Hansard -- Thursday, March 25, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 9 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		9731

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9731
	NoRooz celebration
	K. Whittred
	Education system seminar for immigrant parents
	R. Lee
	Post-polio syndrome
	S. Orr

Speaker's Statement		9732
	Rules for questions in question period

Oral Questions		9733
	Children in government care
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark
	Accessibility of personal information of B.C. residents
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of Supply		9735
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Clark

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		9765
	Estimates: Ministry of Skills Development and Labour (continued)

J. Nuraney: In the gallery today visiting us there are 30 students from the Maywood Community School. The Maywood Community School is truly a community school that plays a pivotal role in our community and in the lives of the parents whose children go to the school. They are largely children of new Canadians that benefit greatly from the opportunity for interaction the school provides them — truly a community link, as the ministers had contemplated.

I would ask the members to please join me in welcoming their teacher, Connie Bradley, who is accompanying them, and parents Carolynn Naklicki, Brandee Ubels, Marlene Larson and her mother, and Afaf Saroukhan. Please join me in welcoming the students and their companions.

J. MacPhail: Today in the gallery is Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, and he's accompanied by staff person Don Bain. They are here today to press for issues of aboriginal rights. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: The B.C. Transit board of directors are in Victoria today for their annual fiscal year-end board meeting. B.C. Transit, as you know, Mr. Speaker, provides excellent service across 50 municipalities right across this great province. Today we are joined by Mr. Gregory Slocombe, the chair of the B.C. Transit board of directors. Greg is also the president, general manager and chief operating officer of Ridley Terminals in Prince Rupert.

We're also honoured to be joined by some board members, including Mayor Walter Gray from the city of Kelowna; Mayor Colin Kinsley from the great northern city of Prince George; Mayor Don Amos from the town of Sidney; Mr. Bob DeClark, human resources consultant from Nanaimo; and Mr. Dave Fisher, a business analyst from Kamloops. Mr. Speaker knows that riding well. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

S. Orr: We all have "a very bestest friend," and believe it or not, I do actually. I have a friend. I have two friends, actually. Today visiting in the gallery are two people who have known me since I was young, cute and thin.

They are John and Jane Sproule, and they're visiting from Vancouver. You may recognize the last name Sproule. John is an internationally acclaimed architect, and his wife is an incredible designer. They are also the parents of Spencer Sproule, who is a staffer here in research, and they are here celebrating Spencer's birthday. I actually met Spencer before he was born, because, of course, his mother is a very good friend. Would you please make John and Jane very welcome.

Hon. C. Hansen: A very important friend of my ministerial assistant is visiting in the gallery today from Toronto. I hope that the House will make Morag Cleeveley welcome to Victoria and welcome to the House.

Hon. J. Murray: Today we have Mr. Peter Fograscher, president of the Probyn Group, which is a quality firm in our very important forest industry; Mr. Bill Markvoort, who is a manager at Probyn and on the board of directors of the Truck Loggers Association; and Mr. Markvoort's daughter Eva, who is a student in Victoria. Both of the Markvoorts are constituents of mine, and they're visiting in the gallery today. Will the House please make them very welcome.

K. Whittred: It's my privilege this afternoon to rise to acknowledge and pay tribute to the many Persians who live in my community. They, over the last couple of weeks, have been celebrating NoRooz, or their new year. Over the last week or two, I have had the opportunity to share with my Persian constituents many celebrations. So to all my constituents who are of Persian extraction, I wish them a happy NoRooz.

I'd like to share just a little bit of information with the House about this celebration. In harmony with the rebirth of nature, the Persian new year celebration, or NoRooz, always begins on the first day of spring. The word NoRooz literally means "new day" in the Persian language and brings hope, peace and prosperity to the world. It is celebrated among peoples of various cultures and ethnic backgrounds, political views and religions in many countries, particularly Iran, Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Georgia, Iraq, Syria, Armenia and India.

NoRooz ceremonies are symbolic representations of two ancient concepts: the end and the rebirth, or good and evil. A few weeks before the new year, Iranians clean and rearrange their homes. They get new outfits, they bake pastry, and they germinate seeds — all a sign of renewal. A ceremonial cloth is set up in each household. Troubadours referred to as Haji Firouz disguise themselves with makeup and wear brightly coloured outfits of shiny satin. These Haji Firouz, singing and dancing, parade as a carnival through the streets to spread good cheer and news of the coming new year.

On the eve of the last Wednesday of the year, literally called the Eve of Red Wednesday or the Eve of Celebration, bonfires are lit in public places. With the

help of fire and light, symbols of good, celebrants hope to see their way through this unlucky night and end the year to greet the arrival of spring's longer days.

R. Lee: Today I would like to bring to your attention an exciting event that is taking place in my community, the city of Burnaby North. It's a seminar on the education system in British Columbia. This seminar is intended to help new immigrants understand and take full advantage of our amazing school system. Parents are a very important part of our education system. They can play a significant role in the growth and success of their children in school. They understand what their children are facing and what they can get out of our school system.

As you can imagine, for many new immigrants to this country our education system can be very different and overwhelming. By offering this seminar, we are hoping that they will be able to help their children through their schooling and raise the achievement level of students across British Columbia. The seminar will be offered in both English and Mandarin, which should allow us to reach out to more people. It will be facilitated by Andy Tse, a member of the school planning council of a Burnaby secondary school.

Throughout the seminar Mr. Tse will be covering an overview of the education system in B.C., the interpretation of letter grades and marks, parents' perspective on secondary school course selection and what parents should know about the new graduation requirements. We believe these topics will give the parents a good understanding of how to support and help their children through what could be a very intimidating and confusing time.

The seminar will occur on two occasions. The first, on Saturday, March 27, will be in Mandarin. Then on Saturday, April 17 the seminar will be in English. Both of the seminars will take place in the Willingdon church in the city of Burnaby.

If you know someone who should attend or would like any additional information, please contact my constituency office.

S. Orr: When I was a child growing up, the word "polio" would send a shudder down the spine of parents, adults and children. This disease, which has had a profound effect on its victims, has for the most part now been stamped out, and it is not something that we have to worry about today. However, today the victims of that disease still have to deal with its aftermath. As a result of contracting polio as children, nearly 13,000 adults in British Columbia suffer with what is known as post-polio syndrome. This is a progressive disorder that causes pain and failure of the arms and legs, slowness of movement, breathing difficulties and extreme fatigue. Think about it. Not only was their childhood cut short with this horrible disease, but these victims now have to suffer again. This time, to date, there is no cure.

I want to remind all members of this House that this month is Post-Polio Awareness Month. The organization called Post-Polio Awareness and Support Society of British Columbia is hosting special educational sessions throughout the province so people with post-polio syndrome, their families, health care professionals and the general public can learn and understand more about this extremely debilitating disorder and perhaps help others to recognize and give support to those people in our province that had to suffer — suffer again, as I said — not only as a child but also now in their adult years. Let's thank our lucky stars that our children today do not have to suffer the way many of our senior British Columbians had to and still are.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, there seems to be some uncertainty in the House relating to permissible areas of questioning during question period. Let me firstly say we have been drifting away from the original intent of standing order 47(a), to which I refer all members.

Broadly speaking, oral questions may be asked of ministers of the Crown relating to their responsibilities within their respective ministries. Matters relating to caucus activity are well outside the administrative responsibility of any ministers of the Crown. In any event, once the Minister of Finance has made it clear — which he has — that there are no financial implications arising from caucus activities referred to, that ends the matter. In the decision which the Deputy Speaker read on my behalf on Wednesday, March 10 in this House, the matter was fully canvassed, and in the result, bearing in mind the Minister of Finance's assurance that there were no financial implications, the foundation for the questions posed by the opposition and independent members relating to caucus matters has been removed.

There is another ground upon which yesterday's line of questioning offends basic parliamentary rules, and that is that a member's character and personal conduct cannot be debated or challenged save upon a substantive motion, which must be brought before the House in the normal way with notice. In this regard, I refer hon. members to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, twentieth edition, pages 338 and 378.

One of the difficulties the Chair encounters is that until the question is heard, it is difficult to judge its propriety. But should a question or remarks in debate

canvass the personal conduct or character of individual members of this House, the Chair will take immediate action against the offending member. I would also advise members that when a question is ruled out of order, supplementaries will not be permitted.

Members on both sides have offended. I would ask all members of the House to restrain their enthusiasm and conform to the rules of this House, which are binding on all members, so that members and the general public who are watching the proceedings will be able to hear both questions and answers during question period.

J. Kwan: From the beginning, critics warned the government that chaos would result if big budget cuts were combined with a massive restructuring of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. But the government refused to listen, insisting that all was on track — nothing to worry about. The minister continues to insist that because fewer children are in care, the cuts to her ministry won't impact services. Not so, say her officials. Can she, the Minister of Children and Family Development, tell this House how many more children are coming into her ministry's care as a result of welfare cuts and rate reductions?

Hon. C. Clark: I can tell the member this: the number of children who are coming into the care of the government is going down. That is a piece of good news because it means that we are finding ways to support children better in their families. I think, as a matter of basic principle, it's always better to try and make sure that we can build supports around a family, if possible, to try and prevent crises, to try and keep kids in their families rather than taking them away.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: According to internal government e-mails obtained by the opposition, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is now tracking all children coming into the care of the ministry as a result of rate reductions and cuts in the Ministry of Human Resources. Why? Because the ministry wants to take this information to Treasury Board to beg for more money.

Instead of pretending everything is fine, like the minister did just now, will the minister admit what her own officials are saying — and here's the e-mail associated with it, Mr. Speaker — that more, not fewer, kids are coming into care, and with continued cuts, the government cannot afford to take care of them.

Hon. C. Clark: The number of children who are coming into the care of the government is dropping. That means that more families are staying together. It means that we are supporting children better in their families, finding ways to make them safe in their homes with their families where they should be if they can be, and that's a piece of good news. That is a result of the fact that our government has worked very, very hard over the last two and a half years to try and make it possible for social workers to use the broad range of skills that they've developed and they've been trained to use. Rather than just taking a child out of a home as a first resort, make it a last resort. Go and see how you can support the family. See if you can support parent training. See if you can try and make sure that those places are safe and secure and predictable places for those children so they can ultimately stay where they belong, and that's with their families.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further supplementary.

J. Kwan: Well, here's part of the e-mail that I'm going to quote on the record. In fact, ministry staff are concerned. They're concerned regarding kids being put in a child protection position based on poverty and MHR policies. As a result, they're now tracking this information, and they're going to be bringing that to Treasury Board to ask for more money. That is the reality of what's going on according to the government's own officials.

The minister might not be worried about the effect of government policy on children in need, but her officials are saying something different. They're telling the minister that more kids are coming into care because of the government's cuts to social assistance and that they need more money to handle the problem. Clearly, the Minister of Children and Family Development doesn't have a clue on how many kids are coming into care as a result of the cuts.

J. Kwan: And here's the question. Maybe whoever from the government side today will be answering questions on the issues around Human Resources…. Maybe that minister could help. Can this person, this minister — the backup for the Minister of Human Resources — tell his colleague the Minister of Children and Family Development how many more kids are coming into the care of the government as a result of the ministry's cuts to social assistance?

Hon. C. Clark: I am pleased that the member actually has a source to quote in the accusations that she throws on the floor of this House. That's not always present. But the facts that the member has are wrong. The number of children who are coming into the care of the ministry is dropping. The reason it's dropping is because social workers are using the full range of skills that are available to them as a result of changes in government policy. There were parts of the act which encourage social workers to make it possible to keep kids

in their family if they can, which the previous government never even bothered to proclaim. Part of the problem the previous government had is that because they drove the system to encourage social workers to try and take children out of their homes as a first resort, costs grew. That meant there was less money to invest in things like parent training, parent support — those kinds of very important supports that we try and build around families.

By lowering the number of children who are coming into care of the government, by supporting those families, we're lowering costs in that area, and we're making it possible to be able to support families better, to make them safer, more caring, more predictable places for kids at risk.

J. MacPhail: I guess they had a good rehearsal at caucus too. Did Martyn Brown tell them to do that too? The little seals.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition…. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson, please come to order.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. All members, please come to order so we may hear the questions and the answers.

J. MacPhail: Earlier this month, a legal opinion was released raising concerns about the privatization of B.C.'s Medical Services Plan and the impact of the Bush administration's Patriot Act. The MSP decision could happen any day now.

J. MacPhail: Under the Patriot Act, American secret service agencies can access the private information of British Columbians held by American companies or their subsidiaries without any of us knowing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Government House Leader, member for Kamloops–North Thompson, Minister of Government Revenue, please come to order. Let us hear the question.

J. MacPhail: Mary Carlson, with the office of the privacy commissioner, is on record saying: "This has the potential for being the biggest privacy issue we have ever dealt with." With a decision on MSP privatization expected soon, could the Minister of Management Services explain what she is doing to prevent the Bush administration from accessing the private information of British Columbians.

Hon. C. Hansen: Given the absolute disregard that the member for Vancouver-Hastings showed for question period yesterday in this House, I will be pleased to answer her question, but only after she has offered an apology to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. [Applause.]

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I would take direction of conduct from this government at all — not at all.

J. MacPhail: Here's the problem. Some deals are already done. In February last year, the government announced it was privatizing a significant part of B.C. Hydro. On February 28, 2003, a press release out of New York announced that Accenture, a spinoff of what was once Arthur Andersen, had won the contract to

privatize B.C. Hydro. The same press release stated that Accenture, which has operations throughout the U.S., would develop "a new customer information system."

Those customers are all British Columbians who received bills from B.C. Hydro. That customer information system has our private information on it. To the Minister of Management Services. She says protecting our privacy from the Bush administration is a priority. What assurances can she provide that the contract between B.C. Hydro and Accenture protects the personal information of British Columbians from the scrutiny of the FBI?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, it appears that there is no member of the executive council to take questions. Therefore, question period is now terminated.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Clerk, it appears that there is no Government House Leader here to take us to the next order of business. The member for Chilliwack-Kent.

B. Penner: In this chamber, for the information of members, I call Committee of Supply. We will be debating the estimates for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That's a resumption of debate. In Committee A, for the information of members, we'll be resuming debate on the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour.

J. Kwan: Just prior to the lunch break, I put on record the chronology of the Doug Walls scandal. I asked the minister the question with respect to her knowledge about this scandal prior to the government announcing the audit. The information that I've received indicates that the government was notified of issues relating to Doug Walls as far back as July 2002. Not only was the former Minister of Children and Family Development aware of the situation and concerns arising from it, but the Minister of Finance was also notified. Yet the government chose to take no action.

I'd like the minister's response to that specific issue. Why didn't the government take action back in July 2002?

Hon. C. Clark: All of those issues are being canvassed and worked on very thoroughly by the auditor. They will be able to provide those answers, I think, very, very shortly.

P. Wong: In the gallery today there's a group of 70 grade 11 students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School. This is the second group, together with the 70 students yesterday, totalling 140 students, who are very active, hard-working and eager to learn. They are led by Mr. Rob Ferguson, Mr. John Yetman, Mrs. Heather Paris and Mr. Morgan Brendan. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: I know members are eager to finish estimates so they don't have to face up to the music, but I have many questions to ask the minister. Regarding the Doug Walls issue, I'd like to go back to the questions. The minister keeps on claiming that the audit will answer all these questions.

We know, as we have established earlier, that the minister will not be releasing the Doug Walls audit. In fact, the government will only release the conclusion from this audit. So the public would actually have very little opportunity to see what really happened with respect to that. The minister claims that these questions I ask of her will be answered by the audit. As I said, if the conclusion does not answer these questions, will the minister actually provide the information? Will the minister provide the information afterwards?

Hon. C. Clark: She asked that question last night, but I'd be happy to answer it again.

I'll preface my comments, though, with an additional welcome to the school group from Tupper. Tupper has been through some difficult challenges in the last little while and has surmounted them. It's a great school. Great teachers, great administration, great kids and great parents brought that school together through a really difficult time. I want to join in saying welcome to those folks who are here.

In answer to the question, the audit is looking at the broad range of these issues. Our government is going to be releasing the conclusions of the audit. In fact, we are going to be expediting a freedom-of-information request. Contrary to the member's regular assertions

that someone is going to have to make an FOI request — not correct, not accurate — we are going to be expediting an FOI request and making sure that as much information comes out as is legally possible by doing that ourselves in advance of any requests coming in.

There are rules in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that govern the protection of privacy. It's important that when government releases information, we make sure that the individuals whose actions are commented on or whose names are raised in audits are protected, if possible or if necessary. We have to respect those parts of the act.

Perhaps I could seek guidance from the member about where she sees the bounds of privacy policy. Does she think that it is ever appropriate for government to hold back information, if that information is being held back in order to protect the privacy of individuals who might be unduly affected?

J. Kwan: You know, the minister can continue to sidestep the questions. The reality is this: they are only going to be prepared to release the conclusion of the audit. I would suspect that the conclusion of the audit would not answer many of the questions I've put to the minister to date. You know what? The minister can keep on claiming that somehow those answers will magically be dealt with, but they won't. I suspect they won't be.

Let me just be clear about the Doug Walls situation. Earlier I put the chronology on the record, but here's how Doug Walls, in terms of his involvement from his various companies…. Doug Walls was a….

The Chair: Hon. member, would you kindly take your seat, please. Your line of questioning has become tedious and repetitious. I would suggest you move on to some new material. You had commented that you have lots and lots of questions. I would suggest you move on to a new subject. This has been well canvassed. You spent almost the entire evening last night dealing with this subject. I would suggest that now it's time to move on to another subject.

J. Kwan: These are new questions. They have not been asked of the minister, and let me put….

The Chair: Member, this has been well canvassed. I would suggest that you move on to a new subject.

J. Kwan: It's a new question for the minister that I have not asked, so I would like to put these new questions to the minister, if I may.

The Chair: Take your seat, please. As I mentioned, your line of questioning has become tedious and repetitious. You've spent a great deal of time on this particular subject. It is now time to move on to another subject.

J. Kwan: New questions, Mr. Chair. Here are new questions in the background relating to this set of new questions I have for the minister.

The Chair: Member, take your seat, please. I have said move on to a new subject. This subject is well canvassed. It's time to move on to a different subject, please.

J. Kwan: I have to say that to date, the minister has not provided one answer to any of my questions relating to the Doug Walls situation. It's a new question that has nothing — nothing — to do with the internal audit of which only the conclusions would be released. I would like answers from the minister and the opportunity to ask the minister these questions.

The Chair: Please take your seat. I have asked you to move on to a new subject. If you can't find a new subject, I will call the question.

J. Kwan: Well, I have to tell you that this is astounding in a day of democracy in this very chamber….

The Chair: Member, it's not your position…. Take your seat, please. It's not your position to challenge the Chair. I have asked you to move on. You have canvassed this subject thoroughly over a number of hours. I have asked you to move on to a new subject, and I would suggest you do that. Proceed.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just put my thoughts about the operation of this government in relation to this ministry in general terms then. According to the rules of the House, I am able to put forward my thoughts and background before I put the question. Isn't that right, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: If you have a new subject you're dealing with, you're absolutely correct. If you're dealing with the subject I've just spoken of, you are out of order.

J. Kwan: I am now putting questions to the minister generally about this government and this ministry's operations. They're broad questions, but let me preface my questions with these statements.

We have democracy, so to speak, in Canada. We have democracy, so to speak, in British Columbia. Elected members are elected in this House to ask questions of ministers, executive council members — questions to which the public wants answers. They have every right to do that, and I as an opposition member have every right to do that. I am duly elected, just like anybody else in this chamber.

The government promised during the election campaign that they would be open and accountable. Nothing could be further from the truth, as we have just seen right now in this chamber. We see the government and the minister not wanting to answer questions.

And it's not just the issue around Doug Walls about which the minister won't answer. Yesterday I can-

vassed questions with the minister about budget dollars spending. The minister refused to provide information in this chamber, with over $100 million worth of spending, about what criteria applied to where the spending went. Who got the moneys — these grants that supposedly went out to community groups? The evaluation criteria that should have gone with these grants…. How much money has gone out to these organizations? The minister refused to answer all of those questions, Mr. Chair.

We now have a pattern emerging from this government, and that is clear. The minister would not answer questions that she claims will be dealt with in an audit that will come later, of which only the conclusion portion will be subject to the public's purview. She claims that all the questions I put to the minister would be answered.

Now we have a situation where I can't even put questions, with the exception that there is a pattern that's been laid about this minister and this government about what it is they're trying to hide. They try so very hard to hide everything. They try so very hard to not answer questions on everything. They try so very hard to push responsibility that is theirs to have…. It is their responsibility to own up to, and they won't do that. They try to hide and stonewall every step of the way. That's what we've been able to establish to date.

There are a bunch of questions. You know what? These questions that I cannot ask about the Doug Walls situation — we'll ask them to the Premier. We will put them in the Premier's estimates. He is the head of the executive council who is ultimately responsible, and he is the person who happens, in this case, to have his relative involved in this situation. So we'll put these questions to the Premier.

J. Kwan: These are facts. You may not like the facts, but these are the facts as they are.

I do find it shocking, but you know what? In the rules of this House, I have no opportunity to make the minister answer questions. I have no control over that whatsoever. The minister will do whatever she likes and get away with it. These are the rules of the House by which I must abide, so I will stand down those questions and save them for the Premier's estimates. We'll be asking these questions, every single one of them, of the Premier.

I'd like now to go back to the issue around John Cargo. Last night I asked the minister about John Cargo. She says she didn't have the information and that she will have the information today. Here are the questions. My first question to the minister: can she tell this House if a former MCFD area manager, somebody by the name of John Cargo, is now contracted by the interim authority for the safeguard and accountability management initiative?

Hon. C. Clark: Further to the member's questions yesterday, I have inquired about that information on her behalf. We are still seeking that information, though I expect to have it by…. I will be able to provide it to her completely by the end of estimates today, certainly.

J. Kwan: Well, isn't that convenient? The day before yesterday I asked for information for FTEs and the 40 percent cut that is going on in her ministry. That was in the morning on Tuesday. She said I'd get them in the afternoon. By Wednesday evening we still didn't have the information. Then, yesterday afternoon I asked the minister the question about John Cargo. The minister says she'll have them today. Today she says: "Well, we'll have them by the end of today."

Isn't that convenient? So there's another set of questions which I'm not able to ask because the minister consistently does not have the answers. Maybe the minister's name, instead of being the Minister of Children and Family Development, should be the minister of I don't know. The minister has no answers for anything, it seems to me.

Then, let me go to this set of questions. The minister says the strategic investments, as she calls them, which are essentially the moneys that were unspent in the '02-03 budget cycle, which carry on to the '04-05 budget cycle because the government is expecting reports on these grants that were not…. There was no tendering, because there were no contracts. They were grants apparently. There were no requests for proposals for these grant proposals, but over $100 million was handed out to various organizations. I have a list of them.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. The redirection of dollars within the ministry, from one line item to another…. Normally, the procedure is such that you would have to go to Treasury Board and ask for approval. These strategic investment dollars that flowed out to community groups…. Did the ministry go back to Treasury Board and ask for approval?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah. I think we've had a pretty extensive discussion about this for a couple of hours already. The information that the member is seeking is from the 2002-03 budget year. The debate today is about the 2004-05 budget year. If she can make a question that connects the information she's seeking to the 2004-05 budget, it would certainly be easier for me to answer it while still respecting the rules of this House.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister keeps on hiding. Here's yet another effort of the minister to not answer the question. There is a direct link, as she had admitted yesterday. Where is that link? The minister is still expecting the evaluation and the reports from these organizations about the moneys the government had handed out at the end of the '02-03 fiscal year.

We're not talking about a small amount of money here, Mr. Chair. We're talking about over $100 million worth of grants that were given out. There is a direct link to the '04-05 budget because the minister is still expecting these reports to come in about the evaluation of how these grants helped the restructuring process, how they helped serve children and families in our community today.

I would expect her to answer the question. The more the minister hides, the more she raises the suspicion of the government's mismanagement of this entire ministry and this portfolio.

Hon. C. Clark: I am unable to answer questions about the 2002-03 budget simply because we don't…. I've got a lot of information in front of me here with regard to just the '04-05 budget, which is what we're here to debate, but I don't have information in front of me about the '02-03 budget. I offered the other day — actually more than once, probably about ten times — to give the member a full briefing on all the information about this, if she'd like it. We could do that outside the context of this debate, where it would be appropriate for that to happen and still respect the rules of the House. If she'd like to have that briefing, I'm still waiting for her to take me up on the offer. We can provide all the information she is seeking in that context, if that's what she'd like.

J. Kwan: It's interesting. The ADM who is responsible for financial matters in the ministry is actually sitting right next to the minister. I'm sure that if she wishes, the ADM would be able to advise her whether or not the government went to Treasury Board on these matters, but she's not willing to do that. I suspect she's trying to hide information. But you know what? As I said earlier, I have no ability whatsoever to make the minister answer questions, even though it is her responsibility to do so.

It is her job to do so. British Columbians have the right to know what checks and balances were in place. British Columbians have the right to know how government decided $100 million could be spent, how it could be taken out of one line item and then be thrown out there and spent. What kind of approvals were in place? The minister won't answer these questions, and isn't that interesting?

I think it just goes to show further this minister in her desperate attempt to hide pertinent information from British Columbians. All right, I will take up the minister's offer to do a briefing. In fact, I would like to set that time and date now, because as is the historical practice in my experience with this minister, when she promises she will do something with the opposition in terms of providing information, she's often tardy in that — often tardy, and sometimes it doesn't even materialize.

I'll give an example, a case in point with my experience with the minister when she was in her former capacity as the Minister of Education. She promised she would give a briefing to the opposition on education issues, and that didn't happen. The deputy had to actually take action….

The Chair: Member, it's not appropriate to be referring to the minister's former role. Keep with this Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: Then I would like to set that time and date right here and now. How about tomorrow? I would like to meet tomorrow and get this briefing from the ministry staff. Tomorrow is Friday, and the House is not sitting. I would like to have confirmation from the minister that we can have this briefing tomorrow and then set it up for tomorrow.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not in Victoria tomorrow, because I'm in my constituency meeting with my constituents and doing my work in representing the people I was elected to represent. I plan — unlike the member opposite, I think — to run for office again, and I want to be accountable to my constituents. I want to make sure I'm listening to them, so I try and spend some days in my constituency during the week. That means I don't spend every day in Victoria, so I'm afraid I'm not here Friday.

I'm not sure that for trying to make a date and time for a briefing, the best way to do it is on the floor of the House of the Legislature. Perhaps what we could do is have our staff arrange it, and then we could make sure the staff from the ministry who need to be there also have some free time and are available — the right people available at the right time. That would seem to me to be a better way to arrange it. Perhaps they can get to work on that this afternoon.

J. Kwan: The problem is this. Historically, the minister has never been at briefings with the opposition, quite frankly. I actually don't need the minister's presence to get this information. All I need is her staff to provide the information. The minister says she needs to be in a constituency. To be frank with you, I need to be in my constituency office as well, but I'm willing to delay those meetings and get this pertinent information.

We're talking about $100 million of taxpayers' dollars. I don't know what happened to it, where it went and how it was spent. There are critical issues around accountability here, and I don't think it's something that we should push off. Certainly, I would like to receive the information so we can actually debate these matters, seeing as the minister is not prepared to provide the information to this House.

Actually, setting the time and date is quite critical because as I said, we have not been successful to be able to get these meetings in a timely manner with the minister. If tomorrow is no good, how about Monday? I would expect, then, if the minister doesn't want to set the time in this House with me…. I would ask my staff right now to establish that time with the minister's staff

either for Friday or Monday — Monday before the House sits so that we can get this information and move on.

Hon. C. Clark: The issue isn't just about her and when she's available. It's about staff too. I don't know. It's a little bit bizarre to try and…. In fact, I've never in the entire time I've been elected watched a member of the Legislature try and arrange a meeting on the floor of the Legislature during the time that we have for debates. I think that's something that our staff can do. Remember though, too: there are people in the ministry who will need to be present. I don't know what their availability is and what their schedules are. I'm sure that they will find time very soon to try and accommodate what the member needs.

It's a little bit selfish to stand up and imagine that she and I can just make a date on the floor of the Legislature and assume that everyone else is going to arrive on some kind of command performance. We need to actually check with them, see when they're available, make it a priority for them, of course, but make sure that we're working with everybody else's needs as well as we can.

J. Kwan: Isn't this fascinating, Mr. Chair? I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that a meeting would not be able to be set up prior to estimates being over. I'll bet you that the minister will direct her staff to not be available.

I think I can understand why — the minister's logic in this. We're talking about over $100 million of taxpayers' money that was handed out in the dying days of the budget cycle of this government. These dollars were given out with no request for proposal from the community. It is the normal practice when grants are given out to the community that there are requests for proposals for consideration. No requests for proposals were done. Then the government says….

Aside from the fact that there were no requests for proposals, the government actually didn't even make an announcement about these dollars, save and except for one. One grant associated with it, and none of the others had announcements around them. Much secrecy about that. Criteria as to what set up these grants for evaluation? We don't know. How much were these grants? I have some information which the minister would not confirm. Some grants are as big as $20 million for one organization. The total amount is over 100 million bucks that is being given out. These are substantive amounts of dollars. I don't know how many children and families that are in need could use that money, how many meals it could pay for in terms of these moneys. If it's not in the area of children and family development, how many surgeries it could pay for in the health care system — just to use some examples….

The minister is refusing to provide a time and a date for this. This will probably happen sometime in the fall maybe. I hope not. I'm asking my staff to phone the ministry office right now to set up that time for this meeting. Maybe the minister would be so kind as to provide this information as to who my staff should be contacting right now to set up this meeting — from the ministry staff's point of view and about the availability of the ministry staff. Who in the ministry staff would have this knowledge that we should be contacting to see about their availability for a meeting?

Hon. C. Clark: I hope that at some point we can get to talking about the issues as opposed to booking the member's personal schedule and trying to figure out how she's going to be spending her time when she's not in the chamber. The purpose of the time in the chamber is actually to debate the issues. If she'd like to raise some issues and some questions, I'd be happy to continue to answer them as best I can. Again, I don't think it's the best use of the House's time to try and organize the member opposite's personal schedule.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, just to caution the member, let's start dealing with some questions to the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, you know, there are two opposition members. My goodness — two opposition members, and the ministers and the government are stonewalling at every turn to not provide information that is not just important for the opposition….

J. Kwan: The minister goes: "Oh, poor you." Well, no, poor British Columbians, who have the right to know what happened to the $100 million. They have the right to know what checks and balances were in place about the spending of these moneys. They have the right to know what organizations got these moneys, and they have the right to know that from this minister in an open and accountable manner.

The minister couldn't even say who the staff persons are that are responsible for these moneys or have knowledge about these moneys. She says it has nothing to do with the '04-05 budget. It's not true. Evaluation of these grants will be undertaken in the '04-05 budget cycle by her staff, funded out of the '04-05 budget cycle, so it is directly linked.

Furthermore, the minister claims these programs would yield savings for the ministry for the long term for the purposes of restructuring, as restructuring is an ongoing process that the minister claims will go beyond '04-05. If that is the case, there is no question — and there should be no question in anybody's mind — that there is a direct link between these dollars and these grants into the '04-05 budget. Her refusal to answer them, her refusal to even advise the House who are the staff that would have this knowledge, is outrageous.

I would like to ask the minister this question seeing she won't provide the names of the people we could set up meetings with. Then who are the staff in the minis-

try that will be reviewing the reports that come in from these grants? Who are the staff members that will be doing that work?

Hon. C. Clark: I, as minister, am responsible for all of these matters. If the member wants information about it…. As I've said, I have offered it to her. We're going to arrange a time to be able to accommodate her when we can provide her with this information. I would be happy to do that.

T. Nebbeling: Ten minutes ago I met with a group of grade 6 students from Ridgeview Elementary School in the corridors. We had a quick little chat about British Columbia, Victoria, the Royal British Columbia Museum and what we do in the House. It was interesting, Mr. Chair. We did a few questions. One of the questions was by one of the students: "How old do you have to be to be elected?" I don't know if this was just a general question or if this young man visiting today is already getting the taste of becoming a politician.

The second question was: "How do you feel about the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games?" I told him I think it's going to be one of the very best events ever to happen in British Columbia. They clearly shared that sentiment, because they had big smiles on their faces.

They are accompanied by Mr. Tim Wooldridge, who is their teacher, and five adults. I hope you can make the whole group extremely welcome.

J. Kwan: The minister won't provide the names of the staff who will be reviewing these evaluations and the reports that are coming in. She claims she is responsible. She claims that she will live up to those responsibilities, yet she will not answer any of the questions in this House.

You know what? More and more, as the minister carries on in this fashion, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the minister wants to hide deeper and deeper into a hole so that perhaps by doing that, none of it — maybe, she hopes — will ever see daylight. So the public will never know how badly this government had mismanaged the restructuring of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and the public will never know the Doug Walls scandal in terms of how it has impacted the community at large and how it has wasted taxpayers' dollars.

What we do know, of course, is that the interim authority under the leadership of Doug Walls, who had to resign, has spent millions of dollars in this process. I would now like to ask the minister these questions around the interim authority under the leadership of Doug Walls. How is it possible that over $1 million a month was spent with the interim authority under the leadership of Doug Walls? How is that possible? Where did the moneys go?

The Chair: Member, I think we had this discussion earlier about this topic. The minister is not standing to respond to your questions, and clearly she feels as though she has responded to your questioning. So, once again, move on to something other than that particular topic.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, it is not about Doug Walls; it is about the interim authority. The interim authority under the leadership….

The Chair: If this isn't about Doug Walls, why is Doug Walls's name coming up? The fact is that you are now getting back to the same subject we had a discussion on earlier and that you are out of order. Move on to a new subject.

J. Kwan: Let me ask this question, Mr. Chair. The interim authority managed to spend over $1 million a month. Where did those moneys go?

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, I take your direction as well. We've canvassed this topic very extensively not just today but yesterday. I will tell the member again that we are, as a government, looking very much forward to the results of the audit that we initiated. We are going to make sure — we have made sure — the audit is as fulsome and complete as possible, looks at the full scope of the issues that are out there and answers most of the questions — I'm sure, all of the questions, probably even more of the questions than the member has even thought about.

We have moved to make sure the conclusions of the auditor are made public — that is not a normal practice of audits; it certainly wasn't a normal practice of audits under her government — and we are expediting a freedom-of-information request so we can get as much information out into the public as possible before anyone even has to ask.

We want to do that. The reason we are subjecting it to freedom-of-information rules is because it is not just the Freedom of Information Act; it is also the Protection of Privacy Act. Government has an obligation to protect people's privacy. That is something the member, I would have thought, would have been aware of. It was her government that passed that legislation. I assume she would have been part of the debate that formulated the building blocks, the creation, of that legislation.

We have those obligations before us. Unless she is asking me to break the law, the law that she introduced, I hope she would tell this House — put it on the record at least — that she does expect that the government will respect the principles of privacy that we are obligated to protect, and that she does understand that

the act is a statutory obligation that guides all members of the government to protect individuals' privacy. People's privacy and people's reputations are fragile things, and we need to make sure, in the course of doing business and in the course of the heat of politics and partisanship, that we don't go out there and damage reputations just so we can try and get ahead politically.

That's not, I'm sure, what the member wants to do. But if she does want to do that, if she does think that we should ignore the rights of people to maintain their privacy, perhaps she could tell me what the bounds of protecting privacy are in her view. Where does she think government should stop in releasing information?

Does she believe there should be limits on how much information the government releases if there is reason to believe — good reason to believe — that the information that is released could harm the reputation, irreparably, of innocent individuals? If she believes those limits exist, where does she think those limits are? And if she thinks there are limits, how does she know in advance of this report even being done where she would draw that line? This report hasn't even concluded its investigative phase, much less been completed and submitted, so we don't know what the bounds of privacy would be in that report.

When she stands up and says she wants the entire report to be released, what she is saying is that she has absolutely no regard for the right to privacy of individuals who might be affected. She has absolutely no regard for the statute that she had a hand in creating, which is supposed to guide government, which government is obligated to uphold to ensure we protect the privacy of individuals. That is the statute that I am legally obligated under the law of the land to uphold. I don't intend to violate that statute.

If that member has suggestions about how we might change the law or how we might somehow ensure that before this report is even finished we could protect the privacy of individuals and release all of it, I would challenge her to stand up once and for all and tell this House how she thinks that can be done. If she doesn't have any regard for the privacy of individuals, I would be happy to have that debate with her.

I would be happy to stand in this House and debate with her any day of the week the rights that every citizen of this province has to have their privacy protected, the right that every individual in this province has to know that when their information is in the possession of the government, it will not be shared publicly to their harm. Every individual, every citizen in our province, has the right to know that their privacy will be protected.

If this member doesn't care about those principles, if this member doesn't have any regard for the rights of people to protect their own privacy, she should stand up and declare her views right now.

J. Kwan: It seems to me that the minister has just opened the debate on Doug Walls all over again. She went on and on about these issues, and it seems to me that she's just opened the debate and is inviting questions. Of course, she actually didn't answer my question that I put to her. It wasn't about Doug Walls, but it was about the interim authority.

The interim authority goes beyond Doug Walls. There were other people who were involved in that interim authority. We know that over a million dollars was spent a month. I'm asking the minister what work was accomplished out of that spending. The minister wouldn't provide an answer.

You know what? At that time, the interim authority didn't even have a bank account. They didn't even have a bank account until February 2003, and by March 2003 they had produced very little apart from a project management plan for the interim authority, of which I have a copy. In fact, their operations were so chaotic that the former minister claims he didn't even know at that point who the CEO was. When the question came up in last year's estimates debate, he actually gave the wrong answer.

The project plan that the interim authority worked on — is that the only thing that was delivered for $3.47 million? Is that the only thing that came out of the interim authority?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, the member made reference to a number of a million dollars a month, which I think, according to the calendar I use, means $12 million a year. Now she is saying that it was $3.47 million. I'm not sure which reference she would like me to base my answer on. I know that the member does not have a great deal of regard for protecting people's privacy. She doesn't have a great deal of regard for ensuring that the facts she is using in the House are even accurate.

The budget for the interim authority for the entirety of last year was $3.5 million, and I'm quite prepared to read into the record again some of the accomplishments of the community living B.C. interim authority, which I did, I should note, read into the record yesterday as well. But in order to refresh the member's memory, I will do it again.

They developed a project management plan for the work of the interim authority. They developed a service delivery model for the new authority. They designed infrastructure to support that service delivery model. They worked in partnership with the ministry to develop an individualized funding policy and implementation plan, budget plan and the approach. They developed a plan for the provision of independent community-based planning support for individuals with developmental disabilities and their families. They developed a risk management plan, wait-list management options, outcomes and standards and self-reporting mechanisms, safeguarding framework, information management plan, outcome standards and a children with special needs policy framework.

That's a list of some of the accomplishments of the board. The budget for the board last year was not $12 million, as the member suggested. Again, it was $3.5

million. I would hope that for the remainder of the debate, the member can start showing some regard at least for the facts and start having this debate on the basis of actual current information as opposed to rumours, suggestions and baseless information, which she seems to be bringing forward so far.

J. Kwan: The information that I've received was from somebody who was part of the interim authority, who actually knew what was going on and minutes flowing from that. The minister says: "Oh, they're wrong." Okay. Everybody else is wrong, once again, except for the minister.

The minister says there is a whole bunch of work that has been delivered out of this authority — great. Has any of that been produced for the public's consumption? Has the public been able to look at any of that work?

Hon. C. Clark: Again, I'd refer the member to the website for the interim authority. They have volumes and volumes of information available there about the progress they have made on many of these projects.

J. Kwan: Are those the reports that were delivered from the interim authority?

Hon. C. Clark: The interim authority produced a huge amount of information for the Collins panel. They considered that. That was reported out publicly. Some more information, as I said, is available over the website if the member would care to look it up.

J. Kwan: Actually, we have looked at that website, and so have the people who have been e-mailing with these questions to the minister. They have actually seen all of the websites that the minister refers to. You know what? The information that the minister claims is there is lacking in terms of substance, and people are very concerned about that. If that's all that's been done under the interim authority for the amount of money that has been spent, it does raise the question once again on the issue around accountability and where this government has spent taxpayers' dollars accordingly.

Are there any other reports or documents flowing from the work of the interim authority that are not posted on the website, which has not yet made it to the public for the public's consumption?

Hon. C. Clark: I think the member, as I recall, did spend some time in government. I'm sure she's aware that government produces a lot of paper, a lot of reports. Much of that is publicly available — not all of it. The interim authority, I know, has endeavoured to make as much relevant information public as they can.

J. Kwan: Well, lots of money has been spent in the interim authority. Lots of money has been lost with the Doug Walls scandal. Lots of money has been lost or spent on the restructuring process. The community has the right to know exactly what's been done with all these dollars, and the minister won't come clean in terms of providing that information to the public.

Aside from the information that is posted on the website, what other reports were there from the interim authority that arose out of the work they have done, and could the public get access to this information? Will the minister release them publicly?

Hon. C. Clark: The authority has been working very hard for the last couple of years. They've produced a lot of paper, and they've made as much of that public as I think is relevant for the public. They are also, it is important to note, currently travelling around the province to consult the community and talk to them about what's important and what's going on with the authority.

J. Kwan: Let me just put this letter on the record, and I would like the minister's response to it.

J. Kwan: The minister says whenever I run out of questions, I read letters into the record. No, Mr. Chair. Here is a full binder of questions I have regarding this ministry. I have no hesitation in asking many questions. That's only one of the binders, and here is the other one from which I'm canvassing questions with the minister. So I have two binders of questions with this.

This letter came in to the opposition. I do want the minister's response to it, because I think she's trying to hide and not have to deal with these situations. It is a letter, actually, from someone who was part of the transition committee on community living. It is someone who has resigned from the transition committee on community living, and the letter reads as follows:

This is coming from someone who was on the steering committee, who has resigned because she felt — in my reading of her letter and my understanding of the situation — that in spite of her best efforts, she was not able to get the government to respond to the concerns she had raised. She was very fearful about the impacts of the changes that were looming, the chaos, the disaster that is now upon the communities with this restructuring situation. With that, she offered her letter of resignation.

The Developmental Disabilities Association of Vancouver has continued to raise other matters, and they have written letter after letter to the Premier, to the former minister, to the current minister — to basically anybody, I think, in government that they hoped would listen. Now, with all of these changes and with these budget cuts, people are saying disaster is coming and there are going to be problems with them.

Hon. C. Clark: That letter was written in 2002 — two years ago — so the previous minister did respond to that publicly, I think. I'm trying to track down whether indeed there was correspondence that went in addition to that, but certainly, publicly, the minister

responded to that letter. I will let his comments stand. That's information that's been in the public domain for a long time.

We had a process that we worked through with the people who provide service, including the DDA and other groups. I think it is no secret that all of the service providers would like it if there was more money available in the kitty to spend. Nonetheless, we worked with them to try and come up with some of the best solutions, given the available amount of money. It was very hard work.

You know, I don't think there is any shying away from that. It was difficult, challenging work. There were debates that happened. There were, I'm sure, tears that were shed. It was a difficult, difficult process, but in the end we worked cooperatively with the service providers to come up with these changes, to work within the available budget in a way that doesn't put at risk people who depend on us to provide those services.

This year we are looking at a 4 percent budget cut, as I said — $70 million. More than half of that is going to be coming out of lower demand for service, because there are fewer children coming into government care, and out of compensation that has been agreed to — or is currently being agreed to, I hope — in the collective agreement that's on the floor for debate between the union and the employer right now.

Those aren't changes to service levels. For the member to stand and quote a letter from 2002 and characterize that as current policy, as current activity of the government, just isn't accurate. It is a year and a half, two years later now, and we are reaching budget stability in this sector. We've done that with a lot of work — a lot of blood, sweat and tears — from the people who deliver the services in the sector. We did it cooperatively. It was difficult work, but nonetheless we're certainly very, very close to our goal.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister, on the one hand, just thanked the people who participated in the interim authority and who did some of the work prior to this. Of course, now I put on record a letter from a woman who in her heart and soul actually devoted time and effort into that process. In her own conscience, she could not continue on with it, because it was going nowhere and it was set up for failure, in her mind. Chaos was looming, and she was particularly worried about the children and adults and families that would be impacted in the community by this.

She resigned, and all of a sudden, now, her letter is not relevant? Her letter is every bit relevant to what is going on, because little has changed, save and except that the scandal that has broken has become public. That's what's changed. Everything else remained the same, quite frankly, Mr. Chair.

There is actually a further e-mail about this entire restructuring process that's deeply concerning — about the entire process of how untendered contracts took place, the competitive process for hiring was disregarded, conflict of interest and potential conflict of interest issues were ignored. These issues are now before us. Of course, the fearful thing about all of that is that the children and the people who need the services would be lost in the middle of this mismanagement crisis created by this Liberal government.

I just want to be clear as well…. The million dollars a month that was spent, which I referenced earlier, is based on the $3.5 million, '02-03 budget being spent over January to March 2003, because the interim authority wasn't even operational before that. So these numbers are valid, and they are from people who were part of that system. They weren't made up, Mr. Chair.

The minister said yesterday that the report I referenced…. There was someone who had e-mailed me and said the minister, in fact, actually had a report relating to the restructuring process. The minister claims that there was no such report and that she hadn't received such a report. I've now tracked down further information regarding this report, which came out in a press release from the government on February 14, 2004. The release is entitled Vision Reaffirmed for Community-Based Governance. It goes on to cite a report that was agreed to by the interim authority for a Bert Boyd to develop. I would like to ask the minister: what is the status of that report, and is it public?

Hon. C. Clark: I answered this question a couple of days ago. I'm happy to refresh the member, though. The report is…. We are working on it at the…. The author is working on it still. We hope that it will be released sometime very, very soon.

I want to just clarify for her the budget for the community living transition; $3.47 million is the entire budget for '02-03, contrary to her information. That included $1.8 million in operating and $1 million in capital that the interim authority spent between November 2002 and March 2003.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the minister claimed the report was not out, and the minister continued to say that, but according to the minister's own release, it says the transition plan will be delivered with the recommendations from Bert Boyd by February 27, 2004. We're now into March. So the minister has to report, according to her own press release, that the report was to be out on February 27. February 27 is well past. We're almost into April now, actually — close to getting to April. Is the minister saying the report has been delayed?

J. Kwan: If so, there is no public information about that. This release was sent out on February 11, 2004. The minister, in less than 16 days, was expecting to receive the report, and she is good enough to put it on a release to say that they expect this report on February 27. Today, March 25, the minister, when I asked her if the report has been delayed — there is no public information to let the public know that is in fact the case — sits there and says: "What do you think?"

If it's delayed, the public has the right to know. How could it be that less than 16 days before the report is due, the ministry was sending out a release dated February 11 saying they expect the recommendations? What kind of show are we running here? Good grief.

J. Kwan: You know, Mr. Chair, I can tell you this. The minister says: "How many reports have you guys delivered on time?" I will tell you this, Mr. Chair, to the minister: I certainly as minister would not send out a press release 16 days before a report is expected saying that I'm expecting the report, if it is to be delayed. I certainly would expect that the minister would have some inkling it was going to be delayed. And if it is delayed, why didn't the government send out a press release to tell everybody it was delayed?

Hon. C. Clark: The press release the member refers to is a press release that announced the commissioning of the report, and that was in the second week of February. The time line was very ambitious. It was for the report to come back within about two weeks. It was too ambitious. We do hope, though, to be able to get this report out very quickly. Remember, too, that the board changed in the interim while the report was being done, so that has had some impact on our ability to deliver it in a timely way.

We do want to deliver it very soon. We want to make sure it gets out there publicly as quickly as possible. We don't want to rush it because we set an overly ambitious time line at the very beginning, but we want to make sure it gets out there as quickly as possible.

It is ironic, I must say, to hear this member talk, condemning anyone else for being a month late in finishing a report. I cannot remember, in the five years I sat in opposition, even once that the government she served with in cabinet delivered any report on time. In fact, I am sure there were times when there were reports that didn't get delivered at all.

J. Kwan: The minister can spew the nonsense if she wants, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, because the proof is in the pudding. The public will know, and they can judge this government's performance — as they are judging this government's performance to date.

J. Kwan: Actually, the latest poll shows some of that information. Keep it up. All I can say is keep it up — you know? Good work. Good work as you trail behind. Keep it up.

The government says the information it receives on the plans that it does often relies on expert advice. Has the minister looked into the expert advice of one Dr. Jim Anglin?

Hon. C. Clark: Professor Anglin is a professor at UVic, but if the member could perhaps be more specific in her question, it would be helpful.

J. Kwan: Dr. Jim Anglin is someone that the former minister often cited as someone to whom he looked with expertise and advice. He often referred to the work of Dr. Anglin. It's interesting that in spite of that, the government proceeded with some of the plans they had, because Dr. Anglin actually came out with a book that has been released which urges the retention of child residential care. The book, by the University of Victoria child and youth care professor Dr. Jim Anglin, says the provincial government should retain, not reduce, community-based group homes as part of its child and youth care system. "The government is shutting down a lot of these programs, so I felt I was studying an endangered species," says Anglin. "I was prepared to learn that maybe these services weren't good for young people."

However, Anglin's research for the book Pain, Normality and the Struggle for Congruence shows that residential care in a group home setting is sometimes exactly what children need before they are ready to enter the intimacy of a foster or family home. "Some children had such traumatic experiences living in their own families or with other families that they're not prepared to live in that intimidating environment," says Anglin. "They need something like a group home that has staff who are professionally trained and can address their needs primarily."

As part of the five-year research process that went into the book, Anglin spent 14 months studying the operations at ten group homes in British Columbia. Through observations and interviews with staff and children, he developed a theoretical framework of a good group home, which he defines as having a number of essential characteristics, including having the best interests of children at its core. "The framework is simply enough to carry with you as a guide," says Anglin, who wrote the book for other researchers, educators, policy-makers and practitioners. "These are insights I got from people doing the work and from the children themselves."

Pain, Normality and the Struggle for Congruence — that's the book I'm talking about. Does the minister have any knowledge about this book? Does this ring a bell now?

Hon. C. Clark: No question, people worry about change. People raise concerns about change whenever it happens, and I think that's quite a legitimate part of transforming what we do in any organization. Of course concerns are raised, and that's a legitimate part of public debate that we need to have, and we need to listen to those voices.

I think, though, that the proof in this case is really in the pudding. When you look at the outcomes and

the success that this ministry has had in the last two and a half years compared to the work the member was responsible for when she was in government, the number of children who have been adopted into permanent, stable homes has doubled, which is an incredible story for all of those children. Most of them are special needs kids.

An even better piece of good news, I think, is that the number of children who are coming into contact with the criminal justice system is dropping. The number of children who are coming into the care of the ministry who are in contact with the Ministry of Human Resources is also dropping, contrary to the assertions the member likes to make. The amount of group conferencing we're able to do to bring families together, put them around a table and talk about the future of an individual child is for the first time allowed under legislation. We are now, under legislation, able to place children in what we call kith-and-kin arrangements so the children are placed in their home community, if possible — if they need to be taken away from their parents in the short term — so that they can stay in touch with their cultural heritage. That's something that's so important for aboriginal children.

The number of cases that go to alternative dispute resolution as opposed to ending up waiting for a court case to happen is also increasing. I will tell you what that means — and specifically. For example, in Surrey, where often the ministry would have to wait for up to 14 months to get a court decision about whether a child could be permanently removed from the family…. So that means 14 months for an infant, for example. That child would be in limbo without a permanent caregiver to attach to while they waited in the lineup for the court to deal with them so that the ministry could say this child was available to be adopted. That's a tremendous loss for that child.

Through the use of alternative dispute resolution, what we've done is lowered that court wait time, and we've made it possible to move children through the court system more quickly so they're available for adoption more quickly. You can't underestimate what that means for a child. With little, little guys, you can't talk in terms of months or years even. Let's talk in terms of weeks. There are 988 weeks of childhood before a kid turns six. We have to make sure that we maximize every one of those opportunities, every one of those weeks, for a child to be able to make contact with a permanent, stable, loving caregiver that will be with them for the rest of their lives.

Those are the results of some of the changes we've made. Not everything is perfect. We've got more to do — absolutely. We can do some things better, but I think we are on the right track. We are starting to see the results of the work that we're doing. Although the member can stand up and talk about how things are getting worse, the fact is the proof is in the pudding. If you look at the results, you'll see the results for many, many children in British Columbia are better than they would ever have been if the previous government had stayed in power.

J. Kwan: I thought I was in the zoo for a minute, but I realized I'm in the Legislature, and what I heard were not trained seals but people.

The Chair: …to define this respected chamber as a zoo. I take personal offence to that. I'd ask you to withdraw that.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. If I've offended you, I withdraw. I was just stating — speaking out loud — in terms of where I thought I was for a minute.

Let me just put this on the record for the minister as well. The minister says that there are group homes, and they need to be phased out. This is what this government is doing; they're shutting down group homes across British Columbia. Individualized plans, foster homes…. And I'm not disputing the need for good foster homes for children. There is no doubt about that. I'm not disputing that for one moment.

In question period today we raised a matter that was actually brought to our attention by staff within the ministry that said there is an increase in the children-in-need numbers because of the policies of the Ministry of Human Resources, because of the cuts in income assistance and the reductions in that ministry. That is impacting children. As a result, poverty has also now become a central issue for children protection areas.

In fact, the ministry is collecting this information so that they could go back to Treasury Board to ask for increased funding. That is what's happening. And you know what? The information came from the ministry and from the staff that are working very, very hard in the ministry in light of these difficult circumstances.

Let me say this in terms of the work and the research that's been done and the book that's been written called Pain, Normality and the Struggle for Congruence by Dr. Anglin. There was a book review of this book, and let me just put part of the review on record. It isn't just a good read, according to the book review — from what I can glean from it. It's more than that. Here's what the book review says:

The document goes on to say that Jim then goes on to his main conclusions, which are the points that I want to bring forward.

There is much more in terms of what it says about this book in this book review, but these are the main points that I want to bring forward to share with the members of the House. In fact, there's one more piece I want to bring forward to share with members of this House.

That's the issue here. It isn't about what is better necessarily, and it isn't about what the bottom line is in terms of government structures. It's about options. It's about offering options to the people who need and have the right to choose options. For some, residential group homes work very well, as has been identified from experts in the field and as I have often heard from parents out there with children who need this kind of care or with adults with developmental disabilities.

I'm not disputing the good work that foster parents do as well. They, too, have a role, but the issue that is central here is about choice. It's not about one or the other, yet the government is taking the approach, really, to say one or the other as they move towards closing group homes. The ministers, in their research — did they look at Dr. Anglin's work at all? Did they contact the University of Victoria, which has a tremendous reputation, which is home-based in terms of the child and youth care perspectives? Did the minister include them in their research with respect to policies that the government should be undertaking?

Hon. C. Clark: I suspect that the member hasn't actually read the book, so basing her interpretation of Dr. Anglin's work, I think, on one book review is probably not a very accurate way to try and describe the points he's making.

Now, I haven't read the book either, but I do think it is quite possible to take a different interpretation from even what she has read into the record, and that's this. What we need to do — and I think this is expressed in the book review and is certainly something that we espouse as a ministry — is find a balance between family care and group care. That's very much what we are focused on doing as a ministry. For the member to stand up and suggest we are getting rid of group care is just absolutely wrong. We are trying to find a balance between the two. You know, that's in recognition of the fact that even as far back as the 1930s, researchers recognized that putting children into family settings is often a better way to support them than putting them into more institutional-type settings.

There are a whole bunch of other factors that will vary, depending on the child, as well. Some children are better off without the kind of peer influence that they might get in a group setting; some kids will need a group setting. It depends on the child. But we have to make sure that we design a system that is balanced and that meets the needs of children who should be in family-type settings and children who should be in group-type settings. Both of them are necessary.

The challenge for government is to make sure the mix we're providing is the right one and to make sure the mix we're providing meets the changing demographics in the population. The population we have today of children in care is different in age and characteristics from even the population we had in care ten years ago, so we have to make sure the services we're providing meet the needs of those populations. We need to make sure there is a range of services we provide. We're working on doing that, and I think we are very much moving toward a province where the services we're providing do represent a better mix to meet the needs of the children that depend on us to provide them their services.

J. Kwan: The minister says they're trying to provide a mix and that they're not shutting down group homes. The parents in the community are saying something very different than what this minister is now saying. Let's put this on the record. How many group homes have closed under this government's tenure, and how many group homes are slated to be closed?

Hon. C. Clark: Group homes are closing, and group homes are opening. I think the statement the member made that I objected to was that we are phasing out group homes. That is just simply not true, and it's irresponsible to say that. It is irresponsible for a

member who pretends to be a leader in this province to stand up and make those kinds of statements because, first, they're totally, totally untrue; and second, if anyone believes her, it could be tremendously frightening.

We are talking about people in a very vulnerable population. I know the member likes to play politics, and I know she loves to engage in partisanship. So do I. But it is just not right to spew out that kind of inaccurate information that could so seriously undermine the confidence of a very vulnerable population when we all — not just people in government but people in the opposition too, people who have taken on the mantle of leadership in our province, who have taken on the responsibility of representing their constituents — have a responsibility to care for their well-being.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister can accuse me of providing misinformation all she wants, but you know what? The information that I have received actually comes from parents who experienced that their children have to be moved or are faced with a situation where they have to move from a group home or residential care home because it is being shut down. In fact, I received an e-mail from a woman, a mother, who says exactly that. Here's what she had to say:

The minister might like to say that she knows best, that she knows what's going on. Is this mother wrong? Is this mother wrong, who actually has a loved one who is in need of a group home, wrong — who actually sees that there's a wait-list 20 years long?

I'd like the minister to provide specific information about the closure of group homes and how many new group homes have opened. I'd like to actually do a comparison to see whether or not there are more group homes or fewer since they took government. I'd like to know from the government how much money they're funding to group homes. I'd like this as a comparison so we know the baseline for group homes for 2002-03 to this year's budget. How much has gone in versus what was in there before?

Hon. C. Clark: First, I just want to take a moment to correct the member on some of the other inaccurate information she's presented to the House.

In June 2001, 46.7 percent of the children admitted to the care of the Ministry of Children and Family Development came from families that were receiving income assistance. By March 2003, which is our most current data match, the number of children admitted to this ministry originating from income-assistance families had fallen to 35.1. So, you know, I want to correct her on that. I know I've done that a number of times, but I want to make sure she gets the point because she keeps repeating that inaccurate information.

We are making sure that the mix of services we provide meets the needs of the population. The member knows…. I know she doesn't have a great deal of regard for protecting people's personal privacy, but I do. She knows that I can't discuss individual cases. Having said that, though, I don't know any of the specifics about this individual case. I don't know the family's name, I don't know where they are, and I don't know what the specifics of the circumstance are. But having said that, even if I did have that information, it would not be legal or morally right for me to discuss the specifics of any cases on the floor of this House.

J. Kwan: I'm not asking the minister about the specific situation. The woman actually e-mailed me the information, and I have total regard for her privacy. I didn't put her name on the record. I just read what she actually said and what this government is doing and her views about this government.

As the minister claims that they're doing more for group homes, that they're creating a range of options for people in our community, then I would like to know…. I would like for her to back up her statements with facts.

How many group homes were there and how many beds were there when this government took over? And then how many beds are there now? How many group homes are there now? How many have shut, and how many have opened? Then we would actually have the facts before us to back up her claim that she's not closing group homes, because the reality is, as the parents consistently tell the opposition, the government is closing group homes. So let's start with those numbers first.

Hon. C. Clark: First of all, I don't know if the member is aware that the two systems for community living are different. The system for community living care is a different system from the services that we provide for children. I don't know if she's aware of that. I should bring that to her attention, partly because I think — based on the partial information she's provided — she is talking about two different things. Nonetheless, if she can clarify which system she's talking about. Is she talking about the community living system? Or is she talking about the Ministry of Children and Family Development side of it, which is really the side where we take children into care and…? You know, issues I think the public would probably think about as child protection issues — those kind of things. The community living side is largely — not entirely, but largely — adults with developmental disabilities who require assistance.

Hon. C. Clark: I think I'll be able to give her the number for adults in a few minutes. Staff is joining me

now to help me with that for the specifics, but I suspect the next question will be: what about children?

We are estimating there will be about a 10 percent shift between group homes — group care — and family care in the child system. That's an initiative that started over 18 months ago. We want to make sure that shift meets the changing needs of the population.

J. Kwan: What does this 10 percent shift mean? Does she mean that there's a reduction of 10 percent of group homes?

Hon. C. Clark: It means that there will be a shift in the mix of services that we provide. If she imagines that as a continuum or as a pie chart, some of it will be for group homes, some of it will be for family care, and there will be about a 10 percent shift in that mix, we think, based on the change in the population and the requirements of the population. The population ages, there are different levels of acuity, and there are also probably instances where people can be better served being in a family environment as opposed to a more institutional environment.

J. Kwan: Well, I would still like the specifics, because the minister actually likes to use language that is not at all clear. She calls them shifts. "It's a 10 percent shift," she says. The community calls them 10 percent cuts. You know, it's a big difference. I know she likes to hide behind this language so that nobody can really tell what the government has actually done.

I would like the specific number of beds. How many group homes have opened? How many group homes have closed for developmentally disabled adults? How many have closed? How many beds were started within the baseline year, in the '02-03 year, and how many exist now?

Hon. C. Clark: I can tell her this. On the community living side, when we're talking about adults with developmental disabilities, the mix that we are hoping to achieve is one of group homes, semi-independent living, family care. There is a different kind of mix that we're hoping to achieve in that area. It's not as simple a number as the one that I just gave her for the children's side.

We are going to work on getting that information, but we don't have it here today for the adult side, because it's not quite as simple a formula and quite as simple a shift as the one I've described for the children's side.

J. Kwan: I actually asked the minister for the adult side, and she just gave me the children's side. You can check Hansard, in terms of what I asked the minister. I think I quite remember, distinctively.

She says she doesn't have that information, but I would like to have the information, because the complaints, of course…. Well, I would like the specific information about the group homes that existed and the number of beds that existed, first for the adult side and then for the children side.

The minister said there are different kinds of group homes for both categories. Then if the minister would separate them out and say what they are so there's no confusion there. I would like to have that information. I would also like to have the information on the baseline number versus the current number in terms of these group homes, and then where they are and how many have closed and how many have opened.

In addition to that, I would like the budget dollars associated with these group homes. How much was allocated to them? And then the overall budget for the ministry, for both the developmental disability side as well as the children's side — the adult side and the children side.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, I answered that question already while the member was busy reading her BlackBerry, I think, collecting her next question.

J. Kwan: No. What the minister actually said was that she doesn't have the information for the adult side. I specifically first asked her for that information, and then she proceeded to give me the information about the children's side. But she did not, at any point in time….

I can actually sometimes multi-task, Mr. Chair. Yes, I was looking at my BlackBerry because, as I said, as debates are going on, parents are writing to me on an ongoing basis, and one of the new technologies that we have in this House — which all members are able to use, including the Premier….

The Chair: Order, members, order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

The Chair: Would the member please come to order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor at this time.

J. Kwan: Indeed, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is heckling me, accusing that these good parents….

J. Kwan: That's a bizarre outburst. St. Mary's Hospital that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is heckling me about, saying: "Who runs St. Mary's?"

The Chair: I think the whole House should come to order. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor. If a member wants to seek the floor, they may. Please continue.

J. Kwan: The last time I looked, St. Mary's was actually run out of Providence. Now the want-to-be minister, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, says it's run by the NDP. I didn't realize that we owned a hospital that's being shut down by the government. Wow.

Anyway, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway is heckling me, suggesting that the e-mails sent by these parents who are working hard in the community, trying to make ends meet and trying to take care of their families, but who also have a deep concern about these services in their community…. As they watch debate, they are e-mailing me. It's true. They want me to ask questions. It's true. Part of that, with this new technology in the system which the minister has and was using her BlackBerry as well…. She has staff to assist her with that process; I don't. I have to listen to debate, ask questions and at the same time check the e-mails as well.

I'm sorry. I don't have a host of staff to help me with those tasks, but that's life. That's how it goes, and I accept that completely. But at no time did the minister give me the answers that I asked of her. Those would be the names of the group homes — the group homes that have closed and the group homes that have opened for children or adults at all. For the minister to pretend that she somehow answered my question and to accuse me of not paying attention is, well, quite frankly, false. She'd be wise to just give the information. She now says that she doesn't have the information before her and that she will perhaps send it to us. Well, let me then ask the minister if she could provide that information to us on Monday. I think that's reasonable. That's a few days from now.

D. Jarvis: There are 20 students from Capilano College in North Vancouver accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Cameron Sylvester and Jeanne Mikita. I wish the House would make them welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: We are moving toward a system in community living that will be governing the community. That will mean, I think, more people get more appropriate care in the more appropriate places. That means more family care. It means more semi-independent living arrangements. It means people are more connected to their families and their communities. We're working with families and service providers to make these changes happen and to make sure the services we're providing are reflecting the needs of the community we are intending to serve.

J. Kwan: Well, that's the message box that the minister has that says that's what she's doing. Well, here's some information from community groups, from parents that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway claims don't exist — parents who actually don't have any valid information about their views on what the government is doing relating to this area.

The minister said they are trying to provide appropriate care. She says they are moving towards family care and semi-independent care, but in my view and in my estimation, appropriate care should be decided by the families, not by the government, and the range of options should be available for the families to choose and not be driven by the government's own bottom-line agenda.

Letters from the community have this to say, as they drive…. The minister would like to claim that she's not reducing group homes in the community. Here's a letter as recent as February 24, 2004.

It's signed by the individual. This letter happens to be written to me from my own constituent, who asked me to raise the matter, but that's not the only one.

The Chair: I ask the members to go through the Chair, if they possibly could. Thank you.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, all throughout these debates, unless the individual has said that I should use their name — that it's okay and authorized that I use their names…. I have never actually used people's names without that authorization. It's not just my own constituents whose privacy I respect; it's others as well. I have continuously been doing that for as long as I remember, actually, in debates in the House.

Here's one perspective about group homes. Let me just start with this issue, with the DDA. According to this letter, they're faced with significant cuts that will impact residents of this association, the Developmental Disabilities Association. Let me start with this: how much is the DDA's funding being cut by?

Hon. C. Clark: The DDA agreed in writing to a voluntary savings contribution — that's finding money through efficiencies, which was a very difficult process, and we went through it with a lot of service providers across the province — of $500,000. Remember there's a $13 million contribution from government per year for this organization for adult services alone, and $640,000 in compensation overpayments that had been made, so that's not related to service reductions at all.

It has been hard work, no question about it, but we've been working in cooperation with the agencies across the province for many months now. You know, she talks a little bit about the fact that…. Well, in the letter she quoted, the individual who wrote to her asked if she could use her good offices to advance the cause.

This member is not doing anything to advance the cause when she stands up in the Legislature and says that the government is phasing out group homes, because that's just not true. It doesn't advance anyone's cause to try and scare them with false information, to make things up on the fly. It doesn't serve anybody's cause when a member of the government or the opposition — when any member of this chamber — will demonstrate that they are capable of saying anything or doing anything to advance their own political cause.

J. Kwan: The minister likes to blame the opposition for their actions that are causing great concern and deep consternation in the community. I didn't make up the concern of this individual, whose sister has Down syndrome, is 52 years old, is with an organization and has been there for many years, and that organization is faced with budget cuts. The minister claims those budget cuts are voluntary, and since that time I have received e-mails from individuals who say that is completely untrue.

Here is some information that has just come in about that. The minister claims that people actually asked for these cuts, voluntarily went to give these cuts. Let's put this information on the record. There was a conversation with the minister about it, and people said this — the facts: "The children and family agencies were never given an opportunity to talk about voluntary cuts or planning. Cuts for children and family agencies were dictated and made arbitrarily by contract managers or, in Vancouver, just put out for tender."

She has mixed up, of course, the issues that the minister would like to put forward. The fact is that neither the community, the children and family agencies nor the evidence supports this decimation of hundreds of group home beds around B.C. As a matter of fact, Jim Anglin of UVic, who was often quoted by the former minister for his writings on child welfare, recently published evidence that's contrary to the MCFD closure of group homes for very troubled kids.

The minister is closing group homes. She is cutting funding. The Developmental Disabilities Association are saying they are faced with cuts. In fact, I actually met with representatives from that organization, and they say they are faced with cuts. She claims that I'm fearmongering.

What about the parents who are saying this? This actually is a letter that came from the Premier's riding, written to the Premier:

It's not from my own constituency, written to the Premier. Sorry, I said it was from the Premier's constituency. I was wrong. It's from Abbotsford, Mr. Chair.

For the minister to suggest that cuts to community agencies were voluntary…. Let me just repeat, because I did put some of this information on the record yesterday, a portion of this:

This is a direct quote from the individual who wrote to me about the minister's comments that she made on Tuesday and that she's continuing to make today.

Let me ask the minister about the overall budget for group homes for developmentally disabled adults. What was the overall baseline budget in the '02-03 year compared to the current year?

Hon. C. Clark: You know, there are no depths to which this member will not sink in order to try to advance her own political prospects. There is nothing this member will not say in order to try and benefit herself. There is nothing that she will…. She won't even take responsibility for it.

She needs to understand, after having been a member of this chamber since 1991, that even if she is quoting it, she is saying it. She has to take responsibility for the things she says. It isn't good enough for her to stand up and say: "Well, I heard it from someone else, so it's not really me who's saying it." For once she should show some respect for the dignity of this chamber, and she should take responsibility for the kinds of statements she makes in this House. She should stand up above the gutter politics that she is so intent on engaging in.

It is disgraceful to see her stand up here today and suggest, for example, that the government is getting rid of group homes. We aren't. As I told her, in the children's sector, for example, we're expecting that there might be a 10 percent shift between group care and family care. That's not phasing out group homes. That's making sure that the mix of services we provide meets the needs and the demographics of the population, which is always changing.

If for once this member would be prepared to stand up, be responsible and talk about things in a responsible, dignified manner, she might find that she gets more answers to her questions. If she would be prepared to stand up and rise above the level of gutter politics that she has been intent on engaging in not just today but especially yesterday, comments for which she and her caucus have refused to apologize; if she would stand up for once and demonstrate that she is indeed capable of leadership, that she's indeed capable of bearing the dignity, the mantle of leadership that election to this chamber is supposed to confer on each of us; if she is indeed prepared to stand up and demonstrate that she can be a model for behaviour for all of the young British Columbians who aspire to be engaged in politics, she should do that today. If she isn't willing to do that, she should stand up and say she doesn't want to be here.

J. Kwan: Well, thank you very much. You know, quite honestly, from this minister, it is interesting that she is lecturing me on how I should conduct myself when in fact maybe she should look in the mirror and check herself. I asked pertinent questions of this minister which she consistently refused to answer, and she just did that once again. Why? Because the answer does not reflect well on this government and what they're doing to our communities. It does not reflect well on how they're impacting adults with developmental disabilities in our communities.

The fact is that cuts are being made. She refused to put on record what the baseline budget is versus what the current budget is. Over and over and over again, experts in the community are saying that they are faced with budget cuts and group homes are closing. The information comes from community volunteers, moms, experts in the field, and that's what they are saying.

You know what? For the minister to accuse me of gutter politics…. Let me just say this, Mr. Chair. The feelings and sentiments are genuinely felt by the people. They are felt by the people. Why? Because they have loved ones in the community who are facing these problems. They are facing the problems that the government has foisted on them because the government is making budget cuts in their areas. They are fearful because they themselves are aging and they worry about the future of their adult children and what will happen to them.

I completely understand that. I have a young daughter myself. Thank goodness she is healthy, and I hope she stays healthy and grows up healthy, and I hope that….

J. Kwan: She says to me: "Don't start to cry." You know what? It's appalling. I'm a young mother, and I have so much love for my daughter. It is absolutely unmatched. Honestly, there's nothing that could take away, I think, from all mothers their love for their children. I know I'm not the only one who has these sentiments, although I am privileged enough to come into this experience most recently. All mothers feel that.

The minister needs to rise to her responsibility, which this government campaigned on, and that is that they'll take care of the most vulnerable children and families, that they will prioritize their needs first. I'm now asking questions, related to some of the most vulnerable people in British Columbia, about the developmentally disabled adults.

I'd like to match the minister's actions and this government's actions to their words. What was the base budget for this area in the '02-03 year compared to this year, specifically around group homes?

Hon. C. Clark: As we've discussed already, I don't have the budget for '02-03. We're not debating the budget from two years ago here. We're debating the budget for '04-05. I would hope the member would have twigged to that by now, but I'm happy to remind her about it.

The other thing she needs to understand about our budget is that we don't carry group homes as a specific separate line item on our budget, so even if I was to go and get the information for '02-03 and even if I was prepared to break the rules of the House and start debating that budget instead of this one, that information would still not be contained in it.

You know, she stands up and makes a great show about a parent's love for their children, and I'm sure she's no different from any of the rest of the parents in this Legislature or any of the grandparents in this Legislature. We all love our children very, very much.

Those of us who are blessed enough to be able to have a child — and I've got a little one too — know that feeling, and there are many, many members of this House, including my colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville. He has a family. He has a family that he loves very much and that he loves just as much, I'm sure, as this member loves her daughter. I would hope, now that she's taken a moment to reflect on the feeling that a parent has for his or her children, that might give her pause to offer an apology for her behaviour and for her colleague's behaviour yesterday and the impact that would have had on that member and his family.

The Chair: I'd like to remind the members, please, that we're dealing with vote 16. Let's keep our comments and questions related to vote 16.

J. Kwan: Hon. Chair, I think that reminder was directed to the minister. Am I right?

The Chair: I'm talking to the members of this House and in this debate — that we should confine our questions and answers to vote 16.

J. Kwan: Oh, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for that clarification. I actually thought that we weren't doing estimates in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It is entirely up to this minister, when she wants to break the rules of the House, to engage in a discussion that has nothing to do with the ministry anytime she wants.

You know what? The minister claims that the '02-03 budget for residential care group homes for developmentally disabled adults has nothing to do with the '04-05 budget. My goodness. When the minister makes that claim, it is completely shocking. She just claimed that this government has put more attention in this area and that the government is placing the most vulnerable community and individuals first.

Well, then let's see how that's reflected. In order to compare that information, you have to have the baseline to compare it with what's going on today. The minister claims: "Actually, even if I did want to provide the information, I couldn't get it because I don't know what it is." Well, that is just nonsense. The minister absolutely can get that information. The ministry's budget, while it's not in the budget books in the way in which it is broken down…. The programs within ministries are broken down. They do know how much goes where, and they can certainly collect that information, because these group homes are funded by the government.

They would know exactly how much money, in terms of where they have put which moneys. The information is available. The only reason why the minister does not want to provide that information is simple — so that she can continue with rhetoric. She can continue to say that everything is hunky-dory, everything is fine, that there were no cuts and any cuts that actually took place were voluntary cuts — even though e-

mails are pouring in to challenge the minister's statement with some very, very strong language. Make no mistake about that.

The minister says the community groups that are doing the great work, which are faced with budget cuts, are somehow fabricating the pressures of these cuts — perhaps. Is the minister aware that former deputy minister called the Developmental Disabilities Association board members — these are volunteer parents, parents with children of all ages with developmental disabilities — at their homes and threatened to cancel the agency's contracts if they did not make the cuts? Is the minister aware of that?

Hon. C. Clark: No, I'm not. Nonetheless, I'm sure the member's characterization of that is not accurate. That's been her general habit in this House, certainly. You know, further to my previous comments, I do hope that the member will take this opportunity, as we talk about children and families and we talk about how much we love our children, to apologize for her behaviour to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville. He may be watching, his children may be watching, and I'm sure they are anxiously awaiting some kind of offer of apology for her unbelievably irresponsible behaviour yesterday and today.

J. Kwan: The information I just put on the record actually came from an e-mail directly from a parent who knows the situation, who is saying to the minister that board members of the Developmental Disabilities Association were phoned at home and were threatened. They were threatened that if they do not make these cuts…

J. Kwan: …they would have their contracts cancelled. These are people who have children in the residential care of this association. That's what happened. Now that the minister actually has this information…. She says she didn't know. Now that she does have this information, what is she going to do? What action does she plan on taking?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, I have no confidence that the information this member provides to the House is accurate. Yesterday she provided information to this House which was absolutely disgraceful in the fact that it wasn't true. It was completely unsupportive and very, very damaging, I'm sure, to a member and his family. Not only will she not stand up and apologize — which is a further disgrace, I think — but she also expects this House to start accepting every statement she makes as being truthful.

How can any member of this House expect that any information that comes from that member would be accurate or based on any kind of evidence whatsoever when she has demonstrated that she has such a flagrant disregard for the truth that she will stand up and say anything? She will do anything as long as she believes it will advance her own personal career.

J. Kwan: Do you know what, Mr. Chair? Notwithstanding that the minister's response did not have anything to do with my questions, notwithstanding that she's completely out of order — that being beside the point, for you're the Chair and I'm not, and I'll abide by the rules of this House…. The minister claims the information I put on record about the former deputy minister phoning board members, volunteer parents of the Developmental Disabilities Association and threatening them that they have to come up with these so-called voluntary cuts….

J. Kwan: The minister claims the information I put on the record is made up. Well, I have just e-mailed the parent who sent that information to me and asked to see if I could put her name on record and whether or not she's agreeable to it. If she is, I'll put it on record. Again, these are the people who are in the know in the system, who have reported back. This is exactly the situation they were faced with. These supposed voluntary cuts were not voluntary at all. People were threatened. They were pressured. They were coerced into making cuts — cuts that I dare say they could not afford to make.

I will also say this. The previous administration may not have put enough resources in these areas, and I'll admit that. But for the government to say, then, that there weren't enough resources in these areas and to cut resources now in these areas is shameful. It is shameful. They are creating a major crisis situation for families who need these services.

Again, I would like the information from the minister. Let me ask this question: what are all the agencies that receive dollars from the province for group homes, for residential care, for adults and for people with developmental disabilities?

Hon. C. Clark: We have 16,000 contracts in the province. About half of them, approximately, are in the community living sector. Even in the context of a briefing outside of the House, I wouldn't be able to provide the member with that information just on immediate notice — 8,000 is a lot of contracts. I can tell her this: the '04-05 budget for community living adult services was $459.7 million. In '03-04, which is the information we have here, it was $464.9 million.

J. Kwan: Well, there's a bit of information that we're able to get from the minister. The minister says that everything is fine, no cuts are being made, and things are just hunky-dory, etc. The reality is some-

thing completely different. The ministry actually, just from the '03-04 year compared to the '04-05 year, in the residential care area for adults with developmental disabilities…. They face a budget cut of $5.2 million, just from this year's comparison. It will be interesting to see what previous years are. The minister claims she doesn't have them, that she doesn't have that information. So what have we got? A $5.2 million cut. That's….

J. Kwan: And the minister says: "On a $459.7 million budget." But you know what? In a sector where funding is needed — an increase is needed as opposed to reductions — $100,000 or a million dollars is a lot of money, just like in the situations with my own community. Many of my own constituents, income assistance recipients…. A small reduction in their cheque — $10, $5, $20 — is a lot of money. In the context of people who are in greater need, community agencies that are in greater need to provide for services, that makes a huge difference.

Women's centres this government had cut…. Only $1.7 million for 37 women's centres that this government had eliminated…. In the process of eliminating, $1.7 million may not seem like a lot of money for the minister, but it is a lot for women's centres. It sustained 37 women's centres across the province. In this instance….

J. Kwan: She's heckling me, going: "What budget are we estimating?" Well, I'm raising that…

J. Kwan: …to compare the value of dollars and the amount that might be small to the minister, in her own mind, but in reality is huge in the community; $5.2 million out of a $459.7 million budget may seem little for this minister. But in reality, for the community, it is a lot.

In the instance around the Developmental Disabilities Association, it means closing beds and cutting services for the people who are most vulnerable in our community, with aging parents who need those services for their children.

Let me ask the minister this question: how many people are on the wait-list today on the developmental disability adults side with respect to group homes? How many are on the wait-list, and what is that in comparison to previous years?

Hon. C. Clark: We inherited a ministry from the NDP that had very, very scant attention to detail and data, and it's not data that the NDP collected. We are working very hard to try and bring up to snuff all of our data management to make sure we have all the information we need. But I want to say this about her comments, you know, because one of the things she likes to do frequently is try and put words in the mouth of whoever it is she's debating with.

One of the things she said is that I said this was all just fine. I'm not saying that this wasn't difficult. You know, the budget went down by $5.2 million. Yes, it was a $460 million budget, so as a percentage, that's small. But nonetheless, change is difficult. There's no question about that. I'm not saying for a minute that these weren't difficult decisions and difficult discussions to enter into, but at the end of the day we worked cooperatively with agencies to try and make sure we minimized any extra administrative costs that didn't need to be there.

We found savings on this $460 million budget in the order of about $5 million from budget to budget. That would actually mean we weren't taking those costs out of services, as much as possible. Are services changing? Absolutely, they are. Is the population that we're serving changing as well? Yes, it is, so we need to make sure the services we're providing are always meeting the needs of the changing population that's out there.

J. Kwan: The minister is saying that these things were important and that they needed to prioritize. She was saying that she's not acknowledging that it wasn't difficult. It was only yesterday when she claimed those cuts were completely voluntary and that this had no impact on cuts to services whatsoever, and that is on record. That's what the minister said, and now evidence is coming forward to show the contrary.

In fact, the cuts to these agencies are impacting services. In fact, agencies are saying they were not volunteering to make these cuts. They were threatened to make these cuts. They had no choice but to make these cuts or, otherwise, lose all the services they delivered to the community, and that is the reality.

This isn't just about whether or not this is hard to make choices anymore. It seems to me that the government had no difficulty whatsoever in making a choice on day one in office, before they even looked at the books, to give almost $2 billion away in tax giveaways — particularly tax giveaways to the wealthiest British Columbians and big corporations — without a thought. They campaigned on this notion that they would not cut services to British Columbians, and what are they doing? They are cutting services to British Columbians.

The minister would have me believe that she doesn't know what the wait-list numbers are. She would have me believe that she doesn't have that information — and she's blaming the former government for that? Come on, Mr. Chair. How far will this minister go to push off responsibility, to claim she doesn't have the information and then fault the former government?

It reminds me of a joke when I was at the Rotary. They told me this joke about how if things aren't going right for you, there are three envelopes. You open the first envelope, and it says: "Blame your predecessor." Several months go by, and if things don't go better, you open an envelope again, and it says: "Yeah, blame the predecessor and continue on with that spin." And if things still don't improve, go to the third envelope, and the third envelope says: "Go back to the first envelope." Here's what this minister is doing, exactly.

J. Kwan: The minister is going, hey, am I trying to rag the puck? You know what? I'd be happy to move on if the minister will give me the information. I'm seeking information on behalf of British Columbians who wish to know how many people are on the wait-lists for adults with developmental disabilities and how long the wait-lists are.

The minister won't even rise to answer the question, and I think that question is as valid as all the questions I've asked. How many people are on the wait-list for residential group homes for people with developmental disability adults? How long is the wait-list? The minister says she doesn't know. It's no wonder that the ministry is in such chaos. It's no wonder that you have to sort of sit back and say, "What does the minister know, exactly?" — other than what Martyn Brown tells her she can say. Outside of that, what does she know about the inner workings of her ministry and the services they provide? She doesn't know the moneys. She doesn't know the contracts. She doesn't know the criteria for evaluation. She doesn't even know what the wait-lists are. Oh my goodness. It is beyond belief. Shocking doesn't even describe how I feel at this moment about the minister's answer.

The minister says she doesn't know about the wait-lists. Well, the minister says she doesn't have the information about the group homes that have opened and closed. Can I get that information? I would like the minister to get that information and provide it to the opposition.

Hon. C. Clark: I am still waiting for an apology from this member, as I know all members of this House are. I'm looking forward to her taking the opportunity that she has in almost unlimited supply today, because we're in estimates, to get up, to do the right thing and to offer an apology for the comments that she and her caucus made yesterday. I want to know from her whether her leader, Carole James, has yet demanded an apology from her; whether her leader, Carole James, has any more willingness to engage — or any less willingness to engage — in this kind of gutter politics than she does. When she ran for leader, when Carole James presented herself to the New Democratic Party as a leadership candidate and when she presented herself to British Columbians, she said it was going to be a different kind of leadership, and I want to know….

The Chair: Order, member, order. I think it's important that we do stick to vote 16.

I'll tell the member this: in the absence of any kinds of apologies — and I know the member is very sensitive about this; she doesn't like to talk about this part of her behaviour…. I will tell her that we have a very stringent process for making sure that people who have health and safety concerns get the placements that they need. For her to stand up and suggest otherwise — that the ministry is unnecessarily putting people at risk — is just wrong. I think it speaks to the fact that this member really doesn't have a lot of concern for whether or not she talks about the facts on the floor of this Legislature. She is willing to say anything and do anything without even an apology.

J. Kwan: Well, I've just received an e-mail from the mom — who says that I could use her name on record — who sent the information to me regarding this situation. The woman is Dawn Steele, who is an individual with loved ones in the system and who provides for a lot of the volunteering of her time.

R. Nijjar: Actually, I know Dawn Steele. Can I stand up and tell who Dawn Steele is?

The Chair: Order, members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: That's interesting. Another interesting outburst from the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, who is actually heckling out of turn and saying: "Oh, I know who Dawn Steele is." I actually have never met Dawn Steele myself, but that's not the issue. The issue is the information that she's….

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway is heckling me, going: "You've never met Dawn Steele."

The Chair: Order, members. I think we should stick to vote 16. Would the member please stick to vote 16 as well, and we will carry on.

Hon. C. Clark: I know the member has received permission, but it is really inappropriate for us, as members of this House, to use individuals' names in

the context of the service that they are receiving from this ministry. People's privacy is important, and I am not in a position, even if people give me permission to violate their privacy, to violate their privacy. That is breaking the law. I know this member has scant regard for those principles of respecting privacy, but I have to inform the House that I am unable to violate those principles in this debate today.

J. Kwan: Let's just be clear what I'm putting on record about Dawn Steele. Dawn Steele is making issues and taking issue with the ministry's cuts. She's taking issue with the minister's answers to my questions. She is putting forward information that she has about what the facts are with respect to these cuts and how they are impacting the community. There's nothing I said that is pertaining to her personal situation or that of her family. All I've said is that she is a concerned mom, that she is someone who has loved ones in the system, who knows the system well. She volunteers her time, and she has a great deal of concern about what is going on with what this minister is doing and what this government is doing in the area of children and family development. Let us be clear about that. That is the main point that I want to raise.

The minister earlier accused me of making up this information, of somehow fabricating it. No, I did not. It came from a source, and that source is a person who is a concerned mom with a name which I have just put on record, Mr. Chair. Let's just be clear about that. Nobody should be belittling these individuals who work hard in their community, who spend their time in the community to watch these issues, to raise these issues….

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Kingsway continues to heckle me out of turn. He's not in his chair, and he's heckling me. That is completely out of order. And he's belittling Dawn Steele, as though somehow her concerns are not valid and that she has no validity and no legitimacy in raising these issues as a concerned mom. I do find that extremely shocking in terms of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway's approach.

We've established that the ministry has cut the residential care area by $5.2 million in the adult disability side. What is the budget for…? Actually, let me just backtrack. I asked the minister to provide the information on the organizations that are funded by the ministry and their budget for residential care beds. She says she doesn't have that information — that they have over 16,000 contracts and that, in fact, half of them belong to the community living sector.

I would like to know if the minister can get us that information and, as well, the information on the wait-lists — on the number of years of wait-lists and the length of the wait-list.

Hon. C. Clark: The residential care portion of the adult services community living budget is $339 million. In addition to that, there's $120.5 million for day programs.

J. Kwan: There were two sets of numbers that the minister just gave: $459.7 million for '04-05, and then $464.9 million is the '03-04 year for the developmental disability residential care beds. She just gave another set of numbers: $339 million and then $125 million. Could she distinguish the two sets of numbers in terms of the programs that fall under each of these sets of numbers?

Hon. C. Clark: No, I can't distinguish those for her. She is confusing, though, when she talks about the Developmental Disabilities Association and the amount of money they get. They do not get $459.7 million. They also don't get $339 million. They get $13 million from government. That's one agency, one of the contractors, and we have a number of contracts with the DDA. This is a provincewide number that I'm talking about here, and I would draw her attention to that.

You know, I do want to just add that the member has raised an individual's name in the House, and she's also described the circumstances that that family is in very specifically. I need to remind her that I can't comment on those things. I know it's easy for her to stand up and try to beat up the ministry when she knows the ministry isn't able to discuss those details publicly because it would be not just illegal but morally wrong for us to do that. What I can offer to do is have staff work with the individual whose name the member has raised. We could try and deal with the issues and concerns that she's raised in a way that also allows us to respect our obligation to protect her privacy.

J. Kwan: If the minister actually paid attention, then she would actually see, if she goes back and looks at Hansard, what I was talking about in the case of Dawn Steele. Let me be clear once and for all.

The minister accused me…. When I asked her the question about board members of the Developmental Disabilities Association being threatened — that they got phone calls from the former deputy minister at home and it was threatened to cancel the agency's contract if they did not make the cuts — the minister accused me of fabricating that information — that somehow I would just make it up, as though it wasn't the fact. Then I said I was going to e-mail the person who sent this information to me and ask whether or not I could put the individual's name on record who sent me this information. Dawn Steele has actually responded

As well, just for broad information and to be clear, she is a concerned mom who has loved ones in the system. That's why she's knowledgable about these things. She's involved in these things. She volunteers in her own capacity, as well, on these issues in her community. Let's just be clear, maybe, for a moment if the minister can get off her high horse and understand what I'm talking about.

The minister also said that when I said $464.9 million in the '03-04 budget year and then $459.7 million in the '04-05 budget, somehow that was the budget for the Developmental Disabilities Association. I said no such thing. What I said was that the numbers the minister gave were the funding for residential beds for developmental disability adults for residential care homes. That's what she said. She later on gave another set of numbers — $339 million and $125 million for care homes. I'm asking her to distinguish the programs under each of these sets of budgets so that we know what they were being utilized towards.

I think the minister said she didn't have the answer. If that's the case…. Well, I don't know why I should be shocked. The estimates process has consistently proven to me that there's little information the minister does know. I hope she does know this information, because I think it is in her area of responsibility.

Well, there's openness and accountability for you. The minister would not provide the answer to legitimate questions in the estimates process. She would not provide answers which I think British Columbians have the right to know. Not only do they have the right to know how much money was spent and where, under the estimates process here, and what programs flowed from the dollars out of her budget…. They have every right to know that, and the minister cannot be bothered to provide that answer on record for the House.

J. Kwan: You know what, Mr. Chair? The minister is asking me if I am embarrassed. I am actually embarrassed about the minister's behaviour and her disdain for….

R. Nijjar: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant said — like she often does for the camera, where other members are busy working, knowing that the whole public can see — the member for Vancouver-Kingsway does not care what Dawn Steele says or thinks or needs. It's completely false. I never said it, and I care about all British Columbians. I would expect that the member would stop manipulating the system and apologize to me for having said that. I don't expect she will, considering she didn't apologize to the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville, but I expect an apology.

The Chair: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant on a point of order as well.

The Chair: Well, I think it's…. Actually, the comments between the two members…. It is a dispute of facts which are being given here, and therefore the Chair will carry on with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: The minister won't provide that answer in terms of the budget, the budget that flows from her '04-05 budget year, in terms of what programs are funded out of these sums. I don't know why she's trying to hide that information. I don't know what she has to hide in this information, save and except to say that maybe she's embarrassed about the program cuts that flowed from the budget cuts as well. The reduction of dollars, of $5.2 million — let's start with that. Does the minister know what the impacts are from this reduction?

Hon. C. Clark: As I said, the budget for residential services is $339.1 million in '04-05. It was $352.5 million in '03-04. The budget in '03-04 for day programs was $112.4 million, and for day programs in '04-05 it was $120.5 million.

J. Kwan: Well, further information here in terms of cuts in the residential services side — a budget cut from $352.5 million in the '03-04 budget cycle to $339 million in the '04-05 budget cycle. That is a reduction of $13.5 million. Then we also have a $4.5 million cut in the day programs. Collectively, with the other area in the residential care bed services, we have a $5.2 million cut, a $4.5 million cut and then a $13.5 million cut. That totals — let me just add it up — $23.2 million in terms of total cuts in this area. And that's only from the '03-04 budget cycle compared to the '04-05 budget cycle. I would expect that the dollars are even greater if you look beyond the '03-04 year. If you look to the previous year, '02-03, I would expect that the budget cuts are even greater. Let me ask the minister again: the impacts of these cuts — what were they in the community?

Hon. C. Clark: I think I hear the member talking about the shift from residential to day programs which we saw in the budget-to-budget numbers. You know, a lot of the money that has shifted has gone into day programs. That's based on research that tells us that if we provide support for families, then their kids can stay in their families longer. That's what they want in a lot of cases. They want to be able to keep their families together and whole. They're saying: "If government would only provide us with more support in doing that, it would make it easier for it to happen."

I've provided her with those numbers, and as I said, it is based on the best research that we have. We are

working in all areas of this ministry to try and keep families together if possible, and that's no different in the adult side than it is in the children's side.

J. Kwan: Well, that's the minister's point of view, and that's fine, with the exception of this — and I've said it in this House before: people actually want options. I'm not disputing the values of family homes and foster parents. Of course they're important, and they actually do important work in our community. I'm not disputing that at all. I'm not someone who has a family with developmentally disabled children or a child in my family, so I don't know that experience. I only know this from the people who have that direct experience, who have said to me that they want options.

The minister says she creates and will continue to ensure that there are options, yet we know that wait-lists are growing, that wait-lists are long. We know that from the parents who are trying to get their children into group homes. The minister says they're shifting it because they're doing it in the best interests of the people who need these services. Well, how about taking into consideration the parents themselves and what they're saying? The parents from the developmental disability community are saying, some of them, that they want the group homes to stay. They want their children to access that, and they want — particularly as they age — the wait-lists that exist for them to be reduced, not to stay the same or increase. That is the issue here.

At a time when the government is reducing financial support for these agencies that provide for these services…. The minister conveniently says she doesn't know the numbers on the wait-lists. She doesn't know what it is. It is incredible that she makes this claim. Obviously, it's not credible that she's made this claim.

We have a $23.2 million cut in this area. What were the services that were eliminated from this $23.2 million cut?

Hon. C. Clark: We are introducing individualized funding for over 600 adult applications. That results in savings, and that's something families want. We are also moving more individuals to family care and semi-independent care in the cases where that's what they want as well, and that's also freeing up dollars.

J. Kwan: Well, there you have it again — the minister's approach and this government's approach: robbing Peter to pay Paul. Individualized programs. The minister is taking money from residential group homes, adult day programs and residential services to put those moneys into individualized group homes, notwithstanding that overall within the ministry there are significant cuts — $175 million worth of cuts from the entire ministry.

Setting that aside for a moment, it's the same analogy that the minister had actually used earlier today in the area of Community LINK — robbing the moneys for needy children in Vancouver to pay those moneys to another community. It's the same analogy here. Then to turn around and say that she's offering a continuum of services, that she's offering options to parents…. Well, that's just a slap in the face for the parents who have been on the wait-lists for these services. It's a slap in the face for the parents who say they need more resources. It's a slap in the face for the agencies who do the great work they do in providing these services to community members who are in need.

The minister knows that $23.2 million worth of cuts have reduced services. She won't come clean and tell this House what those reduction impacts are. She keeps on going back to the spin that I'm sure Martyn Brown told her she could use, and that is to say: "Don't worry about it. No budget cuts, really. No impacts on the community, really."

Come clean and tell British Columbians — $23.2 million worth of cuts in these areas. What were the programs, specifically, that were cut in the community?

Well, the minister won't answer this question. She won't answer the question, and she won't tell British Columbians what the impacts are. The community, of course — again concerned parents, concerned moms in the community…. They're saying these cuts hurt.

The impacts show the government's complete disregard for families' wishes and their ability to make choices. The government and this minister like to use the word "choice," but when it comes right down to it, it really is this: "My choice or the highway. If you don't choose this road, then there is no road." That's basically what this minister is doing, and that's what they're saying to the families who are in need of these services and who wish to see the services increased, not decreased.

Let me just turn to some broad questions, Madam Chair, about cuts to children in care.

J. Kwan: The minister's pat answers to all the questions, of course, are that the cuts tied to children in care are a reflection of lower demand for dollars, and that's why these dollars are reduced. The minister makes this claim, and of course there is information that surfaces that disputes the minister's claim.

I would like the minister to answer this question, first of all, about the cuts for the regions. According to the information that I have, the cuts in…. Let's go to the cuts in FTEs first. The minister actually said she has this information now, so let's go back to the FTE cuts.

In the fall, reports stated that the ministry was planning on cutting some 525 positions and eliminating $7 million in services by April 1, 2004. This is, of course, the third year of the ministry's workforce adjustment strategy. The 525 positions that the minister

has cut are in addition to layoffs that took place that were announced in September, which total over 1,200 cuts in terms of FTEs. The 500 or so is only one year. If you look at all of those numbers cumulatively, starting in the fall of 2001, they are close to 1,200.

The minister now says she has the complete breakdown. First of all, let me ask her for the information — for the breakdown of the FTE cuts, the total projected numbers and how it is broken down in each of the regions.

Hon. C. Clark: The difference for this year over last is: in the CFD regions, it's 2,775 to 2,494; in the CLS area, it's 490 to 448; in provincial services, it's 741 to 696; and in headquarters, it's 338 to 268.

J. Kwan: Oh boy. The minister consistently tries to stonewall, and she knows that the ramifications of these cuts have ongoing impacts for this year. These cuts don't happen in isolation. They're cumulative over the course of the period of time, and she won't actually admit to that. It does beg the question, then: what does the minister have to hide?

According to the minister's workforce adjustment plan, the information actually shows, in percentage in each of the regions, the numbers of cuts. The minister just gave me the global number for the ministry. What's the breakdown for the regions?

Hon. C. Clark: For the north in the CFD region, 366 to 333; interior, 567 to 512; Fraser, 830 to 744; Vancouver coastal, 480 to 429; Vancouver Island, 532 to 476.

J. Kwan: The minister actually didn't have any trouble in providing that information to another member who asked questions about percentages and cuts. I know that right from the start…. I don't know why I would think that for any time the minister would actually attempt to be helpful at all. That's not been her practice to date. Fine. I will work out the mathematics. That's fine. I can certainly do that, but it will take me a little while to do that without a calculator. I'll do it longhand. That's fine; I can do it.

The minister just gave the information on the basis of, again, numbers for the region, without the breakdown from each of the sectors within the region. I'd like to have that breakdown.

Hon. C. Clark: All regions for the different sectors are the numbers that I gave her.

J. Kwan: No, I'm talking about the breakdown of community living services, children and family development — that kind of breakdown in each of the different sectors within the ministry in terms of the reduction in FTEs.

Hon. C. Clark: I think that if the member had been paying attention to estimates, she'd know that the community living services aren't regionalized.

J. Kwan: Nonetheless, the services are being provided in different regions across the province. We know that for sure, because that's what happens in the province. What is the breakdown in terms of the FTE staff, let's say, in the north? How many people are working in the community living sector in the north in terms of providing services in the area of community living? How many people out of that have been reduced, as an example? How many people have been reduced in the children and family development area? Surely the minister has that information and knows that information and should provide it in the House.

Hon. C. Clark: The community living numbers are a provincial budget. I provided her with the provincial budget. The children and family development budget is divided up on a regional basis. I provided her with that number.

J. Kwan: The minister can continue to be uncooperative, and she can continue to say that she doesn't have this information. You know what? In the ministry's own workforce adjustment plan, they actually do have the breakdown for the community living sector regionally in terms of FTE breakdowns, and she also has that information in the workplan for the children and family development area.

Why I'm asking these questions, Madam Chair, is to compare whether or not these numbers are matching with what the minister's projections are in the workforce adjustment plan. These are valid questions, completely within the minister's area of responsibility, and I expect an answer.

Hon. C. Clark: Community living services are provided as a provincial budget in the expectation that we are going to be providing those services through a provincial authority, which will also be a provincial budget. It's not regionalized. We don't organize the numbers that way.

My staff have done the math for the member on the numbers that I've already given her. It ranges from 9 percent to 10.6 percent in the various regions, so it's a very small range. I would note, too, that that is in comparison to a children-in-care demand that has gone

down by 15 percent. The number of children that are coming into care has gone down by 15 percent, and the number of staff that are going to be dealing with those kids has gone down by a far, far smaller number.

J. Kwan: The regional numbers are important. I have to say this. It isn't just about a global set of numbers. We can dispute FTE numbers and the reduction. The reality is that the government has cut 40 percent of the FTEs across the province in terms of FTEs in this ministry.

The regional information that I have, according to the workforce adjustment plan that the ministry has put out…. In the Vancouver coastal area we're looking at about a 12 percent cut in the children and family development side and a 16.3 percent cut in the community living side. In the interior we're looking at a 13 percent cut in the CFD side and an 11.3 percent cut in the CLS side; in the north, a 10.5 percent cut in the CFD side and in the CLS side a 14.7 percent cut; Vancouver Island, a 12.2 percent cut and a 15.2 percent cut in the CLS side; and in the Fraser, an 11.2 percent cut in the CFD side and 17.5 percent in the CLS side.

When you add it all together, these are significant particularly, again depending what region you come from, because service provision is different, community service agencies are different and demands are different. When you look at these varying numbers, it does have an impact.

The minister won't provide the information. Will she then confirm that the information I've put on record is actually the up-to-date information that the ministry has?

Hon. C. Clark: As usual, the member is performing up to expectation and not providing accurate information to the House. No, I can't confirm the information she's just provided. It's not correct.

J. Kwan: Well, I took these numbers directly from the ministry's workforce adjustment plan. They come from the ministry's own documents. She says that I am living up to expectation and providing misinformation to this House — she claims. It so happens that this misinformation she claims I'm providing actually came from the ministry's own documentation. I must say in this House the information that is provided that is wrong happens to actually come from the ministry's own documentation. Let's just be clear about that.

Hon. C. Clark: Sorry, I don't know where the member gets her information, but it's not correct.

J. Kwan: As I said, they're from the ministry's workforce adjustment plan. That's where I got them. I asked the minister a question about job classifications in the areas that are being impacted with these staffing reductions.

Hon. C. Clark: Yes. I've provided that information for her already. It is a range of classifications across government. In general terms, when we talk about, for example, the cuts at headquarters — which would be largely administrative staff, I would expect — we're talking about a much, much larger percentage than the reductions that have happened in regions. The reductions that have happened in regions for staff have happened at a much slower rate than the reduction in the rate of demand for their services.

J. Kwan: I'm looking for specific information from the minister, not just empty rhetoric that actually doesn't provide for any substance. I would like to know, in terms of that breakdown, how many people actually were eliminated from the administrative side, how many people were eliminated from the social workers side and how many people were eliminated from the community living services workers side.

Hon. C. Clark: The number of reductions in the regional part of the staff has gone from 532 to 476. In the community living services side, which is a provincial program, that's 490 to 448. In provincial services, which is youth custody and facilities and administration, that's 471 to 696. In headquarters, which includes everything from the deputy minister's office down to management services, that's gone from 338 to 268.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have that number specifically for the budget period we're discussing, but I can get it for her.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have the information for the community living services workers? How many of those she had listed in the list of cuts are from that group?

J. Kwan: I would like to get that information. We'll come back to these estimates on Monday, I'm sure, or whenever the government wants to call it next week. I would then like to canvass my further questions in this area with the minister when we get that information.

I'd like to, just so I don't lose the information…. The questions I want to ask of the minister…. Has the minister…? She says she'll get the information by the end of the day. It is now 25 to six, Madam Chair. There are only 25 more minutes in the debate for today. She said earlier that she didn't have the information on the questions I was asking earlier about the former MCFD area manager, John Cargo. Does the minister have that information now?

Hon. C. Clark: Yeah, I do. I wonder if the member could give me the specific question again, just so I can be clear about answering it.

J. Kwan: I have a list of questions for the minister, so let me begin with the first question I had. Can the minister tell this House if the former MCFD area manager, John Cargo, is now contracted by the interim authority for the safeguard and accountability management initiative?

Hon. C. Clark: No, he is not. He was under contract with the interim authority for a contract that was under $5,000 for a short period of time. The new chair is ensuring that proper practices are being followed at the ministry. It's important to note that there's been a period of change over at the interim authority. So, no, there is no longer a contract. There was a contract. It was under $5,000, but that contract no longer exists.

Hon. C. Clark: I understand from the authority that he was holding focus groups to develop policy on protecting safeguards for vulnerable children.

J. Kwan: He was holding focus groups. Was he the person who…? Well, maybe the minister can elaborate further in terms of the work that he did. He was hosting focus groups. What was the nature of these focus groups? What was the purpose of these focus groups? Who attended these focus groups? Where were they held, as an example?

Hon. C. Clark: My understanding is that the groups were groups of parents who were concerned about changes. They want to make sure, of course, at the independent authority, that these changes we make don't mean that anybody slips through the cracks. We want to make sure that we protect people as we make this change. The focus groups were groups of concerned parents or service users and providers. The purpose was to provide a policy that would ensure that we safeguard the rights and needs of those people.

J. Kwan: Who was chosen, and how were the folks who participated in these focus groups chosen?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have any of those details. The member asked me about whether or not this individual was ever contracted. I've answered that question. I've given her the amount, and I've given her the purpose. He wasn't contracted by the ministry. He was contracted by the independent authority, so the absolute specifics about what days and times he had meetings are specifics that I don't have in front of me.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister is responsible for the interim authority. She can't pull the same number that she pulled when she was in the Ministry of Education, when she said the school districts' decisions were none of her business, even though this government had cut the provincial education budget in that they have increased the pressures in education in the classrooms for school boards.

She can't just walk away and consistently say: "I'm not responsible for the interim authority." The interim authority reports to the minister. She has the responsibility to know what the interim authority is doing, what work they're doing, what they're producing and how they go about doing their work. For her to consistently say that somehow she doesn't have the information and it's not her area of responsibility, or to insinuate that, is unbelievable. It is her responsibility, and she should have this information.

Hon. C. Clark: I have given the member considerable detail about this. I understand that she wants to go home, and she's probably — she's obviously — tired, but I've given her considerable detail about it. The details about what times the meetings were at for a $5,000 contract that is being managed by an independent authority…. I think the member will understand if I don't have that level of detail immediately available. If she asked me about a $5,000 or a $4,000 contract that was even being done by this ministry, in a $1.3 billion ministry, I think it's understandable that I might not have those details immediately available.

The idea of an interim authority is that it is independent of government. While the member likes to talk about the fact that she supports a move to independence for the authority, everything else she says puts the lie to that fact. Everything else she says is talking about the fact that she doesn't want them to be independent. She wants to make sure these services are continuing to be run by the ministry. That is not our government's vision for these services.

Our vision is to return or to give these services to communities to run. Let them make decisions about the kinds of services they want to provide if there are people who are receiving them in the community, and there are people who have experience at knowing what works and what doesn't work. That is the purpose, the very heart, of what we're trying to do in creating an independent authority. So when I say they're independent, that's what I mean.

J. Kwan: The minister says that I would rather go home. Well, actually, on any given day, I must admit I would much rather — if there was anything else to do — choose to spend time with my daughter. Make no mistake about that. I'm sure that's the case for every parent everywhere, so there's no mistake about that.

J. Kwan: The minister says: "Why don't you just resign and let Carole James run?" But you know what? I also take my job seriously — unlike this minister, who

J. Kwan: Unlike her, I take my job seriously. As much as I would like to spend my time at home with my child, I too want to do my job and do it well and do the job of the opposition, and that is to hold this government to account and press for answers this minister consistently refuses to answer. Don't you worry, Madam Chair. The minister is heckling me by saying: "Let's get Carole James in this Legislature." You know what, Madam Chair? At the rate at which things are going, Carole James will be in this Legislature as the next Premier of British Columbia — make no mistake about that. I'm not worried about that one bit.

The Chair: Members, we are on estimates. Would we please keep the discussion to estimates.

J. Kwan: So, yeah, I'm not worried about Carole James at all. She will be in this Legislature, and she will take that seat — the Premier's seat. Make no mistake about that.

The minister says she doesn't have the information because the contract is too little. She says that the independent authority is none of her business, and she doesn't oversee, really, what goes on in the independent authority. Well, no wonder the Doug Walls scandal happened. No wonder $400,000 disappeared right under the nose of this government. No wonder children are hurting, and no wonder this government just sits back and says everything is fine, because they can't even be bothered to do take their job seriously and do the work they're supposed to do.

The minister didn't know what happened to the $100 million that the government had somehow given out or under what criteria they were given out — $20 million contracts, not a small sum at all to organizations. What criteria went with those grantings of dollars to organizations? The minister says: "I don't have that information. It's too detailed for me." No matter what the amount is, no matter what budget cycle it falls under, no matter what the impacts are for the ministry and therefore for the community in terms of services, the minister has no idea what's going on.

I was asking the minister about these focus groups. I had no idea what this individual was doing and for what purpose the individual was hired. The minister said they were doing some sort of focus groups, and I asked how the selection process for this focus group was to take place and in what regions. The minister doesn't even have the basic information about that. The focus groups, the minister says, would supposedly utilize the information derived from this individual's work, utilize it to determine government's policy and help determine government's policy in providing services to vulnerable people in our community.

If the minister cannot even be bothered to find out the basis of where that focus group information came from and how it's derived, how could she have confidence at all, when she uses that material, to make decisions for government policy directions? That is such a…. Oh, what is the word? Lackadaisical? No, it's an irresponsible approach to the minister's role as the minister responsible for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That is the case here.

The interim authority is the responsibility of this minister. It falls under this minister's area. Court cases were done — i.e., with the health board, the health authorities that are independent of government — but nonetheless, at the end of the day, the person who is responsible for the health board's work would be the minister. The Minister of Health has accepted that responsibility. This minister should accept that responsibility, and there was a court case to that effect.

I would like the minister to advise what safeguards or what processes were applied by the interim authority for its hiring process. What safeguards do they have in place?

Hon. C. Clark: The new chair of the authority and the new board are going through all of the contracts and all of their contracting processes. It's an extension of the process that I started days after I took over as minister in this ministry. We went through every contract. We are looking through the process for every contract in this ministry, and we in this ministry are now recognized as leaders in government in the process that we applied to making contracts.

That examination is being extended to the interim authority. The new chair is going through that process right now. The new chair wants to make sure that the interim authority complies with all government guidelines for contracting and that all of the due process is properly in place. In addition to that, they will be examining all the skill sets of everybody who is currently contracting with them.

This is all happening in conjunction with the new fiscal year — so new chair, new fiscal year, new board, a complete look at the current processes that have been employed, a complete look at the entire group of contractors that are also employed by the interim authority. It is definitely a new direction. It's a process that the interim authority is adopting from a ministry that has shown real leadership in changing the way we contract.

J. Kwan: How many contracts are under review, and what is the total amount of all of these contracts?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't have either of those numbers for her today. The chair is engaging in that process now, so none of those numbers have been finalized. Those numbers will be available, I expect, over the next few weeks.

J. Kwan: Why should I be surprised that the minister doesn't have the information? So far, it seems to me

she doesn't have any information at all. She doesn't know how many contracts there are, and she doesn't know the number or the amount of all of those contracts together.

J. Kwan: It is shocking, in terms of an accountability point of view. If there was such a chaos — and there is such a chaos — in the ministry that it calls for the government to review the entire situation, you would think that at a minimum the minister would actually take time to look and see how much of the taxpayers' dollars is at risk, that she might have a ballpark figure here to try and have a better understanding of it.

It appears that her staff is looking hard, I think, for the information and that the information may well be forthcoming. But I would have thought that the minister herself, actually, would want to know and not just sort of sit back and say that someone's looking into that at some point in time.

J. Kwan: I think the member for Vancouver-Kingsway's cell phone just went off in violation of the House rules once again.

I would think that the minister would take enough care and take her responsibilities seriously enough to actually find out. If the minister has the answer, I would like it on the record.

Hon. C. Clark: This is publicly available information as well. It's a statement of operations. The consulting fees in 2003 were $297,821, and there's a long list on that of other costs, including office supplies for $19,622. All that information has been publicly available for quite some time.

J. Kwan: The $298,000-plus — are those all of the amounts of the contracts that are under review? Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. C. Clark: No. I said the fiscal year ends March 31, and so the public accounting for the interim authority will be based on year-end, just like the rest of government. There is a review ongoing now of all of the contracts. That has started, but it's not anywhere near finished. So an answer to the member's question about how big the group of contracts that the interim authority is examining for this fiscal period that has not yet ended isn't available. It will be available sometime very soon.

The member says: "Boy, it sure would be nice if the minister took an interest and wanted to find this out." That's exactly what I'm interested in doing, and that's exactly what the chair of the interim authority is interested in doing. That's why the chair is engaged in a review of all the contracts, because we want to get the answer to the question that the member has raised. For her to stand up and say that because we don't have the answer today means we're not interested in finding the answer is just plain wrong.

The truth of the matter is that the chair wouldn't have initiated this review if the chair and the board weren't interested in finding the answer. I am also interested in finding that answer. That's part of being a responsible government. That's why we are answering these questions, and that's why we are doing a review. This review of the interim authority contracts is an extension and a continuation of a very thorough review that we have done within the ministry.

We started in the ministry. The review is now continuing with the interim authority. It will be complete soon. When that information is available, we'll make it public.

J. Kwan: Oh, please, this lecturing from the minister is a little bit difficult to take.

The minister said that the ministry itself has done a thorough review, and the ministry said the interim authority has initiated another review. The number she gave has nothing to do with the question that I put to the minister, which is the total amount, the approximate figure of all the contract costs that are under review.

I asked the minister in terms of the review for these contracts, in terms of potential conflict issues, hiring practices and so on. She said the review will deal with all of that, and then the findings of that will be forthcoming. But as a minimum, you would have thought that the minister would have taken a look to see how many contracts there are that are under review. She may not know all of the details about each of the contracts, what they are about and how they came to be, and whether or not those are valid or legitimate contracts.

Be that as it may, I accept that as an answer, which the minister has to go through in trying to get the information through another review, but the minister should have known the information in terms of the total amount of the contracts. The minister should have known by now how many contracts are now at risk. The public has the right to know. With these contracts that are under review, what is the total sum of them in terms of taxpayers' dollars that might be in jeopardy?

J. Kwan: The minister is laughing. The same situation arose that I believe caused the review in the first place for this ministry — the Doug Walls scandal, where $400,000 disappeared right under the minister's nose. The minister can laugh all she wants, but it is her accountability and credibility at issue here in terms of her work as the minister.

How many other audits are there? Let's just ask this question: how many other audits are there with respect to the government's restructuring process, internal to government or external? We know of one that's external, but how many audits are there?

Hon. C. Clark: We are, as I announced shortly after I took over, doing an audit of the grants that were provided to aboriginal planning committees. Certainly, she will be familiar with that process. Carole James, the leader of the NDP, used to work for one of those agencies. I suppose if she has any questions about how grants were provided to those agencies, she can refer to her leader. The audit results are not back yet, but we are working on those audits in cooperation with the aboriginal community. We've had, I think, a terrific relationship with the leadership of the aboriginal community, who have made a real, true, strong commitment to try to make this process work.

We also want to make this process work, so we are looking through the way we do the granting process and trying to make sure the grants that we give are all given according to government practice. What we will do as a result of that audit is make sure the information that we learn is applied to the future; make sure we are doing things right in the future; make sure that the services that we are providing, for aboriginal people in particular, are as good as we can get them; and make sure that the planning process we have in place to devolve those services and bring them back to aboriginal communities is as good as we can possibly make it.

It's just not true, again…. It's just wrong for the member to stand up and suggest that if we're going through a review of these things, somehow that demonstrates that we're not concerned and that we're not interested. Of course we're interested. That's why we're doing a review. That's why we did a review very shortly after I took office in the ministry, and that's why the review is being extended to the independent authority. The chair of the authority very much wants to make sure that any questions are answered.

I do want to say this. When we did our review of contracts in the ministry, I'm proud to say that all of the contracts withstood the scrutiny of the review. There were two contracts, which I've already talked about, that were cancelled, but not because of any impropriety — simply because it seemed that the work that was being done in those contracts could be provided more cheaply if those positions were internal to government. We're working with the union now about posting and competing those and making sure those jobs are within government.

So, yes, we are very concerned about this; we are paying a lot of attention to it. That's why we're doing these reviews, and that's why we're making sure we're on track with the contracting process that we have.

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

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

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

G. Trumper: I would move that the committee rise and report completion of Skills Development and Labour and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.