Hansard — Wednesday, November 2, 2005 p.m.

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		1545

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1546
	Surrey Food Bank
	B. Ralston
	Science and technology in B.C.
	J. Rustad
	Metchosin Pavilion
	M. Karagianis
	Chinese Canadian veterans
	R. Lee
	U'Mista Cultural Centre
	C. Trevena
	Adoption awareness
	H. Bloy

Oral Questions		1547
	Coroner's inquest into death of Savannah Hall
	C. James
	Hon. S. Hagen
	A. Dix
	Hon. J. Les
	Closing of Midway sawmill
	K. Conroy
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Government assistance to communities in transition
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. I. Chong
	B. Simpson
	Potential reopening of Port Alice mill
	C. Trevena
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Link of sale of Terasen Gas to softwood lumber dispute
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Role of B.C. Utilities Commission in sale of Terasen Gas
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Ownership of shipping terminal on Ridley Island
	G. Coons
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Future of Victoria residential tenancy office
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of Supply		1552
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Hagen
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. L. Reid
	A. Dix
	D. Thorne
	R. Austin

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1591
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	C. Evans
	A. Dix
	R. Chouhan

Hon. L. Reid: I'm honoured to have in my office Heather James, and her granddaughter is visiting us today. She is part of a learning partnership which is a job-shadowing experience for grade nine students across Canada. Her name is Laura Kirk. She attends Oak Bay high school, a grade nine student, as I've mentioned. I ask the House to please make her very, very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, I apologize for not recognizing you first.

C. James: No problem. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have three very special constituents and three very special people in my life to be able to introduce today in the House. All of us in this House have people in our lives who have helped shape the values and the morals that we bring to our work and to our lives in this Legislature. I'm incredibly fortunate to have someone in my life who not only did that but walked the talk. I'd like to introduce my father Lorne DeGirolamo.

With my dad today is also my stepmom, who is a special person in my life and, also, a special person to the neighbourhood of Victoria–Beacon Hill and the James Bay Community Association and who just retired after 30 years as a nurse practitioner with the James Bay Community Project — that's Anne Boldt. With them today is Anne's father Peter Boldt, who is a long-time educator, was a school principal in Victoria–Beacon Hill as well as in other communities. I'd like the House to please make my guests welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: I rise today to recognize George Ryga Week, which began on Sunday, October 30 and runs through to November 7. George Ryga is one of Canada's most famous playwrights. He was also a novelist, a poet, a broadcaster and a social commentator. His best-known play, The Ecstasy of Rita Joe, was commissioned by the Vancouver Playhouse Theatre and became a theatrical landmark in Canada and around the world. Ryga was a lifelong advocate of theatre in Canada and understood its contribution to our national identity and our heritage. George Ryga died in 1987, having spent his last 25 years living and writing in Summerland, B.C. Will the House please join with me in acknowledging a great Canadian writer, George Ryga.

S. Simpson: I'm very, very pleased to introduce my daughter Shayla Jones, who's here with us today. She's also part of the grade nine job-shadowing program, and she's here trying to figure out what it is that her dad does for a living.

S. Simpson: She's promised, minister, that she will be back to you as soon she figures out what it is. I do hope the House will make Shayla welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm delighted to welcome and would ask my colleagues to help welcome two members of my ministry that are here in the gallery today. I know that a number of people here are participating in a special workshop. We're delighted to welcome Susan Stokhof, who's with our privacy and records management branch, and Deborah McKnight, who is with our finance and administration branch.

R. Cantelon: It's my pleasure today to welcome constituents to the House, and I'd ask you to make them feel welcome. Kaajal Manhas is here today, and her son Arjan Manhas is here. I want to note that he has, at the age of nine, become a very astute political observer. Their aunt is visiting from Los Angeles to observe our proceedings — Tejwant Uppal — and also Kaajal's mother Sujit Handau. Please give them a warm House welcome.

R. Fleming: In the buildings with us today is a constituent of mine, Mr. Brad Zubyk, who is also celebrating his 43rd birthday. For some reason, he chooses to celebrate that today in these buildings. Will the House please make him feel welcome.

R. Lee: Today I would like the House to welcome the delegation of the Shanghai women's training workshop in Canada. The delegation represents the Shanghai Women's Federation, the Shanghai Children's Health Care Institute, the district people's court and many other important committees. Accompanying the delegation leaders — Ms. Yanling Li, Ms. Ping Feng and a team of 18 colleagues — is Marianne Cheng of Vancouver. Would the House please give our visitors a warm welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to welcome a number of staff members who are here attending the parliamentary procedure workshop. They are two individuals from the B.C. Public Service Agency, Julia Berkowitz and Jeanne Sedun. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today are four women who work in the Ministry of Health. They're here today for the parliamentary procedure workshop and are, undoubtedly, in the gallery admiring the decorum and civility which you have instituted in this

great chamber, Mr. Speaker. Among the four are Roxanne Gallant, Julie Brown, Stephanie Power and Maureen Andersen. I would like to ask the House to make them all welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce 28 public servants seated in the gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. This workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of the relationship between the work of their ministries and how their work affects this Legislature. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Ralston: The Surrey Chamber of Commerce Business Excellence Awards took place recently in Surrey, and the House joined with the member for Surrey-Tynehead in congratulating all recipients of awards. Today I want to speak particularly about the not-for-profit business award recipient, the Surrey Food Bank.

The Surrey Food Bank was established in 1983 in an economic downturn. It was viewed then as a temporary solution to a temporary problem. Since then, the food bank has grown. It occupies a 7,000-square-foot warehouse in Whalley. It has a fleet of three vehicles, a hundred active volunteers and a core staff of eight. The society currently distributes 56,000 food hampers per year. It has expanded its support to include many different food security programs, such as Surrey Food Bank's community kitchen, a community garden, food-buying clubs and cookbooks with low-cost nutritious recipes.

After 22 years the Surrey Food Bank has come to the realization that people will always need their help. Their view is: "We give people a hand up, not a handout." Their mission is to help people help themselves. They help many people through the trauma of job loss, marital breakup and crippling addictions, and with the return to the workforce. I ask the House to join me in congratulating the Surrey Food Bank board of directors and the executive director Robin Campbell for the outstanding leadership, effort and commitment they have shown to our community.

J. Rustad: I stand today to mark National Technology Week, a chance to acknowledge the contributions made in B.C. and across Canada by technologists and technicians. Biomedicine, electrical engineering, aerospace research, data communications and graphic information systems are just a tiny sample of the incredible range of professionals and fields that fall under the banner of science and technology.

My riding, Prince George–Omineca, is traditionally known for resource jobs, especially in the forest sector. But we are also becoming a focal point for high-tech innovation and employment in those sectors. One example is a new high-tech piece of mill equipment designed to improve handling of wood in the planing process, which has been designed and is being marketed worldwide by a pair of cutting-edge Prince George companies, Wolftek Industries, formerly known as PG Mill Supplies, and GLC Controls. Bruce Sutherland and Gerry Bergeron of Wolftek were recognized for their innovations by the Prince George Chamber of Commerce, who jointly awarded them the Business Person of the Year Award this past weekend.

Innovative companies like theirs are eagerly scooping up graduates from B.C.'s post-secondary institutions, and our government's helping to meet these increasing demands for these types of skills with unprecedented support for trades education. Just last week I attended the grand opening of the John A. Brink Trades and Technology Centre in Prince George. The $6.46 million, 557,000-square-foot facility was made possible thanks to provincial funding and will help the college expand its high demand in trades programs.

As B.C. continues to grow and we work towards our great goal of creating more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada, it is clear that the people who work in these areas of applied sciences and technology will be in greater and greater demand.

M. Karagianis: I rise today to celebrate my community of Metchosin. Metchosin recently celebrated its 20th anniversary, although it was actually incorporated in 1984, the first of the Western Communities to do so. They wanted to mark this occasion, so they took it upon themselves to construct a public pavilion near their town hall. They did not have a lot of resources and money for this, so with a mere $20,000 and a group of amazing volunteers, they've actually managed to build this pavilion.

The group that gathered themselves together coined the name "The Old Farts Construction Co." This group of dedicated volunteers — Ed Cooper, Jack Howe, Eric Quissy and Larry Tremblay — with about 50 volunteers proceeded to build their pavilion that today is insured for a value of $100,000. It goes to show that a group of volunteers with a great name and a lot of effort can, in fact, turn $20,000 into a huge community monument.

One of the things that was incorporated into this pavilion is a green roof, as well, which is a very interesting and new construction technique that harmonizes the building with the surrounding environment. This is now a destination for anyone who feels compelled to go out to Metchosin and visit that community. It'd be a great place for weddings, for any kind of community event, so I would welcome everyone to choose Metchosin and the pavilion as a destination while they're here.

R. Lee: November 1 to November 7 is proclaimed as Chinese Pioneer Week, and this Saturday marks the

There are many we honour, but one group I wish to talk about today are veterans whose own country denied them citizenship or the right to vote. Despite their willingness to serve and their unwavering loyalty to Canada and the Crown, Chinese Canadians were not allowed to serve in our military at the outbreak of World War II. This discrimination continued until Japan entered the war, when the government finally relented and allowed Chinese Canadians to serve their country. Hundreds immediately enlisted.

Many volunteered — in greater numbers than any other groups of Canadians — for the Special Operations Executive, an elite British-led unit. Operating undercover in China and the Asian sphere, they faced numerous and near-suicidal missions. By the time the war was over, more than 600 Canadians of Chinese ancestry had served their country with honour.

Not only did these veterans fight for freedom, they also fought for something else. They fought for equality in their own country. Two years after the war, parliament gave Chinese Canadians the vote.

I would like to express my deepest admiration to the Chinese Canadian veterans and thank them not only for their service to our country but also for their determination in their fight for equality. I especially recognize veterans Bill Chong of Nanaimo, Gordy Quon of Victoria, Roy Mah and Willy Chong of Vancouver, and Dodson Mah, Frank Wong, Gim Wong and Howe Lee of Burnaby for their outstanding contribution to our country and for their continuous effort to educate us about the history, lest we forget.

C. Trevena: I would like to tell the House about a special event I attended yesterday. It was the 25th anniversary of the U'mista Cultural Centre on Cormorant Island. U'mista brings together that past and future for the 'Namgis First Nation and the Kwakwaka'wakw people. It is a very special place, built in the shadow of the residential school on the island.

It houses a stunning potlatch collection, items which were taken from the band in 1921 during a large celebration. At that time 45 people were arrested and charged with giving speeches, dancing, and carrying and receiving gifts at the potlatch. The confiscated items — the coppers, masks and blankets — were sold to collectors around the world. Instead of being held and used by the people for whom the items meant so much, they were displayed in the United States, in the Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Royal Ontario Museum and in private collections.

Yesterday, at the 25th anniversary of the centre's opening, after much negotiation, a stunning transformation sun mask, on long-term loan from the British Museum, was returned to its rightful place with the 'Namgis First Nation.

The potlatch items are from the Kwakwaka'wakw people's past but U'mista celebrates the future. It is a significant tourist attraction, which is important since the fishing is now going, but it is also a living cultural centre for the band and for its people, a place for the Kwakwaka'wakw language to grow and develop, a place for the art of carving to be nurtured, and it's a place where people of all ages can again take pride in their culture.

Like first nations across our province, the 'Namgis face problems of health, of housing and of unemployment. But U'mista symbolizes a future approached with pride in the past and with possibilities for the future.

H. Bloy: I rise today to talk about a subject that is very close to my heart. November has been proclaimed in British Columbia as Adoption Awareness Month. Its goal is to raise awareness about children waiting in care for an adoptive home and to recognize adoption as a valued way to build a family. Every year approximately 300 children in care find a family through adoption, yet despite this success there are still about 1,000 children in continuing care who are waiting for a permanent home.

Our government, specifically the Ministry of Children and Family Development, is working with community partners such as the Adoptive Families Association of British Columbia to increase the number of adoption homes for children in care. We are also working to raise awareness about B.C.'s waiting children.

My life has been touched by embracing a newcomer to our family. Over five years ago my wife and I became legal guardians for Candice Earle. Along with our children Jeremy and Katie, Candice has become a full-fledged member of our family.

I urge everyone in this House to promote adoption. There are too many children in the province still waiting to be placed with a caring and supportive family. I can tell you first hand that adoption and taking care of another's child has enriched our whole family. It was a decision we have not regretted, and it's something I hope others will make.

C. James: On Monday the Minister of Children and Family Development declined, on behalf of his government, to launch a coroner's inquest into the tragic death of three-year-old Savannah Hall. Today we learned more about the case and the investigation.

My question is to the Minister of Children and Family Development: given what we've learned today, does the minister stand by his claim that an inquest isn't necessary and he doesn't need to know what happened to Savannah Hall?

Hon. S. Hagen: As we've all read in the newspapers about this very sad death, this child died in January of 2001. Since that time there have been extensive reviews into that matter, including a foster home protocol investigation, a director's foster home review, a director's case review, an RCMP investigation that did not result in any charges, a preliminary review by the coroner's office and a judgment of inquiry. All of the recommendations resulting from the ministry's investigations have been implemented. The coroner's file remains open, and it is in the hands of the child-death review team. Following that review, the coroner can then decide whether any further steps are required.

C. James: I think there are some other pieces of information that I think it's important for the minister to also point out. The coroner who did the initial investigation wrote to officials in the Solicitor General's ministry and called for a full coroner's inquest. She also informed staff that all officials involved agreed that some of Savannah Hall's injuries were not consistent with accidental injuries.

So my question is to the Solicitor General: can the Solicitor General explain why the ministry rejected the request by the coroner on this case to hold a full inquest?

Hon. S. Hagen: I've already outlined the extensive reviews. I've said to the Leader of the Opposition that the coroner's file remains open, and it is in the hands of the child-death review team. It's difficult for me or I think most people to understand why the member is presupposing the results of their review. I don't presume to know what the review is going to come out with or recommend, and nor should she.

C. James: I think we should look at the facts around coroners' reviews. The coroners service has released one public report since taking over the child-death reviews. Ministry for Children and Families has made just two reports public in the last three years. So it's very clear that although the minister talks about reviews going on, this is not a transparent process, and the information is not going public.

If we take a look at the coroner's report, it was very clear that the death was ruled undetermined and no recommendations were made. In addition, the Minister for Children and Family's own internal report concluded that Savannah Hall was suffering from neglect and abuse. On Monday the Minister for Children and Family Development said to this House: "It's incredibly sad when the death of a child occurs. Thankfully, it doesn't happen very often, but when it does, we want to get to the bottom of it when it occurs." If that statement is accurate, why won't the minister or the Solicitor General or the Attorney General immediately demand an inquest so that British Columbians can learn from the tragic death of Savannah Hall?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I said, there have been extensive reviews, including a foster home protocol investigation, a director's foster home review, a director's case review, an RCMP investigation that did not result in any charges, a preliminary review by the coroner's office and a judgment of inquiry. I think the member knows that an inquest cannot be held while the file is with the child-death review team. That's the fact.

A. Dix: My question, too, is to the Solicitor General, who is responsible for the coroners service from an administrative point of view. We know that the employees, the investigators, at the coroners service recommended an inquest. We know that for budget reasons, the coroners service cut the number of inquests by two-thirds. We know that two current B.C. Liberal cabinet ministers intervened in this case at the highest level. We know that the government rejected an inquest two years ago. Can the Solicitor General explain to this House why senior officials in his ministry overruled the investigators and didn't hold an inquest into the Savannah Hall case?

Hon. J. Les: As the Minister of Children and Family Development has already indicated, there have been extensive reviews into this file. He has also indicated that the child-death review team is currently in the middle of a further review process. We have medically trained personnel that are involved in that. I think we all share the same objective: to get to the bottom of this case, to learn what can possibly be learned from this case.

But I would point out that it's important to know that whether or not there will eventually be an inquest will be a decision that will be made either by the chief coroner or by me but for all of the appropriate reasons — not to appease the member opposite, and neither will it be to appease a disaffected former employee.

A. Dix: Well, I'm not going to respond to those attacks on a former employee who, I think, is recognized to care very much about her work and her efforts. There are 79 of us in this House but only one person in this House who, today, could order a coroner's inquest. That person is the Attorney General. Now, I know the Attorney General's under instructions not to respond to questions related to his jurisdiction, but this is a critical matter that involves the death of a child. I ask him, based on the overwhelming evidence: will he order a coroner's inquest today?

Hon. J. Les: As a matter of fact, the member opposite is misinformed. According to legislation, the power

to ask for an inquest on behalf of government resides with the Solicitor General. That decision, at this moment in time, would be inappropriate. There are other processes going on, and it would be inappropriate to ask for an inquest to be held until those processes are complete and we have all of the information that we hope to be able to gain from those processes.

K. Conroy: In September at the UBCM convention, the Minister of Forests spoke to the delegation from the village of Midway and said: "Sorry to hear your mill is closing." The minister confirmed in the House this week that it was months before that date that he was made aware of the fibre supply issues in Midway.

My question is to the Minister of Forests and Range. Why didn't the minister contact the Minister of Community Services immediately after finding out this information, to begin implementing a plan to help the village of Midway deal with the imminent closure?

Hon. R. Coleman: The company did come to us and talked to us about their concerns about their mill. They also talked to us about concerns about their modernization. In my conversations with the company as late as the end of last week, they were very complimentary of the work that both the ministry and the minister did with regards to them and trying to find solutions. At the end of the day, their economics just said it didn't work. That's why they decided to move on to adding the shift into Grand Forks, because that's where they'd made their investment.

K. Conroy: It seems to me that when the very life of a community in B.C. is at stake, this government would want to act immediately to help a community begin to take transitioning steps. It would seem to me that if the government and the minister knew that this was coming, there would be something, anything, done — some kind of announcement that when this closure is going to be made public, the government would be there right away to help.

The position of job protection commissioner would do just that. My question to the Minister of Forests and Range: will the minister agree that reinstating the job protection commissioner would go a long way to helping communities deal with mill closures this minister knows are coming?

Hon. R. Coleman: The company, in its discussions with the ministry, had not made this decision at the time that you would actually go and have a discussion with the community. In addition to that, if the member wants to check, the mill is actually not slated to close until the end of the first quarter of next year. So there's plenty of time to deal with the transition issues once the company makes its decision.

N. Macdonald: My question is to the Minister of Community Services, and the question is this: how many coastal mayors affected by mill closures has she called with an offer of community transition assistance?

Hon. I. Chong: As I have stated on a number of occasions in the last few days about the community transition program that is housed within our ministry, it is about assisting communities when they are going through transition as a result of industry that has impacted the community. We are there to help. We will provide that help, and my ministry will coordinate across government to ensure that that assistance is there.

N. Macdonald: I'll just put that in language that people at home can understand. That means zero — no calls. The Minister of Community Services said in this House that she will look at each of these situations on a community-by-community basis. So again, my question is to the Minister of Community Services. What is the criterion that gets recognition from this ministry? Is it something like the size of the employer? Or is it when the opposition raises the question here in the House? Is that the criterion?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member had this series of questions, he should have raised them in estimates, which he did not. But for the benefit of this member and his caucus, I will explain to him what happens when a community is in transition.

We are notified, we contact them, we work with them, and we provide a plan that allows them to move forward. It's interesting, and I have to apprise the members opposite that in the year 2000, when the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant was Minister of Community Development and had to deal with another particular transition in Gold River, this is what she said: "Government didn't go in at that time with…

Hon. I. Chong: …the approach of saying: 'Here's what we think is best for you.'" Rather, she indicated that it was necessary to work towards developing a plan to meet the needs and work towards finding resources to meet the plan's needs.

B. Simpson: I just heard the minister say, "We contact them and offer them our services" — that she has a program in place, that they have a team. Yet this minister did not answer the question of how many mayors

of coastal communities who already have mills closed this minister has contacted with an offer of that service. So, again, to the minister: how many mayors of coastal communities who have had mills close already has she contacted with an offer of those services?

Hon. I. Chong: What I indicated to the members is that we have a community transition program housed within our ministry that allows us to work across government to provide services for a community going through transition. When we are apprised that that needs to come into place, we will make contact; we will send in staff to assess the situation and see what needs to happen.

Mr. Speaker, I've given the members adequate information about the community transition program. If they would like a briefing, I would be happy to provide one.

B. Simpson: Again, I think the minister proves our point. Her comment that she just made is "when we are apprised." Well, what does it take to be apprised? Mills are closed — 16 of the mills are closed. Communities have been impacted already by that. What does it take to be apprised? Other than — as one of my colleagues has already pointed out — this side of the House raises the issue in this House, and then the minister calls?

So, to the Minister of Community Services: what does it take for her to understand that the communities are going through transition, and she should be contacting those communities and offering those services directly now?

Hon. I. Chong: The members opposite do not serve any of the communities well when they are casting doubt as to what assistance is available. I have made assurances that our community transition program is there to help communities when they go through a difficult period and are facing challenges.

Again, I want to quote from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant in the year 2000, and she said this: "It depends on the community and what its approaches…

Hon. I. Chong: This is the quote from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant: "It depends on the community and what its approaches are and what those needs of the community happen to be." We will deal with that when those communities are faced with those challenges.

C. Trevena: We've been hearing a lot about this government's failure to keep mills open. So I'd like to give them the opportunity of giving some good news: a mill that could reopen — the Port Alice Speciality Cellulose mill. I'd like to ask the Minister of Economic Development whether he'll assure this House and the people of Port Alice that the mill will reopen soon.

Hon. C. Hansen: That's not a decision that is ultimately up to us. There is an interested party who is looking at purchasing the assets of the mill. We are working with that individual, and it is my hope that we will be able to draw that to a conclusion very soon so that the residents of Port Alice can know whether in fact it is going to reopen or not. But ultimately, it is not our decision to make.

C. Trevena: The minister says it's not up to the government, but the government has set certain hurdles there — that there has to be a certain amount of financing, that the government needs to see whether the buyer's financing has come. There is going to be an environmental agreement. It's still not concluded, but I understand that the ministry staff are possibly close to an environmental agreement.

We have a buyer who is willing to invest $45 million in this mill. I would like to ask the Minister of Economic Development why he is not taking a leadership role on this portfolio and making sure that that mill does reopen.

Hon. C. Hansen: It surprises me, coming especially from this particular member, to hear environmental regulations being described as hurdles. I think we have an obligation. We have an obligation to make sure that the environmental concerns are, in fact, addressed, not just in terms of pre-existing contamination but in terms of making sure that any environmental issues that are developed in the future can be addressed. We need to make sure that there is a proper business plan in place, and we are doing that.

At the end of the day, if this particular mill is viable in the market without subsidy from government, which would undermine the competitiveness of other mills and other industrial properties in British Columbia, then we want to do everything we can to make that happen. We are pushing this file as fast as we can. I can assure the member that wherever there have been delays, which I know are a huge frustration to the resi-

C. Evans: You know, the first time I asked the Minister of Forests about, I thought, the good idea of tying energy to softwood, he blew me away and said: "Oh, we have back-channel ways of solving that problem." Then we woke up in the morning, and the Prime Minister of Canada said that back channel won't work anymore.

Next time I asked him about it, he said: "Oh, we've got a pan-Canadian solution for the first time." Then the CEO of Canfor said that isn't going to work.

Then yesterday I asked him again, and he said: "Well, you know, we're going to solve this at the first opportunity." Today we wake up, and Mr. — what's his name? — Ritchie and Mr. Tellier, the federal negotiators, say there is no next opportunity; it's going nowhere. And they quit their jobs.

So, hon. sir, as softly as I can, given that every one of your ideas is blown away as fast as you can say them, could you try once one of ours?

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members from both sides, the Minister of Forests has the floor.

Hon. R. Coleman: I spoke to the federal Minister of International Trade this morning. Mr. Tellier and Mr. Ritchie are both ready to go to the table and assist Canada in negotiations with regards to this file. Their concern is the door open on the other side of the border. Our work on this side of the border was to have a Canadian position so we could take it. We're ready to go. As soon as the Americans are ready to go, we'll go to the table.

C. Evans: I didn't get anywhere that time, so I'm going to shift now. I would like to make all members aware that today, November 2, is a really important day in our history. Today was the day that the B.C. Utilities Commission was going to have a single public hearing into the sale of Terasen Gas. But they have decided not to have even one public hearing. So I'm here. The Minister of Energy is here. We're all here instead of in Vancouver commenting on this moment in our history.

I had hoped that there would be public hearings so public citizens could say how they felt about the public interest. Now, the public interest will be decided, probably before we return here. My question is to the hon. Deputy Premier. It's a simple question. Will the public interest in the matter of the sale of Terasen Gas be resolved in Vancouver by the BCUC? Or is that a matter for cabinet decision, and cabinet will decide whether or not it's in the public interest?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As we have consistently said, the B.C. Utilities Commission has had what they call a written-in hearing, and they've received a lot of e-mails and letters from across the province. It will be the entity — the British Columbia Utilities Commission — that will make the decision at the end of the day, in the best interests of all British Columbians and all Canadians, on whether we should move ahead.

I would remind this minister — or this member — when he talks about…. Actually, he was a minister when he used to get involved in the B.C. Utilities Commission by writing letters to actually tell them what to do. That's typical of that side.

I should remind that member that the acquisition that Kinder Morgan talks about started August 1, three months ago. We've had this NDP opposition go from pillar to post to actually say that we should have public hearings, that we should tie it to softwood, that we should try all kinds of things. What works is not having politicians fool around in a quasi-judicial body.

G. Coons: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As we all know, minister, the bid process of Ridley terminals is still emanating a scent that taints this government's assertion that there is a fair and open process for B.C. companies. The Minister of Transportation has stated in this House that this government had intervened with the federal government on their own behalf and had a freeze put in place on the process to examine the province's options.

Will this government once again demand a freeze on the process and request that all bids — all bids, including the Ridley Shippers Coalition — be re-evaluated in order to protect the interest of shippers in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: It seems to me that we rather thoroughly addressed this issue in previous question periods. But once again I'll remind the member that this is a federal government process, in which the federal government is going through a process of selling Ridley terminals.

We, as the member well knows, worked with the federal government because we were concerned that

provincially we wanted to make sure there was fair and open access to Ridley terminals. We've received assurances from the federal government that we can work with them in creating the contract language that will ensure that there will be fair and open access for all shippers in British Columbia. I look forward to coming forward with a solution that will do exactly that — protect our shippers and ensure that we've got fair and open access for all British Columbians.

G. Coons: Again to the minister. Obviously, "thoroughly addressed" doesn't wash it in my community. And as far as a federal government process, you seem to have intervened in the process. And you had stated once again that there had been assurances from the federal government that British Columbians will benefit from the sale of Ridley terminals, even if it's sold to an out-of-province company — one with no apparent operating revenue, one with no experience in running a port. It just doesn't make any sense at all, minister.

G. Coons: Through the Chair to the minister: why is this government backing the sale to a single operator and not backing the group of western mining companies who want to run Ridley as a cooperative where all of the members share in the costs and the risks?

Hon. K. Falcon: I have just a very fundamental question for the member opposite, and maybe the opposition: do they believe in a fair and open bidding process, or do they not? Because actually, there was a fair and open bidding process put into place. The coalition which that member mentions had every opportunity to be part of that bidding process.

Now, apparently what this member is saying is because the company…. Granted, it's from a different part of Canada, not from British Columbia. Apparently that should rule them out in terms of their ability, after following a fair and open process, to be able to acquire an asset which the federal government has had for sale for almost two years.

I'm astounded by the member opposite. I'm astounded that he would like us to interfere with that process, to rig, apparently, the process so that somebody else will get access to it and violate the entire process. That's a rather shocking declaration, though not altogether surprising, given the experience of those members when they were in government during the tragic decade of the '90s.

But as I said, we have got an assurance from the federal government that there will be contract language that we will have a part in drafting to ensure there is fair and open access for all British Columbians.

M. Karagianis: As a result of layoffs last week, only seven staff members are left in the residential tenancy office here in Victoria, which the minister responsible knows is the second-largest residential market in B.C. Two more staff members are due to be laid off this month. Will the minister confirm that it's the government's intention to close this office entirely?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have no memory of the Minister of Health ever having responsibility for the residential tenancy office, but he seems pretty anxious to answer the question.

The residential tenancy office is going through some transitions. We've been going through some issues with regards to it. It is not the intention to close the office but to have it remain open for walk-in traffic and transition over to our database management system for more efficiencies for our tenants.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, continued estimates debate — for the information of members, the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In Committee A, in the Douglas Fir Room, continued estimates debate — for the information of members, the Ministry of Attorney General.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister some questions around a specific program in my riding, and that's the Young Eagle Lodge. The Circle of Eagles Lodge Society was awarded a five-year contract to a culturally specific residential healing program for aboriginal youth in trouble with the law. This became the Young Eagle Healing Lodge, and the ministry granted the contract in 1999. Since then, 86 aboriginal youth have gone

through the program, and many have gone back to school, found work and were able to live successful lives.

In the last year of the program all the participants in the program except for one graduated. The success of the program is largely credited to the qualified all-aboriginal staff with the society, who provide the treatment, counselling and support, culturally and spiritually, to the individuals, the youth who come into contact with the Circle of Eagles Lodge and its derivative, the Young Eagle Lodge. The focus was to bring youth back to their culture.

Last year, the contract was put out to a request for proposal. It is our understanding that the Young Eagles Healing Lodge lost the contract to a non-aboriginal organization. Could the minister please advise who instigated this RFP process?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm informed by staff that there were some concerns about the program. Apparently only two out of 19 students who were enrolled graduated.

J. Kwan: Did any discussion take place between the ministry and the society?

Hon. S. Hagen: The contract was actually with the Vancouver health authority, and I am told that there were discussions that took place with the society and the health authority.

J. Kwan: According to the society, they advised that no discussion and no consultation had taken place, and that the contract, the program, was actually terminated before the end of the year, when there were still dollars there. They advised that the graduation rate is much higher than what the minister stated. So specifically, what conversation took place? What kind of consultation? If there were problems and concerns, were they flagged with the society and discussed with the society so that there could be some solutions found?

Hon. S. Hagen: I am told that the ministry contracted with the health authority, the health authority contracted with the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society, and it was actually the information from the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society that indicated they only graduated two out of 19 in 2004.

J. Kwan: What was the total graduation rate since the contract was in place in 1999?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that information, but I'll be happy to supply it.

J. Kwan: According to the information that I have, some 86 aboriginal youth have graduated from the program since it started. The information that I have seems to differ from that of the minister in terms of last year's graduation process.

But I'm not going to dispute that. I'm simply going to say that if in fact there were concerns, what kind of discussion took place for a contract to terminate in the middle of the program? Have there been concerns building up since that time?

I know that the minister's going to say that the ministry had contracted these services to the health authority, and the health authority in turn contracted these services to Young Eagles Lodge. But at the end of the day, it's the minister who's responsible for the health authority's actions. The health authorities report back to the minister. Court cases have proven that.

The former Health Minister is in this House, with respect to who can verify that issue, because I remember distinctly in the last four years asking the former Health Minister those kinds of questions, and he actually answered questions related to the health authority. So if in fact consultation took place, I'm very interested in knowing who spoke with the organization on behalf of the health authority, and with whom did they speak?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I agree with the point you're making, and that is that it seems to be an unwieldy type of process for the ministry to contract with the health authority to contract with the agency. That's why we decided not to do that anymore, but we actually went out for an RFP from the ministry.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The government terminated a contract in the middle of the contract year, when there was still money left for that contract. If the government says that they wanted to embark on a new process, usually the process is such that you go and talk to the organizations. A consultative government would have gone and done that. A good government that manages well, when there are issues concerning a particular contract — employment services and so on — would actually go and talk with the individuals involved, raise these concerns, and see how those concerns could be addressed.

If the only answer the minister could come back with is to say that the contract was terminated because there were only two graduates out of the program in the 2004 year, I'm afraid to say that that's not good enough. I would say that that's not good enough, and I would really like to know, on behalf of the society, what the problems were. Could the minister please be specific?

Hon. S. Hagen: My understanding is that there were discussions that went on between the health authority and the agency.

The contract expired, and then it was extended for a period of months before it was terminated. I'm told

that there were three concerns. Firstly, the program was underutilized; secondly, only two of 19 students in 2004 graduated; and thirdly, another one of the concerns was high staff turnovers.

J. Kwan: The Ministry of Children and Family Development had allocated ten beds in total to two agencies who were working in partnership to address aboriginal addictions: the Urban Native Youth Association and the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society. The Urban Native Youth Association had five beds that were referrals from non-profits in the area, and the Circle of Eagles Lodge had five beds that came from referrals from the youth justice within the Ministry of Children and Family Development. There was, as I understand it, liaison from the youth justice and with the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The program had developed and operated for a couple of years, and it was in 2003 that the government decided to change the process and transfer the funding to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. If it was cumbersome, the cumbersome process was created by the government in 2003, so let's be clear about that.

The minister states that there were issues or difficulties around staffing, if you will, and the issue around…. Part of the difficulty, as I understand from the Circle of Eagles Lodge, was that they had only a part-time coordinator. That did present some staffing challenges, and it was one of the criticisms, as I understand, from the coastal health authority.

As a result of that, there were some challenges. In some cases, reports were behind, and that was identified by the health authority. This is information for the minister because he did not provide this information in his answer. So I'm providing information to the minister, having spoken with the folks from the Circle of Eagles Lodge.

The Circle of Eagles Lodge tried to rectify the problem and hired a consultant. They tried to remedy the problem that the health authority had identified and brought to their attention. The challenges, the problems, were dealt with. They were dealt with by the Circle of Eagles Lodge.

However, by that time the government had already made the decision to close down the Young Eagles Lodge. The Young Eagles Lodge closed at the end of August 2005.

To our knowledge, there was no evaluation prior to the closure of the program. So I'd ask the minister: what evaluation was done with respect to this program before its closure?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I say, there were three concerns. One was the low graduation rate, which we've talked about — two out of 19 students. At the time that the contract was cancelled, only two out of the five beds were occupied. The high staff turnover was another concern of the health authority.

J. Kwan: If the issue was around only two beds being occupied out of the five, and given that the pro-cess is such that referrals are made to the Circle of Eagles Lodge to occupy those beds and that those referrals actually come from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, did the government go and talk with the people who make the referrals to see whether there's actually no need for these beds or if there is some other problem going on that we're not aware of?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, I just want to reiterate that I think the main concerns expressed by the health authority in not renewing, or in them not being successful in the RFP and in going to RFP, were the three things that I mentioned: the fact that there were 17 out of 19 of the young people who didn't graduate, the high staff turnover and that the program was underutilized.

J. Kwan: Let's break that down piece by piece, and I just want to go with this one piece at the moment. On the question around the underutilization, the Circle of Eagles Lodge received referrals from the government to the program from the ministry. Was the government not making the referrals to the Young Eagles Lodge? Is that why it was underutilized?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that the referrals are actually made either by a judge or a probation officer. I mean, this is only conjecture, but if you're a judge or a probation officer and you're looking at an agency that is not being particularly successful, then you may not refer wards to that particular agency.

J. Kwan: Okay, so the minister is saying that judges or court workers did not make the referrals to the agency. That's why it was underutilized. So I'm going to put that as a marker on the side here. The minister answered that question on why it was underutilized. We'll see whether or not…. Well, anyway, we'll check into that.

Let me go to the question around the high staff turnover, because it is my understanding that the Young Eagles Lodge, the Circle of Eagles Lodge, actually addressed that issue and dealt with that issue in terms of the staffing challenges. By the time they finished addressing the issue, when it was brought to their attention as a challenge, the government had already made the decision to terminate the contract. Why did that happen? Why did the government not give time to the organization to address the issue and see whether or not they could rectify the staffing problems?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by staff that the decision was taken for the three reasons that I've already given. There was due consideration given, and we now go to RFPs for all of our programs to make sure that we offer the best service possible for the dollars that we have in the ministry.

J. Kwan: Sorry, Madam Chair. The minister actually didn't answer my question. So maybe let me break

down the questions even further then. When did the government notify or alert the Circle of Eagles Lodge that there was a staffing problem and that the government was concerned about it?

Hon. S. Hagen: It wouldn't have been the government that notified them. It would have been the health authority that notified them. I'm not the minister responsible for the health authority, so I don't know when that was done.

J. Kwan: But it is this government who is responsible for the health authority. It is this government who transferred those funds to the health authority in 2003. So it's too easy for the minister to try to not answer these questions.

Now, is the minister suggesting that those questions should be put to the Minister of Health in his estimates process? If that's the case, then let's put that on record, and I will do that. But the fact is this contract came from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The Ministry of Children and Family Development passed it on over to the health authority. So somebody in the government needs to own up and answer some basic questions of accountability.

We have an agency that began providing services, and as far as I know, actually has a pretty good track record and maybe more recently ran into some difficulties because of staffing challenges. But it does not mean that the government will just pull the rug from under them without sitting down and talking with them and raising these issues. It is to the point that the agency should have the right to know.

The government should tell this House when the government knew that there were issues. When did the government contact the agency involved and advise them? Did the government give them an opportunity to address the problems, or did the government just decide: "Hey, we get to make the decisions; we're going to pull the funding and to heck with it?" Never mind the work that has been done before, never mind the capacity that was built before, and never mind the efforts and the successes of the society over the past years.

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the concern of the member opposite, because I think this society is in your riding. I appreciate her raising the questions, but I just want to clarify. I'm not evading the answers.

They were under contract to the health authority, and I can't speak for the health authority. We were providing the money by a contract to the health authority. To find out what discussions took place between the health authority and the agency is not something that I can answer.

J. Kwan: The money does come from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to the health authority, does it not?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I mentioned, the ministry provided the money to the health authority that then did a contract between the health authority and the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society.

J. Kwan: The answer is yes. The ministry provided the money to the health authority. The ministry should know what the health authority is doing with that money. If there are problems with it, what are the problems? Isn't that logical?

If I was in the minister's position, I think it would be logical to say to the health authority: "Hey, what's going on here? I gave money to you. You're supposed to make sure that the service is being provided to meet the need here."

Would the minister, then, commit in this House — if the minister doesn't have the answer to my question right now — that he would actually go and talk to the health authority and get to the bottom of this and facilitate a meeting with the society so that they could sit down and talk about what went wrong, what is the problem and how the society could rectify that problem?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think the member has made a reasonable request. I'm happy to have one of my staff people from Vancouver go and have a talk with the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society, but it's important for the member to understand that we have awarded the RFP, so the discussion will not be about renewing the contract. But I'm happy for my staff to have a discussion to satisfy your concerns about what discussions were held, how much time was given to the society to correct things and those sorts of discussions.

J. Kwan: As far as we know, the ministry to date has not met with the society, which is why I made the request. I think that should be done, and I think that the minister should do it. If the minister cannot do it, then it should be the deputy on behalf of the minister who should facilitate this meeting.

I think that there should be a review to see what went wrong. I would be very interested in knowing what evaluation actually took place prior to the closure of the program. Any written reports that the government might have, I would ask the minister to pass that information on to not just the society but also to me as the local MLA. I'm interested in knowing what process was undertaken to the measure of accountability here.

Then, more importantly, on the question on the RFP, I'm wondering from the youth justice side…. We know and I know that in my community we have a lot of challenges. We have many young people who are out there, who are struggling. We have many aboriginal young people who are out there struggling. Many of them have suffered childhood traumas. I can't even begin to imagine how awful it was, and it goes from generation to generation.

What I do know is this: the Circle of Eagles Lodge and the Young Eagles Healing Lodge had made a tre-

mendous effort over the last number of years in providing a service that's much needed to provide for some healing and for some building and re-establishing of cultural and spiritual aspects within the aboriginal community. We now know that the contract is lost to a non-aboriginal agency.

I'm curious to know from the justice branch — given that there were no referrals to the society, or very few — if it is the case that there are no aboriginal youth out there who need this service — because I see otherwise. I'm interested, then, in a second tier of questions and information from the minister: how many youth of aboriginal descent are out there who need such a service?

Hon. S. Hagen: Madam Chair, I appreciate her passion on this particular issue, because it's not dissimilar from my own concerns, particularly with regard to the young aboriginal community. In answer to the first part of your question, my deputy minister and my assistant deputy minister did meet with the society last week, but I'm happy to have the assistant deputy minister go back and meet with them as a result of your request today.

Secondly, we don't have an exact number of aboriginal youth who need this kind of care. Having said that, that's why we went out for an RFP — because there is a need there, and the health authority, at least, apparently didn't feel the need was being addressed by the society, so they went out for an RFP. That RFP has been awarded.

J. Kwan: Was the Vancouver aboriginal advisory committee of the Ministry of Children and Family Development aware of the RFP going out?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised that they were not made aware of the RFP going out.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that there wasn't consultation because it is looked upon as a provincial program. However, I agree with the member that they should have been consulted.

J. Kwan: The problem here is this. The information that I've received shows that, in fact, when the government decided to pull the contract, there was little or no consultation with many people who should have been consulted — by the minister's own admission, the Vancouver aboriginal advisory committee.

I would assume that the committee exists to provide advice on critical matters under the ministry on programs that relate to the aboriginal community, and that didn't happen. I'm advised by the society that no discussion took place, and they weren't advised of the RFP process going out. Then it was just pulled out from under them. They were just notified, services were just discontinued, and they had to shut down shop.

I've been advised that the service actually went to a non-aboriginal agency, and if there is a critical need — and I do believe that there is…. There's a shortage of such services targeted for aboriginal youth. Given the government's new-relationship approach with the aboriginal community, one would have thought that the basic consultation process would have taken place and that the government would make sure that those kinds of programs are increased, not decreased.

What measure is the government undertaking now to ensure that aboriginal youth get access to these much-needed programs? What steps is the minister taking to make sure that those programs are available to aboriginal youth in our communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: Madam Chair, I think the member stated that the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society was not aware of the RFP. I think she said that. If she said that, I don't think that's the case, because they actually bid on the RFP, and they were unsuccessful. The further point was that because of the RFP going to another agency, this was a cut. It was not a cut. The services are still being offered to aboriginal youth, but by a different agency.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm advised that the successful bidder was the Elizabeth Fry Society, that they are operating and offering the services on Stó:lô land and that all of the service providers, except one, are first nations.

J. Kwan: The government advises that there are programs to address aboriginal youth needs. How many programs are there in Vancouver and how many programs are there across the province? How many beds are available?

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member: could I ask her to be a little more specific in her question? Are you talking about addiction beds or are you talking…? What sort of programs are you talking about?

J. Kwan: Let's start with residential healing programs for aboriginal youth, like this one that was cancelled — how many beds in Vancouver? The minister is shaking his head, saying that it was not cancelled. Well, the Young Eagles Healing Lodge lost their funding, and the minister said that the funding went to another agency, so how many beds are there in total in Vancouver? That's five beds. How many beds are there in total in Vancouver that provide such a service to aboriginal youth? Let's start with Vancouver.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that there are 26 beds. This is for the province, but this is only for the youth justice addictions part of the program. The other youth beds are funded by the Ministry of Health.

But I do want to clarify the statements that you made that the program was cut. You're right in saying that the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society was not successful in getting the program, but the program is being delivered by the Elizabeth Fry Society.

Hon. S. Hagen: The breakdown of the 26 beds is: 16 in Surrey, five in Kamloops, five on the new Stó:lô lands and none in Vancouver.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know how many beds are needed to address the issues? Are there people waiting to get into such services?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I remarked earlier with regard to the beds at the Circle of Eagles Lodge Society, there were only two beds occupied there. I'm told that there are waiting lists, particularly in Surrey, where there are 16 beds.

Hon. S. Hagen: My staff does not have the answer to the number of people, but the wait times are two to three months.

J. Kwan: I wonder if the minister would commit to providing that information, then, at a later time to the opposition. I certainly would be interested in knowing how many people are on the wait-list to try to get a bed.

Are there any plans from the ministry to actually get some service of this nature in Vancouver? Between Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and Vancouver-Hastings, we actually have the largest number of urban aboriginals living in British Columbia, between those two ridings, yet there is no service because the closure of Young Eagles Lodge.

Are there any plans from the government to actually provide some sort of service in Vancouver to support the two ridings that have the largest number of urban aboriginals living in those communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: The answer is no, not at this time. However, I want to reiterate that the 26 beds that are around the province are available to young aboriginals wherever they live in the province.

J. Kwan: As the minister knows, oftentimes when people are in these services, they actually need the support of their network of friends and family who happen to be in and around those communities. To send youth who are struggling with these kinds of challenges elsewhere, to a different community…. One can anticipate and appreciate the difficulties around that.

I've just been kindly reminded by the critic in this area that, of course, Vancouver-Kingsway also has a high number of aboriginal youth living in that community. So it's safe to say that in our communities, we do have a need here. We now have lost a service in Vancouver that I would say is much needed in the community. There is a two- to three-month wait-list on this, and the numbers have yet to be seen to see how many people actually need these services. I would certainly advocate for additional services around British Columbia and, more particularly, in Vancouver.

My last question to the minister: once the minister's staff has had the opportunity to meet with the Circle of Eagles Lodge around this issue, would the minister please have his staff provide some sort of information back to me so that I'm aware that the meeting actually took place and how the matter was dealt with and resolved?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm certainly happy to have the staff report back to you that the meeting took place, what was discussed at the meeting and what the results of the meeting were.

M. Karagianis: Minister, I'm here today on behalf of one of my constituents, a young woman by the name of Ashley Waddington. Ashley is a young adult with autism and a number of other challenges as well. Ashley turned 19 in June of this year, and as I'm sure the minister is aware, that triggers some new evaluation of Ashley's circumstances. She is currently under PWD-2 funding.

Ashley is being determined at this point to be eligible to live independently, on her own. Unfortunately, because of her multiple challenges, Ashley is not capable of maintaining an independent lifestyle by herself. She certainly would have challenges in maintaining paying her rent. Ashley has challenges in even maintaining her own personal hygiene. But because Ashley's IQ is over 70, she is now being determined as classified to live on her own.

Ashley's family is unable to care for her. Her parents are separated. Her mother is on a very modest income and supporting another family member.

What Ashley really needs at this point are two things. Ashley needs some partial support care, and she needs some job training like the Roads Program. So I am here to ask if the minister will intervene on behalf of Ashley. There is clear evidence from psychological profiles done with her that it was determined that she would not successfully live on her own. I believe that Ashley is at risk if she is not supported in some way and is not given some clear job training to help estab-

lish some semi-independence. I believe that Ashley may fall into street life, drug addiction, any number of other risky situations.

I'm here to ask if the minister will intervene for two clear outcomes for Ashley: part-time support to help her live as independently as possible and approval from the ministry for her to enter the Roads Program.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to respond to the question. In terms of autism as an issue for the province, it's increasingly challenging — no question. Certainly, there are more young people each day being diagnosed. I would welcome the opportunity to sit down with you and see if there are some issues we can advance collectively in terms of putting in place some supports. I appreciate your bringing Ashley's issues forward.

The reality is that there will be a number of young people, as they transition beyond the services that are currently available. We have some extraordinarily fine services in British Columbia in terms of what's offered for children zero to six, six to 12, 12 to 18. We should collectively, as a Legislature, grapple more effectively with children as they age through that process and then what the next step might be. I would welcome the opportunity to work with you on this issue.

M. Karagianis: I will avail myself of that opportunity. I thank you very much for listening to this and for making an attempt to at least meet with me, and we'll see if we can come to resolution. I'm sure Ashley and her family would be deeply appreciative.

Just to let the minister and the staff know, in terms of how we're proceeding with estimates, I have a few questions following up on last night. Then we'll have some questions on aboriginal affairs and children with special needs. At 5:30 we're going to start the session on child care, and then we'll be back later this evening with questions on foster care.

That's just to let the people who are probably watching in that room behind there know, because I actually took part in these in that room back there at one time. Just to let them know so they can….

A. Dix: They've got BlackBerrys over there too, I think — one or two. Just to let you know, that's kind of the schedule for the rest of today.

Last night I asked the minister about the deaths of children in care, about the mortality rate for children in care, and the minister said he'd get back to us today with a graph from 2000 to 2005 of the death rate per thousand. I'm wondering if the minister has that information.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm looking at a graph here showing fatalities of children in care by cause-of-death category per-100,000-child population — zero to 18 by calendar year. It starts at 1996, where it's two. Then in 1997 it goes to 2.2, and then in 1998 it drops to 1.5. These are very, very small numbers, thankfully. In 1999 it's 1.6. In 2000 it's down to 1.0; 2001, 0.9; 2002, 1.0; 2003, 1.3; and 2004, 1.5.

Now, these are broken down to categories of undetermined homicide, suicide, accident and natural, but I'm not sure how in-depth you want to go on these numbers. I don't know if this is the same graph you have.

A. Dix: This is the information on the ministry website. What it shows, if you compare children who are children in care; children known to the ministry — in that category; and the overall mortality rate in British Columbia…. If you look at the numbers per-thousand population, you'll see that over the last four years the overall mortality rate has stayed constant, in fact. It was 0.39 per thousand in 2001-2002. It was 0.4 per thousand in 2004-2005. So the overall mortality has essentially stayed the same, and that's not a surprise to anyone.

What has gone up dramatically, if you look at that…. In fact, the ratio of mortality for children in care was double the provincial average in 2001-2002 — also not a surprise, because there are great challenges in this area. It was 0.83. It's risen now to three times the provincial average — 1.28 in 2004-2005.

In that period the minister, of course, has eliminated many of the reviews of children's deaths. Does the minister not think that information…? As he rightly points out, over all, these can be small numbers, but it's still a significant increase in the mortality rate since 2001-2002. Does he not think that is cause for concern? Does he not think that's cause for more reviews and more recommendations so that we can learn more from the deaths of children? Is that not an argument for the previous system of reviewing children's deaths?

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the challenges in looking at these numbers is that they are so small that to say something goes from 0.5 to one is certainly not…. I don't think you can read a trend into that. I'm not sure where the member is going.

Thankfully, the numbers are small. Of course, we are concerned about every child's death in British Columbia, but this certainly doesn't show me that there's a trend.

A. Dix: With great respect, there is a trend. The numbers are small, thankfully. I wouldn't expect that the numbers themselves would climb exponentially. That would not be something one would expect, particularly given the stability of our province in general and the stability of the overall mortality rate.

The trend is clear from the information provided by the ministry. In every single year since 2001 the mortal-

ity rate for children known to the ministry has gone up. In every single year since 2001-2002 the mortality rate has quite dramatically gone up for children in care. That seems to me to be a consistent trend.

The minister might, if the mortality rate were to go down this year, have an argument that it isn't a trend, but in fact, in every single year since those cuts were made, since services for children were cut, the mortality rate has gone up. That's not to say that you want to make that linkage, but I'm just making the point that because we don't have a children's commissioner — right? We don't have the reviews that we used to have of these events.

I'm saying: "Let's not draw those kind of conclusions. Let's not have a debate about this." But surely, with the fact that every single year the mortality rate has gone up in both categories of children in the ministry's responsibility, isn't it a reasonable argument that we should go back to a system where we review more comprehensively every death in order to draw those lessons we do learn?

I think the lessons we draw usually aren't from the statistics. Given, as the minister has suggested, the small number of deaths we're talking about — from nine to 14 per year, pretty much…. The small number of deaths may not provide the information we need, but the individual deaths can provide enormous information.

What we've had since 2001-2002 is a pattern of not wanting to investigate individual deaths adequately. In fact, the elimination of the child advocate, the elimination of the children's commissioner, has indicated that.

I think that's the question for the minister. These are the trends. They're very clear in the information. That doesn't mean we need to draw extraordinary conclusions from those trends, but surely it means we have to ensure that every death is investigated properly.

Hon. S. Hagen: We do care very much about the kids that we have in care. We care very much about the outcomes of those children that we have in care, and obviously, we care when there's a death of a child in care. That's precisely why the provincial health officer and the child and youth officer are doing a study to check the outcomes and also to look at the deaths of children in care.

A. Dix: Doesn't the minister agree with me that increasing mortality rates every year since 2001 is a subject of concern?

Hon. S. Hagen: I just want to point out that — I know the member's hung up on these numbers — if you look at homicides, there's been no change in homicides from…. Actually, they've gone down from 1996. In 1996 there were 0.2 deaths per 100,000. In 1997 it was 0.1. Since that it's been 0.0. The increase that the member is talking about is in kids dying of natural causes. Some of these kids are extremely ill. Yes, I care about why there has been an increase from 0.6 deaths per 100 children to 1.0. But as I said, that's one of the things that's being looked at in the study that's being carried out by the provincial health officer and the child and youth officer.

I hope that the member would agree with me. I mean, he's really hung up on what you call these people. You know, to me, it doesn't matter what you call a person. It's important what the person does. That's what we want. We want to know what the outcome is, and that's precisely why — and I'm sure you didn't miss this press release today — to make sure that what we're doing is correct, we announced today the panel to review B.C.'s child protection system. Here's what the panel is going to look at.

As a matter of fact, I think it's important to read this into the record, and I know the member opposite would be disappointed if I didn't.

I know that the panel will want to talk to Judge Gove. Here's a quote by the chair of this blue-ribbon panel:

The terms of reference were included in this, and I'd just like to read those into the record.

Then there's a part two of the terms of reference, and I appreciate that the member has asked me to read this:

So as I've said many, many times in answers to the questions posed by the member opposite, we actually do want to make sure that we have the best system that we can possibly have, that we have the most open and transparent system that we can possibly have, bearing in mind that we do owe confidentiality to family members and to others, and we don't want to breach the law in information that we release. But we really do want to make sure that we can stand up proudly as British Columbians and say: "We have the best system anywhere with regard to child protection."

A. Dix: I'm delighted, because the minister gives me hope. He gives me hope that the many questions I ask will in fact bring action from the government. He'll remember that on September 19 the government had no plans to do any review in this area. Then we asked him some questions in the House, and magically on September 20 there was one review, and then on September 22 there was a second review, and then on September 23 there was a third review.

We asked him more questions in the House. The government's response every day — desperately trying to defend its record and its failures in this area — was to announce a new review. Then on October 4 the government announced a review, and the minister's words were fulsome in Hansard. He said, as did the Premier: "Judge Gove will be on the panel." Of course, he's not.

What that tells me is not, you know, that anyone is inevitable or anyone has to be on a panel or anything else. What it tells me is that the government has failed in this area, that the government has no plan in this area, that the government was making this up as it went along, that the minister and the Premier wrote out this plan on October 4 on the back of an envelope, that they hadn't got their ducks in order, that the Premier and the minister announced Judge Gove, and Judge Gove wasn't available, probably for good reasons. I think probably because people in Judge Gove's position have to actually seek permission to sit on panels, and judges are busy in British Columbia.

But I'm pleased that that this review is taking place, because the overwhelming evidence is that we need to reinstate the children's commissioner. Now, the minister says I'm hung up on titles. I'm not hung up on titles. It doesn't bother me what the minister calls the position. What matters is that all child deaths are automatically reviewed under the legislation; that the children's commissioner and, potentially, a children's advocate — because I'm delighted to see that aspect of it being reviewed as well — be appointed as independent officers of the Legislature; and that they have the true independence that comes with having these cases automatically referred.

Unlike the child and youth officer, an independent children's commissioner doesn't have to seek the permission of the Minister of Children and Family Development — the very ministry that she would be reviewing — in order to have a review. To quote Judge Gove, referring to the case we're talking about, because Judge Gove had some very interesting things…. Judge Gove, like me, isn't hung up on titles. He says:If we see the work that the children's commissioner did — it doesn't matter what the name is — we would certainly go back there. I think that is something that those who make decisions of that nature may want to consider. If we did have the children's commissioner or if the officer had the same authority that the commissioner had —

— what would have happened is that there would have been a comprehensive review of this child's life, her placement with her relative, her death. Experts would have made recommendations, including assessments of decisions that were made, and the report would have been made public. All that would have happened without people blaming each other in terms of the political sphere and who did what. That gets child welfare out of politics and where it belongs: the concern of everyone.

I agree with my friend the minister when he says to me: "We want the best system possible." But for three years the minister has put in place — and successive previous ministers and the Attorney General and the Premier have put in place — an inadequate system.

I received a letter with respect to the case in Port Alberni from the chief coroner, who said they're still working on their system of reviewing child deaths, who has an aggregate system for reviewing child deaths. I received a letter from the child and youth officer with respect to the case in Port Alberni. The child and youth officer said to me that I should ask questions of the minister about those cases, because her reviews won't cover it.

I'm delighted. I had just one or two questions. Since the minister brought it up and since he read the terms of reference, it means that I don't have to read them into the record. I'm delighted he has taken that course. The fundamental term of reference is to review the role of the child and youth officer and the coroner's office in reviewing children's deaths. That's fundamentally what's involved here: whether that process was the right process. It's referred to specifically in the terms of reference.

Ordinarily, when we do a review of offices, the offices in question don't review themselves. The Ministry for Children and Families is an exception to that. They like to review themselves and not have anyone else review them independently. Ordinarily, in the regular world, if one were in the corporate world or something and you wanted to bring someone into review the agency, I suspect, and the minister agrees with me…. In the corporate world — or the non-profit world, where I've been working…. If we wanted to review my organization in the non-profit world, you'd bring someone in from the outside. You wouldn't appoint me the reviewer of my performance. I think that's a fair statement — if you wanted an independent review.

It seems to me, of course, that the child and youth officer and the chief coroner and anyone else who wants to be involved can be involved in this process. That seems reasonable to me — making presentations, defending their positions. Both of those individuals are aggressive and articulate spokespeople for the status quo. They've already decided on these questions, and it's their offices that are under review.

Doesn't the minister think their role should be more like that which he has suggested Judge Gove will have and, perhaps, others of us will have in providing advice to the blue-ribbon panel? Isn't it sort of strange to have the people being reviewed on the panel doing the reviewing?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, it wasn't my suggestion that Judge Gove take the role that he's taken. It was actually the suggestion of the Chief Judge for the province of British Columbia. There were reasons for that. Mainly, it revolved around time commitment and the length of time that the judge would be away.

We had always said…. I will also say this: Judge Gove dearly wanted to do this. We all know that this is a passion for him, and we appreciate everything that he's contributed over the years and what he's contributing now. Unfortunately, it was not possible, so the Chief Judge made the suggestion so that we could…. I mean, we could have said: "Well, if he can't be on the panel, then we're not interested." That wasn't the case. We wanted him involved, the Chief Judge knew that we wanted him involved, and this was a way that he could still carry out his duties on the bench and still play a role in the panel and in providing information to the panel.

With regard to the question as to whether or not the child and youth officer and the coroner — who are both independent, I might add — should be on the panel, I guess you could have a debate around that. I might add that regardless of the debate, we wouldn't change it. I have total confidence that Ted Hughes — who has a longstanding public service record in the government and on the bench and as a former conflict commissioner and a very, very talented adjudicator — will actually listen to all of the views.

I, frankly, don't have any idea what views Grand Chief Ed John will bring to the table. I've never had the discussion with Grand Chief Ed John with regard to…. I have discussions with Ed John with regard to the system all the time, because he's on my advisory committee, and I appreciate the advice that I get from Grand Chief Ed John and others. I've never specifically had a discussion on the makeup or the positions — and the same with some others on the committee.

I think this is a blue-ribbon panel. I don't think you can question the integrity of this panel or the people on the panel. I'm thrilled, actually, that all of them agreed to serve and agreed to do what they've been asked to do. I do look forward to any recommendations that they might bring back to me, which will be public. I think that where I am on this is: let's let the panel do their job. Let's let the panel do their work. Let's not bring partisan politics into this to add to the confusion that's out there. Let's let them do their work in a responsible manner, and then we'll see what recommendations they bring forward.

A. Dix: I say — with, as always, great respect for the minister and his long experience in politics — that he's given me hope, because he's repeatedly, in fact, changed terms of reference and panels, so far, after I've asked questions. I'll just ask him the question again — the specific question I asked.

I think the members of the panel are great. I actually have no particular issue with Ms. Morley personally or with Mr. Smith personally. My point is simply that they're the people being reviewed. When you're being reviewed and you have an absolute point of view — you're the designer of the current system; you're the people being reviewed — it seems to me that your role in relationship to the panel shouldn't be one that you don't participate. In fact, I think the minister will agree that we want all people in the province with an interest to participate and to have an opportunity to express their views.

If you're being reviewed, should you be doing the reviewing? That's a fairly simple question. I think that on most corporate boards, on most non-profit boards,

the answer to that question would be no. I'm just asking the minister why things are different at the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. S. Hagen: Let's not forget what the objective is. The objective is that the panel will examine the oversight, the public reporting and the advocacy within B.C.'s child and youth protection system. That's the objective. The objective is to make sure that we have the best system that we can possibly have.

Now, who better to talk to than people who actually work in the system, people who use the system — in the case of Grand Chief Ed John — and people who have no connection with the system. I think that's a combination of objectivity and people who have the knowledge about how the system works. Then, of course, we have the former child, youth and family advocate on the panel, as well, to bring her views to the panel. I think the panel is incredibly balanced.

I did forget to thank the member opposite for all the compliments that he gave me. I think, actually, to be really truthful, that's the most compliments I've ever had from a critic in any of the nine ministries I've had.

A. Dix: I say to the hon. minister: we're just getting started, although I have a tremendous litany of nice things to say about the Minister of Health when his estimates come up next week. He's doing well. He's in business over there.

I want to move briefly to the issue of child protection audits. The ministry conducts these audits on a four-year cycle, and it lists on its websites the most recent audits it's done. Have there been any audits done since 2002? If there have been, where are they, and can we have copies of them?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the numbers from the last budget debate. I don't have the numbers from 2002, but I'm happy to provide the numbers that were….

Hon. S. Hagen: Yeah. I'll just read into the record. From January 1, 2004, to September 22, 2005, there were three director case reviews completed and 18 deputy director's reviews completed. As of September 22, 2005, three director's case reviews are in progress, and 37 deputy director's reviews are in process.

A. Dix: I just want to be clear from the minister. Of course, my second question would be: with respect to the completed audits, can we receive copies of those audits?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, but they'll be severed to meet the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. You did ask for the number of audits. I have the number. From April 1, 2004, to September 30, 2005, 44 case practice audits have been conducted in the regions. Four additional audits are in progress. If you'd like the number of audits from 2002, I'm happy to provide that.

A. Dix: I'm just curious. The ministry lists child protection audits on its website for public information. In fact, you can access some of those audits. It's under "Accountability in audits," and in this information to be made available to the public, the most recent audit was Richmond in 2002 — the integrated youth team.

I'm just wondering if the minister can explain whether it's a matter of practice to put the most recent audits on the website so that they're publicly available and don't require extensive FOI. I have, I must say, great difficulty getting FOI information from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I thought it would be easier just to ask the minister.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's something we're actually anxious to do, but I'm told by staff that we're having negotiations with the FOI legal people. There's some debate or argument, I guess, about what can be posted and what can't be. I'm not sure how long that's going to go on or whether it will be settled, but I'm sure my staff will let me know that.

Just to clarify that a bit more, it relates to the recent amendments to the FOI Act, so my staff are trying to clarify that with the FOI staff to work their way through that. The goal is, as I've said before, to post as much information on the website as we legally can.

A. Dix: Can the minister confirm that an audit of the aboriginal side of child protection in the Fraser region was recently cancelled?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't know the answer to that, and neither do my staff that are here.

A. Dix: Would the minister agree to find the answer to that question and to bring it back before the end of estimates?

A. Dix: The hon. minister raised a story in the New York Times last night, and he read it into the record. I know he's a reader of international journals and international newspapers. I'm amazed, given his many responsibilities, that he has the time to do these things, but there you go. I think he may have people who bring them to his attention from time to time.

I just wanted to bring a note to his attention with respect to changes to child welfare, because we're all learning and we're all trying to get better. There's been a very significant and interesting series of case studies in Alabama over the last few years, which the minister, and probably his staff, will know have actually made great strides in several of the areas that the minister and I and others have talked about in terms of child protection, child services and keeping families together.

I wanted to refer to him an article in the August 20, 2005, New York Times — and there's a series of other articles related to this — about Alabama. What they said was this: "What by all accounts had been a dysfunctional system in Alabama, scarring too many children by sending them to foster-care oblivion while ignoring others in danger, has over the last 14 years become a widely studied model. But it has not been cheap…." In fact, Alabama has more than quadrupled its spending on these services since 1990.

Now, we've had a little debate in the last while about these questions, but it seems to me — I say to the minister — that the government has got it only half right. The decision to keep children and families intact is one we all agree with. It forms the basis of the very legislation that the minister and social workers enforce and everything else. It says it right in there; it's always said it right in there. Back when he was the member of a previous party, it said it, and when we changed the act in the early '90s, it was reinforced in there. It's always been part of that.

What people have learned in other jurisdictions is that if you want to change the system to keep families together, you have to invest more resources in families. You don't create programs where you cut away all the government supports for children as you keep families together.

I just want to bring this to his attention and say to him that I think there is a reasonable debate about this. I think the problem with a lot of the new methods, with the least disruptive measures, that the ministry has come up with is that they have been combined with deep cuts to supports for families, to income assistance and to day care funding, and with all the other things that the government has done over the last four years which have taken away supports that families had to succeed and to get together. Combine that with reductions in child protection workers and reductions in supports for workers. Combined together, that is not the best course.

I just wanted to raise that to his attention — because this is a serious debate, a serious issue, and there are lessons we have to teach sometimes in our jurisdiction, and there are also lessons to learn — and get the hon. minister's reaction.

Hon. S. Hagen: I hadn't read the article with regard to Alabama, but having gone to school down in the States and knowing what they sometimes spend on social programs, I'd be interested. When you said they'd quadrupled it, I'd sure be…. That's a meaningless term unless you know what they started with and you compare it to what we're spending.

This ministry is much like the Ministry of Education. The education of our children is not necessarily improved by the amount of money you spend. The quality of education is actually directly related to the quality of the teacher in the classroom. The answer to every problem is not necessarily to spend more money.

As I indicated yesterday, because we are actually discussing the '05-06 fiscal budget and then moving on to the next three years, because we do three-year rolling planning…. Over the next three years our budget will increase by $138 million, which is what I said yesterday. That's not including any of the federal money on the early learning and child care agreement.

The member talks about doing things differently and improving the way we do things. As I talk to social workers on the front lines, that's exactly what they talk to me about. They're thrilled with the changes, where they no longer have to go in and take children out of homes as a first step. They're actually thrilled and excited talking to me about working with families so that they can keep children in the families. We're thrilled about that too.

As I said yesterday, we have refocused resources and changed policy to reduce the numbers of children in care. Here are some of the improvements we've made. These are shifts for specific reasons.

Adoptions. We've increased what we spend on the adoption programs from $3.3 million a year to $17.3 million a year. Out-of-care and alternatives to care — kith-and-kin and other tools for keeping families together — from $400,000 a year to $2.4 million a year. Aboriginal services, from $7.8 million to $18.7 million a year.

Yes, I am satisfied that our senior staff and social workers do keep up to date with the practices that are improving, and that's important. It's part of the training. We do things differently now than we did ten years ago, and I think they're better.

As a matter of fact, if you look at the workload per FTE — and we're actually meeting our targets — we've gone from 7.8 children in care per FTE to 6.6 children in care per FTE. That's a 15-percent decrease overall. Some of that probably has to do with the fact that social workers now spend more time with families to keep kids there. You can't always have that high ratio. Of course, that ratio was much higher under the government that you worked for.

I think we're on the right track. I think we're making good progress. We're always looking for continual improvement in how we do things. I think I'll leave it there.

A. Dix: Well, you know, it's interesting. I say this to the minister. Usually ministers of the Crown have a tendency to hear what they want to hear, but I've never seen cognitive dissonance adopted as a ministry policy before.

We had a survey that the child and youth officer took of agencies and front-line workers, and they said exactly the opposite of what the minister just said. They said they were being pressured by ministry staff. They said, by the way, even now, that social workers who make decisions in kith-and-kin agreements…. Most of them haven't received in-person training at all, even on those agreements, even after all that's happened.

I think that the direction the ministry has gone in is simply wrong. Laying off social workers is the wrong approach. Just to read from this article — the minister, I'm sure, is interested in these things — they hired

more social workers to trim caseloads. That's what they did. They, in fact, increased the capacity of social workers to help individual families increase the options. They reduced the egregious conditions of impossible caseloads. They literally hired — hon. minister, the opposite of what you did — hundreds of new social workers so that the workers could now spend ten hours a week in some homes.

Now, this is the opposite to the approach that's taken. I mean, the minister doesn't need to ask me. I've been around talking to social workers. He's been around talking to social workers. He may think…. I haven't met a single social worker who agrees with his description of events.

He may say that I'm biased in my view, that I'm unfair in my view, that I'm overly critical of the minister, that I'm overly critical of the ministry — that I'm a critic. So I just refer him not to what I have to say but to what social worker groups have to say, what the Association of Social Workers has to say, what the BCGEU has to say. More importantly…. He may even think they're biased. He may even think, as he said yesterday, that social workers complain about things. They were whining. He may say that.

I just refer him to the report of the child and youth officer, who said clearly that social workers are feeling pressured. This ministry and this minister have set targets. It sets targets for the number of children in care, in fact, to drive them down. It seems to me that what the number of children in care surely should be is an aggregate of individual decisions made by social workers and not the minister and the ministry, for budget reasons, driving down the ministry's children in care for statistical reasons to meet phoney targets. In fact, it should be an aggregate of individual decisions that social workers made based on the right options, the best choice for every individual child.

The ministry shouldn't be instructing — as, by the way, it did in the memorandum that we went over at length. I don't intend to bring back into the debate, from yesterday, the shameful memorandum that implemented the kith-and-kin program, where the ministry said that this was the best measure — and, in fact, has engaged with all these measures in pressuring social workers. Again, it's not what I say. It's what the child-and-youth-officer survey says. It's what social workers say. It's what agencies say. It's what the child and youth officer says. Social workers feel like they're being pressured to meet certain targets. They're pressured to go in a certain direction.

I say with great respect to the minister that I don't think that's the right approach. The right approach is that we take each case as an individual, and what the numbers end up at in aggregate are what the numbers end up at. Social workers should not, and surely he would agree, be pressured by ministry targets to reduce the number of children in care, be pressured to choose options that they don't see as desirable.

Hon. S. Hagen: You know, I don't disagree with everything that the member says, just a bit of it. If I left the impression that in my travels around the offices, I didn't hear any complaints from social workers, then I apologize for that. When I go to the offices, I want the people, as we sit around the table and talk, to be very open about what they have to say, because I'm interested in what they have to say.

Certainly, you hear things that you might rather not hear, but I expect to hear those things. I learn from that. I take what they say to heart. Sometimes my senior staff gets a bit nervous when I go around to these offices. But I think it's the right thing to do, and I will keep doing it.

I want to talk about where we were, because the member has taken me back to '01 and is talking about the budget since then. At that time there were over 11,000 children in care. Yes, we have to look at each individual case. But I think you also have to look and compare how we're doing in B.C. to other provinces, because how else do you know whether you're doing well or you're not doing well?

When we became government in '01 — and I'm not going to talk about the terrible decade of the '90s — there were 11,000 children in care, which was 24 percent above the Canadian average. It seems to me that if the situation were reversed and our government had been government in the '90s and the NDP came into government in '01 and the minister sat down and said, "Well, let's have a look at the Ministry of Children and Families to see how it's doing after the government that's been in for ten years," and it was pointed out that there were 11,000 children in care, somebody would probably ask the question: "So how does this compare with the rest of Canada?"

Let's say that you were the minister and that you were to find out this was 24 percent above the Canadian average. I am sure that you would ask the question: is this where we should be in British Columbia, or do we need to make some improvements? That's all we did, because we thought that we shouldn't be 24 percent above the Canadian average. Then you look at best practices, and you look at how you can do things better. You look at what the previous government had done and how we can improve on that. As I say, if the situation had been reversed, I'm sure that you would have done exactly the same thing.

What we found was that over the next four years we lowered the number of children in care by 16 percent, which I think is laudable. We're still 5 percent above the Canadian average, but as I've said many, many times, we believe in the principle of continual improvement. We will continue to improve, to work with our social workers, to work on a case-by-case basis, because I don't disagree with that. But I also think that we have to be conscious of how we match up to other jurisdictions.

A. Dix: I say, with great respect to the minister, that I find that defence of the pressure social workers feel across the ministry when they have to make decisions to meet the ministry's targets rather than decisions that

they feel are in the best interests of children surprising. I've been told repeatedly that the term social workers get from managers is that they just have to learn to accept a higher level of risk. Well, I don't think that's acceptable.

When the minister sets targets — and sometimes the ministry meets them, and sometimes it doesn't — to drive down the number of children in care…. When they create new kinds of situations, such as the discussion we had yesterday about kith-and-kin agreements, where the ministry created a new system where children in care — and they're really children in need of protection under those agreements — go in without all the supports they might otherwise have in a foster home. They don't really get anything like the level of financial support.

The minister can talk about this federal-provincial stuff all he likes. The fact of the matter is that the home gets less money to support the children under that agreement. The government saves money when a child goes into kith and kin rather than restricted foster care, and the child gets less access to resources.

In addition, there is less effort made on a home study and less protection for the child. We know what the result of that was in the one case. But more importantly, since the ministry hasn't actually measured the success of most of its least disruptive measures and hasn't done a comprehensive audit of kith and kin — it seems unbelievable to me, under the circumstances, that it hasn't done a comprehensive audit — we don't know the success of these, if the approach is wrong.

I think the right number of children in care is the aggregate of those individual decisions. I think we should, as the minister says, trust social workers to make that decision and not pressure social workers to meet the minister's artificial targets. That's where, I think, we differ significantly.

I wanted to go on and start to ask the minister about the devolution process to aboriginal agencies, because that's where…. Before he, again, inspired me today….

Should we let staff come in? We'll just give a couple of minutes for one person to leave.

Hon. S. Hagen: While the staff is changing, I just want to make one comment. That is that I've been assured by my senior staff that the instructions that go out to social workers are to make their decisions on a case-by-case basis on the merit of that case. I know that you're trying to make some political points by suggesting that the numbers are driving everything, but that's not what we ask our social workers to do. We ask our social workers to make their decisions on a case-by-case basis based on the merit of that case.

A. Dix: Well, I'll just say that it's not me saying it, of course, and the minister knows this. It's agencies saying it. It's social workers saying it across British Columbia. They are saying — social workers, his ministry workers — that in fact the ministry has decided to accept a higher level of risk. I don't agree with that approach. I think it's budget-driven. I think it was driven by the Premier's decisions around the budget in 2001 and 2002 — the extraordinary decision to target large cuts to the Ministry of Children and Family Development in complete contradiction of his commitments to the people of British Columbia.

With respect to the devolution process, I wanted to ask the minister, first of all, with respect to aboriginal planning committees…. As he knows, the government made a commitment to this process. I think it's fair to say — and all of us, I think, on both sides of this House are quite supportive of this process — that the challenge the process faces is the lack of real confidence, of real resources, of real support from the minister.

The minister made a commitment. What was their commitment to regionalization in 2002-2003? It was $30 million. What has the ministry delivered? Some $2.2 million. In fact, there's been a 92.5-percent reduction in funding to support communities to reclaim responsibilities for children and families services. Only 7.5 percent of the original targeted funds remain.

In fact, the ministry in this case broke a written commitment to community-based planning committees. I think that people I've met with in this sector will say to the minister that the goals of the MOU and the goals of the Tsawwassen accord are in jeopardy as a result.

I'd like to ask the minister first of all: can he tell the House what impact he thinks this broken promise, this cut, has had on their ability to oversee and plan for child welfare services in their communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm not sure where the member is getting his numbers from. I do want to talk about moving ahead with the aboriginal governance authority. I think I can say that we haven't moved along as quickly as we had wanted to, but we have now — together with my advisory committee — made a commitment to have these in place by the next fiscal year.

I certainly can say that I have a strong working relationship with the aboriginal leaders through JAMC — the Joint Aboriginal Management Committee. To date we've invested $10.54 million in planning. We've budgeted $2.2 million for planning in '05-06 — over $3 million if you can include in-kind support through ministry regions and headquarters. And in addition to this budget, the aboriginal leaders and I met with the chairs of the planning committees in September, and I've committed another $500,000 this year to support the work that committees are doing.

A. Dix: I just wanted to ask the minister before we go further through the details, before we go through the specifics of the broken commitment to the planning committees and to the process that has seen the process delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed — that's five delays…. I wanted to ask him, just in a general sense, whether he thinks that the structure of the restructuring is the right approach — that

As he knows, in the province of Manitoba they went a different route with respect to the regional aboriginal authority process. They appointed, essentially, a leader and a team from outside of the ministry to drive it. Does the minister not think that that might be the best approach, given the failure of the approach over the last four years — and I would say, by the way, independent, probably, of both sides — to help drive the process, not reporting to the ministry but rather a more independent approach? Doesn't he think that might yield a more successful result?

Hon. S. Hagen: This has really been a partnership all along. Our working relationship with JAMC, my joint advisory committee, has been excellent. We're meeting with them in the next couple of weeks. We meet twice a year, and we meet at additional times whenever they want a meeting.

On top of that, we've set up five regional committees, all with aboriginal members. You know, as I said, sometimes you would like these things to move ahead more quickly than they do. But having said that, I think the relationship with the first nations and the government, the aboriginal community and the government, is stronger now than it's ever been.

A. Dix: Well, I say to the minister: I know that the minister listens very carefully to all the suggestions we make, so I want to get his reaction to three suggestions that might improve this process — his reaction to all three of them.

We could do one at a time. For example, would he agree with me that one way to help this process along would be to reinstate the original funding levels to aboriginal planning committees?

Hon. S. Hagen: Working with first nations is not always about throwing money at the process. It's more about building a relationship of trust and respect with the first nations leaders and with the first nations people, and that's exactly what we've been working on.

We are committed to funding this process. We're committed to the process being successful, and we know how important it is to the aboriginal community to work with them to keep aboriginal kids in aboriginal homes. That's what the goal is. Will we get to that goal next week or next month? No. But over a period of time, we will get to that goal.

A. Dix: I agree with the minister that it's not all about money, but surely it's about trust. The minister and the government signed an agreement. They said there was going to be a level of funding, and then they arbitrarily cut the funding. So I say to the minister that yes, I agree that it's not just about money, but in fact, that's what happened. They arbitrarily cut the funding. They made a decision to arbitrarily cut the funding, and that has, I say to the minister, an impact on trust.

I'm assuming that the answer to my first suggestion — that he reinstate the original funding levels to the aboriginal planning committees — is a no. How about my second suggestion, which is to return resources and supports for aboriginal organizational development and coordination to an aboriginal secretariat with no outside interference from the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is throwing all kinds of numbers around that I've never heard of, but I can tell the member this: we work with the committees, the aboriginal committees that have been set up. The aboriginal committees develop workplans, and we fund those workplans.

Let me make a third suggestion: that he follow the health example of Manitoba, which appointed an independent strategics initiative leader for their regional aboriginal authority process. This happened because the minister openly acknowledged the direct conflict of interest in having ministry officials lead a process designed to transfer their duties, powers and authorities to aboriginal communities.

It's clear, after a number of years, that everyone's invested a lot in the process — and not just aboriginal communities but ministry staff, people involved in the process. It's clear that it's not working as it should. Doesn't the minister think that a different structure to oversee this transfer — a structure that does not necessarily have to be independent of government but independent of the ministry — would be advisable under the circumstances. It's worked in other jurisdictions. It would be received well by aboriginal leadership. Doesn't he think that's the right approach to get where we all want to go, which is the devolution and a regionalization process that works?

Hon. S. Hagen: I hope that the member isn't suggesting that I should ignore the independent advice that I get from JAMC. I mean, that's why JAMC is set up — to give me independent advice. JAMC has technical working groups that report to them. We have five planning committees, all independent of the ministry. They develop the workplans, and then we fund the workplans.

A. Dix: Then let's go through the details of it, because there we are — three very positive suggestions for the minister, all three rejected. What I'm saying to the minister on the third is that I think what's evident before us — and the minister and the ministry has just had a very interesting conference over the last couple of days on some of these questions, with some advice from South Africa and other jurisdictions — is that perhaps the present structure of the process isn't arriving at the results we need. I think it's a fair suggestion to look at that — at whether we want to go in a new direction or not. I think that's a positive suggestion that

I hope, in spite of the minister's unusual partisanship on this question, he'll consider.

I wanted to ask him, then, about the aboriginal planning committees themselves, because they're the bodies charged with preparing the devolution of children's services to aboriginal authorities. The minister may be confused by the numbers, but the deputy minister is there beside him, and she signed some of these letters. They took a 66-percent reduction from the government in 2004. Can the minister tell the House what impact he thinks this cut will have and has had on their ability to oversee and plan for child welfare in their communities?

Hon. S. Hagen: As I've said repeatedly, we are working very closely through JAMC. We take their advice. We meet with them regularly. I also meet with first nations leaders around the province. We have the technical work group that supports JAMC, reports to them. We have the five planning committees who develop the workplans, and we fund the workplans.

A. Dix: Well, let me then ask this question, because of the minister's commitment to consultation. Can he tell us, when the ministry brought in the 66-percent cut…. What consultations took place with aboriginal groups prior to the government cutting the budgets for aboriginal planning committees by 66 percent?

Hon. S. Hagen: We're determined to have success in working with the aboriginal community to develop the services and to help them develop the services they need, to help keep aboriginal kids in aboriginal homes. The system we have set up now — with JAMC advising us, with the five committees out there, with the technical working group — is moving ahead very well. We're making real progress, and we'll continue to make real progress.

A. Dix: The minister seems loathe to talk about the specifics of his budget. Far be it from me to suggest that the estimates begin.

I wanted to ask him a specific question again about the 66 percent. When the Premier signed the memorandum of understanding in 2002, the agreement…. I'll just read from the agreement that was signed by the Premier: "Aboriginal communities require support, including the necessary capacity and resources to enable them to develop and deliver a full range of child and family services."

Now, these words in the memorandum of understanding are admirable. But in the last three fiscal years there hasn't been a single new dollar allocated to this initiative, and the planning committees have been cut by 66 percent. The 2004 letter to aboriginal planning committees makes it clear that the Premier has reneged on his commitment for first nations.

What kind of precedents does the minister think this sets for the new relationship, and can he explain how the 66-percent budget cut represented a positive contribution to the government's record and policies concerning aboriginal children at risk?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can't help but find it a bit amusing when the member opposite talks about reneging on promises. We have $100 million of new money for the new relationship in this year's budget — not in my ministry, but in the applicable ministry.

Now, let's look at the budget for aboriginal planning committees. In '04-05 the budget was $2.04 million. In '05-06 it was $2.5 million, increased by $500,000, so it's increased to $3 million. That indicates to me that it went from $2.04 million to $3 million from '04-05 to '05-06. That doesn't look like a reduction to me.

A. Dix: Well, it is a reduction. It's a reduction off the government's commitment. They have slashed funding for the aboriginal planning committees since they signed the agreements, and the minister, as usual — having slashed funding to the bone, having created a crisis in services, having created a situation where we're not closer today than we were then to actually seeing devolution happen — is now saying we're restoring some, a small share, of what we cut.

Does the minister think that the amount he refers to is sufficient to repair the 66-percent cuts?

Hon. S. Hagen: We're going to continue working with the first nations in partnership, working with JAMC. JAMC has the technical work groups working with them. We have the five planning committees developing workplans. We're funding those, and we will continue to work in partnership with first nations around the province.

A. Dix: Well, can the minister confirm this, at least — because presumably he and his ministry are talking to aboriginal groups. I guess I'll just say to the minister what my concern is. It's that the ministry, in fact, is creating a situation where this process is bound to fail because they are inadequately funding capacity in the process, and they're inadequately funding the services required to succeed in the end. You have a situation where a result we all see as desirable — devolution of regionalization — is sabotaged by a lack of commitment from the government.

Can the minister confirm that the sums he talks about are considered to be insufficient by most involved in the planning committees and that at least one regional planning committee is intending to boycott interregional meetings to express their opposition to funding restraints?

Hon. S. Hagen: With regard to the interior planning committee that the member has wrongfully said are boycotting the project, that is not true. They are continuing to work with ministry staff, so the member should get updated on that.

When the member talks about lack of progress made, there has been tremendous progress made in the

last four years. I'd like to actually read this into the record so that you will be aware of the progress that's been made. Four years ago — and I don't want to remind the member who was government four years ago — there were band council resolutions forbidding ministry staff from entering onto reserve land. We now have agreements with most bands in British Columbia.

We are the only province in the country to have halted the rapid growth in the number of aboriginal children in care. We have, with the 23 aboriginal child welfare agencies, jointly established a set of standards for aboriginal child welfare.

We have developed partnerships with aboriginal leaders and community representatives for the purpose of planning at the community, regional and provincial levels. We have worked with the aboriginal leadership when crises have occurred, such as the financial and board irregularities at some agencies or services. We have worked together effectively to re-establish credible service agencies. Committees are working jointly with the ministry on the multi-year plan that was endorsed by the aboriginal leadership from the First Nations Summit, the UBCIC, the Métis Provincial Council of B.C. and the UNN.

We have helped support the existing strength and capacity in the aboriginal community through involving aboriginal planning committee members in regional staffing and budget decisions, by increasing the number and capacity of aboriginal agencies, by co-locating ministry staff with agency staff on reserves such as the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket in Cranbrook. By reallocating budgets to aboriginal agencies and organizations, a total of $5.7 million was shifted. Jointly with delegated agencies, we set standards for aboriginal child welfare.

We talk about consultation taking place with the aboriginal community and with whom. We consult with community stakeholders, including families, leaders, elders; with band councils; with aboriginal service agencies; with delegated child welfare agencies; with youth groups; with Métis organizations and service providers; with ministry staff; aboriginal leadership, including JAMC, which I've talked about. Other government entities such as health authorities engaged in the regional planning in regard to child and youth mental health.

For the member opposite to suggest that we're not making progress is absurd. We have made real progress. We've set a target of having the regional authorities in place by the next fiscal year, and we will do that.

A. Dix: It's not me saying the progress is insufficient. It's the many planning committees I've met with and talked to who are saying that it's insufficient, that we haven't made anything close to the progress. If the minister believes what he says — that he can just wave a wand and make it so, with less resources — then he's wrong. The consequences of the government's lack of commitment, of their cuts to the specific financial commitments they made, are significant. I wanted to ask him whether he agrees, for example, with the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Child and Family Service Society. This is a submission they made on October 11, calling on the government to provide support for building community capacity that will, in turn, lower the cost of aboriginal children in care. Does he disagree with the KKCFS that they require proper resourcing for building capacity, and does he agree that the current resourcing is inadequate?

Hon. S. Hagen: Capacity is an interesting term and an interesting issue, and we certainly do commit to working with first nations throughout the province, but I want to work through JAMC, which is my advisory committee, to make sure we are providing the resources that are needed to get to where we need to get to.

Here are some other successes. Since 2001 we have made more headway on working with aboriginal communities on child welfare issues than in the previous 50 years. This includes transfer of the care of over 1,000 children to aboriginal agencies; increasing the number of delegated agencies, including three urban agencies now operating; signing a historic agreement — which he's referred to — with all of the aboriginal groups in the province; transfer of resources totalling almost $6 million to aboriginal service providers; and dedicated aboriginal child and youth mental health planning.

A. Dix: Perhaps the minister, then, can take us through what we can expect through 2006-2007 — his established time lines for that process, sort of month by month — so we can know what to expect as we go forward, as we budget through this fiscal year. In fact, I won't even ask him to take us all the way to 2006-2007, because the minister may view such a request as unfair. I'll ask him just to go through the fiscal year estimates we're talking about: through March 31, 2006. Where does he expect to be at the end of this fiscal year, on March 31, 2006, with respect to this process?

Hon. S. Hagen: Here's the commitment we've made, and we will continue to work with JAMC and my advisory group to get there. As the member opposite has mentioned, the Tsawwassen accord and the memorandum of understanding between this government and the aboriginal leadership is truly a historic achievement. As a matter of fact, we're now having discussions with JAMC on how we renew that agreement, making sure that it interacts with the new relationship.

We're committed to moving forward with the development of aboriginal authorities. I think we're expecting to increase the number by all five by the end of '06-07. Aboriginal children, as you know, make up 9 percent of the child population, and yet 49 percent of children in care are aboriginal. We have to work with the aboriginal community to fix that. As I've said be-

fore, we're committed to working in partnership with the aboriginal community to improve the outcomes for aboriginal children, which is critical for all of us.

The service plan in the ministry indicates that authorities will be in place in the '06-07 fiscal year, and we anticipate that authorities will exist by March of 2007. Consultation in this province has to occur with almost 200 separate first nations, as well as with Métis, Inuit and many of the citizens living in the urban communities.

A. Dix: I'd like to ask the minister, because for two and a half years the government has been promising, in this area, specific working groups to make this process a reality…. I think previous ministers have made these commitments — I think even in estimates. I won't bore the minister, because the previous minister who was in estimates is sadly no longer in the Legislature and sadly no longer in politics, but I say that these commitments have been made.

I want to ask the minister where the working group on human resources is now. Where are the legislative working groups now? Where is the working group on funding allocation, and how will the current budget be split between aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities?

Hon. S. Hagen: We're waiting for the names to come forward from the aboriginal community, and we're developing the terms of reference with them.

A. Dix: Does the minister not think that years is too long to wait for that process to come together?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that some of the committees will start meeting within a month.

A. Dix: I want to go back to the suggestion I made earlier, because I feel that the minister is open to suggestion, that he has moved so rapidly from absolutely refusing even to consider an independent children's commissioner, as in my first questions, and is now seemingly opening the way for it. So I'm hoping that in that spirit, he will continue to move and make changes, and make changes in his point of view.

I wanted to ask him a question that I often get when I meet with people involved in this process. They say — and I'm not going to comment on whether this is a fair suggestion or not; I'm just going to tell you what they say to me — that there is an obstacle in the reliance by the government on the ministry. Now, I've been involved in these processes before, and this isn't the first time this complaint has been made, but I think the minister will have to acknowledge, and his official will have to acknowledge, that this is certainly a complaint that is profoundly felt by a lot of first nations. They feel that, in fact, entrenched interests in the ministry, rightly or wrongly, serve as an impediment.

I suggested to the minister earlier that in Manitoba, the Doer government approached some of the same issues because some of the same challenges faced them. They took an approach that recognized there would be issues of this nature and appointed an independent person to oversee the transition process at arm's length from the ministry.

I want to ask the minister, first of all, if he is considering such an option, which some aboriginal groups have suggested as well. Does he think the option is something worthy of consideration? Is it something that he will consider down the road? And just as importantly, what is he doing? What ideas does he have to deal with this obstacle?

We're now years into this process that was announced in 2002. We're years into this process, and we don't seem…. A lot of people involved in the process don't believe we're much closer to success. The minister and the ministry have failed to meet deadline after deadline after deadline. So I want to ask the minister: does he have a strategy? I want to comment on my suggestion — which seems like the right suggestion — which is to perhaps build confidence in the process by bringing in other players, bringing in an independent team. What does he think of that suggestion? Further, I want to ask him: if he doesn't like that suggestion, which is a small possibility, what ideas does he have to break down this sense that there are fundamental obstacles to change in the ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, I certainly would agree with the member opposite, because we can point to some excellent examples of our partnership in action, and the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket agency is one of those examples. Having said that, we've built a good working relationship, but it doesn't mean we will always agree on funding requirements. It's often part of any negotiation that the parties will take positions that may be a matter of debate. The fact is that we and the agency are working very closely together. MCFD staff are co-located in that agency, in the office, jointly providing services to the aboriginal community both on and off reserve. And we'll continue to work with aboriginal communities and with aboriginal leaders to make sure we achieve our goal of fiscal year '06-07.

A. Dix: I think sometimes when I raise issues, the minister wrongly believes that it's just me, that it's just that I'm hard to convince, that I'm not sufficiently supportive of his efforts. So I wanted to read to him and get his reaction to a presentation to the Finance Committee made recently by Cliff Dezell. Mr. Dezell is a Prince George city councillor, and he said he was there to talk about the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Here's what he says:

Of course, as the minister will know, even though he doesn't acknowledge it, Mr. Dezell is entirely correct. The budgets for aboriginal planning groups in the province were reduced at that time, which made this goal difficult to achieve.

What is the minister's reaction to Mr. Dezell's comments, which seem to say — contrary to what he has said — that the process has not gone well from his ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: Actually, I met that gentleman at the UBCM. We had a good discussion, and I appreciate the work he did in the early part of our first term.

As I said earlier, sometimes these things don't happen as quickly as you would like them to. You know, we don't want to be heavy-handed in sort of forcing communities to do what we want them to do. We want to work in partnership. Could we have done it quicker or sooner? Maybe. I don't know.

The important point is, I think, that we are now moving ahead. We want this to be successful. We are working in partnership with first nations leaders throughout the province. We have a very good working relationship with first nations communities and leaders. We need to get to where we need to get to, and we've set a goal of '06-07.

A. Dix: This is going to be one of these great transition moments for the minister, because I don't think we probably have time to get going on special needs services. We're going to move over shortly to child care, so if the minister has staff he'd like to make the transition to….

I'd like to introduce my colleague from Coquitlam, who's going to speak to some of these critical issues.

D. Thorne: I'm here this evening to do the estimates for child care, ECD, and I would like to start out by thanking the minister and the minister of state for arranging the briefing with their staff that I had last week. It was very helpful, and I thank you all very much for that.

Now, to start out, the first thing I was going to look at was the June reorganization and the role of the Minister of State for Childcare. Our understanding is that the Minister of State for Childcare does not have budgetary or fiscal responsibilities. If that is so, I guess if I'm asking money questions, I'm assuming I will be directing those to the Minister of Children and Family Development. Could I get some clarification on that, please?

Hon. S. Hagen: I think I wouldn't get too hung up on that. I think if you're asking some questions on early learning and child care, you should direct them to the minister of state.

I guess I'd like to start by clarifying the roles of the minister and the minister of state. I think you've probably said not to get too hung up on that, but I'm wondering: how is this task being coordinated with the public consultations now ongoing on how to use the federal child care dollars?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm pleased to give some guidance to the member opposite in terms of how the process has unfolded and what we are attempting to do over the course of this term of government. Certainly, I had the privilege over the past four years to be responsible for early childhood development. What we attempted to do was build a framework for how we would go forward in terms of how we support vulnerable learners in British Columbia and how we wrap services, from the perspective of how we'd be kinder to families as we go forward. That has been my passion personally and professionally for more than 25 years.

In terms of how we take this work today and wrap it around what it is we would wish for every young learner in British Columbia, certainly, my work is around partnership. It's around innovation. It's around ensuring that we give each child in British Columbia the strongest possible start. The Premier's expectation has been that we do that from a perspective of a cross-government integrated strategy, so it's not going to be any single ministry of government. It's going to hopefully be an array of services across government that better supports families.

The work that's underway today in terms of the consultation process…. We're in a combined consultation with the Ministry of Education around early learning, and that work will certainly guide us as we go forward. Ministry of Children and Family Development staff, child care policy branch individuals and Ministry of Education individuals continue to have discussions across British Columbia. We trust that that consultation will probably conclude in late November, early December, because we want very much to have that consultation process inform the decisions we bring back to cabinet and caucus in terms of coming back to the table with an implementation plan for the federal government in January. We want to be guided by that.

I won't presuppose the outcome of that consultation. Certainly, there is a lot of interest and a lot of opinion in terms of how best to go forward. We will receive all of that information in the next number of weeks and have that process unfold as we go forward.

I would encourage British Columbians — by phone, fax, e-mail or by attending the consultations — to give us their thoughts on how best to structure what is indeed a continuation of funding that we've seen in the province. The member opposite will know that

2000-2005 was the $288 million from the early childhood development fund; 2003 going forward, $134 million on the ELCC, the first early learning and child care. The second — third round of funding, if you will, potentially $633 million over five years, will take us from 2005 forward. There will be opportunities for us to have an ongoing dialogue on how best to invest those dollars.

D. Thorne: Then I'm not going to ask my next question, which was how your role fit in with the deputy minister's policy secretariat, because I think you've answered that. That's the coordinating body for the interministerial early childhood — correct?

D. Thorne: I'm sort of wondering how your job description has changed since the June reorganization, when the ministry of state name changed from Ministry of State for Early Childhood Development to Ministry of State for Childcare. I'm wondering what program areas the minister has lost and what she has gained — just briefly, if that's possible.

Hon. L. Reid: When the member opposite talks about the change in June, certainly one of the biggest changes that came to the Ministry of Children and Family Development was uniting child development programs and child care. We want very much to combine that process as we go forward.

In terms of the actual approach, it will always be about conception to six years of age in terms of how we have those programs offer services to families. Again, the discussion will be informed by consultation throughout the term of this government.

We have a Premier today who is interested in innovation and partnership in child care delivery, so how we craft programs that support families who may have shift work, who may have weekend work, who may have opportunities to have us look at more flexibility and more choice in child care…. All of those things need to be folded in, which is why he has specifically looked at the innovation and partnership responsibility in terms of programs that have carried forward and continue to have my active involvement — certainly, fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and autism programs in British Columbia. I began responsibility for those in 2001 when we first came to government, and that work is continuing.

We're continuing to build an array of programs to support children with autism in British Columbia. The work with the Canada Northwest Fetal Alcohol Partnership — extraordinary research work that takes in four western provinces and the three territories and will, again, guide the work and investment not just for our province but for these seven partner jurisdictions…. Indeed, if we want to get to the best possible outcomes for children in British Columbia and western Canada, we can pool our resources much more effectively and go with the best practice of the day.

D. Thorne: Our staff has done a review of media since June. It's interesting that the minister appears to be addressing single-handedly autism funding and that, other than that, only one press release has gone out in her name despite the fact that, at the time of the federal announcement on child care dollars, the minister of state told the Province newspaper that her goal was to do one announcement to two announcements a month all through the fall. I'm wondering what happened to those announcements that were promised in September?

Hon. L. Reid: The goal is still to continue to build a child care system in British Columbia. We want very much to be informed by the round of consultation. Indeed, some of the consultations were put off over recent actions. We could not continue as we originally planned, so we're probably about two weeks behind where we would be.

Do we still intend to continue to make announcements as we go forward that will support British Columbia families? Absolutely, no question.

D. Thorne: I note that in an August 11 Richmond Review article, the Minister of State for Childcare states her support for school districts reaping new rent revenue by offering empty school space for child care and even suggests that the province would pick up the renovation costs for school districts. This is the only place the Minister of State for Childcare has made her view publicly known on this issue. Why would the minister, who is responsible for child care, not issue a provincewide news release of her views on this new policy direction?

Hon. L. Reid: The member may be interested to learn that that discussion is ongoing across British Columbia. At every opportunity we have to speak to a variety of groups, we talk about innovation and partnership. Indeed, is that an offer that is something we would only pursue with school districts? We are pursuing it across communities in British Columbia, and we invite and will continue to invite neighbourhood houses, aboriginal friendship centres, family resource programs and entities that exist today that deliver services to families, to work with us to build a hub model in British Columbia. That's where we're headed. We want very much to have an array of services delivered at particular addresses, if you will, so that indeed, we have families who can receive a variety of services.

The member opposite will know that today in some corners of this province, if you have children of two or three or four different ages, you may go to two or three or four different places on the way to work in the morning or on the way to school. We want very much to consolidate the programming we have in British Columbia and ensure that it, in fact, reaches out to

families and delivers some programs that are actually helpful, that assist them in their lives. I'll make the same claim around supports to families who are attending school-based programs themselves — that we want to ensure that we have some services in place.

I would ask anyone who's interested to talk to us about any potential partnerships they might wish to see happen in their communities. We're making the same conversations available to regional districts and municipalities. I had countless meetings at the UBCM convention this year in terms of mayors and councillors who came forward who were interested in exploring child care opportunities for their communities. Everyone is welcome to come to the table and have the discussion with us on how best to serve those who reside in their communities.

D. Thorne: I guess the minister is saying that this, then, is likely to become a policy, if it's not already a policy, for her office — that we would try and encourage school districts to use empty space and rent it out for child care spaces.

Hon. L. Reid: The Premier has clearly stated that he wishes to see a better utilization of public buildings, increased utilization of public buildings. Is that restricted solely to schools? I would suggest no. I would say that public buildings owned municipally, owned provincially…. Absolutely, we invite people to come forward, and we believe that the process is proposal-driven. Anyone is welcome to bring a proposal forward to us if indeed they wish to partner with us to build child care space in British Columbia.

D. Thorne: What is the budget for the minister of state's operations, and how many FTEs are assigned to the minister of state's budget? We have the budget line for executive and support services — it's $17.62 million — but it's impossible to know how much of this is for Minister Reid's office.

Hon. L. Reid: It's $700,000 for both ministers' offices combined, but I'm certainly happy to give some detail in terms of any specific questions.

D. Thorne: I'll have more questions along that line later so they will be more detailed.

Okay, my next topic is moving into general budget questions, actually; I'm going to move into those. In '04-05 the executive and support budget was estimated at $16.2 million. It has now been restated at $17.3 million, but even so, in '05-06 there's an increase in this budget.

What is the reason for the increase? How much of this executive and support budget attaches to the budget line item "ECD, Child Care and Supports to Children with Special Needs"? And how many FTEs are also attached to that line?

Hon. L. Reid: With respect to the member's question, the $17 million supports 205 FTEs, headquarters function. If more detail is required, we can certainly provide that.

D. Thorne: The question was how many dollars are related to ECD child care and supports to children with special needs. Can I get those figures today? I'm trying to get at how much of the executive and support budget and FTEs attaches to just child care programs. It's very confusing, the way these are bundled together. It's confusing for us, and I think, in a way, it might be confusing for everybody, even your side.

Hon. L. Reid: We do not have that sum broken out in that particular way. We'll happily provide it to you.

D. Thorne: Well, that may…. I guess I probably can't get an answer right now, then, to my next question either. Moving to the line item itself, the $450 million. For ECD child care and supports for children with special needs, I would like to have the budget amount for each of the three areas — ECD, child care and special needs — provided. Can we do that now? We can.

Hon. L. Reid: Child care and supported child development is $287.4 million, early childhood development is $58 million, supports to children with special needs is $72.8 million, and autism is $32.6 million, for a total of $450.8 million.

D. Thorne: Can the minister explain why the ministry chooses to bundle all of these programs into one budget line, making it so terribly hard for certainly myself and definitely the general public to track? Is there some reason for that?

Hon. L. Reid: Our challenge is to deliver integrated service across government. That is our goal. We want very much to have services that support families across government. The information is available today on the website and, I believe, also was provided to you in your binder that we presented to you at the briefing.

D. Thorne: Well, I'm just going to make a few comments now about the Liberal government's record on funding child care since 2001. I personally feel, and many people feel, that it has not been a very good record. One of the very first things that this government did in 2001 was to dismantle B.C.'s system of universal publicly accessible quality child care, including shutting down out-of-school care programs that were up and running.

The B.C. government also cut subsidies, put child care out of reach for thousands of B.C. families, forcing at the same time — and I personally was involved in a few of these in my home community of Coquitlam — the closure of many quality child care programs — not just publicly run and non-profit programs, either, but private, for-profit centres that closed because of the subsidy cuts. Many parents had to make do with sub-

Then this government funnelled federal dollars designated for child care into a range of provincial health programs, from pregnancy counselling to midwifery to immunizations, until the federal government finally tied the funding, forcing them to put some dollars back into child care. Then right before the election, the government started putting money back into subsidies, but even then, they still have cut a total of 40 million provincial dollars out of the child care budget that have never been restored to this day.

Don't take my word for it, Madam Chair. Let me read from a report that was just published in October 2005. This was a report from the Poverty and Human Rights Centre, which was sent to the United Nations, and it's a report on this government's record in a section called "Cuts to Child Care:" "The government of British Columbia cut programs and funding for child care services in 2002, significantly reducing the ability of women in British Columbia" — and families, of course — "to access high-quality, reliable and affordable child care and day care."

I won't read all of the rest of the report that's here. I don't think I need to because I have referred to many of those things already. But prior to the May 2005 election the government of B.C. did start restoring child care subsidies to their previous levels. However, none of the other child care programs that have been cut since '01 have been restored to this date, still meaning that there are 40 million provincial dollars that have not been restored.

So given the record of this B.C. Liberal government on funding child care, as so well summarized in so many reports, will the minister today commit to not simply spending the federal dollars that it has now been given but to restore, also, the 40 million in provincial child care dollars that this government has cut? I'm not sure who I'm asking that question to, either Minister Hagen or Minister Reid.

The Chair: Member. Order, member. Please be reminded that proper names are not to be used in the chamber. Thank you.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to enter this debate on this particular subject matter when it comes to any reflection at all that the member opposite would cast upon the spending under early childhood development in British Columbia. I will take some time this afternoon to expand on the definition of early childhood development, because the member will know that every single expenditure taken through that fund was absolutely permitted as an expenditure — will know that. The fact that she would continue to put on the record something contrary to that, frankly, is unhelpful to the exercise.

There are opportunities today for us to continue to have a discussion on why it is so important to integrate early childhood development and child care in British Columbia. But the dollars that were spent under the early childhood development, 291 — originally 288, actually — that came to this province from the federal government was to support early childhood development. That is prenatal care. That is early learning. That is child development. That is infant development. That is supported child development in British Columbia. It is supports to children who have vulnerabilities. It is supports to children at risk. That dollar was spent for the purposes for which it was intended, and the member opposite knows that, frankly.

In terms of what has transpired to date in terms of the ongoing consultation about how we would invest the child care dollars that have come to British Columbia…. They are early learning and child care dollars, early learning, ELCC: $134 million, which began in 2003; $633 million, which is beginning in 2005.

I'm more than happy to put on the record what it is that this government intends to do and has accomplished to date on the child care file. Certainly, when we talk about increasing subsidy rates in British Columbia — the income threshold lifted from $21,000 to $38,000, a dramatic increase — dramatic support to families, vitally important…. The 4,000 operators today, child care providers, that operate under the child care operating fund — to have a 36-percent lift…. A $7 million investment equals that 36-percent lift — an enormous contribution to the exercise — to indeed support a lift in minor capital from 4,000 to 10,000, if there are two licences operating from the same address, from the same space, if you will.

It is vitally important that stability comes to this sector, that we, indeed, honour some of the most extraordinary early childhood educators in British Columbia who do amazing work every single day. For the member opposite to disparage any of that investment is unhelpful, absolutely unhelpful. Those dollars that have been invested in families in the province will matter in the lives of those families.

You only have to listen to Perry Kendall's reports, who's the public health officer in this province, to understand the benefit of babies in this province being born at full weight and full term, to understand that that is a contribution to the life and livelihood of this province. That is a good investment for early childhood development dollars.

Are they inextricably linked? Absolutely, they are. Is it difficult for this member to sort out how this financing works? I'm more than happy to continue to have dialogues with this member as we go forward, because the beauty of this debate is that those services are integrated for the very reason that they, in fact, can support British Columbia families in better and better ways each day.

D. Thorne: I thank the minister for that mini-lecture, but believe me, I have no trouble sorting out the financing or anything else. Let me go on record as saying that I personally, and my government, support

Some of the things we don't support spending federal dollars on are health care programs like midwifery and pregnancy counselling. That is not what those federal dollars were meant to be, in our opinion, and I'm quite happy to have the federal government tell me differently, but I don't believe that. The $40 million I was referring to were provincial dollars that were taken out of child care funding at the same time as federal dollars were coming in.

The figures aren't that hard to figure out, but of course, any of us can use any help we can get at any time. If minister thinks there's something I don't know…. But I believe we are still short in the child care programs in B.C. by $40 million, and I would like the minister to commit today to restoring that money that was cut and direct it to assisting families that need care for their children, specifically an area that was cancelled outright in 2002 by this government, the before- and after-school care. Nothing has been done for those. They're not even included. The kids in that age range are not even included in the money that's come in from the federal government.

This is an area where…. I mean, I'm just looking at the statistics here now: 593 children under 13 in this province — and we already know the high, high statistics of working parents. These kids are the latchkey children that have nothing. If we restored that $40 million that was cut from child care and put it into other programs, which, on the face of it, are absolutely wonderful programs, but they are not child care…. They are not helping working parents in this province. If we restored that and just put it, specifically, all into out-of-school care, it would be a wonderful thing for the province.

I ask again: will the minister commit to restoring those 40 million provincial dollars into child care for working families in this province that need care, need good care, and they can't afford it or it's not even there to have offered to them right now?

Hon. L. Reid: It was the member's own admission of a few moments ago that the dollars were aligned. It certainly made it more difficult for her in terms of wanting to separate out that information, so in fact, I simply concurred with her own words on that process.

She continues to come back to the midwifery, prenatal health discussion, and for the purposes of this discussion, maybe some definition is required. We're talking early brain development. We're referring to the period of a child's growth that takes place from the moment of conception until the child is ready to enter school. That's the early childhood development piece, so all of those expenditures fit beautifully under that. The previous federal minister, Jane Stewart, wrote countless times to members opposite and to individuals who had concerns about whether or not those expenditures qualified, and each time she arrived at the conclusion that, indeed, those expenditures qualified.

Early learning. When we talk about early learning, we need to understand that it takes place in a variety of settings in British Columbia. Absolutely, it takes place in child care settings. It can take place in schools and can take place in community centres. It's the learning that happens as a result.

In terms of the person raising the issue around subsidy for children over six, our focus right now is on supporting young families with preschool-age kids. We know that this age group under six is more likely to be involved in full-time child care, which is, generally speaking, more expensive.

Have we begun there in these last three months? Absolutely. But again, we're going to be informed by the level of consultation that happens around the province and gives us back that guidance. I think we will get a variety of opinion in terms of how best to proceed, and frankly, I welcome that.

D. Thorne: I, too, look forward to the consultations, and I hope they're actually going to start soon, because it's going to be winter across B.C. pretty soon.

Nobody can argue with the concept of early learning and early childhood programs. It's a very dangerous road to go down when we get into that, because we all agree with those programs. When you start talking about early learning, I think of several things. If it's in the education system, then it should be part of the education budget. What you're talking about is the same as kindergarten, when you talk about early learning and education.

Those child care dollars that have come from the federal government are for child care. Your own staff person Jane Morley has recently said in her report that good-quality child care is the very essence of ECD. It's the cornerstone of ECD. We don't need to move into education budgets in other areas. We just need to have a good, universal child care system across this province that parents can afford, that has trained workers that are safe, and you will have ECD that is unparalleled across this country. So let's accept that we all agree on that, and let's move on and look at the actual money that we're getting from the federal government.

Of the new federal dollars — in the budget, I should say — how many of those are new dollars, and how many are left over from a previous agreement?

Hon. L. Reid: I will respond to a couple of points while the staff pulls together that information.

The member opposite needs to be reminded that Jane Morley is an independent officer of the Legislature in terms of their characterization. Certainly, the question about when the consultations will begin…. They actually began in September. The Ministry of Education has been doing a combined consultation for a number of weeks now, and the Ministry of Children and Family Development…. Their work is underway as well.

There was a session last evening in Kelowna, and a broad cross-section of individuals from health, education and social services who brought their ideas to the

I believe the member opposite was referencing 2003 early learning and child care funds. Those were spent in the year received and included in our 2003 ECD report, which is available on the website.

D. Thorne: So from the 2003 child care agreement, there are no dollars left. It was all spent. I mean, none of those dollars are included now in the current budget.

Hon. L. Reid: To give the member the cross-section in the out years, the federal funding in 2003-2004 for the dollars that began that year was $3.3 million; in '04-05, $19.6 million; in '05-06, $29.6 million; in '06-07, $39.5 million; in '07-08, $46.2 million — for a total of $138.2 million.

D. Thorne: We know that the federal government will be giving B.C. $633 million over the next five years, and we know that $92 million of that will flow to the B.C. government this fiscal year. Of that amount, the government is rolling out $55 million. This first $55 million is being rolled out before the province has developed the child care plan the federal government requires. I'd like to ask the minister to break out for me how this $55 million is being spent — and if she could also explain what process the ministry undertook in deciding how to allot that money in the absence of a plan.

Hon. L. Reid: For the child care funding program, the child care operating funding, the child care program subsidy and the supported child development piece, we can get to about $32 million. We didn't want, frankly, to act without the consultation process. We knew we had some challenges in terms of getting that dollar into the field as quickly as we could, because it is about benefiting British Columbia's families. The next round of announcements will be guided, frankly, by the consultation detail that we believe we will have in our hands late November or early December, roughly four to five weeks from now.

D. Thorne: We understand that the balance for this first year, the $37 million, is being carried over to next year and will not be clawed back by the federal government. Can the minister confirm this, and can she indicate if this $37 million will be spent according to the parameters set out in the government's child care plan due January 31, 2006? And has the Auditor General approved this plan to defer spending?

Hon. L. Reid: The answer to the member's question is yes. The ELCC 2005 action plan will detail our spending in years two to five, and certainly the Auditor General gave us permission to carry that dollar forward.

D. Thorne: Before we get into the plan and the consultations that are meant to shape the plan, I would just like to make sure that I get a few numbers straight. Based on the new federal dollars and the ministry budget, could you please tell me the dollar figures for this year? I would like the dollar figures, please. I'm doing this for the public record, so saying, "It's on the website," is not necessarily the best answer.

I would like the breakdown for supported child development, the provincial dollars and the federal dollars in that; the child care operating fund, provincial dollars and federal dollars; the child care capital fund, provincial and federal dollars; the child care resource and referral centres, provincial and federal; child care subsidies, provincial and federal. And if there are any other miscellaneous dollars, I'd like to know the amounts and what they're being spent on.

Hon. L. Reid: The child care funding I can give you some detail on: $167 million is the provincial and $70 million is the federal. For supportive child development, $34 million is the provincial and $14 million is the federal.

Hon. G. Abbott: Noting the hour, I move the House stand recessed until 6:45 p.m.

D. Thorne: Before we broke for supper, I had asked a question, and I don't think I got quite the answer I wanted, so I'm going to repeat the question to start.

Before we get into the federal plan itself and the consultations that are meant to shape the plan, I'd just like to make sure that I get a few numbers straight. I would like the dollar figures for — and I'm going to name them — one, two, three, four, five, possibly six areas. Supported child development, the child care operating fund, the child care capital fund, the child care resource and referral centres fund, the child care subsidies fund and any other miscellaneous funds that I might not know about — I would like the breakdown for the current budget of provincial dollars and federal dollars separately for those six areas.

Hon. L. Reid: To continue the discussion we had just a few moments ago, I put on the record $167 million provincial and $70 million federal. That, indeed, captures the CCRR, and it captures child care in terms of subsidy, operating and capital.

Again, I put on the record for supported child development: $34 million provincial and $14 million federal. Those numbers remain consistent.

D. Thorne: I also asked about the child care capital fund, and I wanted the resource and referral centres broken down from the subsidies. I wanted those figures all broken down. It's very, very difficult the way these figures and this money is bundled together to figure out exactly what is going where. It's almost like smoke and mirrors.

Hon. L. Reid: In terms of combined federal-provincial dollars broken down by program: supported child development, $49 million; CCOF, $47.6 million; CCR and capital — child care and capital, $7.5 million; child care resource and referral, $12.5 million.

Hon. L. Reid: That is combined spending. That is combined federal-provincial. That is the child care budget broken out by program.

D. Thorne: I wanted a breakdown, as well, of provincial and federal. What portion of those dollars is federal, and what portion is provincial? Those are the figures I'm trying to get at here, referring again to how difficult that is to figure out.

Hon. L. Reid: I appreciate the member's question. The reality is this is a global budget, and we have the ability to allocate that by program area. She will know that the allocation federally is for the under-six population. Our provincial responsibility is for the entire population. So to do the numbering in terms of only looking at the federal proportion as it reflects spending for the under-sixes is hugely problematic. In terms of the '05 ECD report, it will be available shortly and will give some more parameters around this discussion, but, frankly, it's a global budget at this juncture.

D. Thorne: Well, with all due respect to the minister, I can't believe that it would be that difficult. This is not that big a budget in total, I mean, considering the amount of money that the province is handling. These are taxpayers' dollars we're talking about here. If it's this difficult to break down when you're asked a question like this in estimates, then what better reason to do the budget a different way next year so that this doesn't happen again.

I would like those figures. If I can't get them tonight because it's truly impossible, I would hope to get them maybe tomorrow.

Hon. L. Reid: I touched on the notion that it was a global budget. Indeed, the actual dollar value is $287 million. The federal portion is $84 million. But in terms of us allocating that program by program — under six, over six — we don't do that. We look at the spending across the system in terms of the federal contribution, and the member opposite will know that that only supports the under-six population.

D. Thorne: Well, I'm only interested, in this question, in finding out the under-six population, in any case, as that's my critic area. I can't believe that a government, with all the accounting ability that we have at our disposal, is unable or doesn't know how a federal grant is distributed into programs. In fact, I may be going too far, not really understanding the rules of this House, but I find it very hard, honestly, to believe. I insist on getting those figures. I'll need to know why I can't get them, if not tonight, then tomorrow.

Hon. L. Reid: We certainly can provide sort of a prorated percentage, and certainly, we have some opportunities to talk about adjustments, because the reality is our programs are proposal-driven. It will depend on the uptake — i.e., who chooses to build a child care centre with us, who chooses to avail themselves of a subsidy with us. We do some predictions around that, but again, we must maintain flexibility as we go forward so we can ensure that those dollars are completely spent for the purposes for which they are intended by the end of the term.

The '04-05 actual spending will be available to the member opposite this month, and certainly we can do some prorationing on the '05-06. It will probably take us a day or two.

D. Thorne: That will be fine. I've done budgeting. I know that you can't always be specific. It's the general breakdown that I'm more interested in — percentages on where the money is going. Thank you very much.

Okay, I'd like to just ask some questions now about the '03-04 annual report, which was released, I think, this past month, in October. It's '05-06 right now. I'm wondering if the minister can explain to this House why the report was so late in being posted to the website and released.

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite certainly is aware that the report has recently been posted, and the challenge was around some of the restructuring that was required. There was a new baseline, because in fact, we brought the child care spending in and created that baseline for it as we went forward.

Certainly, we want very much to report out as accurately as we possibly can in the ECD and ELCC investments. The quality of the reporting…. Each time, frankly, we do a better job of that, because it is a cross-government initiative to this point. The dollars that we have folded into the ECD agreement…. We had to be absolutely certain that those dollars were not double-counted when we were reporting out on the ELCC piece.

I think it's safe to say that we have, in fact, created a very solid template. Indeed, when we do the '05-06 reporting this month, the member opposite should understand that that work is a work in progress, but it has made some real inroads in terms of how we report out that information more successfully for families.

D. Thorne: This government went for over 11 months without accounting publicly for millions of dollars in federal child care funds. The last time that the government released an annual report on the same dollars, which was in March 2004, the report revealed that this government cut $23 million from subsidies and used $27.6 million for research, community forums and grants to charitable organizations. So I am not totally surprised that they would drag their feet on putting out these annual reports.

However, the language of the new federal agreement that B.C. has just signed has created higher standards for public accountability. The 2005 agreement now requires the B.C. government to account for specifics such as availability, affordability, quality, training and regulatory requirements.

I would like to know what changes the minister is making to ensure that this government will meet these new accountability standards. I also would like to know if there is going to be a firm target with time lines.

Hon. L. Reid: British Columbia has certainly taken steps to improve the quality of its reporting in the '03-04 annual report. As the member knows, this is the first time we have issued a combined annual report — ECD and ELCC activities and expenditures. In terms of the subsidy comment that the member opposite has made, again I need to remind the member opposite that these are uptake issues. These are issues that are proposal-driven. Indeed, we need to ensure that more families are aware of the subsidy opportunities that they can avail themselves of so that we can improve that number. It wasn't an opportunity to do anything other than invite people to participate in the process, and I believe the member is aware of that.

D. Thorne: I don't believe the minister really answered my question, which was regarding the new accountability standards in the new agreement we've signed with the federal government. I'm wondering what changes the minister is making to ensure that the government will meet these new accountability standards around the spending of federal child care dollars and that they are being spent where they were meant to be spent. That is my question. I'm also asking about targets and time lines. Again, if I can't get an answer tonight, I'll make do with tomorrow.

Hon. L. Reid: The current report is available. The second report will be up this month. The member opposite will know that that process has been streamlined. In terms of where we are today, on September 29 the province and the federal government signed a bilateral agreement-in-principle. Indeed, when the action plan and the implementation plan come forward, there will be opportunities for us to assign yet again in terms of accountabilities as we go forward.

Certainly, the member will know that we have carried forward from the notion of quality what is universally inclusive, accessible, developmental; that we as a province have looked at choice and flexibility, targeted investments and integrating service. Those are the characteristics that will define how we go forward. The future accountabilities will be determined, I would say, early in the new year.

Speaking of this current report, I wonder if the minister could go to pages 40 to 42 of this 2003-2004 report. These are the charts detailing the spending under the last three federal-provincial agreements — the 2000, the 2003, and the child care and the current bilateral agreement on early learning and child care. These charts confirm what I was saying earlier: this government has backfilled its health budget with federal child care dollars, using child care money for programs such as midwifery, immunizations and pregnancy outreach — admirable programs, but definitely not child care. I wonder if the minister could please make clear how much of the funding summarized on these three pages went into direct child care.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm going to revisit a conversation we had earlier this evening, when I tried to give the explanation for the member opposite in terms of what this original fund looked at. She will know, if she's on pages 40 and 41, that "pregnancy, birth and infancy" is an actual category of funding that is celebrated, frankly, under this funding agreement. "Early childhood development, care and learning," "parental and family supports" and "community supports" — those four categories, characteristics, describe the spending decisions that we took as an administration, as a government. I think they're clearly and precisely outlined for the member there.

The early childhood development agreement was to support these four definitions, these four categories. Again, you have many things under there that absolutely fall into pregnancy, birth and infancy as a category. Early childhood development: autism pieces, kindergarten literacy pieces, early intervention services, the early childhood development, parental and family support piece. Parental and family support is absolutely defined by adoption support services.

Building Blocks, child and family focus supports, the community supports piece, how we support aboriginal children in communities in British Columbia, the Children First initiatives, the ECD community initiatives, the ECD provincial forum, the ECD research initiatives. We wanted as a government, as an administration, to be guided by the best possible research of the day.

We have partnered, I think, very successfully with the human early learning partnership at the University of British Columbia. We are probably the first jurisdiction in North America to have a sense of the learning readiness of five-year-olds. The early development indicator work is groundbreaking.

Will that guide the type of strategic investment we make as we go forward? I'm happy to respond to the member's questions, but she needs to understand that this spending, these investments, were absolutely celebrated as being perfectly appropriate for spending under the early childhood development fund. She seems to not have that understanding, but that is in fact the case.

D. Thorne: Well, I certainly understand that these kinds of programs — particularly the ones under the health budget in here, on these three pages — are celebrated and very, very necessary and are offered across the country in every other province. They've pretty much always been offered in British Columbia, as well, under many different governments.

However, whether they are good expenditures for dollars that are meant to be spent on child care for working families who cannot find affordable, high-quality child care, whether they are celebrating that these programs are being funded out of child care dollars instead of out of health dollars…. I would, at another time, like to debate that subject, because I find it very hard to believe that those working parents would be celebrating it.

These are expenditures that should be happening. They are programs that should be offered to parents across the country. Should they be funded from child care dollars at the expense of good, universal child care? That's the question. I'll accept the answer that I've received for now. I've made my point, and I think the minister has made her point.

I'll move on to the draft plan now and the consultation process in the final plan. As part of the federal-provincial child care agreement, the federal government requires that we produce a child care plan. In a September 9 speech the minister stated that a draft plan would be available in October. I wonder what happened to that draft plan. We haven't seen it. On September 9 we were told we would have one. That was the same time we were told that we'd be getting one or two press releases and announcements per month through the fall, which we also haven't received. We're wondering what happened to the draft plan.

Hon. L. Reid: The member needs to turn to page 42 in the document. She referenced pages 40 and 41, and I canvassed with her the appropriateness of the early childhood development expenditure. If she were to turn over to the next page, which is the expenditure around early learning and child care, a supported child development program is listed. A child care operating funding program is listed, a child care capital funding program is listed, a child care resource and referral program is listed, and a child care subsidy program is listed.

This being the first opportunity as a government to combine the reporting on these two funds, the member opposite knows fully that the early childhood development expenditure, as noted on pages 40 and 41, is more than appropriate. I believe that the information contained on page 42 probably answers her questions.

D. Thorne: I'll ask again. What's happened to the draft plan that was promised on September 9? That's of this year. That was just two weeks before the agreement was signed.

Hon. L. Reid: On the question raised, the member opposite will know that the discussions ongoing throughout the summer were that that federal agreement would be signed much earlier than September 29. The reality is that it was on September 29 that that federal agreement was signed. We are in the process of having the ongoing consultation inform that paper, but we are more than happy to have that paper delivered to you forthwith.

D. Thorne: I thought the plan was going to be made public. I was at the signing. There was certainly nothing talked about a draft plan there. Further to that question, there's a note obtained through FOI, an "Advice to Minister" note from just before the 2005 election, which states that the government has already developed a five-year plan. The note says: "In preparation for new federal funding, B.C. has examined ways to build on the strength of our existing system and has developed a comprehensive, five-year plan to take full advantage of the new funds."

I'm wondering if this is the draft plan. What has happened to this comprehensive five-year plan, and again, why has it not been made public? If there is such a plan, would the minister commit to making it public today? If there wasn't a plan, what has all the talk been about?

Hon. L. Reid: The work that's ongoing will guide us as we go forward. Our plan has formed the basis of the consultation document, and that will be publicly available tomorrow. We have no difficulty releasing that. It's basically a work in progress. It's an ongoing dialogue.

The reality is that the expectations that people had around child care delivery over the last number of years have dramatically changed. People's working lives have changed. Their opportunities to work shift work, to work weekends — all of those things will continue to inform this debate over the entire course of this administration. It is always going to be, in my view, a work in progress, which is why I continue to ask people to input their thoughts, notions and ideas — whether or not they're interested in partnering with us as we go forward — because there are great opportunities. This could be an extraordinary piece of work.

The member opposite brings some real expertise to this discussion. I appreciate that, because it's certainly something that we will be able to avail ourselves of, as we go forward, in terms of how we continue to better support British Columbia families. What information

D. Thorne: Thank you, minister. I would happy anytime to help inform the plan or whatever. I would actually like to know when and where the consults are happening, so I could be part of those. It's probably on the website; I'll have to look.

In the same speech that I referred to a few minutes ago, on September 9, the minister also stated: "In drafting this plan" — the draft plan — "the government will build on the high-level consultation that we have done with the Provincial Child Care Council to date." The Provincial Child Care Council is, of course, the government's hand-picked advisory group. The chair of the government's child care council stated in August that the child care plan produced by her council would be made public once the federal deal was signed. Why has their plan not been made public to this point?

Hon. L. Reid: To respond to a number of questions that the hon. member has posed…. In terms of the consultations, these are the community consultations that I can put on the record rather than ask the hon. member to go to the website: Kelowna was November 1; Langley is November 8; Prince Rupert, November 9; Cranbrook, November 14; Prince George, November 17; Nanaimo, November 24; and Vancouver, November 28.

In terms of the Provincial Child Care Council, there are some extraordinary individuals who are continuing to give us advice and guidance as we go forward and to inform the debate. It is a cross-section of those who would deliver child care, receive child care and inform child care in terms of research perspectives. I'm more than happy to have a conversation with the member opposite in terms of who these souls are and why I believe they can make an incredibly important contribution as we go forward. They will meet quarterly for the duration of this term of government — and have for a number of years. The work that they do continues to inform this area. I'm happy to give the member opposite more detail as to the particular membership if she so desires.

D. Thorne: Thank you, minister. Actually, I know quite a few of the people on the council, and I know they're extraordinary people. I'm just asking about the plan the chair was talking about that would be made public when the federal deal was signed. I'm wondering what their plan is and why it hasn't been made public, because I have not seen anything. I don't know about anybody else.

Hon. L. Reid: The work that the council has done has informed the process that we are now engaged in around consultation. The work also done by the council informed the first round of decisions that were taken in terms of a subsidy lift — the threshold lift from $21,000 to $38,000, a 36-percent lift in operating, increasing the number of children who benefit from those programs. These are individuals who work on the front line, so they have great opportunity to interact and to report back to government very directly in terms of the kinds of issues confronting families.

We have individuals representing family child care, group care, private operators, non-profit child care, and academics. We have individuals. We have parents. We have a strong research focus: Dr. Paul Kershaw, Dr. Hillel Goelman, Dr. Clyde Hertzman — individuals who are considered to be world-renowned when it comes to expertise in early childhood development. We want that continuum of understanding to be built across the decisions we reach as an administration as well.

D. Thorne: I gather, then, that perhaps the chair was misquoted or something. The draft plan that she supposedly referred to is really the recommendations or the plan that has gone forward to the consultations. I'm assuming that's what the minister just said: that the people who are doing the consulting are working with the recommendations or the draft plan from the child care council. I'm assuming…. I guess I'll make it a question.

Hon. L. Reid: The member's sense of that is probably very accurate. Indeed, the discussions underway at the Provincial Child Care Council table and in the hands of the chair were how that work they had previously done would continue to inform government in terms of crafting a round of consultation and preparing an action plan, an implementation plan, early in the new year. That work is ongoing, and the council, again, will meet in the next number of months.

D. Thorne: We all know that there are a number of independent child care advocates who have been calling on the government to develop a comprehensive system of child care that moves beyond a patchwork of programs and subsidies. I'm wondering if these independent child care people were part of the Provincial Child Care Council's recommendations. Have they in any way influenced the paper or the ideas that have gone forward to the consultations?

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite will know that my door is always open. Certainly, in this administration we have continued to meet with every single person in this province who wishes to talk to us about child care, because it's vitally important that we have an array of vantage points on this question.

In terms of a particular issue that was brought forward by some of the advocates that the member opposite is mentioning, one of the issues that they wished us to address was whether or not we could increase minor capital from $4,000. We have very recently put it to $10,000. That was one of the issues they wanted us to address. In terms of whether we could put $5,000 per licence and honour the fact that some of those licences

would be working from the same address, the same site, we heard them on the question. We took action. From what we understand, they're delighted with that direction.

D. Thorne: I'm sure the minister is very responsive when different advocates come forward with good ideas. I'm sure that the ministry tries to do what it can.

I'm wondering if the ideas or the plans of independent child care people were included in the draft plan or set of recommendations that has gone forward to be consulted on across the province. If not, they don't get out to a broader audience, and sometimes people come to consultations and only hear a narrow range of ideas. Unfortunately, then, when they start brainstorming or coming up with plans, you get a narrower range of ideas, because the options they've been given have not been fleshed out. I'm wondering how broad the spectrum is of ideas that have gone forward to the consultation.

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite's point is well taken. I can assure her that those groups — I think even three times or so during the month of October — came together. We're regular attendees at the First Call table, and we continue to be informed by individuals who have new vantage points on the child care question.

I'll give the member opposite an example. This past Friday…. At 717 Princess Street is a new child care centre that's coming together, and there's a whole array of community partners. There's Native Health, the folks in the centre, and there's Sabine Tanasiuk — a bunch of souls who have continued to give guidance to successive governments, as we go forward, in terms of how best to deliver child care. That is a partnership on the ground that will absolutely make a difference in that community. Many, many independent advocates came to those discussions over the past two or two and a half years that I was involved, and they continue to give us guidance today.

D. Thorne: It's always great news when a new child care centre opens. I'll be very happy, when I get phone calls from child care advocates, to tell them that their ideas have been incorporated. Hopefully, they'll all be able to go, in any case, to a consultation across the province.

Now, speaking of the consultations, I was fortunate enough to just get a note from somebody who has checked the website, and they can't find on the website the dates or places or any information on the consultations. Could somebody…? It's really tough for people to just get this information from watching the estimates on channel 56 or whatever it is — so if we could please be informed where it is on the website. Perhaps it could be made a little more accessible, if we're, maybe, particularly unfamiliar with looking at websites.

Hon. L. Reid: We will ensure that that information is readily available. We will make sure that's done by tomorrow.

Hon. L. Reid: I read that detailed list of the community consultations into the record because I wasn't able to give you the actual website address. I know that those items we've just canvassed will be at www.mcf.gov.bc.ca/childcare as early as tomorrow.

D. Thorne: All I can say is thank goodness I asked the question, because now people…. It's hard to go to consultations when you don't know where and when they are.

Back to the consultations, now that we're going to get it out to the public — which is what we really need to do because they're very short. It's going to be over early in January, as the minister herself stated earlier this afternoon. The report has to be ready at the end of January.

I'm wondering: who is the ministry consulting, and how? I'm assuming it's not by invitation only, that it's open to the public. Are you advertising in local newspapers as you travel through the province? What kind of advertising is there, etc., etc.?

Hon. L. Reid: Our challenge is to acquire as many different opinions and vantage points as possible. Certainly, we have the web-based response. We have regional staff, and we have CCRRs putting together names, so we'll directly invite a number of individuals across the province. Indeed, we have a cross-section of opinion as we go forward.

We are going to tailor some specific consultations. We will have consultations with the aboriginal community — part of the Aboriginal Child Care Conference coming up in about two weeks' time. We will canvass individuals present in terms of what their child care expectations and needs might be.

The Northern Early Childhood Development Conference underway in Prince George on November 17 and 18…. We will also have a consultation happening as part and parcel of that audience's participation, because we have the opportunity there to have 200 or 300 people from across Highway 16, across the north, to give us their thoughts on…. Maybe there are child care issues that we would not necessarily be addressing in the lower mainland that they could give us some insights on and inform our dialogue as we go forward.

We're not saying no to any type of consultation, and if there are individuals who have not yet been contacted and wish to be part of this process…. The regional office and regional ministry offices across the province, the CCRRs across the province — let us know.

I have three and four folks who come as small meeting groups to my office, and that process is underway as well. We want to have a simultaneous consultation happening and fold in as much thought and insight and opinion as we can possibly garner, because

the work is vitally important. We want to have a cross-section of positive reflection as we go forward.

D. Thorne: But I am assuming that some of the work will be open to the public, the general public. Or am I mistaken? Actually, I would really like to know which groups the ministry is consulting with or plans to consult with. I'm wondering if there is a list available that could be gotten to us by the end of the estimates process — or even before, if possible.

But I would like to specifically know…. Considering that this is a plan for five years, we need to make it really adequate and meaningful. How many of these consults will be open to the public?

Hon. L. Reid: She asked two questions. The first was the individuals who we're hoping to canvass as these consultations go forward. So generally speaking, for the community meetings: child care providers; early childhood educators and early childhood development educators; parents — we're hoping parents come out in grand numbers; school superintendents; aboriginal community representation; health authority licensing reps, because some of those discussions need to be held as well. Again, ongoing meetings simultaneously, Provincial Child Care Council, a variety of child care advocates as we go forward…. Certainly, the opportunities we have before us to continue to structure and expand the existing consultation….

We will always welcome opinion. If there's anyone the member opposite wishes that we have folding into this exercise or that we directly invite to any one of these exercises, let me know that as well. I would welcome that information.

D. Thorne: So they won't be open community meetings. They'll be by invitation only, or invitation to specific groups and individuals?

Hon. L. Reid: At the one that was underway last evening in Kelowna, no one was turned away. Certainly, our challenge is to ensure that we invite a cross-section of individuals to each meeting, but we welcome people's thoughts and opinions. The information, if it's not now, will be available very shortly on the website so people understand where those meetings are being held, and we would encourage their participation.

D. Thorne: We would be able to get lists of the people who have been invited?

Hon. L. Reid: I've put on the record, hon. member, the groups that are being invited. Would we post their names publicly? I'm not convinced we would do that. I'm thinking that if we canvass these groups and associations and entities sufficiently, there will be a representative opinion coming, whether or not it's child care providers, early child care educators, etc., etc. If you wish to learn…. Is your interest to know if a particular person has been invited? Then this information would probably suffice.

D. Thorne: No, I'm not interested in individuals. I'm just wanting to know which child care groups and education groups. I'm trying to ascertain, myself, where these consultations are happening, who's coming to them and what's being discussed. I mean, I'm also particularly interested in that same speech. On September 9 the minister referred to the public providing input on certain key elements, and I don't know if it's possible tonight to get just a brief idea what those key elements would be. I'm assuming they would be kinds of child care, or would they be…?

I guess a better way for me to phrase that — it's coming out more as a thought — would be: would key elements be the way that the money might be spent in a breakdown, say, of money going into the minister's budget in the Ministry of Children and Family Development or into the Education budget or into Health for any of those other programs? Is the public…? Let's not refer to them as the public. Are the people and groups that are invited to the consultations going to be commenting on, sharing or in any way influencing the way the dollars will be spent?

Hon. L. Reid: The answer is emphatically yes. The entire purpose of a consultation is to inform future activity and future direction of the ministry. The document that will be available on the website in terms of a framework for the consultation will ask people to come with some sense of where it is they'd like to see particular funding allocations go and what kinds of issues they'd like to see carried forward.

There have to be opportunities for us to talk about expansion around child care resource and referral, as one example. Perhaps someone would bring forward an issue around supported child development. Perhaps someone is interested in understanding better how the infant development continuum connects more effectively to the supported child development continuum. It may be funding decisions.

Frankly, I'm hoping for some ongoing education about the importance of these issues and the importance of early brain development for children and why people are being asked to consider quality settings in terms of creating opportunities for children to have the best possible early stimulation. What is it about exposure to books and reading materials and colours and sounds and routine that engages young learners in terms of their language and literacy? What kinds of defining characteristics are there that families should look for?

A number of parents who have come to have conversations with me in the last three months have been interested to have some guidance in terms of what they would look for when they have a brand-new baby. What kind of child care setting are they looking for? How do they define…? How do they make some comparisons?

All of that discussion, I think, is built into an ongoing consultation about the future of child care in British Columbia. Parents are interested in more information. They're interested to know how those dollars will be allocated, as are child care providers, as are early childhood development experts, early childhood educators, the academic community. Everyone has a piece of this very important puzzle. We all may have a different vantage point on the puzzle, but the reality is, at the end of the day, we want to have the strongest possible fabric to support young learners in the province of British Columbia.

D. Thorne: I couldn't agree more with the minister. I think it's really important that we do broad-based consultation. That makes me want to know which groups have been invited across the province even more, and I certainly hope to get a list of the groups that have been invited. Again, I don't want any specific names. I understand that's a privacy issue, and that's not important anyway. But I would like to know. I would like to be sure that I feel that all the corners have been touched, because I agree that it's so very important.

I'm just wondering: how are you coordinating your consultations with those being done by the Ministry of Education? I've had a briefing with them as well, and they were telling me about their consulting. I'm wondering: is there any dual consulting? How is it being coordinated?

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite may have gleaned from her discussions with Education that this is, in fact, a governmentwide consultation — that we are two ministries going forward in a governmentwide approach. It's a joint presentation. We're attempting to understand better the services that need to be available, should be available, could be available to children under six and over six. It may be possible to fold in a variety of different questions as we go forward.

Certainly, people will be thinking and have been thinking for the last number of months about what their vision is for child care, what their goals are, how they reach those goals. Are we looking to see if there's some common stance around particular goals? We believe there will be. Parents may not see it from exactly the same vantage point as the provider, but there are going to be some common elements to the kinds of feedback they give us.

It's a joint presentation today. The Ministry of Education will be in each of the 60 school districts in the province, and we will be in communities across British Columbia. Then we will do our very best to glean guidance from both pieces of information and tie them together in an integrated package as we go forward.

D. Thorne: So there'll be coordination at the end of it, but it's not…. There are two groups of people travelling around to different places at different times.

Hon. L. Reid: Just further to that point, there are MCFD individuals and Ministry of Education individuals today travelling together. It truly is a joint presentation. Those people are on the ground at the same consultations as they go forward.

D. Thorne: But the Ministry for Children and Families is not going to all of the school districts. You only named seven or eight places when you read out the list of where your consulting was going to be, so that was confusing.

Hon. L. Reid: We are, in fact, jointly hosting those consultations. We will, indeed, have MCFD staff at each of those 60 school district–based consultations. The list I gave you earlier is our community consultations that are directly hosted by MCFD, but the community consultations will also be attended by Ministry of Education staff.

Hon. L. Reid: Health was in attendance last evening in Kelowna at our consultation, and indeed, we understand that they will have representation at many of the sessions going forward.

D. Thorne: How are you going to reconcile these different consultations? I mean, what if Education comes to a different model for the use of these federal child care dollars than MCFD? Is there a referee or somebody that's going to make these final decisions?

In other words, who has the real authority, I guess, over these dollars? Is it yourself, minister? Or is it somebody overseeing the two or three ministries — Education, Health, and Children and Families?

Hon. L. Reid: There will be great opportunity for collaboration across government. That, frankly, is the Premier's expectation: that we end up with a cross-government integrated strategy on how best to support young learners in British Columbia. That's the expectation.

Will there be intense debate? I'm trusting there will be intense debate at every single one of the community consultations and every single one of the school district–hosted consultations, but I'm also believing that there will be huge common understanding about what it is that would be of the most benefit to young learners in the province.

The ministers of the Crown have today a Strong Start British Columbia Committee, a committee of cabinet that is attempting to continue to refine decision-making that affects very young learners and children as they age through the process. The challenge will be before us for such a long time. There are 42,000 babies born every year in British Columbia. How we craft programming that matters to them will always be a debate that's central to this cabinet, to this administration. How we go forward will be informed by the

ongoing consultation, absolutely, but it will be a collaboration, at the end of the day.

D. Thorne: There is great concern amongst child care people in the province that once again this government is planning to shift federal dollars away from funding direct child care that supports working families and assists women in returning to the workforce and instead use the federal dollars to create part-time programs with a school-readiness focus and curriculum-based programs. The Minister of Education has already, well ahead of any consultation, made her intentions clear in a Vancouver Sun article on September 6.

The minister has been pushing the notion of school readiness programs and told the Vancouver Sun that she is considering developing family learning centres across the province and incorporating preschools within elementary schools. In fact, the Minister of Education already has. She told me in my briefing that they already have two million of the federal child care dollars in their budget. I'm sure the minister and the ministry are well aware of that.

I guess my first question in this area is: why was the Minister of Education floating ideas with the media before the consultation process was even started?

Hon. L. Reid: The points the member opposite raises — in terms of supporting parents in the workforce and, frankly, supporting parents who wish to return to school — speak to me. That is, indeed, an opportunity for us to ensure that we have developmentally appropriate programs in place.

The member opposite talked about preschools in public schools. We have lots of those today. Central Okanagan school district is a glorious example of a school district that has moved ahead on that question and put in place that opportunity for families.

In terms of this particular consultation, those decisions have not been taken. The entire purpose of having this consultation is to be informed by the dialogue that will unfold for the remainder of this month and through early December.

D. Thorne: I certainly appreciate what the minister has just said. Of course that's what the process is for. I think preschools are wonderful too. My kids went to preschool for a long time — all of them. I was going to say for ten years, but that would have been ridiculous. They were actually in Montessori for ten years.

I still think, though — and this isn't a question; it's just a comment — that the Minister of Education or any minister…. It doesn't really make a lot of sense or create a very good impression of openness in a consultation process when the minister, the head person, is telling the press what they're going to do when we're just starting down the road to consulting people in the community. I think the minister probably would agree with that. That shouldn't have happened, and hopefully, it won't happen again.

That's what makes people jaded and cynical and is one of the reasons they don't come out. When we do consult and we don't get enough community…. I found that out being a councillor. That's one of the reasons the public is so jaded at us politicians — right? They say we've made up our minds already. I hope people don't think that about this process.

After the September 29 announcement of the child care deal, we found out that the language of ELCC includes school readiness. The Human Early Learning Partnership group, or HELP, which I know the minister will be well acquainted with, had this to say about school readiness versus early childhood education: "It seems to us that many who are not in the field of ECE do not yet understand that research has shown that play-based, child-focused, developmentally and culturally appropriate approaches to learning and development in the early years are the most successful programs both in the short and the long term."

Does the minister agree with the group HELP on that point, or does she side with the Minister of Education in supporting instead school readiness, which is not exactly the same thing, if you think about it.

Hon. L. Reid: The ability to define the language of this discussion will always be problematic. There are individuals who come with particular definitions. Dr. Hertzman will certainly support me in this contention that there are words that are just problematic for the discussion as we go forward. I'm not in this to pit one group against another or to create opportunities where it's this versus that.

Absolutely, the position taken by Dr. Clyde Hertzman in terms of experiential play being a tool for youngsters — being the way youngsters engage, the way they learn information — is absolutely true, is valid as we go forward.

The understandings that are shared by the Ministry of Education absolutely reflect that thinking and that understanding. They may use different language, but the process that all of us across government are supporting is play-based problem-solving, play-based experiential opportunities for children that allow them to create the best possible opportunities as they go forward. That's what this discussion is about.

That's why I want all of us to come to the discussion. We all have a piece of the puzzle, and how we choose to build that fabric — that strong start, if you will, for British Columbia children — is the essence of the discussion that we will have for the next three and a half years — absolutely, for the next three and a half years.

D. Thorne: Well, it sounds like the minister agrees with me that this HELP model is a form of child care that supports both children's development and families in the workplace and their participation.

I guess my last question in this area is on finding a model that promotes both early learning and supporting working families. That means full-time child care

or flexible child care, at least, for shift workers and part-time workers so that they can work. They're not available to take their kids to learning hubs or family centres in schools. They're only able to take their children to child care centres.

On the question of finding a model that helps these working families and promotes early learning: is this model being explored actively in the consulting that's happening right now?

Hon. L. Reid: The goal of this administration is always going to be quality child care. There's absolutely no question about that.

One of the greater challenges before us today, frankly, is for families who work part-time. Oftentimes they are in the position where they purchase an entire week's worth of child care, but they only need two or three days. We have to find ways to reframe that discussion, so that we can allow the opportunity for them to have a child care experience and not to have to be in that setting — when they are, indeed, not needing to avail themselves of that setting.

My challenge is, frankly, to put as many different services, as many different opportunities, in a basket of service for British Columbia families. Even though the member opposite mentioned the Montessori experience, there are choices that families will make, and the choice that they make today when their child may be a two-year-old may be a dramatically different choice for the same family when that child is four.

We have to ensure that there are some opportunities for supports across the spectrum, because families today have a variety of life experience, cultural experience, language experience, work experience, shift work, weekend work, hours such as ours. I mean, there's a whole array of services that, if they were coordinated in a more coherent way for families, would make their lives easier. That is, again, I think, a goal that all of us in this chamber would share.

D. Thorne: Well, looking at the language in the ELCC agreement, one of the specific made-in-B.C. goals is that term "school readiness." I'm just wondering why this was included in the agreement before we consulted, when we didn't have a plan. Why would we be consulting on this point in that case?

Hon. L. Reid: I think it's more appropriate to have a conversation about readiness for life. What we're attempting to get to through the early development indicator work is a sense of a child's cognitive, social and emotional abilities, and oftentimes that's characterized as readiness. But it's readiness as part and parcel of a discussion that produces the educated citizen at the end of the day. That's a discussion I've had with many folks across the system. What is it we all want to achieve at the end of the day?

Whether it's a family child care setting, a preschool opportunity, a grade one program or a grade 12 program, we are in the business of creating opportunities to produce the best possible citizens: folks who are well rounded, see both sides of a question and are informed decision-makers. That's the goal. We want children who have that ability to take information and create useful decisions for their future, for the futures of their potential families — all of those pieces down the road.

So I don't know if it's necessarily the answer to be talking only readiness for a certain aspect. I think it's a much bigger discussion, a much broader discussion, and I think the ongoing consultation will inform that as we go forward.

The school oversight consultation piece, if you will, is a broad-based discussion. We have some really strong building blocks today — the human early learning partnership work, the infant development piece, the early childhood development work, the supported child development work. All of those are supports to get children ready for life.

D. Thorne: Well, it is a broad discussion — you're right. It's much bigger than anything we can handle in the few weeks we have left to finish estimates and certainly in my time that I have for doing estimates. I mean, it really doesn't answer the question about why it was in the agreement before the consultation. School readiness is not child care. It's child care dollars we're talking about.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the point because I firmly believe, like Jane Morley, that the best early childhood development happens in good child care centres with trained staff and accessible programming for parents who are working and can't afford to be moving their kids around from school to preschool to child care centres, and they can't afford to hire somebody else to do it. So I'll leave that point because it is a little philosophical, and I think I know why it was included in the agreement before the consultation.

I'll move on to another goal in the agreement which causes me great concern, and that's the one about more employment and business opportunities being created. I'm not sure what that means and how the government is going to do that.

Hon. L. Reid: The section that the member opposite is referencing is, I think, attempting to capture the sense of opportunity that's before us. We will have many brand-new child care providers who may wish to open up a family child care centre, who may partner effectively with government or with a school district or with a municipality to build, in partnership, a child care centre. I mean, what we're attempting to capture is that more people are welcome to the discussion, more people are able to participate. Indeed, we have crafted many changes around the capital funding agreements before us in terms of taking the dollar available. We used to have a formula that was 25 or 35 percent that would be the government contribution. We've now levelled that off at 50 percent, and we've lifted it from $250,000 to $300,000.

If it's a priority community in British Columbia — again, the work of Dr. Clyde Hertzman — where we

have highlighted 87 distinct neighbourhoods, that opportunity is for 90 percent of government funding and 10 percent of partnership funding. Who would wish to come and work with us to build those child care spaces?

We have tremendous opportunity to build some fabulous child care spaces in British Columbia, and will we invite folks to the table to assist us with that? We've got great opportunities today to partner more effectively with foundations in British Columbia.

You will know, because you have had some background in this area, that oftentimes child care providers are extraordinarily gifted at providing child care. That is where they wish to exercise their time and their energy and their effort. Some of them aren't, frankly, interested in becoming the project manager for building a new child care centre. If we can, indeed, support them in that endeavour and end up with a glorious turnkey operation where they can simply continue to do what it is they're absolutely gifted at, I welcome that.

Am I prepared to ask all kinds of different folks to come forward and assist in the actual creation, the building phase, of this? Absolutely.

D. Thorne: Okay. I guess it must mean partnerships as well as business opportunities. Quite frankly, it's the business opportunities that had me concerned. I wonder: would these businesses be using the public dollars, the federal dollars, in order to accomplish these business opportunities? And I'm also very concerned whether or not this might at some point include the large corporate or big box child care centres — you know, the Wal-Mart day care centres.

Hon. L. Reid: The section also attempts to capture the non-profit opportunities available for individuals who wish to build new spaces in British Columbia. I believe that if we do a good enough job of supporting boys and girls clubs, neighbourhood houses, family resource programs, municipalities, school districts — all as potential partners to assist us in this regard — we will not have the concern that the member has raised in terms of the big box approach to child care — that we will have very durable, very stable child care centres operating in every community in British Columbia.

D. Thorne: Well, that's good news. There'll be a lot of people really happy to hear that. But as to the other question about the private child care centres using public dollars, I'm assuming that your current program, where capital dollars are only spent by non-profits, will stay in place.

D. Thorne: Okay. Instead of referring to licensed quality child care, the government uses the term "regulated" more and more often recently. Why and what exactly does the ministry mean when they say "regulated child care"?

Hon. L. Reid: Regulated means licensed. That may, indeed, answer the member's question. We also have registered child care in the province, and we have some difficulties around demystifying, if you will, the language, the terminology in the child care sector. Anytime you would wish to give us your thoughts on how to simplify the process so people truly understood what it was…. That's certainly formed part of the discussion that I'm having with different providers across the province and different parents as we go forward. Some of them would like it just to bring a lot more clarity to the discussion.

But certainly, regulated today means licensed. We're not moving away from licensed child care in British Columbia. We want it to be better understood for sure, and we want the opportunity to create professional development opportunities for those who would have two children and maybe operate next door to where you might live. We want to create better professional development opportunities for family child care, for those who would have to up to seven children. At the end of the day it is about improving the opportunities for all children in B.C.

D. Thorne: That's certainly true, and I've met with all the providers and the family child care people as well. They're certainly really wanting to move towards more licensing, more regulation, and they're as concerned, I think, as the group day cares about some of the issues and problems around non-regulated, non-licensed care. That's good.

Can I ask the minister what is meant by the term "quality community-based settings" regarding children with special needs?

Hon. L. Reid: I've had the opportunity in the last two weeks to be in three different centres that would have supports built in and also have some physical plant features built in to accommodate very significantly involved special needs learners.

Let me give you the example of Treehouse Early Learning Centre in Richmond. There are spaces created within the existing structure for calming areas, for quieter areas, for different access points, so the inclusion that we honour has a chance of being successful. There are often situations where the noise, the volume, the busyness, the activity level disengages some learners who are overstimulated. We want to ensure all the learners have the opportunity not just to be welcome on paper but to actually succeed in the centre.

The point I made earlier in terms of different children at different points in their lives needing a different type of setting may well figure into this discussion. There may be opportunities to have very significantly involved special needs youngsters in smaller group settings and moving their way through the process in

terms of becoming more familiar with the routines and the expectations of a centre.

There are going to be increasing challenges in terms of special needs learners as we go forward and in how we accommodate them. This is a discussion about accommodation for very young learners. Whether it's a family centre, the neighbour who has one or two children, or whether it's a large centre of three- to five-year-olds, a child care centre numbering 20 children, there will always be discussions and opportunities for accommodation.

D. Thorne: Looking at some other B.C.-specific language, it talks about integrated services. I think we have already discussed that, and we've talked about renting space in school districts for child care centres at market rates. Because the ministry has talked about this, I'm assuming that they believe this is an appropriate use of federal child care dollars.

There's also been a change in the definition of subsidies made this fall by the government — now the same child can have a subsidy at a child care and a subsidy to attend a separate preschool — made in response to lobbying by the school district in Central Okanagan. Can the minister confirm if this is true and if there are any other examples of school districts in B.C. currently shaping our child care policies?

Hon. L. Reid: The member touched on market rates for child care. The Central Okanagan actually charges their preschoolers $300 a month, so it's a glorious acknowledgment of support to young learners in that school district. There are a number of school districts — the Kootenays, Abbotsford — who are embracing very young learners and bringing them onside.

The goal of providing a preschool subsidy for children in a family setting today is developmentally appropriate. It is not the result of any lobbying exercise. It is a developmentally appropriate decision. If a child is engaged in a small centre of two to seven children, do they benefit from exposure to a preschool setting of a larger group of children? Absolutely. That is a developmentally appropriate stance that we have taken. We have certainly put that in place for children in foster care today because we do want those children to have opportunities as they go forward as well.

D. Thorne: Did this policy change flow from the ELCC principle of integrated services, or did it predate it?

Hon. L. Reid: The preschools, to qualify, do not have to be in schools, which I think is where the member is heading in this discussion. This is an opportunity that is available to all preschools in British Columbia if they would wish to offer their service to a child coming from a smaller child care centre. We have preschools today in community centres. There are a variety of them in churches in British Columbia. There are some of them in schools, but it is not specific to the school discussion.

D. Thorne: Then I'm assuming that it predated the agreement with the federal government — that change in policy.

D. Thorne: On page 4 of the agreement, the federal government's required QUAD principles — Q-U-A-D — are addressed: quality, universally inclusive, accessible and developmental.

The agreement frames these as goals and states — and one can only imagine the back and forth between the B.C. and federal negotiators because the language is very vague in this: "The government of B.C. agrees to work over time to achieve broad, long-term goals." It's hard to imagine fitting another weasel-type word into that statement.

This government said before the election that it embraced the QUAD principles. I'm wondering now if this is the strongest commitment that the government could make in the child care agreement. Frankly, it's a little disappointing.

Hon. L. Reid: That's, frankly, the only thing the member opposite has said this evening that's offended me. The principles, as listed, are very clear: quality, universally inclusive, accessible and developmental. Those are the principles that will guide the creation of child care space. To suggest anything else is unhelpful to the exercise.

D. Thorne: Well, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to insult anybody. I just feel that those words, "the government of British Columbia agrees to work over time to achieve broad long-term goals," are so vague that they could mean almost anything. Frankly, I find it disappointing. I'm just speaking for myself. I would have hoped that my government could have been stronger in what they said in a five-year agreement with the federal government for a program for universal child care across this country, which may be — and we all know it — perhaps the very last chance we have in Canada to have a universal social program.

I just hoped that my government could use stronger words. I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings.

I'm going to move on to my last section now with that. I'm almost finished. I just wanted to talk a little bit about Jane Morley's report From Words to Action.

By the way, somebody said earlier — and I'm not sure who it was — that Ms. Morley is an independent officer. As far as I know, she is not. She reports to the Attorney General. She is not an officer of the Legislature. I think that's been brought up several times during question period, if I remember correctly. Ms. Morley reports to the Attorney General. I think maybe the Minister for Children and Family Development could correct me if I'm wrong.

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. The child and youth officer is, in fact, independent — reports through the Attorney General but is independent.

D. Thorne: Is she truly independent? Or is she sort of independently dependent? The Privacy Commissioner is independent — right? She's not really independent, is she?

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you very much for clarifying that too. She is truly independent. Her report has to be tabled in the Legislature, so there's no opportunity for me or anybody else to try and change it. I'm sure that if you've ever spoken to the child and youth officer — and I know you've read her reports — then you will know that she is truly independent.

D. Thorne: She is definitely an independent woman. You're absolutely right about that. But she gets her marching orders, shall we say…. Those are my words, again. I'm probably being far too familiar doing this, but it's my first time, and it's my nature. She is told by the Attorney General what she should and shouldn't look into, whereas the Privacy Commissioner just does his own thing. That's been my understanding. Again, I stand to be corrected.

Hon. S. Hagen: She is truly independent. Her mandate is laid out by statute.

Hon. L. Reid: I want to come back to the comments the member was raising in terms of the language. I think the language is abundantly clear in terms of the agreement.

That language is clear in terms of what the expectation is. I'm certainly more than happy to continue to put the remaining points on the record if the member has any question about the quality, the calibre of the language. I think it speaks volumes about what it is each British Columbian would aspire to when they are indeed seeking a place for their child.

D. Thorne: I just wanted to read a little bit from Ms. Morley's report From Words to Action, and then I'm going to finish up with a last question. This was a special report on early childhood development and child care released in June by B.C.'s child and youth officer. This report was notable because in it the child and youth office calls child care a cornerstone of a comprehensive early childhood development strategy and backs child care advocates in calling on this government to produce a comprehensive child care plan.

In her report the child and youth officer expresses concern at the new fragmentation of children's services, with this government's decision to move early learning and literacy out of Ministry of Children and Family Development and into Education. Her report calls for much-needed changes that community advocates and the New Democratic opposition have been calling for since the Liberals cancelled universal child care in 2001.

Specifically, the child and youth officer report highlights key components of quality child care and, in doing so, shows that this government in its first term made all the wrong policy and funding moves. Every single determinant of quality care has been under attack under this government — government regulation, child care giver education and compensation, adult-child ratios, class size, and the stability of child care centres and caregivers.

She also called on this government to implement a framework for evaluation and accountability. In short, the child and youth officer's report touches on all the key criticisms of this government's past child care record, and it also provides a model — presumably, from a friendly source — for this government to follow in the future.

So I'd like to ask the minister…. From Words to Action — will it be included as a model in the consultation process? And will the minister be taking advice from the child and youth officer on this file even though she is critical of her government's record? That's my last question.

Hon. L. Reid: The member may not be aware, but Jane Morley was asked to create a report on what was known as Healthy Child British Columbia, which was an opportunity for Health and for MCFD to partner very effectively in terms of advancing the early childhood education and early childhood development agenda in British Columbia. That, in fact, went very, very well.

Her report provides significant acknowledgment of the progress made in early childhood development in British Columbia, as well as making valuable recommendations for government as a whole to consider. Her report recommends that government ministries collaborate on an early-years agenda, building on the work to date, including the draft ECD strategy. MCFD and the Ministry of Education have committed to follow up on this.

I believe I touched on, for the member's benefit, the Strong Start British Columbia Committee, which is, again, attempting to integrate service delivery and decision-making strategically across government. So indeed, we are going forward on the recommendations, and we will continue to avail ourselves of the best recommendations of the day as we go forward. I think everyone's expectation is that children receive the best possible start in British Columbia.

D. Thorne: I thank the minister, and I thank the staff for helping me through my first estimates process.

I look forward to our next time together in March or whenever it is. I thank you for answering that you will be taking advice from Jane Morley, and I'm assuming that a lot of this information will be going forward in the consultation process.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask a few questions of the minister with regards to foster care. My first few questions relate to the specific duties of resource social workers, guardianship workers and child protection workers. My first question is: could the minister please advise me what is the role of a resource worker?

Hon. S. Hagen: While my staff are coming in, I just want to make a few comments about foster parents, because I know the member for Skeena is a foster parent. I think I found that out the day I was paying tribute to foster parents in the House. I thanked you at that time for what you've done as a foster parent, and I'll thank you again tonight, as I thank the member for Burquitlam for being a foster parent. If there are other members of the House that I'm not aware of that have been, are, or want to be….

Hon. S. Hagen: The Leader of the Opposition? Okay. Well, I will thank her personally the next time I see her for what she does.

As I'm sure you know, we have, I think, about 6,300 children in foster care provided by about 3,000 foster homes. What foster parents do is incredibly important, obviously, for children. It's incredibly important for the province and for the overall good of the people of British Columbia.

I was at a foster parent appreciation night last Thursday, I think it was, in Vancouver. There were 300 or 350 foster parents there, sort of being thanked. It was a wonderful social event. It was at the Italian Cultural Centre over there. It was a very, very special evening.

I'm going to get the answer to the question you asked now, but I wanted to put that on the record and, also, to say thank you again.

I have some definitions here, I guess, or answers. A resource social worker recruits, assesses and supports foster parents. A guardianship worker looks after children in care. A child protection worker does intakes, assessments and provides family service — and, I suppose, ultimately makes the decision to take a child into care.

R. Austin: I'm interested in the role of the resource worker as somebody who assesses and recruits new foster families.

Actually, first of all, I'd just like to say thank you very much on behalf of all the foster parents in this province for your kind words acknowledging the work that we do.

But I'd like to ask a question in terms of the resource worker being responsible within the structure of an MCFD office to recruit and train new foster families. As I'm sure the minister is aware, there is a distinct shortage of foster families in British Columbia. It's my experience, having been a foster parent for the past nine years, that this puts immense stress on the resource workers because they're the ones who have to find a placement for a child when a child is apprehended by the ministry. They tend to be going around in circles. There aren't enough foster families. The person responsible for finding new foster families is too busy trying to find a home for the foster child that's just been apprehended.

My question to the minister is: how can the resource workers find the time during their 35-hour schedule to go out and recruit new foster families?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, thank you very much, and it's a very good question. I look forward to continuing to get advice from the member for Skeena relative to foster parents.

Having said that, we use Foster Parents Month, for instance…. We proclaim it as Foster Parents Month to get the message out there about foster parenting. I've been doing radio talk shows about foster parenting and the need for more foster parents, because I agree with you.

We've been doing some advertising to recruit foster parents. I think it's a team effort to try and…. I think once people sat down and looked at foster parenting and saw the importance of it…. I think that would be a lot different than a lot of people who don't even think about it because their lives are busy. We try to do everything that we can to let people know that we do need foster parents.

Of course, the other major role, as you know, that foster parents play is that in about 35 percent of the cases they become adoptive parents. So that's a huge second benefit that we get from foster parents. But there's no question that…. And I'm happy to have any suggestions that you might have on how we can recruit more foster parents.

R. Austin: Of course, that is one of the great conundrums. I mean, part of the job specification of a resource worker is to actually spend a portion of their time going out and attracting new foster parents. As I've mentioned, their job is so busy that they can never get to that portion of it. It is a conundrum. I would like to meet with the minister — because I do have some suggestions — another time.

With regards to the resource workers finding a lack of resources because there are not enough foster homes in rural areas…. Many people would consider Terrace, where I live, to be rural, especially most of the people in this House, but in fact it's a city. It has a Wal-Mart, and it doesn't have a lot of cappuccino bars, but….

When I think of rural communities, I think of a place like, for example, Dease Lake. In Dease Lake, as the minister knows, there is an office and a lot of work and a lot of very stressed-out social workers. The main source of stress in Dease Lake, aside from dealing with the relative isolation of working there, is the fact that there are literally no resources in terms of foster placements.

My question to the minister is: what do you expect social workers in these very rural areas to do when they have a situation where because the mandate is to take a child who is in a dangerous situation and apprehend that child…? They can't take that child home with them. What does the minister have to say as to how to overcome these problems? What are the plans in rural areas to try and get more foster parents?

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you to the member for Skeena. It's a very, very good question. Sometimes there are no easy answers to these questions, but it does come back to the community. I mean, it's not only the social worker. There is a responsibility in the larger community to be involved in this. In some of the more remote communities where there's a very high population of aboriginals, for instance, it can sometimes add to the conundrum, which is the word that you used.

Having said that, we are trying to work with the aboriginal community to help build capacity to do the training so that we can try and keep more aboriginal kids in aboriginal homes, but as I've said many, many times, both to aboriginals and non-aboriginals, it's not something where you turn a light switch on. It's not something that we can, say, take a decision in this House and have it cured tomorrow, or even next week or next month.

It does remind us, I think, that the greater community has some responsibility because it's the health and safety of the child that has to be paramount. I think sometimes in Canada we tend to look to others all the time. We tend to look to the government, or we tend to look to an agency to say, "Well, they should fix that," or: "It's their job to fix that."

I have to tell you that in one of my visits to an office that we were talking about earlier tonight…. I encourage social workers in those offices to tell me stories because I need to hear from them the experiences that they have day in and day out. One worker was sharing a story with me that she had a phone call from a parent, and this was not a parent from Vancouver east. This was a parent from West Vancouver who said: "I have a 13-year-old daughter, and I don't want her anymore. Please come and get her." I mean, as a parent of five children, I could not even relate to that. I hope that, as a society, we're not coming to the point where parents will say to the state, "It's now your job," because I don't believe that. Having said that, I think we have to be there to help in situations. Now, in that particular case, it turned out it was a happy ending because through family counselling and spending some time, the child remained in the home.

But I take your point. I mean, in places like Dease Lake or Atlin or any number of communities, actually, in B.C., and particularly in northern B.C., it's a huge challenge. Having met social workers in those areas, I know that they're really connected to the community, amazingly connected to the community. I would, I guess, connect the dots to say that that's because they actually do work in the community and do talk about becoming foster parents and about the challenges that are out there and the children that they're concerned about.

R. Austin: You know, in rural areas such as Dease Lake, and I'm sure there are lots of other communities…. I'm sure you've heard this because you did mention earlier today that when you've gone to meet with social workers who work in your ministry, you've had some very candid discussions with them. So I'm sure you're aware that especially in very rural areas the social workers often tend to not work there long enough to build those relationships necessary to build community relationships that enable them to attract foster parents. In the very rural areas, of course, a lot of social workers go there because they've just finished their BSW. That's always posting. You can always get a job in Dease Lake as a social worker because, hey, who wants to go to Dease Lake and work as a social worker? But they then are not there very long because they want to get into a larger community, which makes it very, very difficult.

I wanted to ask a question to do with child protection workers. Aside from being a foster parent, I also happen to be a social worker, and a lot of my friends are social workers, so I do know this system fairly well. I'm always intrigued when social workers come back from training. They fly down to Vancouver to be trained as child protection workers and come back and show me the binder that's about yay thick with all the policies that are involved with being a child protection worker. My question is: can you inform me as to what the cost is of training each child protection social worker?

Hon. S. Hagen: Sorry it took so long to find out this very short answer, but we don't have that cost.

R. Austin: I think it's something that the ministry should be aware of. It's my understanding that this is very extensive training. It takes several weeks at a time. They come down for several weeks to Vancouver, then fly back home and do some work in their communities and then come back.

So I'm sure it is thousands of dollars, and if the minister is willing to acknowledge that it is several thousand dollars, I'm hoping that at some point in time, they will find out exactly how much that is. Because the next question I would like to ask is: does the ministry track when someone comes into the profession and goes into child welfare, specifically to work with the ministry, and then takes advantage of this

investment in training and then quits? And we can have another discussion about why people quit. Does the ministry track the reasons why social workers leave the child welfare system and their numbers? How many social workers are you training in a year, and how many are leaving the system in a year?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that number. Apparently, I'm told the rate of decline — you know, people coming in, people leaving — has been reduced in the last number of years. I will get you that number. I just don't have it tonight.

R. Austin: After the Gove inquiry, certain practice standards were put in place as a result of his findings. Can the minister advise me in the case of guardianship workers…. My understanding is that guardianship workers take care of children. You mentioned that they take care of children who are in long-term care. So, really, all the children on CCOs — continuing care orders — are then assigned to a guardianship worker, because that child will be a ward of the state until they are 19 years of age. Can the minister advise me, according to Gove's standards, how many clients or children should a guardianship worker have on their caseload?

Hon. S. Hagen: I have the figures for guardianship and child protection, and this is children in care per FTE. This chart starts at '97-98. It's 8.9, and for '05-06 it's 6.6. I'm not sure whether that helps you. Those are the only numbers that I have.

R. Austin: Those are the statistics that the ministry is holding throughout the entire province as to how many children are assigned to each guardianship worker. My question to the minister is: what were the practice standards set out in the Gove inquiry as to how many children should be on the caseload of a guardianship worker — specifically to Gove?

R. Austin: So am I to understand, then, that the practice standards that Gove set up in the inquiry are not part of ministry policy these days?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told by my staff that they weren't aware that those standards were set out in the Gove report. If you have the Gove report, if you can provide us with that or if you can let us look that up overnight, I'll be happy to do that.

R. Austin: You mentioned in your statistics, which you just gave me, that the average guardianship worker…. My understanding is that this year, '05, it's 6.8 as an average. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Hagen: It was actually 6.6, but it was a combination of guardianship and child protection.

R. Austin: I just want to relate to you my experience, that is living in Terrace, where I've gotten to know guardianship workers over the last few years. If any of the guardianship workers, minister, had 6.8 or 6.6 children on their caseload, they'd come and kiss you. Just for the record, guardianship workers in the office in Terrace tend to have 15 or more children on their caseload — not just occasionally when things get busy but on a perpetual level.

The reason I want to bring this up is because of this. The purpose of a guardianship worker — and I'm sure the minister would agree — is that for children who are in long-term care, who are going to be in care until they are 19 years of age, it is necessary for them to have a relationship with a guardianship social worker. That guardianship worker becomes their protector throughout their life. I don't mean just a protector in terms of keeping them safe, because obviously if they're in a foster home, one hopes they're safe. But they're there to protect their interests vis-à-vis the foster parent or any other relationship that that child has in life.

I would put it to the minister that if you were to speak to guardianship workers, they would tell you that their caseloads are huge. What happens as a result of that is an inability to have the time. Again, this comes out of the Gove inquiry. Gove stated that guardianship workers should have a certain number of people on their caseload and that a certain number of times in a year — and I believe his standard was a minimum of four times a year, so every three months — that guardianship worker should have contact with each and every child on their caseload. To build that relationship up is important.

My question to the minister is: does he recognize what I'm saying? Does he recognize the difficulty that guardianship workers have in not being able to take the time to even take their kids out for a cocoa or anything to build that relationship? Is the minister aware of this?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm certainly not as aware of it as you are, but I take your word for it. I'll ask some questions and certainly get some information from regional staff on that. I've listened carefully to what you've said.

R. Austin: At this point…. I'm going to come back and ask a few more questions, hopefully tomorrow, but I would like to defer to my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway.

A. Dix: I note the lateness of the hour, so I just have a few remaining questions for the minister this evening.

The first is about a project that he knows about well, that he's written about. It's the Youth Clubhouse in Kamloops. The Youth Clubhouse is an extraordinary program with tremendous support from the entire Kamloops community. I wanted to ask the minister about their request for money from the ministry. Just to describe it, what the program does, amongst other

things, is to keep youth safe from drugs and other problems. It's a very topical program in the present circumstances.

I wanted to ask the minister about the status of the request, supported by the entire Kamloops community, to his ministry.

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member for Vancouver-Kingsway: as I'm sure you're aware, there are several of these types of agencies around the province that were funded by a federal government program called SCPI. It was the SCPI funding that was terminated. We are working with the feds to try to get them to reinstate that funding.

We have several of these programs around the province. If there was only one of them, it would make my job a lot easier. I might be able to find the money to put into one, but we have to treat all of them equally. This group did bid on an RFP but were unsuccessful, and I understand we're spending $400,000 in Kamloops alone in paying for services, some of which were provided from this home.

A. Dix: The Clubhouse has, I think, had an extraordinary effect in Kamloops. I talked to people with the Canadian Mental Health Association up there, to Rotary clubs and to the 400 people who supported petitions. The Clubhouse didn't ask for $1 million from the minister. They didn't ask for $2 million; they didn't ask for $3 million. They asked for $81,000. It's a reasonable request. Because they were turned down by the ministry, the program has gone from serving 150 youth to 28 youth. Obviously, there hasn't been a backfill from the ministry for the services they provided.

I want to ask — in light of the extraordinary contribution and the extraordinary level of community support in Kamloops for this program — whether the minister will reconsider what I think is an incorrect decision about a small amount of money that does an enormous amount of good in Kamloops.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'll tell you what. You're not the first one to ask me about this, and I hate to tell you that. The members from Kamloops have asked me as well, and so I am prepared to take a second look at it, with no promises. I want to reiterate everything that I've said. I'm sure you're aware of this too, that the federal government doesn't help us all the time when they fund a program and then stop the funding. It's very difficult for us, first of all, to anticipate that, and second, to try and have a budget to backfill. We're trying to keep the heat on the feds to reinstitute that program, but I am prepared, because of requests from the members from Kamloops, to take a look at it.

A. Dix: I thank the minister very much for that. I note that there are several new programs with respect to crystal meth and other issues, so there may be cross-government efforts that we can make to find the appropriate amount of funding. It's a small amount of money. It does an enormous amount of good in Kamloops, so I really thank the minister for taking a second look at that decision by the ministry. I know they didn't make it frivolously, but I also know it does an enormous amount of good.

With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR MULTICULTURALISM

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm honoured to begin the estimates discussions for the Ministry of Attorney General as well as the Ministry Responsible for Multiculturalism. As a former judge and a neophyte politician, I want to tell you that both of these areas are of significant concern and interest to me because my whole working life has been spent in these areas.

It's a privilege for me to be here to discuss with you what our plans are, what our preparations are for the upcoming fiscal year. I want to introduce at the outset my staff: Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel, Assis-

tant Deputy Minister of Management Services Jim Crone, Assistant Deputy Minister Tom Jensen and Assistant Deputy Minister Jerry McHale.

I want to start by making some opening comments regarding the Attorney General's ministry. I will in due course deal with the Ministry of Multiculturalism. First of all, I want to acknowledge the work done by my predecessor Geoff Plant. As the Attorney General he exhibited tremendous commitment to law reform and to make our justice system more accountable and accessible.

During his time in office Attorney General Plant introduced a number of reforms that have had a significant impact on both the criminal and the civil justice systems. Over the past four years our government oversaw a major shift towards the use of alternative methods for resolving legal disputes so that people facing conflict would have a better way to resolve their disputes as opposed to entering courtrooms. Quite simply, this method of resolving issues is better for families, better for children and better for everyone.

There is a trend in Canada towards resolving disputes outside of courtrooms. I'm speaking particularly here of the civil justice system, where we're seeing a movement and a trend towards alternative dispute resolutions, mediation and vehicles of that sort.

I am strongly committed to building public confidence in the justice system. It is my view that the major issue that is facing the civil and criminal justice systems is the question of public confidence. As far as the criminal justice system is concerned, there is a concern amongst our members of the public that there is a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system. That largely emanates from a chronic problem of property crime, and I plan to deal with that in due course.

As far as a civil justice system is concerned, there are two major issues that we have to be concerned with. The first is accessibility, and the second is expense. Those are two issues that are crucial in determining issues regarding the civil justice system.

British Columbia has one of the best systems in the world. We know that because people from all over the world come here to learn about our system. The system is an evolving system, and it evolves to improve relevant and responsive needs for the population of British Columbia. We need to keep evolving in order to adjust to population trends, the change in demographics and the changes in the expectations of our population. Technology also revolutionizes the methods by which we operate in the system.

One thing does remain constant, however, and that is that we cannot move forward in the work we do without strong relationships and ongoing consultations with our justice partners: the police, the judiciary and other members of the legal community. We must work with them, and we will continue to do that in order to promote justice and improve the system.

My key goal over the next year will revolve around building public confidence in the administration of justice. I mentioned that a minute ago. The focus will be on reform, innovation and improvement in the justice system to ensure access to justice. Access is a crucial issue.

My government will be working to promote a problem-solving legal culture where lawyers see a new case as a problem to be solved and not necessarily a problem to be litigated, and where a trial is valued as a last resort. We are currently a leader in Canada as far as alternative dispute resolution is concerned, as far as alternative ways of resolving disputes are concerned. These actions are less confrontational than the traditional in-court proceedings and lead to improved access to justice for British Columbians.

In this province we are encouraging mediation and alternative settlement disputes to provide the maximum value to people who use legal aid, the criminal justice system and the civil justice system. An effective legal aid program recognizes that supporting access to justice for economically disadvantaged people requires a continuum of services, including providing information, support and advice; alternative dispute resolution services; and, in some cases, full legal representation.

The British Columbia Legal Services Society has implemented a number of extremely effective innovations consistent with the continuum-of-services approach over the last four years. I remain committed to ensuring that we continue to develop a legal aid system in an innovative and efficient manner and in a way that will work for the betterment of all British Columbians who need to use the services of the civil and the criminal justice systems.

I want to deal with street crime. We are working towards promoting the best possible quality of life for British Columbians. Public safety is important in that consideration and in that objective. In British Columbia our rate of violent crime is generally under control — and by that, I don't mean to condone the violent crime that we or our citizens or our victims experience, for any violent crime is crime that ought not to be condoned. But the fact is that our real problem is in the area of property crime. It is in the area of chronic offenders.

We know, for instance, that in the city of Vancouver, less than 20 percent of the offenders commit over 80 percent of the crimes. We have to focus on those people who are committing those crimes. We know that we have to use an innovative approach. We know that we cannot resort to longer jail terms except where they are warranted, but there is very often a cry amongst members of the public that the effective way to deal with increasing rates of property crime is to impose stronger jail terms.

We know from the American experience and from our own experience that jail terms, in and of themselves, will not reduce property crime. They are effective for certain types of offenders, but where we have offenders who are addicted to alcohol or drugs or who are suffering from various forms of mental illness, we know that we have to use more creative ways of solving the issues. In order to ensure that our public and this province feels safer when they are on the streets,

our government will be looking at the options and the recommendations of the Justice Review Task Force in the report they released on property crime.

Chronic offenders with multiple charges and repetitive appearances on each of those charges have put a significant demand on the criminal justice system. The innovative report that was released two weeks ago by the Justice Review Task Force has made some creative and innovative recommendations. It is my view that those recommendations ought to be embraced and that we ought to give serious consideration to adopting those recommendations.

Our government will be looking at the options recommended by the task force that may provide a new way to handle repeat offenders — by working to deal with the underlying causes of criminal behaviour, such as alcohol and drug addiction. You see, we have to start looking at some of the root causes of crime. Sending more people to jail for longer periods of time often deals with the symptoms and does not deal with some of the causes of crime. The Justice Review Task Force addresses those root causes of crime. It is our view that that is a direction in which we ought to move.

I will now focus my remarks on another part of my portfolio: multiculturalism and immigration. I'm truly honoured to be appointed as Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism. Multiculturalism groups have had a long and proud history in this province. I think it's important to recognize that this province has reached the heights that it has in livability by virtue of the immigrants who have come here and the large contributions they have made.

It's interesting to note that when you look at the demographics of our province, over 50 percent of the city of Vancouver is now visible-minority. The city of Richmond has a population that has a makeup of over 60 percent Asian. This means that in the area of multiculturalism, our institutions have to look at the makeup of our society and come up with a better and more creative way in which to deal with the issues that face us, particularly in the areas of civil and criminal justice. You see, the two areas, multiculturalism and the issues that the Attorney General's ministry deals with, are correlated in many ways.

As an Indo-Canadian I am, in a sense, straddling two worlds. I was born here and raised here with so-called Canadian values, but I think I'm able to draw on the best of Indian values as well. I think that makes me…. I'm in a somewhat unique position, in that I think it helps me better understand what Canada is all about.

Multiculturalism is the very fabric of our society. It celebrates our differences, but at the same time, we must know and we must understand that it means we have to acknowledge our identity as Canadians. The mere fact that we come from different ethnic backgrounds means that we should celebrate those differences, but we must work towards a common goal.

To build a strong multicultural province, we have to be inclusive. Each year we work with more than 30,000 immigrants, helping them settle and adapt to life in British Columbia. We also fund programs to support cultural diversity and to fight racism and hatred. As a government, we work on many different levels to promote understanding and respect for different cultures and traditions. This is especially important in our schools, where this type of prevention activity can help to shape attitudes at a very early age.

Where people have complaints of discrimination, they can turn to the human rights system. We have in this province, in my view, a human rights system that is a direct-access model that understands and deals with the complaints of people who are aggrieved in those particular areas.

The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is a direct-access model. It means better and timelier service. For instance, if a complaint is filed under our present system, a hearing can be scheduled within seven months, and a decision is generally rendered in three months after that. The backlogs that were left under the previous system have been diminished. The tribunal has been effective in resolving human rights complaints.

The bottom line is that when we're dealing with human rights complaints, do we have an effective way of addressing the complaints of aggrieved people? In my view, and in the view of the government of this province, I think the direct-access model provided for by the Human Rights Tribunal, which is akin to a court, offers that solution.

It's important to note that a government is a leader in providing programs and services for multicultural communities, but that cannot be done alone. The vast majority of programs we provide to support multiculturalism and immigration are operated by third-party service providers. These are people who work with communities at a grass-roots level. They're in the best position to know the needs of communities and to provide the best services.

We believe that every sector — business, non-profit, community groups, families, individuals, schools, teachers — has a role to play, side-by-side with government, in supporting multiculturalism. It is by working together that we will build a society where all our cultural work, our cultural diversity, is celebrated for the betterment of British Columbians.

I look forward to the challenges of the opportunities ahead, and I welcome the questions that will follow.

I should have told you that we have about 35,000 immigrants that arrive in this province every year. We're amongst the top three destinations in Canada for immigrants, and we have the highest percentage of visible minorities in Canada. I think I pointed that out earlier in my remarks. I will now conclude my remarks, and I look forward to the questions.

L. Krog: If I may, on the record, offer my compliments to the Attorney General on his elevation to what

is a unique position in our political system, giving him unique responsibilities and, I suggest to him today, opportunities in terms of reforming justice in this province.

I concur with his kindly remarks about his predecessor, Mr. Plant, who enjoyed a very good reputation, although there were certainly two occasions, as I recall, where the Law Society of British Columbia and Canadian Bar Association were not entirely happy with the government's decisions, of which Mr. Plant was part, surrounding the funding of legal aid. It is on that area that I wish to commence my remarks.

In the opening remarks, the Attorney General indicated he was committed to fully restoring public confidence in the justice system. That immediately leads, obviously, to the question of legal aid. The government in 2002 very dramatically cut funding for legal aid in this province. In particular, family law, legal and poverty law services were substantially reduced or, indeed, eliminated. The budget for legal services was slashed by almost 40 percent — some $34 million over three years — and legal aid coverage now is almost entirely available only for criminal law matters.

Although I well appreciate that those who are charged by the state deserve the best defence available to them, there are many in the public whose marriages break down or whose relationships break down and who find it extremely offensive that there is virtually no funding available to assist them in those situations.

As I understand, the LSS — Legal Services Society — received some $55,936,801 in core provincial funding in 2004-2005. My first question is: what amount of core provincial funding will the LSS receive during the 2005-2006 fiscal year?

L. Krog: The government of the day justified those fairly dramatic cuts on the basis of economic realities. I suppose my question to the Attorney General today is: what are the current economic realities that justify keeping the funding for legal aid at such a low figure, in light of the budgetary surpluses?

Hon. W. Oppal: I should point out, first of all, that there has been no reduction in criminal legal aid. That's probably the most vulnerable area of people who come in contact with our court system. That funding has remained constant.

Not only has it remained constant, I should say — and as a member who's a member of the bar knows — that there are additional tensions and additional concerns that have been raised recently in the system by the special funding that has put increasing burdens on criminal legal aid — the Air India trial, the Pickton trial that's coming up. I can tell you that in the Pickton trial we're budgeting approximately $10 million.

We've had Rowbotham applications that were not there in 2000 to the same extent that they're now available in the courts — that is, the Rowbotham orders, where judges order the Attorney General to pay the legal fees. If we don't pay those legal fees of defendants, of accused persons, then the charges are stayed. So we have paid an excessive — quite a large — amount of money there.

I also want to tell you that there is a case going on right here in Victoria. It's a land claims case, Williams et al. v. the province. When the lawyers appeared before the trial judge, he estimated that the trial would last six months. They're now into their fourth year. They're going to finish their evidence next year, they tell the judge. So far we have spent $10 million in legal fees. We're funding both sides. You know, sometimes it's unfair to criticize governments for not funding legal aid when we have funding and moneys of that proportion being expended to lawyers who are involved in these cases.

The question and the concern raised by the member is a good one, though. That is, what about family law? I can say that in the area of family law — including family law services, child protection law, child apprehensions, restraint orders, all of those — there have been no cutbacks. The total amount is $13.73 million. That's the budget that goes towards family law services.

L. Krog: It was fairly clear that even under the former funding provided to the Legal Services Society for legal aid in this province, not everyone who needed legal assistance in the family law side was getting it. In February of this year the ministry announced a $5 million increase in family law legal aid, of which $4.6 million was to go to the LSS, the Legal Services Society, to support existing and new family law programs, which would extend, as I understand it, coverage for only approximately 350 families in the province.

My question to the Attorney General is: does he believe that a mere $5 million increase will be sufficient to provide equal access to justice for British Columbians?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we could always use more money. Having said that, we all have to operate financially within the context of budgets.

The member should know that in this particular area the province has funded 44 duty counsel in the courts. They are of immense benefit to the courts in that they help settlements.

I could give you an example of one particular case that took place in Nanaimo, as a matter of fact — and there are many others like it — where the Legal Aid Society was funding both sides in a family law dispute. The dispute went on for a year — lawyers appearing in court, adjourning cases, coming back, applications, motions, orders, variations of orders, applications. The scenario went on for a year. Finally, the Legal Services Society told them that they had to get their act together, and they cut off their funding. The duty counsel settled the case in one hour.

Duty counsel, who are there to assist all litigants, very often are able to settle these cases before they go

to court. I think I said in my opening remarks that what we have to do, particularly in the family law area, is look at a system that has less acrimony and more accommodation and more opportunity and services for settlement, and that's what we're doing. The task force that rendered its report earlier this year in June made recommendations of that nature, and that is that we ought to move towards a system that is less adversarial and more accommodating to the needs of women and children and all of those people who are caught up in family law situations.

I think you'll find, if you look at what's happening across North America now, that legal aid as we conventionally or traditionally knew it — where lawyers were funded in family law disputes — is being re-examined. Jurisdictions are now looking towards what we're doing in this province, and that is that we're looking to accommodate people to see if we can settle these disputes before they go to court.

For instance, in Vancouver we have opened a self-help centre. The Law Courts Education Society and a number of other NGOs of Vancouver Foundation have a self-help centre where members of the public can go and assist, and they will be helped there. Some legal services are available, where they're pointed towards a direction of a lawyer. That program, which is a pilot project, has been of great help in resolving many of these disputes.

L. Krog: The duty counsel program to which the Attorney General refers was provided in Provincial Court only, and this new $5 million of funding is supposedly to extend that to Supreme Court, which is the only court that can grant divorces in this province.

My question to the Attorney General…. Can he advise: will it apply to all Supreme Court registries? Will it apply to all days when the Supreme Court is sitting in chambers matters? And will it work on the same basis as is in Provincial Court — that is to say, that counsel involved can only assist the parties in settlement, that they cannot appear in court on their behalf and provide assistance to those people who actually have a question that requires litigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: The concern is a valid one. The objective is to move it into Supreme Court. There are some limited number of jurisdictions and registries that now have the duty counsel available at the Supreme Court level. Obviously, with the other self-help centres we are now being involved with — particularly the one that I've made reference to now, which is a pilot project — ultimately, it would be our objective to make duty counsel available in more and more registries.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the Attorney General can advise how many actual registries and, indeed, if there are a very limited number, specify which registries.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll have to get that number for you. I'm just not apprised of that number at the moment.

L. Krog: In response to the February announcement that I referred to earlier of the $5 million increase, the executive director of the Legal Services Society commented to the effect "that the increase won't match the range of services cut in 2002." Indeed, LSS does confirm that many family law clients are falling through the cracks of the justice system. What's the Attorney General's response to these matters?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I can say this to the hon. member. That is, legal aid as he and I first knew it will probably never be returned, in that the trend now is towards what we call a continuum of services. That is, we'll move towards a more accommodative service, a more consultative and less adversarial type of service, and it will involve mediation, alternative dispute resolution, arbitration and independent third parties attempting to resolve disputes. That is our objective, and it appears that it will be the trend towards resolving these types of disputes.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's remarks in this area, but when you have two parties in a marriage breakdown, one of whom is employed and has sufficient income to hire legal counsel, and there is no violence involved in the relationship which would entitle the unemployed party, if you will, in that relationship to obtain legal assistance, what is the Attorney General's view of how justice is served or how that person gets access to the justice system?

Hon. W. Oppal: There are self-help centres. There are law lines. There is other access to legal help that is available. I recognize that the situation, the scenario referred to by the hon. member, is one that is of concern — where one party is represented by a lawyer and another isn't — but there are workers and family justice workers who work in the courts who can assist people. Obviously, there's a judge in the courtroom who has a solemn duty to ensure that both parties are dealt with fairly, regardless of whether one party is represented and the other isn't.

L. Krog: I'm sure the Attorney General is aware that those family justice counsellors, unless things have changed, cannot provide any advice with respect to property division in a marriage breakdown. I'm wondering if the Attorney General or the ministry has any intention of resolving that particular issue.

The advice now offered by those family justice counsellors is, essentially, advice that is only useful in Provincial Court, where the court will deal with the issues of custody of, access to or guardianship of children or spousal or child support.

Hon. W. Oppal: The question of where two parties are in the Supreme Court involved in a dispute over family assets and one is represented and the other isn't, fortunately, happens in extremely, extremely rare occasions. As a matter of fact, during my years on the bench

I've never seen a property dispute where people are fighting over assets where one party is represented and the other isn't. Generally, if there are assets involved, that indicates that there is the wherewithal or some resources available for people to get counsel.

I recognize that if there isn't representation on one side, it is a matter of some concern, but I can tell you that I've never seen a case of that sort.

L. Krog: Can the Attorney General advise what the legal services tax will generate this year by way of income for the provincial government?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's a question that ought to be directed toward the Minister of Finance, because we don't see that money.

L. Krog: I thought that might well be the Attorney General's response. It's very cute and charming, but I'm sure the Attorney General must have some general knowledge of the fact that the legal services tax in this province, charged on all people and all corporations who use legal services, generates more than the budget for the Legal Services Society. Can the Attorney General confirm that?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, the hon. member was there when that tax was imposed, so he might be in a better position to assist us than I am. Having said that, I'm advised that it's almost a wash as to what is provided in direct legal aid funding and what is provided in services towards legal services and access and all the other programs that are available — that it's fairly close. But I'm not in a position to give you the precise figures. As I stated earlier, that is a question best directed at the Minister of Finance.

L. Krog: Is the Attorney General's ministry considering any other substantive reforms that will, in fact, fill the void that I have referred to in previous questions surrounding parties of an equal bargaining power — or people who fall into that horrible position where they are so poor that they don't have the Ministry of Social Services pursuing a maintenance application for them and those who can actually afford counsel?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I can best answer that question by making reference to the federal government's initiative on child support guidelines and spousal support guidelines which will make more certain the outcome, if you will, or the entitlement of parties to spousal maintenance or child support payments. I think that will be of some assistance, in that there will be a greater degree of certainty. Again, that brings us back to an alternative-dispute-resolution type of issue, where parties who are involved in family law disputes would not have to go through, fortunately, the acrimonious and adversarial system that we've historically and conventionally had in this country.

I think that what the justice review working group…. I haven't got the acronym right here. A report that came out in June of this year made a number of recommendations as to how we can accommodate people who are parties to disputes, particularly women and children and people who may otherwise not have the necessary resources. I think that if we look at those types of non-adversarial approaches and solutions, we will not need the same amount of resources that historically we've needed for legal aid in the court system.

What we're really talking about here is resolving disputes without the necessity of going into a courtroom atmosphere that's invariably charged with acrimony. That's really what we're talking about. We have to look at other ways of resolving our disputes.

You know, I grew up in this system, as the hon. member has. We're well familiar with it. We're very comfortable with that system, but if you look at it objectively…. If we're trying to achieve justice and fairness here, what we really need to do is make those people who come into our courtrooms feel comfortable. We want to make the so-called victims of traditional marriages, spouses who have not worked outside the home…. We have to ensure that they're accommodated and that they receive fairness at the end of the day. Those objectives can be achieved by means other than having a fight in a courtroom.

L. Krog: At the same time that the government cut substantially the funding for legal services, which resulted in the substantial cuts on the family law side, there were likewise changes made with respect to the rules of civil procedure around notices of motion, responses, the necessary documents. All of these — certainly to the bar, and I say this to the Attorney General as a member of that practising bar — appeared to make the life of the judges much easier. The judges are very happy in terms of the response — that it seems to have reduced the number of applications.

But from the perspective of those in the public who can't afford counsel, I would suggest to the Attorney General that in fact it has made it much more difficult for unrepresented parties to obtain legal assistance in these matters. So my question to the Attorney General is: will he consider or is any consideration being given to a system of simplified procedure for Supreme Court family law matters?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can tell you that the judges didn't necessarily embrace some of the procedural requirements of what had taken place. But I can tell you this. Rule 65 and rule 68, while they do require some paperwork to be filed, are intended to simplify matters. For instance, rule 68 is almost a summary trial type of procedure where cases involving $100,000 or less have a simplified procedure. An examination for discovery can only be held with leave, and an examination for discovery can only be two hours long. Each party is limited to one expert witness.

The idea is to simplify the procedures. The judicial case management system, the JCC system, has been there, as well, to simplify and to make the system more understandable to the public. I think that in the long run it will serve the lawyers as well.

Most of all, what we're interested in here is seeing that the members of the public, who often feel that the civil justice system is inaccessible by virtue of its complicating matter, complicating elements, complicating qualities, as well as the expense involved, should be accessible to everyone.

L. Krog: My understanding is that the budget for legal services over the next three years is not expected to see any substantial increases. Can the Attorney General confirm that?

Hon. W. Oppal: We work here only one year at a time. We might become Alberta next year.

L. Krog: Well, I certainly hope there's not that much gas in British Columbia, but one never knows.

Again, with respect to the budget cuts to legal services, it's clear that the budget increases in the last few years — and I'm particularly referring to the $5 million — have not been substantive. Can the Attorney General tell us what legal services the LSS, Legal Services Society, will not be able to provide to its clients under the current budget that it was able to provide in 2003-2004?

Hon. W. Oppal: In fact, the Legal Services Society is providing more services now than it did in 2003-2004.

L. Krog: One of the concerns that's been stated by Mr. Cowper, who is the chair of the board of LSS, is: "LSS continues to emphasize innovative and collaborative approaches to serving clients. An ongoing challenge, however, is the need to improve our ability to manage workloads so we can support the full array of client services. This challenge is exacerbated by the need for LSS to regularly obtain stable funding for effective new services." Are there any commitments made by the government to ensure that LSS is going to receive continued stable funding, small as it might be?

Hon. W. Oppal: The intention at this time is to maintain stable funding, as the member states. Obviously, we in this ministry have to live within budgetary constraints. We do not have unlimited resources. But there are always variable factors that are involved. I particularly allude to the federal contribution towards legal aid, which has decreased significantly since 1990. I'll give you some figures here in a minute. I recall reading them a week or so ago. There's been a significant drop in the federal legal aid contribution from 1990 to the present time, and that is a factor we have to consider.

As well, as I mentioned at the outset of my answers to you, the uncertainties that take place when we have mega-trials…. We just finished the Enron case, and there were considerable expenditures towards legal aid defence lawyers in that case. I pointed out the Pickton case, which is scheduled to start in the new year, and $10 million is set aside for that. There's the Air India case. All of those cases of an extraordinary nature create uncertainties as far as budgetary issues are concerned within the ministry.

Having said that, it clearly is our objective to ensure that the Legal Services Society, which performs an invaluable service, has stable and predictable funding. I have met with Mr. Cowper, who is a highly respected counsel, and we will obviously consider what he said.

I'm sorry. I've just been told that the federal contribution from 1990 to the present time has gone from 54 percent to 30 percent, so that is another tension, another issue that the provinces have to face in legal aid funding.

L. Krog: I think I heard him just say that the Legal Services Society funded the Enron case. I assume he meant the Eron Mortgage case. I would ask him to confirm that that is in fact the case, and if so, is it the policy of the government to ensure that in white-collar crime the accused have defence counsel?

Hon. W. Oppal: I stand corrected. Enron was the American white-collar crime case. Ours is Eron.

The Eron funding took place as a result of a court order made under a Rowbotham application. Thus, the ministry was ordered to pay the funding for the defence lawyers.

L. Krog: I have one more question before, if the indulgence of the Chair and the Attorney General would allow, the member for Nelson-Creston asks a few questions, if the opportunity is available for him to do so.

The comments I read out in an earlier question for Mr. Cowper would indicate a staffing shortage at the Legal Services Society. Can the Attorney General comment on any changes in staffing levels at the Legal Services Society since the budget cuts in 2002?

Hon. W. Oppal: The ministry is not privy to the staffing and whatever personnel concerns they have. As the member well knows, the Legal Services Society is an independent society, albeit that it's funded by the Attorney General's ministry. As far as the administration is concerned, we really have nothing to do with it.

I wanted to canvass the question of the polygamous Mormon sect at Bountiful. Before I ask questions, let me say that in a colloquial sense, I think I could be ex-

pressed as part of the problem. I have been MLA off and on for 15 years in the region, and we have not — no government in my time has — managed to figure out exactly how to approach questions of legality and illegality and also social mores in the Bountiful question.

Just in terms of a little bit of history, in the late part of the 1980s there were some charges at Bountiful against some individuals being charged with — or assumed to perhaps have been guilty of — various forms of abuse. During the period of time of the charges, there was sort of a circling-of-the-wagons effect going on at the community of Bountiful, and families were not invited to leave the community and engage in community events. Following the dropping of those charges or the finding that they were not consequential, there seemed to be more interaction between the residents of Bountiful and the community of Creston.

Mental health providers, Girl Guide teachers, police and various people in the Creston area believed that an assimilation policy would work to break down the isolation and the unusual ethics and beliefs at Bountiful. That policy was supported by myself as the MLA at the time, and essentially, it didn't work.

As you know, a breakaway sect was created in the last five years, and instead of assimilation, the tendency amongst some — not all, but some — citizens of Bountiful has been increased isolation. Increasingly, there is a feeling that some form of action by the province is prerequisite.

One more bit of history. In my earlier years as MLA, the province asked the federal government whether charges against polygamy were appropriate. I was advised that there was reticence on the part of the federal government that anybody proceed with a polygamy charge in Canada, because they weren't sure it would sustain a Charter challenge. I'm not a lawyer; I have no opinion on whether that's correct.

However, bringing us to the present time, I would like to be — with the Attorney General and any other ministers of the Crown, and the community, the mayor, the council and everybody — part of the solution as opposed to part of problem. We'll start with what I think is the existing situation. I am informed that there's an investigation going on into activities at Bountiful. First question: does that involve both of the church groups at Bountiful? Second question: who does the investigation report to?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I was in office about three days, and I started receiving a deluge of letters concerning Bountiful. I went on a number of talk shows, and the calls came in about Bountiful. I still get letters, probably 20 letters a week, on Bountiful. I got one whole block from North Vancouver. Everybody in the block wrote to me about Bountiful: what am I going to do about Bountiful? I did interviews from all across the country, practically, and talk shows asking me what I was going to do about Bountiful. Time magazine phoned me about Bountiful. Bountiful is on my radar.

Having said that, there are difficulties in Bountiful. It's been before various Attorneys General for the last 15 years.

I can tell you this. After I assumed office, I looked at the file. There are two opinions from former Court of Appeal judges that express the opinion that the polygamy charge, if it's laid, may not survive the Charter. I don't necessarily agree with that, and I've made my views known. I think I have a contrary view. In any event, I'm more concerned with the allegations of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, because the circumstances that have been made known to me indicate there are young girls involved with significantly older men, and they're in various forms of union and various relationships.

All that has taken me a long time to tell you that after I got here, the Solicitor General, Mr. Les, and I had a meeting with the RCMP, at our instance. I initiated it. We asked for an update. I'm very much concerned with what's happening up there, but we need witnesses. We can't lay charges unless we have witnesses who come forward. On that end, I was interviewed by Daphne Bramham, more than once. She's a columnist for the Vancouver Sun. I told her that yes, the criminal justice branch, which is responsible for laying charges, would lay charges if they found there was sufficient evidence to warrant a prosecution. Again, it comes to the question of: can we get witnesses who will come into a courtroom and testify?

I was told that in previous times, during previous regimes of previous Attorneys General, that was a difficulty — getting people to come into a courtroom to testify. I'm told that that may not be the case now. I underline the word "may," because the RCMP are now investigating. They've reopened the file. The file has been there all the time.

What I can tell the hon. member is this: that there is an investigation that's going on. We haven't had an update on it since probably the end of the summer. I expect very shortly to get some kind of an update as to what type of evidence is available to justify charges of sexual exploitation, sexual assault or even polygamy, but the first two are of greater concern to me than the polygamy. That's only my own view. I've had the same views that you've expressed of it expressed by the MLA from Cranbrook, who's expressed similar concerns.

C. Evans: I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General. I, too, do not wish to be a part of a poorly thought out process. I have friends at Bountiful and don't mind saying so on the record. I have visited their schools. I know Winston Blackmore. I have visited some of the people. I know some of the people who have left or escaped from the situation. The Creston Search and Rescue is partially run by women from Bountiful. There are all kinds of community activities that these people are engaged in which are positive.

However, I, too, think that for starters, the age of consent and the method of consent into any form of

marriage, spiritual or legal, has to be investigated. So my question to the Attorney General is: will he consider a look at the question of the age of consent to see whether or not what are called marriages at Bountiful might be perceived as illegal in another context, and if not, will the minister consider changing the age of consent to make it illegal for older people to commit children under 18 into a marriage?

Hon. W. Oppal: The issue relating to consent is a good one, but I have to tell you that the matter of consent is set out in the Criminal Code, a federal statute. There is no unanimity amongst the provinces as to how and if that definition of consent ought to be dealt with. But there is a meeting next week of Attorneys General, along with the Minister of Justice, and I'm told the issue will be discussed again. Hopefully, something of a satisfactory nature will be resolved.

C. Evans: If there is a meeting of Attorneys General from across Canada next week, then I would ask the Attorney General to go with an eye to attempting to raise the age of consent to 18, except where a neutral person such as a judge or any third-party intervener can ascertain a willingness on the part of the young person that is not imposed by a priest or a family-enforced marriage.

I understand this is difficult, but I don't see any other way. I think that this problem may develop in other provinces, may exist in other provinces, and you will not be alone if you ask Canadian Attorneys General to consider it.

Hon. W. Oppal: I share your concerns, again. Your suggestion, again, is a valid one.

Maybe I'm telling this out of school, but I will say it anyway. I can tell you that the Attorney General from Saskatchewan, who is a member of the NDP party, is opposed to that — changing the law relating to the age of consent. The example that's given is: what happens if a 19-year-old wants to marry a 17-year-old? Then do you have to get a court order? What happens? Is that marriage unlawful by virtue of the age? These are not easy questions to answer. They're not easy issues to address, but having said that, I am grateful for your advice.

C. Evans: You get the other provinces on side; I'll go to Saskatchewan and deal with that person.

By the way, I have every intention of going to Arizona in the course of the next year, and also to Utah. I think it is necessary in order to deal with this cult to deal with it in the various places it springs up so that we don't just create, as we have with Mr. Jeffs in the United States, a movable crime.

I want Bountiful to be part of a stable, in-place community where people can believe anything they want to believe and be married to anybody they want to be married to but live up to the social mores of the country.

Moving on, I want to ask a question about schools and the law. It is my understanding that the law in British Columbia says that if a trustee or a principal running a school, or a person in a position of power, has sex with the people who are under their control — i.e., students — that that is against the law. Is that true?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I don't know if it has anything to do with the School Act or anybody in a school, but where a person is in a position of trust and that person uses that position of trust in order to commit a crime — be it sexual assault, theft or whatever — that clearly becomes an aggravating factor in assessing that crime. So the answer is yes.

C. Evans: The situation we have at Bountiful is that, on more than one occasion, people working at a school either as teachers or as trustees — I'm not sure that trustee is the correct word to use in a private school, but I think the Attorney General gets the gist of what I'm saying: those persons charged with running the institution — have then become married to persons who were students at that school. The marriage is outside the law. It's not sanctified by Canadian law and may, therefore, constitute a crime.

I would like the Attorney General to tell me whether or not he could ask those persons in the RCMP involved in the investigation whether or not that had happened.

Hon. W. Oppal: I can't say. I haven't really seen the evidence yet, and obviously, our prosecutors would have to look at the evidence and determine from that evidence whether or not there is a substantial likelihood of conviction, which is a standard we use in order to determine whether or not charges ought to be laid.

C. Evans: I understand everything the Attorney just said, I think, except it didn't answer the question. All I'm asking is: will you ask those persons involved in the investigation whether there is any truth to the possibility that persons running either of the Mormon schools has used their position of power in an inappropriate way?

Hon. W. Oppal: Under our system, the prosecutors don't direct the police to do specific things. They give legal advice to the police. Unlike the American system, where the prosecutors and the police are out at crime scenes and they work a lot closer together than they work under our system, what happens here is that the police do the investigating, they come back with the evidence, and from that, the prosecutors determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to lay charges.

I would expect that a prosecutor would question the police as to what the nature of the evidence is, the calibre of the evidence, the standard of the evidence, what type of facts they have and who is prepared to testify. All of those are factors I would expect a prose-

The Chair: May I say, member, we will give you one more question on the topic, and I would ask you to re-direct your questions to the estimates, the issue at hand. Thank you.

C. Evans: On the question of the estimates for the year 2005, I wonder if the Attorney General can explain whether or not any of the funds given to him through the vote that we're here to discuss today have been expended looking into the question of whether the authority granted to run private schools in Creston has been used inappropriately to exploit young women?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if I can answer that question on this basis. It's conceivable that someone in the Education Ministry could have asked someone in the Attorney General's ministry that question. I really am unable to say whether or not that has taken place.

C. Evans: That's a perfectly acceptable answer given that these are unusual estimates. Time is compacted. There is not the usual process where an amount of days is available to discuss estimates and a budget. That will all happen in spring, and we can canvass all these questions again, if there are still problems. If I ask a question that the Attorney General doesn't know the answer to, maybe it gives us an opportunity, then, to just look up the answer in the future.

Now, my next question, in terms of estimates for the year 2005, is whether or not any of the money allocated to this year's budget has been used to look into the fairly difficult question around child labour. We in British Columbia have lowered the age at which a child can work to 12 years old. I believe that we did this in order to allow people who ran corner stores or farms to employ their children down to the age of 12. It was intended to be a familial relationship situation. Has any of the budget allocated to the Attorney General this year been allocated to look into the question of whether or not at Bountiful children between the ages of 12 and 16 can now be allocated to go and work without recompense of any kind at businesses owned by a religion instead of by their parents?

Hon. W. Oppal: The question is: are any children in Bountiful being exploited? I can't answer that. I will make inquiries. That's all I can say.

C. Evans: I think I just have two more questions. The first one is…. I want to repeat on the record that I have no desire to see this Attorney General or the RCMP or anybody engage in inappropriate activities at Bountiful, because I fear a circling of the wagons, a breaking down of community relationships, a legal process that leads nowhere.

But I similarly fear doing nothing because of the Attorney General's argument that we can't find evidence. It is true that when religions are involved, it's difficult to find witnesses, because witnessing may be an act against God. It's difficult to find evidence, because offering evidence may be an act against God. In a relationship where there is a cult-like relationship and a patriarchy, a quasi-legal patriarchy, there are people who can instruct citizens not to talk to the Attorney General.

My question to the Attorney General is: is the Attorney General using any part of the 2005 budget allocated to him for this year to work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development; the Ministry of Social Services; the Ministry of Health, especially mental health; the Ministry of Labour — in other words, the other agencies in Creston or available anywhere in British Columbia — to approach this anomaly in a cross-ministerial manner way, way beyond the strict legal questions that have been given to the RCMP?

Hon. W. Oppal: First of all, I think I made it clear — not only this afternoon, but after I was appointed Attorney General — that it's not my intention to do nothing on this file. I've received enough interest from the members of the public that we want to do something — providing, of course, that there is evidence. When I say that, I mean that our lawyers in the ministry can't commence a prosecution unless we have witnesses or unless we have evidence that meets certain standards. We simply can't do that. Otherwise, we would have prosecutions at whim, prosecutions without evidence or witch hunts and all that, and we don't do that. I'm sure that isn't what the hon. member was referring to.

The second part of your question can be answered in this way, and that is that the Attorney General's ministry does give legal advice and has given legal advice in this particular case to other ministries — the ones that you've made reference to. I can assure the hon. member that we are looking at this issue that you have raised regarding Bountiful very seriously from a number of different angles that I've referred to.

C. Evans: We're at some risk here because the Attorney General's question kind of leads to another question, and I might not finish as fast as I….

C. Evans: That's a great answer. Historically, we have failed, and I say "we" because the government that I was part of certainly didn't solve this problem. I think we have failed because there is no lead ministry. The Attorney General is quite right when he says that the RCMP don't answer directly to him. This isn't the American system. What we wind up with is the absence of anybody who is central and accountable to report resolution.

My question is: if the Attorney General is working with other ministries, is there a lead minister or ministry charged with the Bountiful file?

Hon. W. Oppal: I thought I made it clear that we are the lead ministry. We're accountable here. I made that fairly clear from the time that I was appointed Attorney General. I said that we would re-examine the whole issue regarding Bountiful, and I then commenced a meeting, together with the Solicitor General. We met with the RCMP, and that's what got the investigation going. So we're taking the lead on it. I can tell you that.

C. Evans: Great. Then this is my last question, hon. Chair. I would like to canvass the question of how I can be helpful. To the Attorney General, since you are the lead minister…. Reporters, citizens, other church groups, municipal councillors, television stations and sometimes Americans phone me up and say: "What's your position on this and that?" Like the Attorney General, I am not sure. I do not wish to create hysteria, and I don't even know if I'm allowed to go to Creston and talk to the RCMP about it, as the MLA, or if that is an inappropriate activity for a citizen.

Could the Attorney General instruct me on how I might assist both his government and his employees to advance this file?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not so sure I should be giving you legal advice. I know it's free; it's worth that too, isn't it?

Hon. W. Oppal: Oh, I know that. I work for everybody here. I'm grateful for your offer of support, and I would ask the hon. member to meet with the deputy minister. I'm sure your assistance will be greatly appreciated. The member should know that as a citizen he has the same rights and obligations as every other citizen, so he's not precluded from assisting the police, the investigation or the Crown.

L. Krog: Referring to the September budget update, Ministry of the Attorney General service plan, and in particular page 7…. Referring to the section entitled "Justice services", which continues over to page 9, the restated estimates for 2004-2005 were some $84,593,000. The estimates for 2005-2006 are some $91,181,000. I do note the plan as set out for 2006-2007, 2007-2008 would indicate some modest increases.

The $5 million announced earlier with respect to the increase to $61.5 million, which was discussed in early questioning…. I'm just wondering, can the Attorney General explain the difference between the two budgetary amounts of last year and this year's estimates, which is approximately $6.5 million?

Hon. W. Oppal: The difference is reflected in the $4.6 million that was added to the budget this year for family law. There is some additional money for criminal legal aid that was put in there, so that was increased, as well.

L. Krog: I take it that the service plan does not include any substantive increases, then, for legal-services expenditure increases? Is that fair to say, in light of the numbers quoted?

L. Krog: Is it fair to say that the Attorney General is not anticipating funding legal aid to the extent that it was prior to the 2002 budget cuts?

Hon. W. Oppal: Not this year, but we're in an evolving ministry here with objectives that often change, and our goals and objectives have to be considered in context with the economy and the state of the provincial treasury.

All of those factors are relevant. I can tell the member that those are, obviously, matters of concern to us.

L. Krog: In the service plan, reference is made on the top of page 8 to the child protection mediation program. Can the Attorney General outline what that program involves and how much money is expended on it?

Hon. W. Oppal: In certain child protection cases, we provide the funding for mediators for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

L. Krog: Can the Attorney General advise what amount of his budget is directed towards that?

L. Krog: I'm tempted to misquote C.D. Howe, who never actually said it, but: "What's a million?"

The family justice dispute resolution program. Can the Attorney General advise how much is expended on that annually, how many people it services and how many people work in that particular area of the ministry?

Hon. W. Oppal: The funding for that program is approximately $10 million. There are approximately 100 persons who are employed in that program. Last year it served 50,000 people.

L. Krog: Can the Attorney General advise how the number 50,000, in terms of people served, relates to the number of cases filed in the family law area?

Hon. W. Oppal: We know that there are approximately 26,000 family cases filed in both the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court. Taking that figure into consideration, that's where the 50,000 figure would come in, I would assume.

L. Krog: Do the 26,000 cases filed include those filed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development with respect to apprehensions as well?

L. Krog: The next obvious question is: how many of those cases are filed annually? Can the Attorney General answer that? In other words, I'm looking to determine how many family law cases are filed in British Columbia annually, excluding those filed by government on behalf of individuals, as well as — let me be clear — on behalf of the Ministry of Children and Families in terms of apprehension cases, and also excluding those cases filed by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance — through their offices, I believe — when they're seeking child support or spousal support on behalf of parties who are in receipt of assistance.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to provide those figures. There is a fair amount of detail there. But I will be able to give you a breakdown in due course.

L. Krog: The reason I raise that is that I want to ask the Attorney General whether he's satisfied that the family justice dispute resolution program is, in fact, working. What are the guidelines? What are the goals of it? I'm not a statistician, but are there things against which you are measuring the performance?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes. The answer is yes. I am satisfied. You know, we can always do better. But this was exactly what I was speaking of earlier, when I said that the emphasis in the ministry and, indeed, in family law across the country now is alternative dispute resolution, as opposed to the adversarial system that historically we have used in this country to resolve family law disputes.

The dispute resolution program offers families who are undergoing divorce or separation various types of advice involving access and custody and spousal support and child support — all of those matters we would like to see settled outside the conventional court system. The reasons for that are fairly obvious. That is, not only is it more expeditious and economical to do it that way, but also, from the perspective of relationships in the long term, our experience tells us that if we're able to settle disputes in an amicable way as opposed to in an acrimonious manner, then it's in the best interests of the families, particularly when we have children involved.

What I'm looking for now is a very expansive answer — and I want the Attorney General to take full advantage of this moment — in terms of this program. One of the problems in family law is often that people do not get access to legal advice or access to people to assist them in the early stages of disputes. Those disputes often go off the rails, so to speak, and become much worse than they otherwise would.

I'm looking to the Attorney General now to advise how the system works. Are there statistics kept on the time from which one would approach the family justice counselling office and receive service? In other words, can you give a more expansive view of how the program is working, what sort of feedback the Attorney General is receiving? Are there surveys done to determine the satisfaction of people who have used the service? Those kinds of issues.

Hon. W. Oppal: There are a number of these programs that are available, and I spoke about them at the outset during my opening remarks. There's a parenting-after-separation program that Law Courts Education does. I was a president of Law Courts Education Society when we started that program. What that program involves are counsellors, along with a judge, who will go and meet with the people in the evening — people who are about to separate. They don't give you legal advice as such, but they put you through and give you an outline, and they tell you about the system. It provides information to parents about the impact of separation on children and a range of dispute resolution options. Services are available. They have a three-hour session the first time.

There are 19 locations in this province that provide such a service. In ten of the largest provincial court registries, attending a parenting-after-separation program is mandatory prior to most contested matters being heard before a judge. That parenting-after-separation program has been the subject of many accolades. People at Law Courts Education Society, since I left, have been carrying on with that, and I have been advised by them that this is a very successful program. They have a child custody and access assessment program. Again, that provides parents with all the ramifications and effects of custody assessments.

I referred earlier to the self-help centre that the Law Courts Education Society, as well as, I think, the Vancouver Foundation and this ministry fund. That's a pilot project that has an immense amount of success. It opened at the end of June last year — the formal opening, June 30. I was there for the opening, but Madam Justice McLaughlin, Chief Justice of Canada, visited it last Friday. I'm told she was very, very impressed by the workings of it. She expressed the opinion that this looks like the wave of the future as to how we want to amicably resolve disputes between parents, particularly where there are children involved.

You should also know that rule five of the Provincial Court rules requires that parties who file applications under the Family Relations Act for custody, access and guardianship are required to meet separately with a family justice counsellor before they appear in court. Again, that's done so that people know what the issues are — about the emotional, the financial impact of going through a divorce, separation and custody dispute.

There was an evaluation of rule five in 2002, and it found that rule five diverted a significant number of

matters away from the court system. It ended in the form of resolution. As well, there is a federally funded justice reform project. There is a supervised access and exchange program, dispute resolution program. There's a comprehensive child support services program where in each family registry a child support officer will assist the parents to understand and negotiate the terms of child support payments so they can resolve that before they go to court.

There's a child support recalculation service project, and that commenced in September of this year. That was a pilot project based on changes in income where there's a variation application. Again, you try to head off applications that come into court by sort of telling people what's required in applications.

Those are some of the programs that I say are more of an accommodative nature. They're less acrimonious than our conventional court system and less adversarial. At the end of the day the objective is to resolve disputes in the best interests of everybody concerned.

L. Krog: Again, to the Attorney General: what I was looking for were some answers around, if you will, the measure of the success of these programs. Are statistics kept about how long it takes to get to a family justice dispute resolution program? What's the response? What's the feedback from the public? Is it happening quickly? Are we talking days or weeks? In other words, I'm looking for some fairly specific information. Also, to further the question, is this kind of information or statistics actually kept by the Attorney General's ministry?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can tell you that in 2004 the dispute resolution program operated with 13,000 clients, as they say, responsible for over 7,000 children. Now, I'm advised, and I know this may not help the member, that there is little delay in most of these programs because of the informal nature of the dispute resolution programs. So you don't have the same type of wait periods that you may have in trials. Having said that, many of these programs have been so successful that in the Supreme Court now on a family case, one can get a trial date fairly early, particularly in Vancouver where the case load has actually been decreasing because of these alternative programs — the mediation, the alternative dispute resolutions and all of those programs. So over all, it's my view that this is a route that we have to go as we look towards the future.

L. Krog: Again, to the Attorney General. The Provincial Court saw substantial increase after the introduction of Rule 65, and that's certainly my understanding and having some acquaintances on the Provincial Court bench. My impression is that a number of these remedial programs, if you will, were designed to help alleviate the significant burden that shifted from Supreme Court to Provincial Court in family law proceedings.

That being said, when I hear the Attorney General talk about the ease with which one can get a trial time in Vancouver, again I come back to a concern I have raised in earlier questions. That is that parties are now ending up in Provincial Court, dealing with a limited number of the issues. They cannot get a divorce there. They cannot solve their property law issues, and indeed, obviously and quite appropriately, staff are not in a position to provide legal advice around the issue of property division or divorce.

That's why I asked the very specific questions about the timeliness of this program, because it seems to me that you're solving part of the problem. I have no sense from the Attorney General's answers today that the ministry can tell me whether this program is seen as successful, whether they had any goals or measures to do it, whether there are any statistics kept to assist the public in understanding whether or not their goals have been met. I can't say that I'm satisfied that the public is better served by driving people out of Supreme Court to get half their problems solved in Provincial Court.

So again, I come back to it. Can the Attorney General tell me: are there any statistics kept? Were there goals set out? I think the Attorney General understands my rather poorly worded question.

Hon. W. Oppal: It's difficult because most of these programs are in their infancy stage. They're innovative programs. They're programs of recent vintage, and we haven't really had the opportunity to get any kind of reliable empirical evidence. But we do know that there is less work going into the Supreme Court. We do know that more and more people are resolving their disputes by going to these alternative methods. We do know that there is less court time spent. So we know all of that is taking place.

We know, for instance, that the self-help centre in Vancouver at 800 Hornby that opened last June has had a tremendous increase in the number of people that are using it. But it's difficult to come up with numbers on an empirical basis at an early stage.

As far as the issue raised by the member of going to two different courts to receive two different types of remedy, that is a matter of concern, and that's been raised often. Should we have a unified family court that is there to resolve all disputes involving families? Or should we have the present system where the Provincial Court is there, accessible to most people, and have the Supreme Court there to determine the more complex issues, such as property settlements and fights over corporations and shares and all the rest of the family asset disputes?

One of the recommendations of the family law group was that there be a unified family court. I'm sure the hon. member knows there is a Unified Family Court in Ontario. It's in about 15 jurisdictions, but it hasn't expanded since the 1970s. Most jurisdictions in Canada have concluded that it's better to have the two courts. I must say that I'm of that view. That doesn't

The reason for that is the Provincial Court's family court is accessible to so many people. You don't have to go to the Supreme Court, where the environment and often the procedures are much more complex. People can walk into the Provincial Court. There are more provincial courts in the province — more registries. If we're interested in access, then I think we're better served as a society if we leave our present system intact with the two courts.

Now, I recognize that there is somewhat of a difficulty if parties have property disputes to settle. Then, of course, you have to go to the Supreme Court. But I think we're on the right track.

As to the concern raised by the member that he doesn't know how successful these programs are, I can only tell you that the people that are using them seem to be happy. There are more and more people using them, and I think maybe that's proof or an indication that they are working well.

The Supreme Court list, I know from talking to judges in Vancouver, is more manageable, and there are not the delays. I can tell you that having recently been in the Court of Appeal, you can get a hearing date in the Court of Appeal in four to five months. We could provide dates that quickly because there are fewer cases going through the federal courts.

Having said that, there are more cases going through the Provincial Court, and as you know, we've increased the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court to $25,000. That's done with a view to access, so people can have access. People can go into the Small Claims Court without the necessity of a lawyer. Again, disputes are resolved in a more expeditious manner and with greater accessibility for everybody.

L. Krog: I want to shift gears briefly for a minute, if I might. The Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre — which operates, obviously, in Nanaimo — works with both men and women, but mainly men. It has had discussions with the government previously, I understand.

One of the concerns they have is that the government funds the family maintenance enforcement program, which enforces Supreme and Provincial Court orders relating to the payment of spousal and child support. However, in custody disputes in this province there are often custody and access orders made. I can say from my own experience that it is difficult to enforce them on occasions, and judges are obviously reluctant to use their powers to punish for contempt when parties are denied access. I'm wondering if the Attorney General has any plans with respect to a mechanism to assist people in the enforcement of custody and access orders.

Hon. W. Oppal: I met, for the first time last week, two of the principals of the Nanaimo Resource Centre. I have to tell you that prior to their meeting I didn't really know what they were doing. They left me with a significant amount of material.

In our 40-minute meeting they told me of their objectives and their concerns. Their concern is particularly that access orders are often disobeyed or not complied with and that men in those situations very often are not dealt with fairly and do not receive equal treatment. That was their concern.

I told them that I would take into consideration what they said. I told them we would get back to them. It may well be that they'll come back and see us. It was my first meeting with them last week. I learned what their concerns are, and we'll have to address them.

It's premature for me to give any kind of agreement or undertaking as to whether or not the government will assist them. They need approximately $100,000 for the establishment of a self-help centre for men. They advise me that their position is that while there are transition houses for women who are the victims of spousal assault, there are no similar transition houses for men who may be in a similar situation. Again, I listened to them and told them I would consider their request.

L. Krog: The reaction of the Legal Services Society to the significant cuts that the government made in 2002 resulted in the closing of poverty law centres across the province. I can advise the Attorney General that I was the president of the board of the Nanaimo Community Assistance Society for a number of years through the '80s. It provided a significant range of services to those people who were either not eligible for legal aid or who had problems that fell outside the ambit of legal aid and their jurisdiction.

What is increasingly apparent to me and those of us who live in Nanaimo is that there are a significant number of individuals who are either homeless or close to homeless and who suffer from some form of mental illness, often associated with the results of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder — a whole host of problems often coupled with drug addiction, all of those issues. These are people — and I think the Attorney General understands this very well — who literally are often unable to help themselves, for whom the suggestion of going to a website is as ridiculous as suggesting they take a flying leap at the moon. These are people who formerly would have been served by poverty law offices, who, when they were turned down on their social assistance applications or denied unemployment insurance — if they were lucky enough to be somewhat further up the social scale, having lost a job — would have had some assistance.

That is a very serious social problem in my community. It's a problem that exists across this province. Can the Attorney General tell us if there are any plans to provide specific forms of assistance that would replace those services that were lost as a result of the elimination of the poverty law centres?

Hon. W. Oppal: This government undertook a core review regarding legal services. It was discovered that there were some 45 offices that could be called poverty

law. There were directors. There were five different types. There were 45 offices: 14 native community law offices, 12 community law offices, 14 area directors and seven regional centres. They operated, roughly, in a three-tier system.

The core review that took place indicated that many of the services were overlapping and repetitive and redundant. That's what the core review found. The core review found that for financial reasons, for efficiency reasons, it would be better to consolidate some of the offices and work towards a more consolidated model.

The Legal Services Society responded to these funding reductions by reassessing the idea of legal aid and devising a sort of more efficient delivery program involving the various offices. I cannot dispute the statements made by the hon. member that there may be some people who may not have the same level of service they had before. Having said that, overall, I think the services are provided in a more efficient manner and probably reach more people. They're provided in a more streamlined fashion, and furthermore, there is more communication between the offices.

That communication did not always exist when they had the 45 different offices. Now we have seven regional centres, and there is more communication amongst the offices. Having said that, the government is always amenable to newer ideas and to suggestions, and we're open to re-examining how we do business.

I have always said that as far as I'm concerned, access is a major issue. In any democracy, it is fundamental that everybody have access to their rights. If we can be shown there is another way that poor people can have better access to justice, then, obviously, that is something that we would be prepared to listen to. We'd entertain any ideas that anybody would have with respect to access, in that fashion.

L. Krog: The city of Nanaimo has approximately 80,000 citizens now. We had a community law office. We have a significant population.

The kind of people I described in my earlier question are people who will probably not have a car, they will not have a transit pass, and they will not be able to go to Victoria or hop on a ferry to Vancouver. They will not be able to access any of these regional centres that the Attorney General talks about.

The reality is: these are the forgotten people who sleep on our streets. The Attorney General is well familiar with that wonderful quote: "The law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to steal bread, to beg in the streets and to sleep under bridges." But that is the state of many of the citizens of this province. As a result of those cutbacks, if they go in and apply for assistance and they don't meet the test, they have virtually no one to assist them in the appeal process. There is no body or entity in Nanaimo.

If the Attorney General can tell me today in this chamber what agency exists in the city of Nanaimo to assist people with social assistance appeals, as an example, I will be delighted to hear his answer.

Hon. W. Oppal: The member has raised a larger question, and that is a larger question of poverty and homelessness that exists in our society and, in fact, exists all across this country. That's a larger social issue. I recognize that, and I accept what the hon. member has said and the concerns he has raised.

Having said that, the offices that are there now, the self-help centres, do not require any degree of sophistication. There are people there to assist them, and as long as a person is able to go there…. I mean, if a person was able to attend a community law office prior to the closure of that particular office in Nanaimo, surely a person could go to a similar type of office that may exist in any given community. There is help provided.

For instance, in the self-help centre in Vancouver that I made reference to, the one on Hornby Street, there are people there to assist people, people with different language skills, people who are there to serve the multicultural community.

There are a sufficient number of people there who are there to assist people to appear before various tribunals. If the person is charged with a criminal offence, then there is duty counsel available. There are interpreters in the courts. There is legal aid available for criminal cases. Those services are still available. That's all I can say about the issue that you've raised.

L. Krog: Can the Attorney General advise what regional centres he's talking about? Where are they? Are there any available on Vancouver Island? I think if the Attorney General can give me an answer, he may well get the point of my question respecting this matter.

Hon. W. Oppal: I can't tell you if there are any available in Nanaimo, but I can tell you the self-help centre in Vancouver that I've already referred to is a pilot project, and there's every indication that when the assessment comes due in January, it will be renewed.

As I stated at the outset, these are in their infancy stages, and we're moving towards these self-help models. There are law lines and legal law lines that are available to people. As well, there are legal aid offices or lawyers that are doing pro bono work that can help people in those circumstances.

L. Krog: By virtue of the answer given, the Attorney General has confirmed that in fact he is unaware of any facilities available in the city of Nanaimo, which is a major centre on Vancouver Island. I would suggest to him that there are other major centres in this province and large geographic areas in which the poor exist in which there are no facilities.

This government has made it more difficult to get social assistance in this province. There is a three-week waiting period. I would suggest to the hon. Attorney General that when people apply for social assistance, they don't go there because they are living in fat city;

they go there because they are down to the last they have to survive on. When they go in and apply and are deemed ineligible and don't have someone to assist them with an appeal…. I want to ask the Attorney General: where does the Attorney General think those people go?

Hon. W. Oppal: Again, I'm not familiar with your particular circumstances in Nanaimo, but there are community law advocates throughout the whole of the province. I just spoke to an office of one in Hazelton, where a woman has been running a similar type of law office. There are advocates available throughout the province.

Again, I defer to the member as far as the circumstances of Nanaimo are concerned, but there are those types of services that are available throughout the province, and there are, thankfully, lawyers available who do work on a pro bono basis, lawyers who are often well rewarded in other parts of their practice. The bar associations have stepped up and taken care of a lot of the void that was left. The objective now is to move towards alternative forms, and that's where we're going now.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, we have eliminated but have not gone to alternate forms. We have essentially taken away programs that were formerly available to assist the poorest of the poor in our society. The Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia, SPARC, with the support of the Law Foundation of B.C., recently undertook a study of poverty law in the province. Its report says: "Options for poverty law assistance in B.C. are now scarce, fragmented and dramatically underfunded."

So my question to the Attorney General is: what is going to be the response of his ministry to those issues raised in the SPARC report?

Hon. W. Oppal: I haven't read the SPARC report. I'm not familiar with it. I defer to the member as far as the contents of the report are concerned, but I think I've already answered some of the concerns.

I do have a list of various poverty and welfare advocates. For instance, in south Fraser there's Newton Advocacy Group Society. In Simon Fraser region, the Ridge Meadows Women's Centre and the Western Region Advocacy Group. In the Fraser Valley there's a Helping Hands Against Poverty in Chilliwack. In Vancouver there's the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, Advocacy Office at St. Paul's Anglican Church, The Kettle Friendship Society, Vancouver Mental Patients Association, mental help advocacy group, Richmond Women's Resource Centre, and End Legislative Poverty. In mid-Vancouver Island, Port Alberni Women's Resource Society, Society of Organized Services of Parksville, Nanaimo Citizen Advocacy, Doug Trail Memorial Law Centre and the Nanaimo Women's Resources Society are some of the resources that are available. AIDS Vancouver Island in Nanaimo provides general advocacy services for persons who suffer from any or all of the following conditions: hepatitis C, HIV, mental illness.

So there is not a complete lack of services. There are those types of services that are available.

L. Krog: Again, to refer to the SPARC report, which describes these resources as "scarce, fragmented and dramatically underfunded," I can advise the Attorney General that the Doug Trail Memorial Law Centre no longer exists. It was the community law office in our community; it was the poverty law centre.

With respect to Citizen Advocacy, they are overburdened. I have visited and met with them. I attended their annual general meeting, I can advise the Attorney General. These are organizations that were not set up, and it is not their mandate, to assist in these kinds of cases. That is the point I'm trying to make about the funding for legal services and why I'm trying to drive this point home to the Attorney General.

As a member of a government that is sitting on a $1.3 billion surplus in a province that is enjoying, we're told, the start of a wonderfully golden decade…. In fact, the poorest of the poor in our society do not have access to the most basic of justice, and that is the ability to access government services and, if those services are denied them, to have the right to have some assistance with an appeal.

A study by the West Coast LEAF — Legal Education Action Fund — documents the proportionately negative impact of funding cuts to poverty services and family legal aid. What that study showed is that those services are accessed primarily by women, that women have been losing custody and financial support and have been subjected to litigation and funding cuts.

There are some women's centres left in this province. I happen to sit on the Finance Committee and have heard the plaintive cries of the women's centre in Kamloops, which is operating on something well below what it used to operate on. It can barely provide assistance. It is the story across this province that a number of these centres, women's centres, are now surviving on shoestrings. The centre in Nanaimo resorted to a car wash, I think, the other day to try and keep its door open.

I want to know what the Attorney General's response is to addressing the assault on women in this province in terms of the ability to access legal services that they used to formerly, at least, get some assistance with through women's centres. There is no question — and I think your officials will confirm it, if the Attorney General cares to confer with them — that the majority of people who applied for and sought and received legal aid in this province were in fact women. So I want to know what the response of the government is with respect to the cuts to women's centres that have also had an impact on the ability to obtain legal services.

Hon. W. Oppal: The women's issues that you're dealing with, or the member speaks of, I assume are

women who need assistance in family law matters. I can tell you that the ministry spent an additional $25 million on family law services that are outside the scope of the traditional legal aid system that the member refers to and wishes would be restored. But you know, for the first time in this province's history, we have duty counsel that are there to assist people who are in need.

There's no question that some of the historical and traditional legal aid programs for people with family law problems, women in particular, were reduced, but I'll give you an example of what happened in some of those programs. There's a case out of Nanaimo, as a matter of fact, where legal aid lawyers were acting for a man and a woman in a family law dispute. The case went on and on — motions and various things — for a year until, finally, the Legal Services Society reduced or cut off the funding. The duty counsel settled it in an hour. That's happening more and more where we have duty counsel who can accommodate the justice needs of people.

I don't know if we as a society can historically keep funding legal aid the way we could, the way we did. I don't know if we can keep funding lawyers to the tune of $10 million, like we are in the aboriginal land claims case right now. I don't know if we can set aside $10 million for the defence lawyers on Pickton. That's a system that we had, where the Legal Services Society and government endlessly funded lawyers in a system that really featured lawyers putting in their bills and having them paid. I think that with resources the way they are, we have to re-examine our system and come up with more innovative ways of access to justice.

L. Krog: In 2002 the Attorney General announced that the province would end legal aid funding for immigrant and refugee cases by March of 2003, and in February 2005 the ministry announced it is committed to continuing funding for immigration legal aid services. That funding, I understand, remains constant at $1.7 million. Can the Attorney General confirm that?

L. Krog: Is it the ministry's intention to continue to fund these kinds of cases over the term of this government? Is it part of the service plan?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to say what will happen in the future, but certainly the immediate intention is to fund them. If they are in the current budget, they'll be funded.

L. Krog: Again, my question is: is it part of the service plan which stretches the time line out to 2007-2008?

Hon. W. Oppal: Clearly, those items and objectives that are in the service plan will be addressed, but at a future date. As to the long-term future, I can't say, but if it's in the service plan, obviously it will be addressed.

L. Krog: There is a challenge instituted by the Canadian Bar Association in Supreme Court alleging that delivery of civil legal aid in the province, specifically in family, poverty and immigration law does not comply with the government's obligation under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or international human rights law. The president of the CBA has noted that B.C. now has one of the lowest levels of legal aid funding in Canada. My question is: how has the minister responded to this litigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: First of all, we're not the lowest. We're the second or the third highest, depending on the numbers that you accept. I'm not going to really comment too much on what the president of the CBA said. I was there when she said that. Of course, they are suing us, so I can't comment on the lawsuit or the merits of the lawsuit, but I can say this: the Canadian Bar Association's idea of legal aid is more money for the lawyers, and they give very little credit or no credit at all to the self-help centres and the alternative methods that this government and other governments across the country are now funding and creating. Their lawsuit is based upon the traditional and historical way of funding legal aid or access — that is, by funding lawyers.

L. Krog: Given that earlier the Attorney General basically confirmed — in his lack of answers around the issue of community law offices around the province — that obviously, the system is fragmented, doesn't he have some concerns that the CBA has chosen British Columbia as the venue for this lawsuit?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can't say anything. I can tell you this: there's a defence to the lawsuit. The defence has been filed, and it hasn't been heard.

L. Krog: The Attorney General in an earlier answer took some entirely well-deserved and appropriate pleasure in reminding me that I was around as a member of this Legislature when the social services tax on legal services was introduced.

L. Krog: I accept my part of the blame in these circumstances. That tax was introduced initially to fund legal aid. That was the purpose for which it was designed. Those were statements based on the then Minister of Finance's remarks in the House. The tax, as I understand it, is generating now roughly twice what the government provides for yearly legal aid funding.

Legal services are the only professional services in British Columbia subject to provincial sales tax. It strikes me that if one requires the services of a chartered accountant, they obviously have enough income to require the services of a chartered accountant. If one requires the services of an architect to build their

house, clearly they have more money than the average person on the street. If they require the services of a professional engineer, likewise they are probably in a better financial position than many people.

When one requires the services of a lawyer, often it simply means that you have been charged with a crime and require services whether or not you're guilty. You have been the victim of someone's negligence, whether it's a motor vehicle accident or a slip and fall in a store. If your marriage falls apart because your spouse leaves you and you have to hire a lawyer to protect your rights, you, again, may or may not be in a financial position to pay for legal services.

My question to the Attorney General is: does he think it's appropriate that the government continues to tax legal services and not other professional services?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't want to appear to be evasive, but that really is part and parcel of the lawsuit that's before the courts. Those are the allegations, and that really is the substance of the lawsuit that the Canadian Bar Association has commenced against the province and against a number of other provinces. As the hon. member knows, every province but Ontario and Alberta has a similar tax on legal services.

L. Krog: With respect to the Attorney General's comments, I'm wondering if I, in my questions, have misled the Attorney General. I'm not talking about the CBA case. I'm not talking about the case with respect to the social services.

I'm talking about the case with respect to social services tax, not about the case with respect to the provision of legal services breaching the charter. Are they, in fact, not two separate cases?

Hon. W. Oppal: I should have made myself more clear. You're not referring to the CBA case at this time, but you are referring to the case involving Dugald Christie. That's the issue he's raised. The matter is before the Court of Appeal, and the Court of Appeal reserved on that.

L. Krog: That case — the B.C. Supreme Court Madam Justice Koenigsberg ruled that the legal services tax is unconstitutional as it pertains to low-income people. That's the Dugald Christie case. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can comment on his reaction to some of her remarks, which included that "…from the evidence adduced…buttressed by common knowledge in the courts, that legal aid is no longer widely available…to all litigants except those charged with criminal offences." What is the Attorney General's response to her comments?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the highest respect for Madam Justice Koenigsberg, having worked with her for many years — stellar jurist, well-experienced in the law. But I'm not going to comment on the remarks that she made in the judgment. It's clearly the subject of an appeal, and the Court of Appeal, having heard the appeal, reserved judgment on the case.

L. Krog: Would the Attorney General agree that the application of a tax only to legal services, not to other professional services, is in fact discriminatory?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position to concede that, nor would I concede it. Again, as the member knows, that is perilously close to…. In fact, that's the argument that the Canadian Bar is going to make.

L. Krog: The administrative justice office's work encompasses all the independent decision-making tribunals. It works more closely with some tribunals than others. It works through the Circle of Chairs, a forum for communal chairs. Administrative tribunals are established by legislation. Each tribunal is governed by its own specific statute.

The Administrative Tribunals Act also applies to most B.C. tribunals. The government introduced that in 2004 to create this new and comprehensive set of standards and practices for B.C.'s administrative tribunals.

According to the website, the ATA uses an innovative approach to provide reform such as standardized powers for this wide variety of tribunals, adopted through their own enabling legislation. The ATA modernizes British Columbia's administrative justice tribunal by its consistent powers and procedures for fair, efficient and publicly accountable tribunal processes.

Can the Attorney General tell us how much the ministry has actually spent on the transition to the ATA system?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's a difficult question to answer because each of the individual ministries whose concerns and whose issues are addressed in each one of the tribunals would be responsible for the costing of the administrative tribunal that pertains to that particular ministry.

L. Krog: My understanding is that some of the current powers of these tribunals are outdated, unworkable. Some have resulted in lengthy and costly litigation. Some are too heavy-handed, not strong enough for the purposes. The act addresses these inconsistencies and is supposed to ensure that the administrative justice system will operate fairly and effectively.

What powers do they have and what was the minister referring to when he made those comments? Those were the comments of the then Attorney General I've just outlined. What powers was the minister referring to, and how has the ATA system addressed those issues?

Hon. W. Oppal: First of all, that's a good question. It's a very valid concern. Those of us who have worked in the justice system have always been concerned about administrative tribunals, the WCB, the Securities Commission and various other independent commis-

sions that are out there who adjudicate regularly on people's rights. I spoke, as a matter of fact, last Monday morning, a week ago, in Richmond at the annual general meeting of the administrative tribunals association — 200 people in the room. I said that while they are an alternative form of justice, they are really the recipients of an off-loading that has taken place in the last 25 years in our system.

The greatest concern I have is whether or not they always meet the rules of procedural fairness — for instance, in the structure of the Securities Commission, where you have a very close link between the adjudicative branch and the investigative branch, and the question of whether or not there's fairness achieved there, or the appearance of fairness, I should say. Those are always matters of concern.

There are different issues, of course, that are relevant to different institutions. I can tell you that the administrative justice reform and innovation program in the registry has assisted in the development of reform and the development of the formulation of policies and procedures in ADRs. Case management processes have now been established for 30 different quasi-judicial tribunals. The ministry has provided some model documents and other supports to assist in implementing new powers. The administrative justice office is active in ensuring that the individual tribunals that operate within our justice system operate fairly.

You see, what's happened is, as the hon. member well knows, that in order to achieve the objective of ensuring that people get speedy justice without the necessity of going through the procedural issues that are inherent in the court system, we have given tribunals the powers to govern themselves. When we do that, sometimes it may result in unfairness. That's always a matter of concern, and that's a challenge. It's a challenge that we in government and everybody else who is in public service or in the various professions have to concern themselves with.

L. Krog: The website states that the ATA modernizes British Columbia's ministry of justice system by its consistent powers and procedures for fair, efficient and publicly accountable tribunal processes. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can advise: in what ways is the ATA system more fair, efficient and publicly accountable than the pre-ATA tribunal system?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's difficult for me to give you a blanket, one-size-fits-all answer, except that I can say this: new legislation that was enacted in 2004 implemented a number of recommendations that came out of an administrative justice project that was initiated in 2001 under my predecessor, Attorney General Plant. The new legislation that was enacted brought in a number of reforms — including merit-based, fixed-term appointments — to ensure a high quality of independent decision-making, comprehensive and clear statutory powers and obligations to enhance transparency, openness and public access to the various tribunals. The legislation in 2004 also brought in some clear legislative direction on the contentious and time-consuming legal issues: constitutional jurisdiction and the standard of review. There's another area we've examined.

L. Krog: I was going to say thank you so much, hon. Chair. I'm delighted by the elevation, but I'll step back from that heavy burden and make the minister continue to answer the questions.

With respect, the government indeed has emphasized the importance and effectiveness of these administrative tribunals. They "serve as a valuable alternative to the courts, resolving disputes in a manner that is less formal, more efficient and timely and brings specialized expertise for high-quality, impartial decision-making." In light of that, in this self-advertisement, I have to ask then: why did the government abolish the tribunal division, the Children's Commission, which heard complaints of the Children's Commission Act in relation to children's services?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not going to answer that — not to be evasive, but it's not a question that ought to be directed here. But I can tell you this: as the member obviously knows, there was a core review done in 2001. As a result of that core review, the various reforms were implemented. This is not a matter for this ministry, so I'm not going to answer that.

There's another concern I have at this stage, and that is: that's exactly what the various committees, which have now been established, have reviewed and are going to recommend to government.

L. Krog: Early in this government's previous mandate it announced its plan to close 24 full-time, staffed courthouses, many of which were located in northern and interior communities and which included the courthouse in Parksville, part of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville's riding now. Those courthouses represented approximately a third of the 68 staffed Provincial Court registries and approximately one-quarter of the total number of Provincial Court locations in the province. The CBA spoke out against those closures. The Law Society spoke out against those closures. Indeed, the Law Society brought a constitutional challenge to prevent the government from implementing that plan, which was later adjourned in the hopes of resolving this.

The ministry has, to its credit, increased the number of courts in the province to lessen impact, and one presumes it was done because of this incredible core review that government went through, which makes me think there's not much left of the apple. That having been said, what effect have the courthouse closures had on access to justice in B.C.?

Hon. W. Oppal: The closing of courthouses, no doubt, was a matter of difficult concern for the minister of the day. Having said that, there were many courthouses in this province that were used for three weeks a year. There were many courthouses that were empty throughout the year. From time to time they'd have a trial in some of those courthouses, and they were staffed by people.

The government of the day did a core review and recommended that there ought to be circuit courts and substitution in lieu of regular courthouses that remained open, even though they weren't used. But at the end of the day, we know that before the consolidation took place, 98.2 percent of the population of this province was within 50 kilometres of a court location. After the court consolidation, this percentage fell to 97 percent, so 97 percent of the population of the province lives within 50 kilometres of a courthouse.

For instance, in the municipality of Delta there has been a courthouse in Ladner for 50 years, probably. I can tell you from experience that it was not exactly the busiest courthouse in the province. Their workload has now been transferred over to Surrey, which is probably 25 minutes away, 20 minutes away on Highway 10. Their civil work was transferred to Richmond, which was 15 minutes away.

In the interests of economy, the interests of limited resources, sometimes you have to make those decisions. You can't have a courthouse on every corner, so that's sort of the policy reason as to why those courthouses were closed. There are 13 communities, in my recollection, where…. Sorry. Fifteen reopened as a circuit court. There were 24 of the 68 staffed courthouses closed and 15 reopened, and prior to….

What it really did was permit the reinvestment of resources and other areas. The impact — mostly an impact on delays and cases — was really minimal. I'm advised that the delay factor was zero to one month as far as trial dates were concerned, by having circuit courts and by moving courts from one place to another.

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can advise what monetary savings were achieved by the closure of these courthouses.

L. Krog: As the Attorney General is well aware, obviously, police are stationed in numerous communities around this province. I suggest there are probably more police stations than there are courthouses, so to speak. If those officers have to attend to give evidence in criminal cases, are now having to travel further and are paid, therefore, more overtime…. I'm wondering if the Attorney General has any statistics or information as to the increased costs to the police force of having to travel further to make appearances at judicial proceedings.

Hon. W. Oppal: Regrettably, we don't have statistics that will show if there were additional overtime burdens imposed on police officers and/or police departments by virtue of court closures and consolidations. I can say this: you can't examine courthouse closures without examining the total reform that was implemented by the Attorney General of the day. That includes traffic courts, where the reforms that took place, in conjunction with the courthouse consolidations, involved the police officers testifying by telephone. That saved a lot of money by virtue of the fact that the police wouldn't have to go to a court to testify. That's an innovative method that came with this move.

You have to look at the policy as a whole. The other thing you have to look at is that not only did it result in a lot of savings for police…. See, most police officers who testify, testify in traffic matters. That's probably the greatest single area that they're testifying in. They can now testify by telephone. That's a tremendous saving. Plus, the municipalities now get to keep all the money, the proceeds, from the fines that are imposed as a result of traffic violations. All of those innovative statutory moves that took place at that time have to be looked at — and in a global sense.

L. Krog: One of the concerns that's been raised by the Elizabeth Fry Society — and I appreciate that this does not fall strictly under the Attorney General's ministry — is the lack of facilities for female prisoners on Vancouver Island. I'm wondering if the Attorney General is doing any work in conjunction with the Solicitor General and Minister for Public Safety with respect to trying to ensure that services are, in fact, provided for female prisoners on Vancouver Island.

As the Attorney General well knows, women are generally not involved in violent crimes. They do not represent a great risk to the public. In those situations where they are incarcerated, it often means they are separated from their families, at great social cost and, I would suggest, at great harm to their children. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can advise: are there any ongoing discussions? Are there any steps or any proposals underway?

Hon. W. Oppal: I cannot say that there are. The Solicitor General and I converse often on matters of mutual concern, but I regret to say that this is one issue that has not arisen. It is a valid concern if there are not adequate facilities to house women inmates.

L. Krog: I would at this time suggest and encourage the Attorney General to have those discussions with the Solicitor General. It would be of enormous benefit to those women and their children who, unfortunately, find themselves involved with our justice system.

Prime Minister Martin has called for a parliamentary review of the Supreme Court of Canada nominees, saying in 2002 that it was time to reform the system. There have been some discussions around this. I understand that in a presentation made to the House of

Commons justice subcommittee in November, the CBA was recommending that candidates for federal judgeships who have close ties to political parties should be forced to wait two years before getting a spot on the bench. Mercifully, the Attorney General escapes all such problems by — I would not call it an elevation to this chamber — his change of occupations.

I'm wondering: given the concerns raised by the CBA about judicial independence, is there anything being done currently to ensure judicial independence and accountability in British Columbia in the broadest sense?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Minister of Justice and I had a conversation about this when I met with him in August — about the appointment process for the Supreme Court of Canada. There really is no concern here as far as, say, the Provincial Court is concerned, because I think we have an extremely fair and objective system.

We have application forms, and after a person applies, I'm told that very few ever get interviews. After a screening process there's an interview by a fairly expansive, diverse and independent panel. Recommendations are made to the Attorney General, and appointments are made in that way.

There's always going to be some concern about the appointment process of judges, because under our present system, judges have an enormous amount of power. Judges now, as the hon. member knows, have the authority to set aside legislation if it does not comply with certain statutory standards or if it doesn't comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The issue is a valid one, but I really have not given it any further consideration than the brief conversation I had with the Minister of Justice.

L. Krog: The Eron Mortgage Corporation prosecutions have concluded recently. Significant numbers of British Columbians lost something in the order of $175 million. The courts are filled with the prosecutions of petty thieves and drunk drivers and all sorts of people like that, yet significant white-collar crime seems to almost go unnoticed.

I was the custodian of a lawyer's practice in Nanaimo who bilked his client, an estate in particular, for about $200,000. It is unlikely he will ever be prosecuted. He's been disbarred. The Law Society has paid the funds back.

I think this is an obvious concern for British Columbians, and my question to the Attorney General is: what proportion of prosecution services expenditures go towards prosecuting white-collar crime?

Hon. W. Oppal: First of all, I share the member's concern that historically, we have not paid as much attention to white-collar crime as we ought to have. In another lifetime, I used to do ad hoc prosecutions with the RCMP in commercial crime. It was never emphasized as much as violent crime, but as the hon. member knows, we have just as many victims who have suffered at the hands of people who have bilked them as people who have suffered from the activities of those who have committed violent crime.

I can tell you that we have 17 full-time prosecutors who are working exclusively on commercial crime. Now, of course the number of prosecutions that we run through the ministry will depend upon the number of investigations that are being conducted by the police at any given time, and I note that both the RCMP and the municipal police forces have been the subject of some criticism by some commentators that not enough emphasis has been placed on commercial crime. I do want to assure the member that that is a matter of some concern to me, and it is hopeful that we can with our resources pay more attention to commercial crime, because it certainly warrants more attention.

L. Krog: The Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General presided over the passage of the Civil Forfeiture Act, which provides a very interesting tool, I think, to the government of British Columbia. Speaking not from my position as a member of the bar of British Columbia but as an ordinary taxpayer, so to speak, who watches this go on, is it the intention, in light of what the Attorney General has just said, for the government to vigorously pursue those individuals who, because of the burden of proof in criminal cases, because of the difficulties of prosecution…. Is it the intention to pursue vigorously those people who are, frankly, ripping off the public — and the Eron Mortgage Corporation example is a prime one — with the benefit of the Civil Forfeiture Act?

Hon. W. Oppal: It certainly is. I can tell you that back in the '80s I was on the advisory committee of the Law Reform Commission of Canada when part 12.2 and section 462 of the Criminal Code and all of those sections were brought in — the proceeds-of-crime section. It has always been my view and the view of others that not enough attention has been paid to the Criminal Code provisions relating to the proceeds of crime. I think it's with that in mind that this government has enacted the Civil Forfeiture Act.

I think that it's absolutely the right and proper policy, because it takes the profit motive out of crime. We see now the proliferation of grow ops throughout the whole of the province, and the courts get criticized for not imposing lengthy jail terms on people who are convicted of keeping grow ops. I can sympathize with the courts, because most of the people who are convicted are usually the low-level dealers who are the occupants of the premises as opposed to the owners.

I think that it would be a more effective deterrent, and certainly, it would be effectively punitive — and

would satisfy the provisions of the Criminal Code as well, which it's not intended to do — if we had a vigorous policy of seizing goods under the Civil Forfeiture Act.

L. Krog: The Attorney General was on Rafe Mair's show, and he said: "In fact, you look at the whole system, and you'll find that the RCMP and the police don't even investigate crimes where the amount involved I think is under $200,000." That was part of a much larger quote, and I'm not trying to take it out of context.

L. Krog: In light of that, my question to the Attorney General is: given those comments, is he prepared to take a leadership role in terms of encouraging the RCMP to step up their investigation of white-collar crime?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can tell you that within the ministry there is a vigorous team of prosecutors who prosecute these cases. Now, I know that's not your question. The question is whether I have any intention of directing the RCMP. Under our system, of course, we don't direct the police, as I mentioned earlier this evening. It is within our mandate to tell the RCMP or any other police force what our priorities are, and I think that the suggestion that the hon. member has provided is a valid one. It may be something that we in the ministry ought to consider. I want to point out, though, that it would be done in conjunction with the criminal justice branch if we pursued that avenue.

I agree with you that it's a neglected area, and what I said on the Rafe Mair Show is accurate. The police, historically, have not paid as much attention to white-collar crime as they ought to have.

L. Krog: I appreciate the shortness of time and the desire of others to question the Attorney General on his estimates, and I wish to thank him for his candour and his answers today.

A. Dix: I just wanted to explore briefly with the Attorney General his relationship in his ministry and his budget with the child and youth officer.

As the Attorney knows, there has been a review into a case in Port Alberni. One of the reviews into that case was launched by the government through instructions to the child and youth officer. The Minister of Children and Family Development, on the day that his colleague informed the Legislature of that review, stated in response to the following question: if it's not appropriate for you to know the terms of reference of the director's review, why is it appropriate for you to set the terms of reference for the child and youth officer….? The Minister of Children and Family Development responded: "Because as the minister, I get to do that."

Now, the Attorney General will know that the notional independence of the child and youth officer depends in part on her relationship with the Attorney General. Does the Attorney General really think it's acceptable that the Minister of Children and Family Development and his officials write the terms of reference and then comment on the conclusions of that review, as they did — of a review investigating themselves?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think that's a question that ought to be better directed at the minister who made those comments. I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the comments that he made regarding his motives in that investigation.

A. Dix: The minister is responsible for this area. The minister will recall — because it was the subject of some discussion that week — that throughout the week the minister gave different answers with respect to his role in that matter.

Does he not agree with me that it is his job, his statutory responsibility to ensure…?

A. Dix: It's his statutory responsibility to ensure the independence of that officer. Isn't that a fair question? I'm not asking you about the hon. Minister of Children and Family's role. I'm asking the minister about his role in that process.

Hon. W. Oppal: I've always said the child youth officer is independent, and she is statutorily independent in that she…. By that I mean she reports to the Legislature through the Attorney General.

The whole issue of independence, in my view, has received an inordinately disproportionate amount of attention. I know a little bit about independence. I know how independence is exercised. In this politically charged atmosphere the real meaning of independence has been lost, because of all the subterfuge and everything else that has gone on out there.

The question of whether or not someone is independent is determined by the fact….

The Chair: Could we please allow the questioners and the answer to be heard. Thank you.

Hon. W. Oppal: The question of whether or not a particular person is independent is determined by a

number of facts. First of all, does that person have an unfettered right to investigate what he or she is entitled to do by statute or by direction otherwise? Is there any interference in the way that person conducts his or her duties. Does that person have the right to gather independent evidence? Is there any pressure? Is there any suggestion that that person who is conducting whatever they are conducting — a review or an investigation — is told how to conduct their investigation and, indeed, told of the results that they ought to have attained?

That's my view as to whether or not someone is independent. I know that didn't directly address the issue that you raise, but I just want to put that on record as to what independence means and what it ought to mean and what it means in law.

A. Dix: Of course, the minister knows — and these are substantive questions that involved a provincewide inquiry by one of his former colleagues and everything else — that the issues of what constitute independence are, in fact, a subject of public debate. The difference between the children's commissioner and the child and youth officer is that issues of child deaths are automatically referred to the children's commissioner, and the child and youth officer depends on direction, under section 6 of her act, from the Attorney General. That's a significant difference in independence.

In one case, whether she reviews a case or not depends on the Attorney General, and in another case, those decisions are made by the child and youth officer. I think that those are substantive questions that we've raised in the Legislature.

The point in this case — and it's a serous point — is that the Attorney General is the one responsible for ensuring, at least within this process, that independence from the Ministry of Children and Family is kept.

It's not, by the way, a political question. The Ministry of Children and Family does an important job. I think the minister understands this. He understands this as well as I do because of his long experience in this thing. That's why it's so important that the Ministry of Children and Family Development be divorced from these questions of review — not because they're problematic or they have trouble or anything else but because they need independent oversight of their actions. That is why the law was written that way.

That is why, with great respect to the Attorney General, who I've consistently paid respect to in this matter, I have to say that I think it was wrong to allow the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the minister to write these terms of reference for the ministry.

Hon. W. Oppal: Those are matters that ultimately will be subject to review. I'm not going to respond any further to those questions, on the basis that…. The member is on a review that is going to deal with all of those issues.

We have now appointed a blue-ribbon committee, so-called, that's going to review the whole principle of whether or not there ought to be a children's commissioner and to what extent…. Should there be any independence? Should there be reporting to the Legislature? What about budgetary considerations? Those are all matters that a committee that is far better suited and far more qualified than I am will be required to answer.

A. Dix: Does the minister, on this point, agree with me that it is a problem in the functioning of the child and youth officer and her relationship with the Attorney General that she frequently has to ask permission to even allow her reports to be released?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the fact that she may report to me in a statutory way and that I may be responsible for her budgets does not derogate from any independence of office that she may exercise or exhibit. Provincial Court judges come to me for various directions. I appoint Provincial Court judges. Provincial Court judges come to the government for pay increases, as do Federal Court judges. That doesn't derogate from their independence.

That's the point I was making a few minutes ago. We get carried away with this concept of independence. In order to properly understand it, we have to look at the functions. How are those functions performed? How are the duties discharged? What is the appearance of the way in which the duties are discharged? The member and I can philosophically disagree on these matters, but I don't know if I can add anything more to the debate.

A. Dix: It's not a philosophical disagreement, of course. It's a substantive one. Under the children's commissioner, every child death was reviewed. Under this present model, almost no child deaths have been reviewed. That's a substantive difference between one and the other.

But I don't want to belabour the point with the Attorney General. I have an entirely different question. It's a single question, and I'm going to leave it all to my distinguished colleague here. It is about a completely different subject, which some of his officials will know a great deal about.

Some members of my extended family were victims in the Air India catastrophe, disaster, murder. Our family has had some experience with this, because other members of my family were on the Lockerbie flight. I think it is fair to say, and I think people in this House understand, that this was not just a tragedy in that it was really the largest mass murder in Canadian history — it is a Canadian tragedy — but also in that there was such a great failing of our law enforcement system at the time. Part of it was cultural — the inability of police officials to speak languages — and those are issues that the Attorney General has worked hard on.

I wanted to ask the Attorney General if he agrees with me that the federal government should have a public inquiry into the Air India disaster.

Hon. W. Oppal: The question is a good one. It has been debated across the country. I had a lengthy meeting with Bob Rae when he was here, and we threw this question around the room. There was an old criminal lawyer that used to say: "There are pros and cons on one side, and there are pros and cons on the other side."

There is a very legitimate…. I can see the argument for the holding of an inquiry, because so many things went wrong in the investigation, and we might learn from the things that went wrong during the investigation. There is so much dissatisfaction in the community, particularly amongst the victims and all right-thinking people, as to what happened. I'm not talking about the results of the trial now; I'm just talking about the whole investigation.

Having said that, the argument on the other side is this. We know that there were serious mistakes made in the investigative stage. We know that wiretap was erased when it shouldn't have been erased. We know police officers went on leave on weekends in the middle of surveillance. We know that the policing and investigative authorities didn't appreciate the nature of their investigative duties when they were involved in surveilling the people that they were surveilling. We also know there was a reticence in the Indo-Canadian community to come up with any kind of evidence. There was no virtually cooperation in assisting the police and the agencies, the national agency.

Having said that, the question can also be fairly put: is there anything more we can learn from an inquiry? We know that those things are all the mistakes that were already made. Can we learn anything more by having a long inquiry? Forget about the expense for a minute. I don't think that's relevant in view of what's happened. You would be resurrecting a lot of emotions. On the other hand, the opposing side of that issue is that it may have a very salutary effect and may bring some closure. As a society, we owe that to the victims and the survivors of this horrible, horrible crime.

I know I didn't answer the question. I don't intend to go any further than that.

R. Chouhan: After knowing the Attorney General for so many years in a different light, it's not going to be easy to ask tough questions to this man, who I have so much regard for. I want to share my disappointment with the Attorney General, in that I did not get any briefings from your ministry about the portfolio, about the critic part of my responsibility.

In the absence of proper briefings, I'm going to ask some questions. I'm going to ask short questions, and I'm sure you will give short answers. Then we can ask lots of questions. Can the Attorney General confirm that if a complaint is filed by an individual or an entity against the government of B.C., it is the mandate of the Attorney General to defend the government?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, the counsel…. If the government is being sued for whatever reason, the civil side of the Attorney General's ministry is obligated to defend the government. The government is like any other litigant, any other defendant — or respondent, I should more properly put it — in those proceedings, so we would be doing that. On the other hand, it's important to remember that the tribunal that would be hearing the complaint is independent.

R. Chouhan: In the case of a human rights complaint filed against the province, the Attorney General's ministry would be seeking intervener status to defend the government. Wouldn't that be true?

Hon. W. Oppal: No, we would not be an intervener; we would be a respondent. Interveners are third parties who have an interest in a particular litigation, and they seek leave or permission of the court or tribunal to come into the proceedings. In this case, if there's a complaint against the government, as in the example that the member gave, then the government would be the respondent. It would not be the intervener.

R. Chouhan: As the respondent, it will be the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General to defend the government.

R. Chouhan: Then, in a situation like that, who would the Attorney General be defending — the government or the human rights complainant?

Hon. W. Oppal: If the government is a respondent…. For ease of reference, I will call the government the defendant. If the government is a defendant, then the Attorney General, in that example, would be defending the government, and the complainant would have their own lawyer or would be assisted by counsel of their own.

R. Chouhan: In my view, that's a conflict of interest. On one hand, the Attorney General is mandated to and responsible for human rights and multiculturalism in the province. In this situation the Attorney General would be defending the government, not the human rights issues. Wouldn't that be true?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Human Rights Tribunal is an administrative tribunal, and as an administrative tribunal, it operates independent of the government. It's a part of the civil justice system. It's really an alternative to the courts system. While a minister may be assigned the responsibility of a tribunal, that tribunal operates independently of any minister. In fact, it would be totally improper for the minister responsible to have any contact with a tribunal member who may be adjudicating on that case. There is very clear legislative and policy framework that ensures that all tribunals under our system operate independently of government. Like the courts, tribunals apply and comply with the law. All

parties have to be treated fairly, equally, and the decisions are subject to appeal to the courts.

R. Chouhan: As the minister responsible for human rights, could the Attorney General point out where in the Attorney General's budget the human rights funding resides?

R. Chouhan: What is the total human rights budget for all human rights services in B.C.?

Hon. W. Oppal: The total budget is $5 million, and it's broken down as follows: the tribunal has a budget of $3.1 million, and the Human Rights Clinic has a budget of $1.9 million.

Hon. W. Oppal: The tribunal was funded at $1.2 million, and the commission was funded at $4.6 million, for a total of $5.8 million. So there is an $800,000 difference.

R. Chouhan: So there's a reduction of $800,000 in the overall budget. What is the impact of the reduction in budget on the human rights services now?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wonder if I could have the member clarify the question, because I don't understand what the member means by the impact. I can…. He said: "…impact on the budget."

R. Chouhan: Yes. Let me make it clear. With this reduction in the budget of $800,000 from 2000-2001, was there any negative impact or reduction in human rights services in B.C.?

Hon. W. Oppal: No. As a matter of fact, in 2001-2002, 816 files were opened. In the most recent year there were 1,099 opened — an increase of 30 percent. But more than that, with the elimination of the commission we had…. We now have a direct-access model here. The hon. member is familiar with the system.

The most important impact from my perspective is that the wait times have been reduced drastically. The Human Rights Tribunal, even though it has a 30-percent increase in the number of cases it hears, can now hear the case in eight months. That's the wait time, seven to eight months, and another average of three months before a decision is rendered, whereas when the commission was in existence, it often took two years for the commission, as the gatekeeper, to deal with the first complaint, try to mediate it and then pass it on to the tribunal after that if they could not reach any accommodation between the parties.

R. Chouhan: I'll come back and comment on and ask questions about those comments later. Let me ask this question first. What proportion of that $5 million, you said earlier, of the budget is spent directly by the ministry?

Hon. W. Oppal: That figure of $5 million is the cost of running the tribunal, of government funding the tribunal. The tribunal has eight members plus a chair. They administer themselves. There's a clinic in there, as well. That's there for educational purposes.

R. Chouhan: I'm glad the Attorney General clarified that. So it's $5 million for the tribunal, the clinic — all that in total, I take it. Could the Attorney General tell me how many FTEs were there when the commission was in place?

Hon. W. Oppal: When the Human Rights Commission was in existence, there were approximately 47 FTEs. Now we have 47. The Human Rights Tribunal and the human rights clinic combined have 49 — 27 and 22.

Hon. W. Oppal: It appears that they opened 816 files, complaints, in 2001-2002, and they closed 903. They dismissed 70 percent. That was the last year of the commission, 2001-2002.

R. Chouhan: Enquiry B.C. was taking calls from human rights complainants after the transfer of human rights services directly to the tribunal from the commission. Does the Attorney General think that was appropriate?

Hon. W. Oppal: I wonder if I could have the member clarify that question. What is appropriate?

R. Chouhan: When the commission was dissolved, the human rights complainants who were calling had several issues, and at that time Enquiry B.C. was taking those complaints, not the tribunal — during that transition period. So my question is: does the Attorney General think this was appropriate?

Hon. W. Oppal: I see nothing inappropriate with parties taking complaints. What is important, as far as propriety is concerned, is whether or not the complaints were dealt with fairly.

R. Chouhan: The Human Rights Commission was dissolved, and the tribunal was in place, but the complaints were taken by Enquiry B.C., who had no mandate to deal with human rights issues. That was my concern.

Let me move on to another question; then we can come back to this later. What provisions were there for

Hon. W. Oppal: An aggrieved person or a person with a grievance only got legal aid if they got to the tribunal level but not when they got to the commission level. The commission had a function of education, mediation, accepting complaints. As I said earlier, I called it a gatekeeper. It was a place where people lodged their complaints.

It was only if they were unable to resolve a complaint and it went further to the Human Rights Tribunal, which is really the core or the independent tribunal…. It was there that they were entitled to legal aid. So they would have to get to the second step before they got legal aid.

R. Chouhan: Now we have the tribunal and the B.C. Human Rights Clinic, which has as a part of it the coalition CLAS and the UVic club. My question to the Attorney General is: what legislative mandate does the clinic have to speak on the human rights issue in British Columbia?

Hon. W. Oppal: It has no statutory mandate. What it has is a contractual agreement with the ministry to provide legal aid and other advice to persons who have human rights complaints.

R. Chouhan: So that means that the system we have in place now is inferior to what we had before when the commission was there, because the commission had the mandate to speak on the issue of human rights in British Columbia. Now we have contractual services which simply provide service to the province, but they don't have any authority to speak on human rights issues when it comes to education, etc. Is that true? Can the Attorney General confirm that, please?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have to disagree with that assessment. The Human Rights Clinic has an agreement to provide legal advice and other assistance and education to persons who have complaints of human rights violations, so the person who is a victim or is aggrieved still is the recipient of advice and whatever assistance that the clinic can afford to give that person or is in a position to give that person.

R. Chouhan: Let's deal with the B.C. Human Rights Coalition for a moment. Can the Attorney General confirm that his ministry spent $970,000 on the B.C. Human Rights Coalition last year?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is $1.8 million annually, but it is split between the B.C. Human Rights Coalition and CLAS, the Community Legal Assistance Society. I should point out that the clinic carries out a provincewide education and training program about the Human Rights Code. The clinic is operating under a three-year contract with the coalition and with CLAS, the Community Legal Assistance Society, for a total of $1.8 million, or $5.4 million over three years. The coalition manages all intake for the clinic.

As well, there is the Law Centre of the University of Victoria law school that also assists. They're part of the coalition. They also assist in the intake of complaints.

R. Chouhan: Let's focus on the coalition part. I understand there's $1.8 million for the clinic, but for the coalition, the money it received last year was $970,000. Wasn't that true?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't have the exact figures, but the member is close — $1.8 million — and there are two bodies there.

R. Chouhan: What is the current grant to the B.C. Human Rights Coalition? I understand last year it was $970,000 according to my figures.

Hon. W. Oppal: It's the same this year — the budget for the upcoming year.

R. Chouhan: What will be the grant for the Human Rights Coalition for next year?

Hon. W. Oppal: We can't speculate because next year's budget isn't available and obviously hasn't even been…. Sorry, I inadvertently misinformed the hon. member. They extended the budget. According to the budgetary figures now, it will be the same.

R. Chouhan: How does the Attorney General monitor the work of the B.C. Human Rights Coalition?

Hon. W. Oppal: There are quarterly reports, and there are meetings to ensure that it is operating properly.

R. Chouhan: Is there anybody from the Ministry of Attorney General designated to monitor the work of the Human Rights Coalition directly?

R. Chouhan: How much of the budget is allocated to that full-time position to monitor the Human Rights Coalition?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's difficult to answer that. When I said the equivalent of a full-time position…. There are a number of different people that are doing it, including the deputy minister. So they all spend parts of their time monitoring it to ensure that it's fulfilling its obligations.

R. Chouhan: So the answer we heard earlier that there is one FTE-designated person to monitor the coalition work was incorrect?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I said the equivalent of one FTE. If I said one FTE, then I made a mistake. What I meant to say is the equivalent of one full-time FTE.

R. Chouhan: Is there anywhere in the budget that the money being spent for that equivalent of one FTE is accounted for?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's part of the executive summary there — executive and support services.

R. Chouhan: Could we have a copy of the contract between the Attorney General and the B.C. Human Rights Coalition as well, please?

Hon. W. Oppal: I see no reason why the member can't have a copy of it subject to privacy concerns. We will examine it. I see no reason at this stage why he could not have it.

R. Chouhan: Now, when the Human Rights Commission was dismantled, was there any public consultation on that?

Hon. W. Oppal: There was extensive consultation. There was an independent study or review done by a Vancouver lawyer.

I stand to be corrected. I know that it was an independent study done, but I can tell you that there were a number of discussions and meetings with stakeholders. As a matter of fact, I have a letter here written by my predecessor, Mr. Plant, and he makes specific reference to…."The results of the consultations will be considered in preparing the amendments to Bill 53. There were discussions, and meetings with stakeholders and concerned individuals will be held during the consultation period." So there was extensive consultation.

R. Chouhan: When Bill 53 was introduced, if the Attorney General checks all the records at that time, there were no public consultations. There were only 11 submissions received by the Attorney General's office. Out of 11 submissions, eight submissions were to support keeping the Human Rights Commission, and there were three submissions which were not supportive of that concept. But there were no public hearings or any other type of consultation that took place. Could the Attorney General confirm that, please?

Hon. W. Oppal: No, I didn't say for a minute or suggest that there were public meetings or public forums or anything of that sort. That didn't take place, but there was consultation amongst stakeholders. That's what the letter states — the Attorney General of the day's letter. I imagine what that means is that a number of interested parties and people who are involved in the human rights area and field were consulted. I didn't know that there were only 11 letters received. Having said that, the fact that there were only 11 letters received may indicate that there was a lack of concern about it. I don't know. You can interpret that which ever way you want, I guess.

R. Chouhan: The Attorney General, the ministry responsible for human rights, did not make any attempt to let the public know or ask for that kind of input. Therefore, all it was on the website of the Attorney General to seek any input or feedback from the public…. As a result of that, 11 submissions were made.

Just to move on, then, from that point. The three submissions which were not supportive of the Human Rights Commission concept — one of them was made by the B.C. Human Rights Coalition. Could the Attorney General confirm that, please?

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to make reference again to the letter of Attorney General Plant. In the letter it reads in part as follows.

R. Chouhan: I'm not aware of that letter, who it was written to. However, this letter also confirms there were no public consultations. There was a process outlined in the letter, and on the website people could send their feedback or their comments. As a result of that, 11 submissions were made, and one of the submissions which did not support the Human Rights Commission concept was made by the B.C. Human Rights Coalition.

My question to the Attorney General is: was the reason the B.C. Human Rights Coalition got a grant

because it supported the government's position and not the Human Rights Commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not really in a position to confirm or deny what the Human Rights Coalition said. I accept what the hon. member says; that is, if they opposed it, I accept your contention that they did. The government, obviously, considered the evidence from various people that they consulted at the time and made the decision that they made.

R. Chouhan: At the time when the Human Rights Commission was dismantled, we moved onto the tribunal concept. Did the ministry ask any other organization to provide the same services — or could they have provided the same services — as is done by B.C. Human Rights Coalition before that contract was granted to that organization?

Hon. W. Oppal: I can't say with any degree of accuracy whether other people sought the function that had previously been fulfilled by the Human Rights Commission. I can say that the part of that function that the commission performed was eventually filled by the coalition and the clinic — that is, the educational process and the legal assistance part of the function.

R. Chouhan: Let's move on to Community Legal Assistance Society. Can the Attorney General confirm that his ministry spent $960,000 on CLAS last year?

R. Chouhan: I take it the current grant to the Community Legal Assistance Society would be the same as it was before?

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to correct it. It is not a grant. It's a contract, actually. It's money paid under a contract, which is not quite the same thing as a grant. As far as I know, it will be the same.

R. Chouhan: Could we also have a copy of the contract between the Attorney General and CLAS, please?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes — subject, again, to the same considerations of privacy concerns. But we have no objections to releasing a copy of the contract to the hon. member.

R. Chouhan: What provision is there to ensure that all complainants get the legal and other assistance they need in filing a complaint?

Hon. W. Oppal: I would expect that members of the tribunal who are sitting in a quasi-judicial body would ensure that whoever came before them with a complaint had all the necessary legal advice and was dealt with fairly. The position is similar to the position of a judge. A judge always ought to make sure that whoever comes before him or her is treated fairly and has a full opportunity to be heard. That's the most fundamental part of the exercise, and that is that whoever has a complaint ought to have a fair and impartial right to be heard and to fully voice their concern and to advance their case.

Hon. W. Oppal: During the first quarter, from April 1 to June 30, the total files that they opened were 195.

Hon. W. Oppal: They could only refuse to assist in a case if they feel there is no merit to it, it's of tenuous value, and there's no evidence to justify the complaint. Even then, they can't do it alone. They have an eligibility process. The criteria for eligibility are as follows:

Those are some of the criteria that are used to determine whether or not someone would be granted assistance.

R. Chouhan: What does the Attorney General think is a suitable resolution window for the human rights complaint? I think you answered before. Could you please repeat what your understanding of that is?

R. Chouhan: With a human rights complaint, what's a suitable window to get it resolved? How long should it take to resolve that complaint?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know if there is any specific time line or any specific window as such. It'll depend on caseloads and the nature of the complaint, the witnesses and how complex it is, as to how long it will take. The general rule is that a person who files a com-

plaint ought to have it dealt with as quickly as reasonably possible so that parties have a fair opportunity to advance their cases, to secure witnesses — a fair opportunity to advance their case fully. That could mean various things to various people.

In this case, we know that the Human Rights Tribunal will hear a case in approximately seven months. That's the maximum. Then it takes maybe three months after that, depending on the circumstances, for a decision to be rendered — which is quite a bit better than most courts, I might add.

R. Chouhan: Is the Attorney General aware that there was a case in North Vancouver school district where the hearing concluded more than three years ago and the tribunal has still not rendered a decision?

Hon. W. Oppal: If I had the name of the case, it might help, but I don't. I can't help otherwise.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not in a position, really, to comment on individual cases. It might, by chance, have come to my attention, but that obviously hasn't.

R. Chouhan: My question is about the full length of process, not about individual cases. This case was heard three years ago; still there is no decision. My question is: how do we have a better system under the tribunal as compared to the commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: My instructions are that they're current. To hear that a case has been in the system for three years without resolution or decision is somewhat surprising to me. I would have to know a little more about the case. I'm quite prepared to make the necessary inquiries — obviously not for this proceeding. For the benefit of the member, I'm quite prepared to do that. I'll provide an answer in due course.

R. Chouhan: We have only one hour left, and I have lots of questions about the immigrant settlement services part as well. Regarding the UVic law centre, could we also have a copy of the contract that exists with the Attorney General and the UVic law centre?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know. I'm sure there's some written documentation, and I have no difficulty…. It's a letter. We'll get the letter to the hon. member.

R. Chouhan: Now, as far as the tribunal is concerned, can the Attorney General confirm that his ministry spent $3.1 million on the tribunal last year?

Hon. W. Oppal: We don't monitor the work. It's an independent tribunal. The tribunal's not accountable to us, except that we provide funding for it. We don't assess its work, just as we don't assess the work of the provincial court or any of those tribunals. They're all independent.

R. Chouhan: But the tribunal is funded by taxpayer money. If the government is responsible for this under the code, the tribunal functions the way it should be, as it's legislated. There must be some way to monitor if the tribunal is functioning the way it should be.

Hon. W. Oppal: The tribunal, as other tribunals and Crown agencies, files an annual report, and that report is tabled in the Legislature. Generally, it will give a full accounting of what the activities were during the course of the year.

R. Chouhan: My question is…. When you monitor the work of the tribunal, somebody from the ministry staff will be designated to do that. Is there any estimated expense for that? On what budget line is that accounted for?

Hon. W. Oppal: I thought I made myself clear. Nobody in the Attorney General's ministry monitors the Human Rights Tribunal. The Human Rights Tribunal files an annual report as a way to inform the public as to its activities during the course of any given year, but we don't monitor it as such, just as we don't monitor the courts. They are independent, and they are entitled to reach their decisions. They're entitled to make mistakes if they want. They're subject to appeal, of course, but they operate quite independently of government.

R. Chouhan: So the tribunal is just an adjudicative body. It doesn't have any mandate to do education other than the pamphlets or some brochures they might have.

Hon. W. Oppal: It's an independent body that controls its own process, but the education aspect of the process is done through the clinic. There are pamphlets that are available at the tribunal, just as there are pamphlets in the Supreme Court. If you go to the court registry in any city, you will find pamphlets in various languages as to how to access the court system. That's about as far as any educational component goes. That's done by the clinic, which is separate.

R. Chouhan: If I heard you correctly, the tribunal has eight members and a chair. Is that the same as they were before, when they were working along with the commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: The tribunal has eight full-time members and one chair. When there was a commission, the tribunal had four full-time members, two part-time members and one chair. Obviously, the number of full-time members has doubled because there is more work. There are no vice-chairs.

R. Chouhan: The little information we received from the minister's office this morning tells me that there is one FTE in the Ministry of Attorney General which is designated to do human rights work. Is that true?

R. Chouhan: And there is no change in that. Even under the Human Rights Commission concept we had before, that one FTE was also there with the ministry. Is that true?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know the answer to that; I don't have a record of it. I defer to the knowledge of the hon. member.

Can the Attorney General confirm that all human rights services have been contracted out for just under $2 million — not included in the tribunal?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Human Rights Clinic — yes, it's $1.9 million, and $3.1 million on the tribunal for a total of five.

Now, talking about human rights education. The Human Rights Commission had education as an important part of its mandate. Now that has changed. Can the Attorney General confirm that the Attorney General's total contribution to human rights education is its website and some downloadable pamphlets?

Hon. W. Oppal: The coalition provides education, training and mediation services, but there is a…. Last year, in 2004-2005, the coalition delivered 49 education sessions, the equivalent of 36 days or 216 hours of education and training. It also provided 271 consultations with stakeholders to aid in understanding and designing guidelines and the best practices for specific human rights issues. The coalition produces a thrice-yearly newsletter, entitled Your Rights to Know, and responds to thousands of public inquiries by phone and through the coalition's website. It estimates that 80 percent of its education and training is centred on employment relationships, as this is where the bulk of the claims are made out.

As well, through a contract with government agents' offices throughout the province, the Human Rights Tribunal distributes materials provincewide making its procedures and processes clear. Their website is widely acknowledged as providing helpful information about human rights.

R. Chouhan: Earlier this afternoon, in his opening comments, the Attorney General said very correctly that we stand against racism, we stand for multiculturalism and all that. Now, is the Attorney General saying tonight that all that work to fight racism and to educate about human rights is left up to the Human Rights Coalition?

Hon. W. Oppal: No, that picture is somewhat incomplete, with respect. The multicultural branch has seminars on racism, as does the hate crimes section. There are two police officers, and there is one full-time prosecutor, who works out of the Vancouver Crown counsel office and who deals with hate crimes as well. So there are two full-time police officers, one Crown and the multicultural branch of the ministry.

R. Chouhan: To deal with the issue of education on human rights — fighting against racism, fighting against discrimination — is there any budget item set aside to educate the public about their rights and responsibilities?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think there's ample material apprising the public of their rights. I think Canadians are pretty well informed as to what their rights are. I think that if anything, by some of the things we read and see in the media, it indicates that sometimes people think there are too many people exercising these rights. That's a criticism that I don't agree with at all, of course, but that's a sentiment one gets when you read the papers.

Having said that, I think that indicates that the public is well aware of its rights. There's no shortage of people who have lodged various complaints. One that immediately comes to my mind is the Burnaby firefighter who said that she was discriminated against because of her gender. There are regularly complaints about workplace discrimination and other forms of employment discrimination. I don't think Canadians, being as sophisticated and well informed as they are, are really short of knowledge when it comes to knowing their rights under the Human Rights Code.

R. Chouhan: The Attorney General is responsible overall for the Human Rights Tribunal. Could the Attorney General confirm that the tribunal's total contribution to human rights education is a speaking tour and information about its own process?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's accurate. It operates much like a court. The Supreme Court has little brochures,

and they'll send out…. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has a website, as does the provincial court. The education that they have is limited to those types of activities. It's the clinic and everyone else, other bodies that get involved in the educational process, and the people that I have already apprised you of.

R. Chouhan: Knowing the Attorney General personally, who has always stood against discrimination and racism all his life, my question to the Attorney General is: is he really satisfied with the kind of education provided by the tribunal or coalition on the issue of discrimination?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, we can always use more. As a member of a visible minority…. I know that the hon. member has spent much of his career fighting discrimination and fighting for the rights of others, and for that he must be commended. We can always use more. We can always make us more aware. We haven't eradicated racism. That might be an answer to your question.

We can always do more as a society. It is incumbent upon all of us to do more to educate our fellow citizens. A small example of that is the number of people who think that the term "political correctness" is pejorative, or negative. I mean, tell me what's so negative about the term "political correctness." Yet people seem to think it is.

Human rights are important. When I graduated from law school, less than 10 percent of our class were women. We had three visible minorities in a class of about 90. Now…. You know, I spoke to the opening of the first-year law class at the University of Victoria, where 64 percent of the class are women. When I spoke, I said that I think I know why the old white guys kept the women out. It's because the women are getting all the best marks. Maybe that's why they wanted to keep them out.

It all has to do with equal opportunity and justice and what Canada stands for. Everybody deserves to be treated equally and with dignity in all our institutions. It's a question of fairness in a democracy. Obviously, we can do more to achieve full human rights for everybody, and that's what we ought to do.

R. Chouhan: I agree with the Attorney General. We can always do more. What we had in place under the Human Rights Commission was a system that did provide education, which we need in this province to deal with human rights issues, discrimination and racism.

I'm sure the Attorney General is familiar with Professor Bill Black and Ms. Shelagh Day, who have written extensively about the work that the Human Rights Commission did and what is missing now by not having a Human Rights Commission. My question to the Attorney General is: given that so much is written about the Human Rights Commission and given the wonderful work that the commission has done, would you agree to restore the Human Rights Commission?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't doubt that as far as education is concerned, the Human Rights Commission did a good job. But the Human Rights Commission as it was constituted also was instrumental in some of the delays that have taken place. I don't think that people should have to tolerate two and a half years for their case to go through the system. That was what was happening with the Human Rights Commission when it was there.

I think that it took an inordinately long period of time before a case got through the commission onto the tribunal. People want speedy justice. You want reasonable…. You want an expeditious form of justice. You want your cases to be dealt with fairly and in a reasonable period of time — not two and a half years after something has happened.

Human rights education can be addressed in many ways. The coalition, as I've already stated, has a contract with the ministry to offer preventive education and training programs through the clinic.

I can also tell you that there are other independent bodies, public legal education bodies — People's Law School, Law Courts Education Society MOSAIC, AMSSA — that are out there. All of these organizations receive assistance from the provincial government. They're out there educating the public. I fully agree that education is a most important tool in the fight against racism.

R. Chouhan: The example I gave the Attorney General earlier is of Jeffrey Moore. That happened under the tribunal, not under the commission. We're talking here about three years since the hearing was done — and no decision.

Anyhow, let's move on to immigration settlement services. Under the B.C.-Canada agreement on immigration, how much money does the provincial government receive from the federal government?

R. Chouhan: How much of that money that is intended to help immigrants succeed in our province is moved into the consolidated general revenue fund?

Hon. W. Oppal: There is $17 million that goes into the consolidated revenue fund. The money goes into that fund because it goes to the Ministry of Advanced Education for delivery of ESL programs in public colleges and universities. I didn't know this before, but the Ministry of Advanced Education also deals with ESL programs. That's where that money goes.

R. Chouhan: Can the Attorney General advise us, per person in new immigrants, how much money British Columbia receives as compared to…? Also, I would appreciate it if you could give us figures and any information you have about other provinces.

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer, in two words, is not enough. The province of Ontario, for instance, has negotiated a deal with the federal government on immigrant settlement funding. They get a per-capita federal funding grant of approximately $3,400. Quebec receives per-capita federal funding of $3,800. For British Columbia the per-capita federal funding is $1,006. That's unacceptable, in my view.

I can tell the hon. member that a number of us are attending an immigration meeting in Ottawa on Friday. Hopefully, I'll be able to address these discrepancies when I meet with the minister.

R. Chouhan: Is this because the federal government feels that all of the money they send us here is not being utilized on immigrant settlement services, so therefore, they're not providing us with the same amount of money that Ontario and Quebec are receiving?

I'm advised that what has taken place is that the provinces individually have made their deals with Ottawa. Quebec had a particularly unique deal with Ottawa, and that's why they have the largest per-capita funding for settlement purposes. That's the reason we're well behind the other two provinces.

R. Chouhan: My question to the Attorney General is: what does the Attorney General have to say when immigrants who have already been charged $975 to obtain landing and $500 for processing are finding that government is only funding…? You said $1,006. That's money received from the federal government, but the provincial government is only spending $627, according to my figures — not even the total amount of money that we receive from the federal government. What about those immigrants who come here and have paid that huge amount of money already — and then, when they come here, they receive only $627 to get the settlement services?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm advised that $600 is not entirely a fair figure, because it takes in the money that goes into the consolidated revenue fund. This practice, I'm told, began in the 1990s — the discrepancy — and it has always been there. I just point that out. It is something that needs to be seriously redressed.

R. Chouhan: Actually, the money being spent on immigrant settlement services per immigrant here in B.C., according to the information I have received from some of these organizations like AMSSA and MOSAIC and all that, is $151 as compared to $402, the national average. Could you confirm that, please?

Hon. W. Oppal: We get 37,000 immigrants per year coming into British Columbia and a $37 million grant, so that comes to $1,000 per immigrant, roughly.

R. Chouhan: From people who provide that service day in and day out, according to their calculation, it's only $151 per immigrant that is being spent here. Maybe the Attorney General's office can contact those organizations and correct their figures and convince them that it's more than $151.

Now, when we are talking about the community organizations which have provided those immigrant settlement services, they have gone through a change. Historically B.C.'s settlement professionals have played an integral role in helping develop Canada's first service models and accountability frameworks for immigrants. There is now a change. They have to go through this request for proposal program.

Could the Attorney General please define how that system works and when that change took place?

Hon. W. Oppal: The process came into effect for the first time in '04-05, this past year. It's an open tendering process based on certain objective criteria. Not everybody received the grants they sought. I heard about it, and I can tell you that I, as a minister, had nothing to do with the granting of the moneys. I'd like to say that I wrote the cheques here, but it didn't work out that way.

Some time ago when…. I think it was 2002-2003 and later than that, there was established within the ministry an objective criteria based on certain standards whereby any political consideration would be eliminated from the equation. I received a lot of complaints from people in the community saying that they lost their grant this year, and they had the grant before. I can assure the hon. member that the reason this merit system was put into place was to avoid any suggestion of political favouritism. That's what's happened.

R. Chouhan: This open tendering system that has been put in place…. I'm sure the Attorney General is aware of the difficulty it has caused for those organizations that have provided that service for so many years and that have developed so many skills in that area. When this RFP, as we call it, request for proposal program takes place, does the ministry take the past performance of those organizations into account?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think the best way to answer the question is that the system went into place based on objective criteria. There are many service providers who did not receive funding this time. Their funds were not renewed. I'm sympathetic to them because they did provide service in the past. But I'm assured that no area is left without service and that where there was one service provider who did not receive funding this time around as opposed to last time around, there is a provider who's filled the void, so to speak. In an ideal world everybody that applied should get funds, because I know they're all well-motivated organizations. I know I heard from organizations that were very

worthy, and I know they did good work. But on the criteria that were set within the ministry, some people succeeded, and others didn't.

R. Chouhan: Many of the organizations that we are talking about, I have personally talked to. I have yet to find a single organization that is happy with this new criteria that's put in place. Each and every one is telling us that it has caused more difficulties for them, more challenges for them.

My question to the Attorney General is: with that feedback, could the Attorney General change the system back to where it was before this RFP system came into place?

Hon. W. Oppal: I think it is important to understand here that the objective, the aim of the program was to eliminate political favouritism. That's really what the purpose of this independent, objective criteria program was.

First of all, I want to say to you that the government worked with the agencies for more than two years leading up to the RFP, to help them prepare. Training sessions were held in six locations around the province. I'm told approximately 200 people took advantage of those in order to assist them in applying for the grants.

I can also tell you that we're reviewing the procedure for the procurement process, and nothing is written in stone. We would be pleased to hear of any suggestions that the hon. member may have. The difficulty is this. For every organization that may have contacted the member or contacted me, there were other successful ones. What do we do about those people who already got the funding? Those are some of the challenges that exist here, but I'm always amenable to suggestions.

R. Chouhan: I have a number of examples where people lost those services, and I'll talk about some. Is the Attorney General aware that Abbotsford Community Services used to offer basic English to Punjabi-speaking mothers and grandmothers of school-aged children but lost it during the RFP proposal?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm well aware of that. I spoke to Manpreet Grewal. I telephoned her myself and told her I was very much concerned. I know how hard she has worked. I know how effective that program is. I know how useful that program is. I know how that program serves the public interest. There are a number of immigrant women, many of them grandmothers, who are in a very challenging world, trying to learn English, and they lost their funding.

I can tell you that when that happened, there was someone else that got funding. It wasn't as though the government didn't give them the funding and then kept the money for itself. The money went out, but it went out to another organization that fulfilled some objective requirements.

As I said, this is an ongoing process, and I'd be much obliged for any assistance that you may be able to provide to the government in seeing that in the future, meritorious applications are dealt with fairly. I'm not saying they weren't dealt with fairly here. There are certain objective criteria, and unfortunately, not everybody can be successful, because we don't have unlimited funds.

R. Chouhan: My immediate pre-advice is to divorce that process. It's a flawed process. If the Attorney General cares — and I believe he does — about all these things, why does he stand here and continue to defend this flawed process?

The example we have talked about, Abbotsford Community Services, is just one instance. We have other areas where people have gone through this process and have lost services — for example, in my own community of Burnaby-Edmonds, the Burnaby Multicultural Society. They lost, through this process, a number of services because they didn't get the same amount of funding. Perhaps the Attorney General will explain the service loss at the Inland Refugee Society of British Columbia and how they're helping that community?

Hon. W. Oppal: I didn't say the process is flawed. What I said was that in some ways it left people who provided useful services and people who are very useful — like the Abbotsford example that the member gave — without operating moneys, and for that we have to be sympathetic, because they provided such good service.

Having said that, the object here was to make the process devoid of any kind of political considerations. As I said earlier, and I will say it again, objective criteria were established. Those criteria were known to everyone. Extensive public consultation took place to let them know what they had to do in order to get funds, and unfortunately, there were some bidders who were not successful.

I don't agree that you can call the process flawed. The results, in some ways, may have been unfair in that worthy people did not get funding, but there were other people who did get funding. Again, I'm sympathetic to the Burnaby Multicultural Society, because I know they do good work there. But I'm quite prepared, as I said earlier, to look at re-examining the process.

R. Chouhan: Let me read the names of the organizations that have gone through some of these difficulties that I have talked about so that they are on the record. I have already talked about the Burnaby Multicultural Society, and I have talked about the Inland Refugee Society of British Columbia. There is the Mennonite Central Committee of British Columbia. There is the REACH Centre Association and Multicultural Family Centre, there is SUCCESS, Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services Society, and then there is Cowichan Valley Intercultural and Immigrant Society.

The list is very long. It's going on and on and on. Every single organization which received the funding through the Ministry of Attorney General has now advised us that each and every one has experienced difficulty under the RFP process.

My question again is to the Attorney General: given that all these organizations are talking about the difficulties they are facing, would the Attorney General reconsider implementing the same system we had before this process was brought in?

Hon. W. Oppal: The trouble was that before this system was brought into existence, the allegations were that the system was political, based upon political considerations. One thing we must do is ensure that there is no political consideration involved in the granting of any funds. In this case, as I said a number of times before, there were criteria established, objective criteria, and all applicants were given an equal opportunity to apply.

I'm sympathetic to the people who didn't get the money, but on the other hand, it's difficult to say who ought not to have gotten the money of those who did get the money. Which of the successful bidders were not meritorious in themselves? Everybody went through an equal process. I had nothing to do with it; it had no political considerations. There are people within the ministry who decided these things, and that's the way it happened.

There are 60 organizations that are now being funded for settlement and language services. It's not like those services aren't being provided or that the government isn't giving the money that's out there to give. In fact, I can tell you that I'm very committed to these types of programs that assist immigrants and members of the multicultural community.

I'm always interested in any advice that will result in a fairer system. As I said, this was by all accounts an objective system, fair by any objective standard. Unfortunately, there are some worthy people who weren't successful in their bidding.

R. Chouhan: I have now heard several times the Attorney General saying that the previous process was political. Can the Attorney General provide any evidence that it was?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I suppose political is in the eyes of the beholder. I should put it this way: there were allegations that the system was political. What happened was that this government then sets some objective standards. I can tell you clearly that this process is not political, because I had nothing to do with any of this. It was done in an objective way by people within the ministry.

R. Chouhan: I've been working with many of these organizations for many years. I have not come across any political kind of allegations being made here. It seems like the government is sacrificing the continuity of services being provided by these organizations in such a wonderful way. Now, just because it did not meet the political criteria of the government, this pro-cess was introduced, and we lost the continuity.

Hon. W. Oppal: I can assure you that there were no political considerations that went into that. I can tell you that, because I wasn't involved in any of this. I am the only minister responsible for this. I have no say in it. I can assure you of that — absolutely nothing to say. I've already given you the Abbotsford example, where I got nothing but good things said about that program. I had nothing to do with that. You know, these decisions were made within the ministry, based on criteria that everybody was told about.

R. Chouhan: I want to be on the record that at no time was I accusing the Attorney General, as a person, that he was responsible for this. I'm not blaming the Attorney General in person for that.

Making a change in the act to bring in this process is political in itself. That's a political action by the government. That's the politics that we're talking about. The services were provided by these organizations, earlier, for so many years, servicing so many people and doing it so well. Now, this new process has caused so much unnecessary anxiety and difficulties for those people. That's what I'm saying again and again. Reconsider this process. It's a flawed process. We have to put in place what we had before. The Attorney General has personal knowledge of Abbotsford, for example — Abbotsford Community Services and other community organizations which the Attorney General has met with.

My question to the Attorney General is: would he make recommendations to the cabinet based on the ministry's assessment? Does the Attorney General make this recommendation to cabinet based on the ministry's assessment of these services, of these organizations?

Hon. W. Oppal: This is not the type of application that's made to cabinet. We're re-examining the whole process, and we're working on some of these things. That's all I can say at this time. I can tell you that we're looking at a lot of options.

R. Chouhan: Could I take it that it's possible you will reconsider this process to reverse it?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have said throughout the evening — the penetrating questions asked by the hon. member — that we're always open to suggestions, and I welcome whatever suggestions you have to make this a fair process. My door is open. I look forward to any suggestions that you may have regarding any future funding.

R. Chouhan: Could the Attorney General provide a list of services that were previously provided by these

Hon. W. Oppal: Thank you. I have this irresistible urge to call you, "Your honour," you know — from another lifetime.

We can provide the hon. member with a list of the unsuccessful and successful people, and there is no problem with that at all. I will provide that for you.

The Chair: Member for Burnaby-Edmonds, noting the time, you could wrap it up.

R. Chouhan: Given that we don't have much time left, I think I will continue with my questions in the spring when we come back in the next session. I would like to thank the Attorney General and his staff for being patient and providing all the answers. Thank you very much.

Hon. W. Oppal: We're very efficient on this side of the House. We don't waste money.

At the outset, there was some apparent misunderstanding where the hon. member said that he did not receive a briefing from the staff. I just received a note from the staff which said that they were there and they were prepared to answer questions, but in any event, there was obviously some misunderstanding. The hon. member from Nanaimo was there, and he received briefing. I don't know what happened. For some reason…. You say you didn't receive it.

At this time I want to thank and acknowledge the many people who assisted me here today. Deputy Attorney General Allan Seckel, Carol Anne Rolf, Geoffrey Gaul, Helen Pedneault, Jenny Manton, Rob Lapper, Tom Jensen, Peter Taylor, Jim Crone and Jerry McHale. I also want to acknowledge everyone at the ministry who worked particularly hard to prepare me for this and to make the justice system effective and to assist the government in providing legal help to government.

On a personal note, this is the first time that I've gone through this exercise. I've been in a lot of courtrooms in my life, and this is entirely different. I want to thank the Chair for your indulgence, and I also want to thank the opposition members for the fairness with which the questions were put during the course of these briefings.

I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Attorney General 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.