. Does it? The minister is nodding yes. Fine.

I kind of did youth justice previously, but I have two remaining questions in that area. We've already discussed that the federal government is introducing the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and that replaces the Young Offenders Act. We've discussed what impact this will have on youth programs in B.C., but there was an interesting curiosity in the previous year's service plan — as I read last year's service plan — compared to this. There were a variety of performance measures in last year's service plan that related to youth. There were performance measures included under youth justice, child and youth mental health, and youth services areas, which are now provincial services, and those aren't in this year's plan.

Let me just tell the minister why I'm interested in this. It's that some of those measures included the number of youth forensic treatment services, the number of youth agreements that we've already talked about that are in place to help high-risk youth. Why were those eliminated from this year's service plan?

Hon. G. Hogg: The research in goal setting and goal attainment scaling and looking at the focuses suggests that the fewer goals you have that are more focused and more directive, the better the organization responds to, looks at and manages those. We are continually trying to articulate and to refine the development of our measurements. A number of the measurements which the member refers to were process issues rather than outcome measures. We want to shift from process measures to outcome measures and ensure that they are measures which actually give direction to focus, to policy and to practice to ensure that we actually do try to achieve the things we set out rather than see them as part of an ongoing process.

J. MacPhail: So eventually I'll be able to get the number of youth agreements that are in place, etc. Is that a ministry philosophy, or has that been transformed across government? Do you know?

Hon. G. Hogg: That is across government, and it is a recommendation that came from the auditor general.

J. MacPhail: Again on the service plan, on page 17, relating to youth justice, and then we'll complete my portion of these estimates with the rest of the service plan questions. On page 17, strategy 2.5.1 reads: "Provide treatment services within available limited resources to assist the rehabilitation of youth within the justice system." What funding is being provided for this?

Hon. G. Hogg: The figures that are represented in that, in terms of the services that are provided, would fall within youth mental health and the mental health workers that we have — mental health social workers — within the budget of family development. Some of it may fall into that. I think it's about $110 million we have for our family development budget, our youth forensic budget specifically which we're still trying to find, as well as the contracting we do with psychologists. There's a wide range of services that are provided within that on an ongoing basis. The one that has been expanded somewhat this year and last year was the family development portion of that.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Well, being a naturally suspicious person, I had thought that perhaps the reason why the performance measures were removed was that there would then be no indication of performance measures, number of treatment, number of people receiving treatment, etc., because there are cuts to the programs. There would be a drop in treatment service, and the government wouldn't want to be monitoring that. In terms of youth justice, is there a statutory obligation to provide services to everyone who qualifies?

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, all of the figures which the member refers to are still kept. They're just not shown as outcomes in the service plan because of the direction from the auditor general around focusing those, but we still will collect all those and have them available.

There are no statutory requirements for mental health services to be provided to youth. There are instances where the courts will have ordered a psychiatric examination or some type of services. They may have a probation order which includes psychological or psychiatric counselling or services. In those instances where the courts are ordering it, there is a legal requirement through the order of the legislation by the courts to determine that those services are there. Other than that, that's the only statutory requirement or legal requirement connected to the delivery of mental health services.

J. MacPhail: My final area of canvassing is in the service plan generally. Strategy 2.2.1, page 14, says: "Review all programs and services to ensure that limited resources are committed to science-based intervention." Can the minister explain that?

Hon. G. Hogg: The figure for youth forensic programs is $13,146,466. The issue of science-based, or evidence-based, is where there is actually research which supports outcomes. There are clearly some pro-

grams which have been offered, some which we continue to offer, which do not have evidence-based research to support that they actually produce positive outcomes. We've been assisted in that by the relationship and the contract that we have with the University of British Columbia to look at and evaluate programs and ensure that they are evidence-based. We've had a blue-ribbon panel out of the University of Victoria which helped us look at, screen and manage our programs. We've done a full literature review and research as well, which we could make available to the member if she's interested.

I know the member doesn't like me to bring up Clyde Hertzman's name, but Dr. Hertzman has actually been involved in helping us look at a lot of the research and ensure, particularly in our areas of early childhood development, that it is focused on and responsive to the research that he and Dr. Mustard have done in this field. We're trying to ensure that the programs we run and the contracts we enter into are consistent with best practices as they exist. Certainly, there's been a strong evolution and development of a lot of research over the past number of years. A lot of meta-analyses are starting now to occur and give us a better sense of what the focus and direction that we should take is so that we are putting our resources where they will have the best response in the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our province and for them.

J. MacPhail: It will be interesting to see. Is this groundbreaking? When you say you're doing a canvassing of the literature, which would be fair enough, but…. This is an area of dedicated professionals in the public service, and I've always thought that both…. Well, in my day it was the Ministry of Social Services, which had the minister's ministry and then the Minister of Human Resources. They seemed to be the most dedicated public servants I had ever come across, and very professional as well. Is there breakthrough in this area? Let me put it this way: are the universities doing breakthrough, science-based interventions in this area that didn't exist before?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, I support the comments the member made with respect to the dedicated, professional and high-performing staff that exist within this ministry. Also, about two-thirds of the ministry's budget goes to contracts, so there are a number of organizations which are contracted to provide a lot of services to the ministry.

Certainly, there's always a growth in the body of knowledge that reflects how we should be looking at and responding to and working with children. There have been issues of the year or of the month. Learning disabilities — at one point people were saying that virtually all children who were going into custody had a learning disability. The research over the years showed that, in fact, was not the case, and very few of them had learning disabilities. The change in terms of the knowledge that exists with early childhood development…. In this province in particular, we've gone through a myriad of different approaches to having to work with children and with adults — from reality therapy to behaviour modification to eclectic models of response — and none of those has been…. Those tend to have been much more the mood of the day or what was the catchphrase of the day as we tended to respond to it.

We're wanting to move into looking at models that actually respond to the best outcomes that exist for children. I think what we're saying and what the research is suggesting is that there are a myriad of differential approaches that have to take place, which respond to the specific needs of individuals and families in ways that make sense. This means having to do an appropriate assessment before you move into any type of treatment or response to the types of needs.

Those are the types of research and that's the type of work we're wanting to move into as we develop our child and youth mental health plan, where UBC is saying to us: "Here is the best information that exists today for your staff to be as successful as they possibly can." Knowing that they're dedicated, committed staff members, we have to provide them with the best, most up-to-date information possible to make the best decisions they can to ensure the best possible outcomes for our clients. That's what evidence-based is about.

It's about using the research, making sure we're staying on the continuing cutting edge of the information and the research as it comes forward. In British Columbia — in fact, in Canada — we have some of the very best researchers in this. We've mentioned Clyde Hertzman and Fraser Mustard. We have Gendreau and Andrews and a number of others across Canada who are internationally acclaimed experts in terms of doing that. We are fortunate in Canada to have people who are on the forefront of these fields and can lead us and help us in developing systems and models that are the most effective and best possible.

J. MacPhail: A performance measure on page 20 of the service plan is to reduce the ministry's regulatory burden by 40 percent by the end of fiscal '04-05. The cross-government target in this area, quite a courageous one still, is a third — a 33 percent reduction. Why the heroic level here?

Hon. G. Hogg: We are already at 23 percent, so we've exceeded the expectation for this current year. The reason for that is we're moving away from regulations into standards and outcomes, and the reason for doing that is actually wanting to free up social workers to do the kind of work the member referred to — the dedicated heroic work that so many social workers do across this province. One of the things the social workers have been telling me as I go visit them around the province is that in some instances, 60 or 70 percent of their time is spent before a computer screen.

It's spent filling out forms and responding to the regulations and issues that are there. I remember talk-

ing to a social worker who was involved with a child that died on her caseload. I think there were 11 or 12 different agencies and people that looked over her shoulders, which applied different regulations — the authorities from different sections of government — to look at what she was doing, looking at the whole case and coming back with a myriad of different recommendations. That froze the social worker in terms of her ability to actually use her intelligence, her training and her skills to do the things we actually want them to do.

I believe that by deregulating, we're actually freeing up the enormous potential that exists for our social workers to be able to utilize their skills and abilities to the maximum. By shifting from regulations to standards and outcomes, I believe it will also assist them in doing that and will ensure we will have a better, more appropriate, more responsive service to and for the people of this province.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could, in his 23 percent achievement target so far, just give me two examples of a regulation, and one that would be easily understood and common.

Hon. G. Hogg: Working at an enormously rapid pace to triage and find just the right and perfect examples for the member, here's No. 1 perfect example. The child and youth manual has just been reviewed and gone through. A number of the regulations have been taken out of it. I'm told that there were some 2,000 regulations removed from this manual. It's come from something that was probably three or four inches thick, which sat on the shelves of staff members and was probably not often referenced, to something that is much more wieldy and much more appropriate in terms of being able to address the outcomes that we look at.

I'm sure the member's not interested, but if you were interested, I would be happy to get you a copy of what the manual looked like and what it is today to give you the excitement of evening or daytime reading. I know the member is obviously looking for ways to fill her time.

The second would be the small-loan program, which is a program that's been in existence for four or five years. It's a program which allows agencies to take out small loans from the ministry to purchase, perhaps, a computer or some type of equipment that may be needed. It was only used twice in the five years that it was in existence. Therefore, it did not seem to be a program which had great utility. As a result, by eliminating that, we were also able to eliminate a number of regulations.

My last area in the service plan is in the area of staff reductions, but let me do a bridging question here. Are front-line staff consulted in terms of the reduction of regulations?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes. There were a number of working groups that involved staff and that went through this. I'm told that the staff actually took great delight in reducing the number of regulations which dictated the way they managed and completed their work.

In terms of staff reduction, I think we've already been through this. The 595 FTE reductions in '02-03 and '03-04 have occurred, but there's a further reduction of 3,183 FTE positions in '04-05. Really, those are — 2,800 of them, anyway — the transfers to the regional authorities.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, that's correct. If I can segue back to a question you asked some time ago and staff has diligently been working to get the answer to, the funding for the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations in '01-02 was $1.98 million and in '02-03 was $1.93 million.

Does this government keep track of FTEs and report them in total? You may not know the answer to that question, but if you do, great. How does this ministry get to account for that being a reduction in FTEs when in reality they'll have to be reported somewhere? Where do they now get reported?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, they are tabulated, and they are collected, and they are kept, and they are reflected in the blue book. This year's estimates in the blue book show 150 staff FTEs which are in regional authorities, and that will continue to show. They're still reflected on the books. They're not shown as direct employees but as FTEs within the context of the authorities. That will continue to occur and be reflected within the blue book.

J. MacPhail: What will be the combination of the reporting of FTEs for regional authorities and the reporting of FTEs for the Ministry of Children and Family Development? What will be the reduction, if you combine those two, by the year '04-05?

Hon. G. Hogg: The overall reduction, when one blends into it the issues and the primary reductions that are occurring in the administrative side — in headquarters — where we're down about 40 percent…. The net reduction shown will be 1,086.

J. MacPhail: The discussion that I've had with the minister and his staff would show that there is huge change. The minister seems to be on top of the change, but that is a huge reduction. Some of it can be accounted for by a reduction in the number of clients and the number of families receiving services. Some of it

can be accounted for — the reduction of the number of children in the province — by a change in the demographics.

Just to conclude, it will take a great deal of will by those delivering the services to compensate for a reduction of staff of 1,086, especially since the reduction doesn't encompass the entire reduction in the budget. There's not only a reduction of staff, but then over and above that — even after accounting for that — there's a reduction in money available for services. However, I wish the minister, his staff and the ministry staff in this area the best.

Progress will be shown for the better of all British Columbia if we actually make progress, I think, in the area of aboriginal services. It is an indication of success in our province when there is real change made in services to aboriginal people and better outcomes as a result. It can only mean everybody is getting better because of that, as an indication.

I do hope that this government sees fit, though, if there is an economic recovery — and I hope there is an economic recovery — that the first allocation for increased funding will be to the clients of the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I don't make a cause-and-effect link here, but sometimes they're the same clients. I want to thank the minister and his staff for this discussion.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise, report progress and ask 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