2011 Legislative Session: Third Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Thursday, May 12, 2011

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 9

[ Page 6951 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 12, 2011

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

B. Routley: I see a couple of guests from the Cowichan Valley here. I'd like to introduce to the Legislature Ken McEwan, an old buddy from back in the days when I worked in the Local 1-80 office, back in the 1980s and '90s. I see Ken is here today, and that's a surprise.

Also, I have the most amazing constituency assistants. I have Debra Toporowski and Doug Morgan with me here today. Would the Legislature please join me in welcoming these guests.

[1335]

Hon. G. Abbott: In the gallery today is Brendon Dawson. Brendon is the eldest son of my ministerial assistant, Ken Dawson. Brendon has just returned to Canada after completing a term volunteering with Canada World Youth, where he and 18 other students volunteered in community development projects in rural Indonesia.

Brendon is off to Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, this September. His mother and father are looking forward to him excelling there and also returning at some point to British Columbia. So could the House please make Brendon welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wish to introduce to the House two young women I have been most pleased to make acquaintances with recently.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A little decorum, perhaps, in the chamber.

Shazia Rana is working in my office as an administrative assistant and is a very, very talented young lady who has completed graduate-level work. She is one of those people that members on both sides of the House are fortunate to have and follow the calling into public service. I hope the House will make Shazia feel welcome in her first visit to the chamber.

Amber Mann is in the midst of her post-secondary career. She has returned to British Columbia, where she resides with her family and grew up with her family, from eastern Canada, where she is undertaking her studies at the moment and is contemplating, as well, dipping her toe into the reservoir of public service as it is presented here in the legislative precincts. I hope members will help make Amber Mann feel welcome as well.

N. Simons: I'd just like to welcome to the House Kevin Sigouin from Powell River, a friend. He's here visiting someone from the other side of the House, but I won't hold that against him. He's a constituent and a strong member of the community. Will the House please make him welcome.

Tributes

VERNA BJERky

Hon. B. Penner: Verna Bjerky was born in 1964 and grew up in Yale, British Columbia. Thirty years ago this spring the 16-year-old disappeared while hitchhiking from Hope to visit her boyfriend in Kamloops. This was about the time that other children were going missing as a result of the activities of Clifford Robert Olson. To this day Verna Bjerky has never been found.

Today marks Verna's birthday. Families and friends, along with my wife and daughter, will join today at Yale historic site Church of St. John the Divine for a memorial service. My wife grew up in Yale, and her family knew the Bjerkys. Following the service they will go to the Yale Pioneer Cemetery to place flowers at Verna's memorial stone, then hold a potluck picnic nearby.

This service has been delayed until today in the hope of finding answers to what happened on that tragic day 30 years ago. I hope that today's service gives her family and friends the much-needed closure that they have been seeking for so long.

I'm sure I speak for all members when I say that our thoughts and prayers are with them today as they share stories and memories and celebrate the life of Verna Bjerky.

Introductions by Members

K. Conroy: I'd like to take the opportunity to introduce an old friend, Pat Sweeney, from Castlegar, who surprised me in the gallery today. We used to work together in the pulp mill in Castlegar.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

Bill 10 — Wills, Estates and
Succession Amendment Act, 2011

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011.
[ Page 6952 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Penner: I am pleased to introduce the amendments to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. These amendments address how Nisga'a and treaty First Nations laws impact the transfer of treaty land upon death. There are also some housekeeping amendments. For example, we've updated the legislation to refer to the new Supreme Court civil rules.

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

Bill 10, Wills, Estates and Succession Amendment Act, 2011, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1340]

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

MAY GUTTERIDGE AND
ST. JAMES COMMUNITY SERVICE SOCIETY

J. Kwan: On Saturday, May 14, people will gather in the parish hall at St. James Church on East Cordova Street to celebrate the life of May Gutteridge, an event called a Day in May for Mrs. G.

May was born on May 21, 1917, in England. She was dressed in her Women's Royal Navy Service uniform when she married Arthur Gutteridge, a school teacher, in 1940. They moved to Saskatchewan in 1955 with their three children, where May joined in a range of community activities. She ran a Scouts troop, was a substitute teacher, developed a kindergarten, supervised a 4-H Club and reopened a school for a group of children who could not get schooling anywhere else.

Three years later the family moved to Vancouver, and May started to worship at St. James Anglican Church. There in the Downtown Eastside she played a leading role in outreach and care for the homeless and the poor.

At first, May looked after seniors in the church's basement. She started St. James service in 1961, a home help program in 1962 and the first shelter for abused women in the Downtown Eastside in 1965.

She also found time to organize free legal aid at the Gastown workshop and a program to help administer the funds of social assistance clients. Later she was involved in setting up housing for seniors and the first freestanding hospice in British Columbia.

This astonishing contribution to the community was recognized. May received the Order of Canada, the B.C. senior citizen of the year award, the Silver Eagle Feather Award and the Pioneer Award. She also received awards from Chinatown organizations and an honorary doctorate of laws from Simon Fraser University.

When May died on February 26, 2002, St. James Community Service Society was a large social service agency with 250 employees and an annual budget of $10 million. She never received an income for her many years of service.

I am one of the many people who admired the passion of May's commitment to serving the residents of the Downtown Eastside and regret that I'm unable to attend the event. I ask all members of the House to please join me in honouring her.

Cruise Ship Terminal in nanaimo

R. Cantelon: For thousands of years the canoes of the Salish people would visit the beautiful sheltered harbour of the Snuneymuxw First Nation, the First Nations people for whom Nanaimo is named. This week 2,100 new visitors aboard the Norwegian Pearl arrived at this beautiful harbour.

The new floating Visiting Vessel Pier made it easy for the tourists to disembark. Unlike the bare industrial dock that usually greets cruise ship passengers, they were welcomed ashore into a very modern and distinctly west coast greeting centre. This beautiful centre showcases the best of B.C.'s forest products, gleaming fir beams and lots of light, with windows showcasing the natural vistas — Gabriola Island, looking over to Protection Island.

A huge tapestry created by Snuneymuxw artist Noel Brown makes a dramatic statement about the history of the indigenous people and puts a stamp of their rich heritage on the centre.

From the visitors' centre the tourists will be able to explore and discover magnificent, breathtaking Vancouver Island. From the majestic Cathedral Grove to the murals in Chemainus or to tour around historic Nanaimo and Protection Island, perhaps learning more about Snuneymuxw culture and their ancient history, there's much to do and see on our beautiful island.

Now, like so many projects in Nanaimo, this was a cooperative and collaborative venture, the concept of a shared vision that combined the economic aspirations of the Port of Nanaimo; the city of Nanaimo; Snuneymuxw First Nation; Malaspina College, now Vancouver Island University; and the Nanaimo Airport.

These groups agreed that it was in everyone's best interests to mutually support and endorse each other's projects in a unified approach. Indeed, the economic and cultural sum of these complementary efforts has proven to be greater than that of the total of the individual parts. This approach was critical in attracting funding support from the provincial government, the federal government and the Island Coastal Economic Trust.
[ Page 6953 ]

A new standard has been set in Nanaimo, especially with respect to working with First Nations, so let's congratulate them.

ARTHRITIS AWARENESS
AND FUNDRAISING WALK

R. Fleming: In 2010 the Arthritis Society hosted the very first inaugural Walk to Fight Arthritis in 17 cities across Canada and raised almost $1 million. Building on the success of the first year of this event, the society has now expanded the walk to 25 Canadian cities, including Victoria.

[1345]

This Sunday, May 15, Island residents will join together in a one- or five-kilometre walk to raise funds for the more than 600,000 people — men, women and children — in B.C. and Yukon living with arthritis. Local organizers are calling on Island businesses, organizations and individuals to come together to donate to the Arthritis Society while enjoying a beautiful walk along Victoria's Inner Harbour.

In addition to increasing arthritis awareness, all of the donations gathered will help support arthritis research here in Victoria and across Vancouver Island. Arthritis is the number one cause of pain and disability in North America. There are over 100 known types. Most Canadians have been touched by this disease — directly themselves or in supporting a friend, spouse, family member or co-worker with arthritis.

While the condition is incurable at this time, the good news is that steps can be taken to improve the quality of life of those living with the disease, including regular physical activity. To date the society has invested $165 million towards arthritis research, education programs and services to help those living with arthritis manage their disease.

I'm proud to join Marnie Essery and her team at the We Care Home Health Services society from my constituency this weekend. Marnie Essery was diagnosed with arthritis at the age of three. She has arthritis in 29 joints. She has struggled with the pain and disability caused by arthritis for 39 years. Her courage and generosity to others is inspirational.

I want to applaud the many volunteers who are organizing for this weekend for the walk for arthritis and encourage my colleagues from the Legislative Assembly to come and join us.

Mr. Speaker: I remind members it's two-minute statements.

TURNING POINT RECOVERY SOCIETY AND
RICHMOND ADDICTION SERVICES SOCIETY

J. Yap: In the last week I attended, along with the member for Richmond East, two different but related events. The first was Turning Point Recovery Society's fourth annual Making Recovery a Reality Gala last Thursday evening. This gala raises the profile of addiction support and helps remove the stigma attached to people with addictions.

Actress Katey Sagal spoke movingly about her addiction to alcohol and drugs and how she has been clean for 25 years. Turning Point's executive director, Brenda Plant, tells me that well over $40,000 was raised at the event.

Turning Point has 31 beds for women and men in Richmond and Vancouver, and has served these communities for over 27 years. They are leaders in providing essential care, residential care, and I salute them for their outstanding work.

Last Saturday I attended Richmond Addiction Services Society's inaugural youth week event called Hockey Day in Richmond. Executive Director Rick Dubras partnered with Family Services of Greater Vancouver to host a rousing day of floor hockey at a Richmond high school.

Afterwards, Theo Fleury, former Calgary Flame and best-selling author of Playing with Fire, delivered a powerful message to youth about substance abuse, gambling and sexual abuse. Theo's addictions nearly resulted in suicide, but he turned his life around, reconnected with his children and remarried. He now has been clean and sober for five years.

Richmond Addiction Services has served the community for 35 years and is a non-profit charitable society aimed at improving the lives of those affected by addiction. Please join me in congratulating these two societies on the great work they do in Richmond and British Columbia.

BETTY ANNE DEVITT AND
COWICHAN VALLEY BASKET SOCIETY

B. Routley: I would like to share with you a little about an extraordinary Cowichan Valley volunteer. Since 1987 Betty Anne Devitt has been serving up heaping portions of love and compassion that go along with the soup and sandwiches and food hampers provided by the Cowichan Valley Basket Society.

Betty Anne volunteered six days a week and always offered a listening ear or a hug to the people she loved to serve. She is quick to praise and thank everyone around her, including the many wonderful volunteers, local businesses, media and all the generous people of the Cowichan Valley who offer incredible support and help.

Betty Anne can soften the toughest and biggest of the bunch too with her own brand of tough love. When someone showed up drunk or on drugs, she would just say in a firm but soft voice: "Sorry, you can't be in here." She would call them by name. "You know better than that." Most often they would just reply: "Sorry, Betty
[ Page 6954 ]
Anne." She would always add: "You're welcome to come back when you've sobered up."

[1350]

Once Betty Anne expressed concern that one of the regulars had not been in for a while. Word went out, and soon they found him sick and alone. But not for long. She sent friends and warm soup. Later when he ended up in the hospital, she asked who could go up and see him. A group of them went up and read the Bible to him just before he died. She emphasized: "He didn't die alone. We're like a family here at the Cowichan Valley Basket Society."

Betty Anne is now retiring from her more than two decades of full-time volunteer service, and she is here with us up in the gallery. Please join with me in thanking Betty Anne for her generous contribution to our communities and our province. Thank you, Betty Anne. [Applause.]

WESTERN HOCKEY LEAGUE ACTIVITIES

B. Bennett: Today I'm talking hockey. The league is called the WHL, the Western Hockey League, and more NHL players come from the WHL than any other league in the world.

This is the hockey that's played by those few elite teenage players that come all the way up through their minor hockey program from all of the smaller and larger and medium-sized communities in western Canada — B.C. towns like Cranbrook, where the Niedermayer brother came from, Steve Yzerman, the Murdoch brothers and about a dozen others; Sicamous, where Shea Weber, the great Predators' defenceman learned the basics of hockey.

They play as many games as the pros in a season, but they travel by bus from Cranbrook to Portland, Brandon to Kelowna, and they attend school. Many of them go on to post-secondary education through the WHL scholarship program.

My team in the WHL is, of course, the Kootenay Ice, who have had 13 consecutive winning seasons. That's the best record in the WHL. The Ice are now playing for the WHL championship against the Portland Winterhawks, whose arena can fit the whole population of Cranbrook inside it. The series is three games to one for the Ice with the fifth game in Portland Friday night. Whoever wins goes to the Memorial Cup in Toronto. That will be the third trip, if we get there, for the Ice to the Memorial Cup in 13 seasons.

Winning the Memorial Cup requires winning more games than it takes to win the Stanley Cup. To get to the WHL finals, the Ice defeated the Moose Jaw Warriors in six games; the Saskatoon Blades, who happen to be the WHL champions and the second-best rated team in the country, in four straight; and Medicine Hat Tigers in four straight.

Win or lose the championship, this is a remarkable achievement for a group of dedicated young Canadians from the second-smallest Canadian junior hockey market in the country. Please add the Kootenay Ice to the Vancouver Canucks as B.C.'s teams this spring. Cheer for them, at least for the next couple of weeks.

Oral Questions

REVENUE NEUTRALITY
OF HARMONIZED SALES TAX

B. Ralston: Yesterday the Finance Minister chided members, claiming they had not read the budget when he was asked why the B.C. Liberal government had pulled a complete about-face on its earlier promise of a revenue-neutral HST.

Let's check out what the previous Finance Minister had to say after the September 2009 budget update and after the March 2, 2010, budget was tabled: "What I have said from the beginning is that the HST will bring in approximately the same amount of revenue as the PST system is today."

So to the Finance Minister: is he suggesting the hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena didn't read his own budget?

Hon. K. Falcon: This sounds very consistent with the NDP, always trying to use selective bits of quotes and misinformation to try and draw a narrative. We've certainly got used to that, but I do note that at least the section of the quote that he quoted is remarkably aligned with exactly what was said in the September 2009 budget update, that the "harmonization is initially expected to be roughly fiscally neutral."

That's what it said in the September '09 budget. It went on to say: "In future years harmonization is expected to result in increased revenues, because the HST is a more stable and robust revenue source than the PST and will contribute to enhanced economic growth."

[1355]

Now that was repeated in Budget 2010. You know, I know that the members apparently don't read that and they like to draw a narrative that is not aligned with facts, but the fact of the matter is it was there — clear as day. We've always been clear. It was expected to be initially neutral, but it would have positive revenue growth in the future. That's exactly what it says.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

B. Ralston: Well, it is ironic that the minister would object to quoting the former Minister of Finance from Hansard here in this House — pretty long stretch to make that believable. But what we have here is a clear contradiction between two Liberal Finance Ministers. Is
[ Page 6955 ]
it any wonder that the public finds it very difficult to accept anything this Finance Minister says?

So is he going to continue to explain this contradiction by saying the former Finance Minister didn't read his own budget documents?

Hon. K. Falcon: I didn't think that the Finance critic, of all people, would want to go there, talking about misinformed or misinformation. This is the very person that stood up and asked the question in the House that demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about basic elements of the HST rebates.

As we have said many times in this House, as I've answered in many, many questions, the harmonization — the decision to harmonize the GST and the PST — is consistent with what 140 jurisdictions around the world have done.

It is interesting to me that the NDP Finance critic and, in fact, the Leader of the Opposition are campaigning to restore a retail sales tax, which is called the PST. Actually, that would be setting a new record, in that no jurisdiction in the world has adopted a retail sales tax in the last 35 years, but that's what the NDP want to do in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

GOVERNMENT TAX POLICIES AFTER
HARMONIZED SALES TAX REFERENDUM

B. Ralston: Well, the current Finance Minister and the former Finance Minister are going to have to sit down and get their stories straight.

Let me refer to something else the previous Finance Minister said. He said: "If the referendum goes against the HST, then what will trigger is the return of the provincial sales tax system that we had before." But yet this Finance Minister, in what looks like a veiled threat to voters, was on the radio hinting he might play a shell game with the previous PST exemptions.

So to the Finance Minister: will he rise today and commit to returning to the PST as it was, with its previous exemptions, when the HST is voted down in the referendum?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the opportunity to use up question period on behalf of my colleagues answering questions I've already answered before. So I'm happy to re-answer that question.

What I said was that I am not going to make commitments — good, bad or indifferent — with respect to the PST because a responsible Finance Minister is actually going to wait until the results of a referendum. Then I am going to engage in a conversation with British Columbians to make sure we do the right thing for British Columbians with respect to the PST and GST, if that is the decision of the voters.

M. Mungall: Well, bicycles and bike repairs, vitamins and naturopaths, school supplies, energy-saving appliances…. This Finance Minister is refusing to ensure that PST exemptions will return to British Columbians when the HST is voted down. Yet of course, that is precisely the intention of the referendum question.

So to the Minister of Finance. Is he planning to betray voters yet again, or will he commit to going back to the PST with its previous exemptions when the HST is voted down?

Hon. K. Falcon: I want to thank the member for Nelson-Creston for coming forward with a suggestion on how the HST might be improved. In fact, if….

Interjection.

[1400]

Hon. K. Falcon: I thought it was her turn to ask the question.

As you well know, we are engaged in a listening exercise right now with British Columbians. This may startle the NDP: to date there have been almost 200,000 British Columbians that have participated in that exercise.

The purpose of that exercise is to listen to ideas from British Columbians on how we might improve the HST. I've made a note of a suggestion from the member opposite. But I can tell you this. The one thing we know for sure, and what the independent panel report clearly stated, was that, on balance, the HST is a good, forward-moving decision for the province of British Columbia to generate revenue, to generate jobs and to ensure that we have a growing economy in British Columbia. That's what we're trying to do on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Mungall: Honesty, stability — that's what small businesses around this province are looking for from government, and they're not getting it from the B.C. Liberals.

Families want to know the intention of the referendum. Will it be respected or whether the B.C. Liberals are yet again going to betray them? These are the same small businesses, these are the same families who are shouldering the burden of this tax shift. Meanwhile, the B.C. Liberals' corporate buddies are reaping the rewards.

Will the Minister of Finance be upfront with B.C. businesses and B.C. families and commit today that previously exempted items under the PST will be exempted once again once the HST is voted down?

Hon. K. Falcon: I hope the member for Nelson-Creston is fully aware of what party she ran with, because
[ Page 6956 ]
I think if she had done the most basic research into what her party stands for with respect to small business, she might not be asking this question. This is the party that had a small business tax rate of almost 9 percent in the 1990s. That's the party. We have reduced that rate down to 2½ percent.

But I've saved the best for last, because the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of her party, actually is campaigning on a platform to raise the small business tax rate 80 percent. That's the record of the NDP.

C. James: If the Finance Minister had been listening, he'd know that the public has had enough of this government trying to mislead them on the HST. They've had enough of a tax that is making it more difficult for them. The public deserves to know if this minister and the B.C. Liberals are going to betray the public once more when the HST is voted down.

The home-building industry in Victoria certainly wants to know this Finance Minister's intention. Casey Edge, the executive director of the Victoria branch of the Canadian Home Builders Association, says the HST implementation on homes previously exempt under the PST adds significantly to the cost. He said: "We're waiting on the June referendum to see how that goes."

So my question is to the Finance Minister, again: will he commit to going back to the PST with its previous exemptions when the HST is voted down in the referendum?

Hon. K. Falcon: I feel like there's a broken record taking place here. I've already answered that question. I answered it the day before yesterday. I answered it yesterday. I answered it today, and apparently, the members don't wish to listen to the answer.

[1405]

But I do know that many of the public, including all the members on this side, are certainly curious to know how the NDP is going to square their own position on this.

As I have pointed out, they are campaigning to return to a PST-plus-GST system. What is notable about that is the fact that the independent panel reported out that the costs over a two-year period are almost $3 billion in lost revenue to the province.

Yet we hear the members opposite, the NDP, every day in this House talking about how government should be spending more in every single ministry. Whether it's the Attorney General, the Environment Minister, the Health Minister, the Education Minister, the Solicitor General, it's: "More spending, more spending, more spending." That's the NDP message.

I'd sure like to know how the members are going to square that — campaigning on a platform that will deprive government of almost $3 billion of revenues. I would love to hear that answer.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

C. James: Perhaps the Finance Minister, since he won't listen to the public, would like to listen to his own leader. I'd like to quote what the current Premier said about the HST in 2009: "I mean, we've talked a lot about the increase, the extras you're going to be paying on every single restaurant bill, but what about the cost of housing? You could be doubling the tax you're going to be paying on that. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous."

Now, here's another quote from just this spring, from the Finance Minister's leader, the current Premier. "When it comes to the HST, the public wants straight answers, not a position that shifts without warning. This type of doubletalk on the HST is damaging to the public trust government must have to be successful." Well, that view didn't last long. All we're getting from the B.C. Liberals is doubletalk over and over again.

Again, a direct question to the Finance Minister, a yes-or-no answer: will the Finance Minister stand up today, commit to returning the PST with its previous exemptions when the HST is voted down?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member should listen in on one of these telephone town halls, where we have listened to almost 200,000 British Columbians with respect to the HST. In fact, I was so thrilled to see…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: …that we've listened as the voters of Vancouver–Point Grey sent the newly elected member for Vancouver–Point Grey out to Victoria. That is certainly notable to the extent that, up until the election results yesterday, there has been no government — not NDP, not Social Credit, not B.C. Liberal — that has won a by-election in 30 years, but yesterday this government won a by-election. We are proud of that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1410]

J. Horgan: If the Twitterverse is any indication of how the Liberals felt at 9:30 last night, I don't think they were as cocky. But I digress.

Interjections.

J. Horgan: Of course you did. And I know all of the members that used to be in cabinet and are not today felt really shucks about that last night as well.

My question is to the Finance Minister. I know he and his sidekick the bike rider from Peace River South have
[ Page 6957 ]
been making phone calls. I want to give this opportunity now: phone a friend on this side of the House. There are 34 people sitting over here who have lots of suggestions for you.

One suggestion, if you did manage to find my phone number in the book, that I would give you is: if the referendum on the HST is defeated, will you commit today, Minister…? You don't have to spend 5 million bucks to get this answer. Will you just tell the public today for nothing, for free…? You don't even have to make the phone call. Will you restore the exemptions that were in place before you screwed up the tax system in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Falcon: I was tempted to make a comment about the former moderates in that party, if there were a few. There were some that have now been, of course, pushed aside with the new hard-liners of the left led by the House Leader on the opposite side.

As I say, I always continue to be fascinated with the positions that the members opposite take on public policy. Even countries around the world, as I've mentioned before, whether it's China or North Vietnam or South Vietnam, recognize that harmonized sales taxes are better than retail sales taxes. Only the NDP, apparently, want to campaign for an option that no jurisdiction, as I say, in 35 years has selected.

But having said that, Mr. Speaker, look. The fact of the matter is that we are engaged in the most massive, largest public reach-out to engage British Columbians, to listen to British Columbians, to answer questions from British Columbians and to solicit input from British Columbians on how we can improve the HST. That's exactly what we're going to do on this side of the House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

BEDBUG INFESTATIONS AND CONTROL

S. Chandra Herbert: Bedbugs have been on the rise all across B.C. One Ministry of Health report suggests that they have increased over 600 percent in Metro Vancouver under the B.C. Liberals' watch. In addition to the huge costs and impacts on renters, landlords and businesses to try to fight them, a new study from St. Paul's Hospital raises questions about the possibility they could be responsible for spreading serious life-threatening illnesses.

When will the minister take real action to stop this disgusting pest and protect British Columbia families from this scourge?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for raising an important issue. There's no question that based on the literature that's been developed over the last number of years, particularly in urban settings, there has been a proliferation of bedbugs. Whilst in the past we may have joked about this, it has apparently got beyond being a joke.

There was material published today about a study. I say for the member and others that we take the matter very seriously, but at the same time, the report that was published emanated from a very small study. The author of that study has urged that we not jump to conclusions about the transmission of bacteria, though that is something the ministry is following up.

I can assure all members and British Columbians that we are also doing what we can to ensure that British Columbians have access to information about how to contain and eradicate bedbugs, if and when they discover that they have infested their home.

[1415]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

S. Chandra Herbert: A 600 percent increase in Metro Vancouver under this government. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in costs to renters, to landlords and to businesses.

A simple and effective way to combat bedbugs is through strong public education. Manitoba is doing it. Ontario is doing it. But this B.C. Liberal government has consistently done nothing, while this problem has gotten worse.

When will this minister stand up for B.C. families and join with other provinces to stop bedbugs from spreading in our communities?

Hon. M. de Jong: Whilst I appreciate the member raising an important issue in the House, I am less impressed by the manner in which he seeks to sensationalize the issue or assign political blame for a topic that transcends politics.

There is an issue. My sense is that it has, particularly in urban centres, gotten worse. That is a trend that we see tracking across North America. There are thoughts about what might be causing that.

The ministry and the health authorities have been taking steps over the last number of years. We intend to step up those efforts to ensure that people have the information they require to take steps necessary to arrest and eradicate bedbugs when they discover that they have infested their home.

EMERGENCY GRANT POLICY FOR
DISABILITY ASSISTANCE RECIPIENTS

M. Karagianis: Andre Pepin, in my community, survives on disability payments, and he's a diabetic. Recently Andre lost his wallet and found himself with
[ Page 6958 ]
no money. He sought emergency help. Due to the B.C. Liberal policies, the emergency funding that Andre got was $20, Mr. Speaker — $20 for him to live on till the end of this month.

My question is to the Minister of Social Development. Can he explain how the government calculated that a person can live on $20 a month?

Hon. H. Bloy: I do not have details on this. I'll take it under notice and get back to you.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental, and it's a different question.

M. Karagianis: I'm actually asking about a policy here. I'm not asking about the minister to….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Karagianis: Sadly, it's part of the devastation of social services in this province that this government, this B.C. Liberal government, has eliminated the ability of caseworkers to use discretion on how they help people like Andre with the supports they need.

My question is to the minister. How does he expect Andre to live on $20? That's a dollar a day from now till the end of the month. It is a policy that this minister should be familiar with.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member, the minister took it on notice. If you have another question, ask a separate question.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

S. Simpson: My question is to the Minister of Social Development as well. The policies of the B.C. Liberal government are forcing staff in this ministry to do work that is not progressive, not compassionate and, frankly, not practical. Part of that includes the emergency grant — $20.

The minister doesn't have to take this on notice. I will tell him his policy: $20 a month. It doesn't matter whether you need it on the first day or the last day of the month. That's the reality.

My question to the minister is this: does he think it is realistic to ask someone to live for two weeks on $20, and if not, what is he going to do about it?

Hon. H. Bloy: As minister responsible for Social Development, a very big area…. You know, we look at best practices for every individual. I have all the confidence in the staff of Social Development to be able to work with individuals. I've already taken this question under advisement, and I will report back to the House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

[1420]

S. Simpson: Hon. Speaker, it's time for this minister to get a handle on his file. He's had this ministry for months. He's dealing with the most vulnerable people in this province, and he does not know what he's doing. That's the reality. It's time for the minister to speak for his ministry. He doesn't have his staff here to consult, to write the answers out. He doesn't have those people here.

Will the minister stand up and will he tell us whether he thinks that $20 is the best practice for dealing with emergency shelters.

Hon. H. Bloy: Hon. Speaker….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister, just take your seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. H. Bloy: This ministry works very hard, and I am proud of the work that this staff does to help individuals in our communities and working through Ministry of Social Development. You know, we have reduced the number of people on social development. We have improved their lives over the last number of years, unlike the NDP. It had a 10 percent increase in the '90s, of clients.

B.C. PLACE ROOF REPLACEMENT

J. Kwan: My question is to the minister of Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. Could he please confirm for this House that the B.C. Place roof is actually on time and on budget.

Hon. P. Bell: There is a term that the members opposite might not be used to. It's called a fixed-price contract. That's exactly what B.C. Place is under. We expect it will be brought in within the original allocation.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: We've heard that before, and that would be with the convention centre. With respect to the govern-
[ Page 6959 ]
ment's promise that it's on time and on budget, we now know that that is not the case.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

J. Kwan: The minister says that the B.C. Place roof is on time and on budget. Would he submit to this House the documentation verifying the cost of the B.C. stadium roof budget?

Hon. P. Bell: Just in the way that the member opposite asked the question, clearly she does not understand business practices. The Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre was not a fixed-price contract. B.C. Place is a fixed-price contract, and it will come in within the $563 million allocation.

[End of question period.]

Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)

Hon. R. Coleman: Since it's my first opportunity, I reserve my right to bring a question of privilege to the House.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Coleman: The business today, in this chamber, will be the estimates, continued, of the Ministry of Attorney General, and in the little House, Committee A, we will be doing Ministry of Children and Family Development.

[1425]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:30 p.m.

On Vote 16: ministry operations, $351,678,000 (continued).

L. Krog: At the close of this morning's proceedings the Attorney General, in response to my comments around the forgiving of the assets that were recovered by security to the Crown for the legal fees of Mr. Basi, indicated that that decision was made entirely independent of him. It was last year's budget, etc. I suppose that raises a very obvious question. That decision was made by the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Finance, as I understand it. I just wanted to know: did the Attorney General and does the Attorney General, in fact, support that decision?

Hon. B. Penner: The member will be aware that at the time of this decision, back last fall, the deputy ministers involved issued a public statement with their rationale, explaining the decision that they made. That is part of the public record. If the member so wants, I can read that into the record for the purposes of this debate as well. But I'll be in the member's hands on that, if he wishes me to refer to that for him.

Certainly, I have seen and heard nothing to suggest that the deputies did anything other than what they considered to be appropriate, given the circumstances they were facing. That advice or that opinion is contained in the statement that they made public last fall. I don't know if the member is taking issue with that statement, but perhaps this would be the time, if he wants to do that.

L. Krog: I thought the question was fairly straightforward. I asked the Attorney General: given that he was a member of cabinet, did he then and does he still support the decision taken by the deputy minister?

Hon. B. Penner: I was not the Attorney General at the time. I became Attorney General on December 1, 2010. But again, to the member's question, I haven't seen anything to suggest that anything inappropriate took place. If the member wants to make such an allegation and level that against the deputy ministers, this would be his opportunity.

[1435]

L. Krog: I will perhaps speak more slowly to try and make this as clear as I possibly can to the Attorney General, the minister responsible for his ministry, the person in this chamber who speaks for the Ministry of Attorney General.

I appreciate he was only a member of executive council in the broad sense when the decision was taken. The same Deputy Attorney General serves him as served his predecessor. I'm asking quite simply: the decision taken by the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Finance — does the Attorney General support it — yes or no?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member well knows, it's not up to the elected people to make decisions about things dealing with specific criminal cases, and that's appropriate. It was not a matter where the elected Attorney General, at the time that this decision was made, was called upon to make a decision. That is a decision that
[ Page 6960 ]
was made by the professional public servants that represent the ministries, work on behalf of the ministries and on behalf of British Columbians.

In fact it's not, in my view, appropriate for you to ask me what I would do in a specific instance, when it's not the role of elected officials to interfere in specific prosecutions. That has not been the practice in British Columbia in recent decades, thank goodness, and I don't think it should be. That isn't to say that some of us didn't have concerns when we heard about the costs that were incurred throughout the case.

The member, I think, is referring to what's been known as the Virk-Basi matter. That took, I think, seven years from start to finish in terms of investigation and prosecution, ultimately leading up to convictions for two individuals. That was a lengthy, time-consuming process, and expensive.

Do I have concerns about the overall time and length and expense of that matter? Yes, I do. But is it up to me to inject myself into specific prosecutions and the conduct of those matters? I would suggest to the member opposite that that's not appropriate.

L. Krog: Ministerial accountability means that the minister is responsible for the decisions taken by his ministry. That's a pretty simple and basic proposition. My question, again, to the Attorney General is a very simple one: does he support the decision taken by his deputy minister?

Hon. B. Penner: To be completely clear, it was not a political decision. It was not made by elected representatives. It was made by professional public servants. If the member's asking me a more direct question — do I support those public servants? — the answer is yes, and more specifically, I support my Deputy Attorney General.

L. Krog: Well, if we're going to get specific, perhaps the Attorney General could state specifically that he supports the decision taken by the Deputy Attorney General in this matter.

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, I do, based on the information that I have, which is that this was a decision reached by not just one deputy but more than one deputy, based on the circumstances that they were provided with.

He hasn't specifically done so, but to refresh the member's memory, on October 20, 2010, the following statement was issued by members. I think, for the purposes of this discussion, I'll read it into the record.

"It is important to clarify for the record the circumstances relating to the decision to release Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk from their liability to repay their legal costs of the prosecution that concluded this week with their guilty pleas.

"On October 5, 2010, it came to the attention of the legal services branch, Ministry of Attorney General, that the special prosecutor had proposed resolution of their prosecutions through guilty pleas. Discussions then took place between the legal services branch and defence counsel, including with respect to their clients' liability to repay their legal costs."

Then in brackets:

"The indemnities provided that they would have to do so unless acquitted on all counts."

End of brackets.

"The legal services branch referred the matter to me and to the Deputy Minister of Finance. The Deputy Minister of Finance has authority under the Financial Administration Act respecting this matter. He and I considered this issue.

"A major consideration was the relatively small amounts that might be recovered from Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk compared to the millions of additional dollars it would cost the government to continue to fund defence, prosecution and court-related costs through to the completion of the trial and to fund any appeals with no guarantees of convictions.

[1440]

"Based on the above, in our respective capacities, the Deputy Minister of Finance and I decided to release Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk from their liability to repay. I communicated that decision to the Attorney General on October 8, 2010. No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance had any knowledge of this or involvement."

For clarity, neither the special prosecutor nor the Attorney General had any knowledge of the matter or involvement in this.

"A letter is being sent today to counsel for Mr. Basi and counsel for Mr. Virk releasing them and their clients from the October 14, 2010, condition that require they not discuss the above financial matters and that they refer all inquiries to the Ministry of Attorney General."

That is the full content of the statement issued on October 20, 2010.

L. Krog: I think the Attorney General could quite simply have said yes to my question about five questions ago, and we would have saved the last ten minutes of the debate.

Back on the topic which led to this question being asked — Foundation for Change: Report of the Public Commission on Legal Aid in British Columbia. Mr. Doust concludes, and I quote from page 8: "I have no hesitation in concluding that legal aid is an essential public service in our society. For the reasons contained in this report, it is my view that in a just society, it is a public service that is as essential as education, health care and social assistance."

I'd like to hear the Attorney General's position on that statement.

Hon. B. Penner: Obviously, given the fact that our government has maintained legal aid funding for the last number of years — and this year all contributions from the provincial government will total approximately $70 million to the Legal Services Society, which provides legal aid services in the province — I think the answer is yes. We agree with Mr. Doust that the provision of legal aid is very important in British Columbia.

We are looking forward to finding ways that we can continue to improve efficiencies and service delivery in
[ Page 6961 ]
looking for new models and new ways that we can do that knowing that we are living in fiscally constrained times. As I've said this morning, the budgets are tight, but nevertheless, we've been able to maintain core funding this year at the same levels it was for the last couple of years for the Legal Services Society.

L. Krog: Mr. Doust also states that B.C. has "fallen from being a leader in legal aid provision" from the mid-90s and concludes: "the legal aid system is failing to meet even the most basic needs of British Columbians." He says, and I quote in particular from page 7:

"Based on the evidence presented to me, I cannot come to any conclusion other than that the services provided in British Columbia today are too little, their longevity or consistency too uncertain. This result is the consequence of the cutbacks and lack of sufficient and consistent financing, even though LSS has done its very best, and in my view has done everything possible to accommodate the needs within their limited budgetary restrictions."

What does the Attorney General have to say about that statement by Mr. Doust?

[1445]

Hon. B. Penner: I certainly concur with Mr. Doust. I think we can all agree that LSS has done its very best and that, yes, these are fiscally constrained times. But it brings us back to the discussion we had this morning. Where is the additional funding supposed to come from that the member is asking for?

This morning his suggestion was that perhaps the government shouldn't be funding people to get off the habit of nicotine and cigarettes, notwithstanding the well-documented health threat that cigarette smoking causes and the painful tragedy that cancer represents.

It is a challenging time in government when budgets are constrained and revenues aren't what we might hope they are. But we heard it again this afternoon in question period: the Finance Minister pointing out that the opposition themselves are campaigning in order to remove $3 billion from future government revenue.

Facing the prospect of $3 billion less to spend is a pretty daunting prospect. It does behoove me to ask the member: where would that $3 billion come from if not from additional revenue from the HST, due to an expanded tax base, a more efficient economy, a tax structure that encourages investment in job creation, and not having to pay the federal government back $1.6 billion in transition funding?

If all of those things happen and we're out $3 billion, how does the member propose we increase the budget for the Legal Services Society?

L. Krog: I appreciate that we have limited time today, and I may abandon this topic for a while. If we have a chance to come back to it, I certainly will.

But I'd like to move on to discuss the issue of justice transformation. In 2009 the pre-election budget committed $8,227,400 to justice transformation, $3.895 million for justice reform, and $4.379 million for community courts.

In 2010 the government budgeted only $1.408 million. In 2011 this line item no longer even exists.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can advise the House exactly what that translates into in terms of justice transformation.

Hon. B. Penner: A number of things. First of all, I'm advised that this funding was always intended to be time-limited, as it was to assist with transformations for a number of different projects, including the downtown community court, which is now up and running, and the prolific offender management program, which is also running.

[1450]

Some of the policy capacity and some other expenses were transferred to a different heading — to the justice services and court services branches — which I'm told is something they think will produce additional efficiencies and reduce overhead as we continue to work on bringing some transformations to the justice system.

L. Krog: I'm conscious of the fact that I am just a woefully ignorant person, but of course I'm speaking on behalf of the public. That's my job. Therefore, I have to elicit answers, hopefully, from the minister, which will explain to the public what's happened.

So you look at a line item in the budget that was $8 million back in 2009, and now that line item no longer exists. Can the Attorney General tell me: are the same amount of moneys available, or is the community court process going to disappear? Perhaps he could be a little more specific in his answer.

Hon. B. Penner: I just want to confirm we're talking about the same line item. The document I have indicates operating expense for 2010-2011 of $4.9 million. I think I heard the member say $8 million. I'm just trying to confirm if we're talking about the same issue.

L. Krog: We're talking about what was referred to as justice transformation. That was the original line item back in 2010. So what I'm trying to determine is the community courts…. Let me give the minister an example of one which we know has been cut, for instance.

The funding was cut to the Langley special prosecutor domestic violence pilot project in 2009. That, I believe, was covered under justice transformation, as an example. It's just gone. What I'm trying to determine is the community courts, the Vancouver community court experiment — where's the money for that gone? Is it being funded at exactly the same level it was a couple of years ago? I understand it was supposed to be a temporary project, but I presume it's continuing. So where is it? How much is it? Is it getting funded?

[1455]
[ Page 6962 ]

Hon. B. Penner: Let me try to restate what happened here. The change or the vector from 2010-11 to 2011-12 for justice transformation — my documents show $4.9 million to $1.4 million. I'm told that the balance or the difference is accounted for — the money that represents the difference — by being moved to a different line item to support the downtown community court. It's the downtown community court amount that was taken out of this heading and moved somewhere else. That explains the difference from $4.9 million to $1.4 million, year over year.

L. Krog: The line item no longer exists in the 2011 budget. So what's happened to that $1.4 million that was left in that line item in 2010, now given that it's disappeared in 2011? In other words, I want to know…. I'm not trying to be tricky. Is the money there? Is it being spent in the ways that it was before to support the community court, or has it just disappeared? Is it part of a cut? Where has it gone?

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised that the community court is continuing to operate, and I don't think anyone will have seen any change.

L. Krog: Well, given that we can perhaps focus on that, it will provide some clarity. The community court in Vancouver continues to function. I assume the Attorney General is saying that it's continuing to get the same amount of funding that it was before, but it's just disappeared into a new line item. That's the first part of my question. I'm assuming that statement is correct.

Assuming that statement is correct, the promise was that it was to be an experiment. It was to be analyzed, it was to be looked at, it was to be carefully studied, and it would hopefully form the basis of an expansion. If that's the case, are there any plans whatsoever to expand it beyond the Vancouver community court?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that we are evaluating the results and performance of the downtown community court model, as well as what I talked about this morning, which is the Victoria Integrated Court program, or pilot program. That review or assessment is ongoing, and we should have some conclusions by next spring.

L. Krog: I mean, this particular process — both the community court and the Victoria court approach — I think are ones that the opposition strongly supports. They're supported by various groups in both communities familiar with how the justice system and those with mental illness and addictions continuously interact, how much of the repetitive crime flows from people who suffer from mental illness combined with addictions issues.

I'm just wondering how long we are going to be evaluating. I think, if I recall, your predecessor in this office indicated it was being evaluated last year. I may be wrong.

I guess my question is: it still being evaluated? How long? You've indicated that evaluation is going to continue, but what's the nature of the evaluation? Is somebody doing a study? Is some academic from UBC stepping in, or is some student working on their master's? How is it being evaluated, or is this just a file sitting on the minister's desk somewhere, waiting for the minister to make up his mind that he's got to go back to cabinet and try and beg for more money?

[1500]

Hon. B. Penner: The downtown community court is coming up later this year on its third anniversary of being in operation. There is something called the joint evaluation committee. I'm not sure that's the formal title, but that describes, I guess, the approach to organizing a review or an evaluation of the performance of the downtown community court project.

I am told that the committee is comprised of representatives from the Provincial Court, the Attorney General's ministry, the Solicitor General's ministry and the Health Ministry, and that they undertook last year an interim evaluation, mostly around the process of setting up the structures.

The final evaluation, as I indicated in my last answer, is anticipated in the spring of 2012. Among the things we're looking at is not just the number of court appearances but trying to track some of the outcomes, what actually becomes of the people who have entered into the process through the downtown court. Of course, that takes some time to get a bit of a longitudinal survey of how they fared once they've walked out the doors of the downtown community court.

L. Krog: Just to step back a minute. Perhaps we can be quite specific, and it might assist the staff assisting the Attorney General on my questions. When we talked about the line item being "Justice transformation," what programs and initiatives specifically were covered under that line item in the 2009 budget, and what's happened to all of those programs now? Do they still exist? I mean, we understand the community court is continuing, the integrated court in Victoria, etc., but what other programs, if any, existed under that item and where are they?

[1505]

Hon. B. Penner: Sorry about the delay. We're digging back a couple of years because the member referenced fiscal year 2009-2010, which is almost two years before I became Attorney General. I think we found the item the member is referring to.

I just want to reiterate what I said in my first answer on this topic, which is that this funding is initiated and has always been intended to be time-limited, in terms of
[ Page 6963 ]
helping to do policy development and get different pilot projects or experiments up and running. A number of those pilots were up and running, and served their purpose in terms of piloting different ideas.

One, for example, was the bail reform project — which, I'm told, upon evaluation is not considered a great success. Nevertheless, it was probably still worth trying. I'm not sure, but it was something that we did try and that was funded through this appropriation.

Other things like the downtown community court, as I've noted, are continuing to operate and are being evaluated. We'll have more information on that, I guess, by next spring, in terms of the final evaluation after more than three years of its being in operation.

I apologize for some of the difficulty in getting exact details because some of those questions go back to budgets from not just last year but the fiscal year prior to that year.

L. Krog: Just to confirm, that line item would have included as well, then, the Langley special prosecutor domestic violence pilot project. That likewise has been cut. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: I've been advised that the specific program that the member was referencing in Langley was not, in fact, funded under the justice reform initiatives, if that's the right term, or the justice transformation program. Rather, it was operated within the ministry as an idea, I think, named after a prosecutor by the name of Jocelyn Coupal. That was not actually funded out of that other line item the member was referencing.

I can advise further that the criminal justice branch has been significantly involved in the cross-ministry development of the — here's an acronym for you; it's the first one, I think, we've encountered today, which means we're doing pretty well — VAWIR, which I believe stands for Violence Against Women In Relationships. That would be my interpretation of that.

[1510]

That has been completed, and our ministry has rolled out the new spousal assault policy, known as SPO 1 — there's our second new acronym for today — which includes standardized bail conditions developed in consultation with the corrections branch and the Ministry of Solicitor General.

Additionally, I'm told that the majority of the administrative Crown counsel have now taken the cross-ministry and police B-SAFER risk assessment training developed by the Solicitor General Ministry.

L. Krog: The Attorney General is quite correct. I'm not very fond of acronyms myself. Sometimes they're neither amusing nor helpful in terms of understanding what you're trying to talk about. People try and squeeze them in to fit the alphabet.

The small claims pilot project — was that covered by justice transformation? What's happened to that?

Hon. B. Penner: The small claims pilot project was launched in November 2007, aiming to provide alternative methods of dispute resolution that are faster, more accessible and proportionate to the amount in dispute. I'm advised it was not funded through the justice transformation line item but through some other means or mechanism, and it is ongoing.

L. Krog: The same question basically with respect to the on-line dispute resolution: was that part of justice transformation? Does it continue? Is it still funded, and if so, where?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that this idea is conceptual at this stage, and it's being funded not from the transformation line item but out of base ministry budgets.

L. Krog: With respect to the community courts, which I think are the most significant aspect of justice transformation, is the Attorney General inclined to indicate today any desire to move that up, to ask for the report sooner? I think there is a general consensus that it's successful, that it works, that it saves money, that it improves the lives, indeed, of the people who are involved in the justice system at that level.

Apart from finances — I guess this is my real question — is there any reason not to be proceeding more quickly with that?

[1515]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the quality of the evaluation and the conclusions will be assisted by a fuller length of time. That's why the intended due date is spring of next year, so that we have a bit more of a longitudinal survey of how people have done, not just in terms of how many times they've had to appear at the community court and what other services they availed themselves of but what has happened to them since they left the community court.

We're interested in gathering the evidence, and I should have pointed out that included in reviewing the success of the project are representatives from Simon Fraser University, who are interested, as well, in getting accurate data.

L. Krog: I want to ask some questions around the Victoria Integrated Court program. Judge Quantz was on radio the other morning along with Deputy Chief Ducker of the Victoria police indicating that they certainly were strongly supportive of that program. I'm just asking: is it fully funded for this year, and is there a budget for expansion, perhaps?
[ Page 6964 ]

Hon. B. Penner: I had a chance to listen to that interview the other day on the radio here in Victoria. That program, although similar in intent, has a somewhat different approach, and we are interested in learning from that one as well. It's a different way of getting at the same issue.

I think it makes sense to evaluate carefully the approach with the downtown community court, which is one model, and see how that compares to what's happening here in Victoria with the integrated court program which, by the account I heard on the radio the other day, has led to a decrease in the number of calls police have had to respond to and issues of that nature.

L. Krog: Again, I just want to come back to very specific questions about the Victoria Integrated Court. Is its budget covered for this year in this year's proposed budget, and/or is there any expansion for the budget for the coming year?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not aware of any specific or additional line item for funding the Victoria Integrated Court pilot project. The Provincial Court judiciary are involved in that, as is the Ministry of Attorney General. We're participating by making available prosecutors and other court services staff to make that project work, but I believe it's being handled within existing budgets.

L. Krog: Just to tie this down, because I think it is a very important project: the Attorney General, then, can state categorically today that he is satisfied that the program will be continued in its present form through this budgetary year — yes or no?

Hon. B. Penner: It's my expectation that the Victoria Integrated Court pilot project will continue this year.

[1520]

L. Krog: The reason I've spent some time on this is, frankly, because of what Chief Ducker has to say when he talks about how "a reduction in police calls is anywhere from 30 to 50 percent because these people are being supported, because they have a better medium to make choices once they're released and, frankly, because they're getting some hope out there," etc.

I think it is a very important project. I think it is the kind of innovative project that, quite candidly, the public expects. Even the general public understands now the significant relationship between addiction and mental illness and an awful lot of petty and often non-violent crime, which is nevertheless extremely costly to society.

It's costly in terms of insurance premiums for homeowners or people who can afford to carry insurance. It's extremely costly to the health system. It's costly to the judicial system. It's costly for ambulance transport. It's costly for a whole series of reasons. If we can deal with those people's addictions, then we free up money for all sorts of other things.

Having talked at some length, though, around the issue of mental illness, I want to spend a few moments talking about the B.C. Review Board. The Attorney General is well aware that on April 6 the board had a request from Mr. Allan Schoenborn, who without question killed his three children in April 2008 and found not criminally responsible by reason of mental illness.

Now, this has been a bit of a political football, to some extent. I have the Attorney General's public statement. I have read it, and I appreciate his comments. But Mr. Moore, a member of the Conservative government that has the jurisdiction, if you will, over the Criminal Code of Canada, has sort of tossed this back into the Attorney General's lap.

I want to ask some questions around the board itself. Who are the members of the current board, and when were they appointed?

Hon. B. Penner: I have a confession to make here to members of the Legislature. Until about a month ago I didn't know a whole lot about the B.C. Review Board, hadn't heard much about it. It was one of the many boards, agencies and commissions that are established by the provincial government.

This one's fairly unique, though, because although it's appointed by the provincial government, it's established because of the federal Criminal Code, and the federal Criminal Code requires the province to appoint people to this body. I take it that each province has something similar.

Under the Criminal Code provisions the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council is responsible and must appoint at least five members to the review board, consisting of either a judge or a person qualified to be a judge who can act as chair — since 1997, I think, Bernd Walter has been the chair of the B.C. Review Board, and he's got a legal background; at least one other member qualified to practise psychiatry; and other members typically with experience in mental health, medicine, psychology, social work and criminology.

Currently in British Columbia more than a dozen people are appointed to the review board. Sorry, I don't have a full list of their credentials here or their biographies, but their appointments come up every so often.

It's true that this is a creature of the…. It's appointed by the province, the individual members, but the rules under which they operate are established by the federal parliament through the Criminal Code of Canada. I think that was maybe something that wasn't entirely clear when public controversy or concern was first expressed at just how this review board is established.

I must say that they have a very difficult job to do. They're presented with some pretty tough cases. I don't
[ Page 6965 ]
envy their task, but it is a job that they're appointed to do.

[1525]

The majority of the members are, in essence, ad hoc. They don't sit every day. I think they get paid a per diem for the days when they are required to sit. The review board chair, though, I take is a full-time position, but the majority of the other positions are, in essence, ad hoc.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General became aware of the existence of the board. It's not something that has figured — how shall I say? — prominently in the public forum in the last few years. It certainly does now. People are very conscious of it, and people are very concerned about it.

The very fact that within a little over a year of being found guilty of first-degree murder but not criminally responsible for the death of his three children in dreadful circumstances — circumstances that would move the hardest heart…. I think people want to know a little more about how this board operates.

Now, the Attorney General has indicated that Mr. Walter is the chair and has been for 12 years. There are 12 people appointed. He said they're reappointed from time to time. Perhaps the minister could be more specific. How long are the appointments to this board? Are they for a six-month duration? A year? And if so, are they reviewed? Are the same people on it who have been on it for the last 12 years, like Mr. Walter as chair? How does this system work?

Hon. B. Penner: The term of appointment for the chair expires at least every five years, so the maximum term of each appointment is five years for chair. For other members that are appointed, it must be based on a merit-based process. Typically, consultation would take place with the chair before those appointments are made. Those terms can range from two to four years by way of individual appointment.

L. Krog: Perhaps the Attorney General can enlighten us. When was Mr. Walter last appointed? Have there been any recent appointments to the review board, and if so, who are they? And in terms of determining the merit-based process, I really want the Attorney General to be very specific about this.

I understand the government has a process — just as, frankly, our government did in the '90s — in terms of appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. You look at resumés, etc. But at some point there is a person in the chain, and I would presume it would be Mr. Walter in this case, who actually makes the recommendations which then cabinet or the committee we used to call Legs and Regs actually passes, and passes on to cabinet for approval.

How is it merit-based? Is there a process? Is there a panel? Is it just Mr. Walter? I'm asking the Attorney General to be a bit expansive in this, because it is a matter of great concern to British Columbians.

[1530]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not aware of any appointments in the immediate past, but given that the terms expire every two to four years, as I indicated earlier, I would imagine that the appointments come along on kind of a rolling basis. The requirements, as I indicated earlier, are established, first of all, in the Criminal Code. Section 672 sets out some of the essential criteria.

As I indicated, the board chair has to be someone who would otherwise be qualified to be a judge. So you look at the same types of qualifications as someone would have to be a judge of a court. Then there's a requirement that at least one of the other board members be qualified to practise psychiatry; then, also, that typically other members have experience in mental health, medicine, psychology, social work and criminology. In practice I'm told that in B.C. quite a few people on the board have some background in psychiatry or sociology or some other type of related experience.

The board chair would make some recommendations and suggestions to government. That would go through, I think, the board resourcing and development office. That was, I think, the first acronym I referred to today, when I talked about BRDO, otherwise known as the board resourcing and development office.

They also make sure that there is sufficient expertise and qualifications for people to serve on this board. Once appointed, the member will know, it operates essentially as a quasi-judicial body, so it operates with a fair degree of independence once it's been established.

L. Krog: I take it, then, essentially, if I understand this correctly, that when Mr. Walter has given you the stamp of approval, then you pass up through what I will call the more political process. In other words, you're moving into the area of where cabinet makes the OIC appointment. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: As in the case of appointing Provincial Court judges or justices of the peace, appointments to this quasi-judicial tribunal also requires the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make an order to make the appointment complete.

I think that's been the case since the review board was first established, by my recollection, in 1992. That's when the Criminal Code provisions were significantly overhauled following a Supreme Court of Canada decision where, interpreting and applying the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, previous provisions were struck down. That essentially let the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council — in practice, the cabinet of the day — have
[ Page 6966 ]
people detained indefinitely at their pleasure — "at the Lieutenant-Governor's pleasure," to quote the phrase — even sometimes for relatively minor offences.

The Supreme Court of Canada took a look at that practice in a case called Regina v. Swain. They had a decision in, I think, 1991 striking down those provisions, and parliament responded in 1992 with the new provisions in 672 of the Criminal Code. That was the genesis of review boards across Canada. So it would have been either in 1992 or 1993 that British Columbia first established the review board. The current chair was appointed in 1997, I believe, by the previous government.

L. Krog: I appreciate the lesson and the explanation the Attorney General's given, which may assist people who are watching to understand how this works. But it doesn't get past the issue of the enormous public concern surrounding the decision of the board, particularly in Mr. Schoenborn's case.

There is also the decision to grant temporary passes to Kimberly Noyes, who killed a 12-year-old autistic boy. In late April the public learned that a Kitimat man who had killed his daughter in 2006 actually stabbed someone in 2009 after the review board had granted him a temporary pass from the same Colony Farm psychiatric hospital.

[1535]

These are, and I use the term very directly, "notorious cases," cases where the public confidence in the justice system has been significantly shattered. So in the case of Mr. Schoenborn, we have the review board on one hand saying it didn't know Darcie Clarke's address, when in fact they had sent her a notice of the hearing for Mr. Schoenborn and asked her to provide a victim impact statement.

I want to come back, in particular, to the decision taken by the board initially to allow the head of the institution the right to give Mr. Schoenborn day passes, essentially. Is the Attorney General satisfied that in fact the review board acted properly in that first decision?

Hon. B. Penner: As the member will know, for the Attorney General to criticize a decision of a quasi-judicial body or court directly could result in some significant criticism from, well, people like himself.

Looking at the decision, though, I can certainly understand why the public had some concern, particularly since many people were left with the impression that Mr. Schoenborn had been released. In fact, the member put it correctly — and more carefully than maybe some media commentators did, who left the public with the impression, intentionally or otherwise, that Mr. Schoenborn had actually already been released from custody.

My understanding is that Mr. Schoenborn continues to be detained, and the initial decision of the review board last month was, as the member indicated, ordering continued detainment of Mr. Schoenborn but allowing the head of the facility in which Mr. Schoenborn was being housed, Colony Farm — that individual who is in charge is a psychiatrist, by the way — to assess whether or not some limited form of escorted absence would be beneficial to Mr. Schoenborn's psychiatric recovery and if that could also be done without unduly jeopardizing public safety.

That, in essence, was the review board decision as I understand it. Nevertheless, that certainly did create considerable concern, most importantly for Darcie Clarke, the mother of the three children. I had an opportunity to meet with her and her cousin a number of weeks ago. They're faring as well as anyone could in those circumstances — probably better, actually, than I would have expected.

But the discussion we had around the kitchen table was actually very instructive to me and helped inform and shape my views that a Criminal Code reform is in order here. I have written a formal letter to the federal Justice Minister, who currently is Rob Nicholson, outlining three specific Criminal Code amendments that I thought would be appropriate.

Since that time I've also articulated publicly a fourth suggestion, which is to do away with the automatic requirement to hold a review at least every 12 months. Currently section 672 of the Criminal Code requires the board to convene a hearing at least every 12 months regardless of what type of incident took place or the current state of the psychological health of the person in question.

My suggestion, which I've articulated, is that for those people who have committed the most horrendous offences against other persons — such as murder, attempted murder, serious assaults or sexual assault — the requirement for an automatic review be changed to get the victims off this 12-month treadmill where they continually have to anticipate the stress and trauma of considering what might happen at the review board.

[1540]

In keeping with the Regina v. Swain decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 1991, and being mindful of what they said about the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I think there is still room to change the Criminal Code without offending those Charter provisions. We can have the discussion.

I'm open to persuasion on this, but something in the order of perhaps every three or five years in terms of a review before the full panel for those people who have been found to have committed the most serious offences but were not criminally responsible because of a mental illness might be in order — or earlier, but only if the treating psychiatrist files a report with the review board noting that there's been a material improvement in the person's mental state. Then that would trigger the opportunity to get before the review board earlier. I think
[ Page 6967 ]
that that is the kind of safeguard that the court was thinking about in Regina v. Swain in 1991.

I understand that won't go far enough for some people, but we are bound by the constitution in Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Even so I think we can take some additional measures within those boundaries to still give the public a greater sense of confidence and safety and to pay more respect to the concerns of victims.

The other three changes that I've specifically written to Minister Nicholson about are changing the focus at the very beginning, from putting the emphasis on the least intrusive form of control on the subject, the person found to have committed the offence in question, to public safety. That would be analogous to the parole provisions currently under the Parole Act, where public safety is the first consideration.

The second proposed change on my part had to do with — now my memory is starting to fail me, but I'm sure my staff will retrieve the letter I wrote — trying to make sure the agencies involved have to consider the location of victims when they're designing conditions that they're going to impose on a subject.

We certainly heard that in this case. That appears not to have been the top consideration — nor, perhaps, even a significant consideration. From talking to Darcie, I know that her concern, in my view…. I am not a psychiatrist, but having spent a couple of hours with her, my assessment is that she's extremely genuine in her personal concern for her own safety vis-à-vis Mr. Schoenborn. After what happened, who can blame her?

An additional suggestion was also communicated to the federal Justice Minister, and I'm sure I'll remember that momentarily. I was pleased that in the media the federal Justice Minister and the federal opposition Justice critic both expressed broad support, general support, for the ideas that I was putting forward.

The commitment that I've made to Darcie and her cousin Stacy is that as soon as the new cabinet at the federal level is constituted, as soon as those appointments are made and I know who the Attorney General of Canada will be on an ongoing basis, I will endeavour to get a meeting with the federal Attorney General immediately to press the case for these changes to the Criminal Code to better protect the public and still live within the bounds of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

L. Krog: Obviously, the Conservative MP for the area, Mr. Moore, disagreed with the Attorney General on the issue of whether changes were required to the Criminal Code. He stated, as I understand it, that it was the membership of the board that needed changing, which is entirely within the provincial government's purview. I would just like to hear the Attorney General's comments on Mr. Moore's remarks and advice to the provincial government.

Hon. B. Penner: My memory has just been refreshed, and I've been provided a copy of my letter dated April 13, 2011, to the federal Minister of Justice and the Attorney General for Canada, Rob Nicholson.

[1545]

The three specific suggestions itemized in this letter are, as I indicated in my last answer, first, that the review board must give paramount consideration to public safety and second, that there must be at least two psychiatric opinions on which the board's decision is based.

As the member noted correctly in his question, the review board had left it to the person in charge of the institution — who is a psychiatrist, but it's just one person — to make the judgment call about whether Mr. Schoenborn's mental state had stabilized sufficiently that he could be safely released — on a temporary and escorted basis, granted, but still be outside the walls of Colony Farm and in a community for a few hours under escort.

That decision was delegated, in effect, to one individual. That's a tremendous burden, I think, for any person to bear, so I thought an extra set of shoulders would be better. I'm not necessarily wedded to it being two psychiatrists. Perhaps it would be at least two, perhaps more than two, psychiatrists, who would have to agree that a person's mental state….

If they've already been found to have committed those kinds of horrendous offences — taking another person's life, for example, or more than one person's life — it would take more than one psychiatrist to say: "Okay, now we think the person is sufficiently stabilized that they can have some form of liberty."

Then third, the review board must direct the hospital or governing agency in care of the individual to inquire as to the whereabouts of the victim or victims of the offence prior to making any determination as to whether absences should be granted.

I appreciate, again, that public sentiment expressed by quite a few people following this incident is: "We don't care that the person was mentally ill, we don't care that there's a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada, and we don't care that the Supreme Court of Canada says that you can't treat a mentally ill person the same, in terms of being held criminally responsible, as someone who is not mentally ill." I understand that gut reaction, because people are primarily concerned about preserving safety. However, that is the reality.

In terms of what people's views were of the review board, not everyone is a lawyer, so not everyone understands that those review boards are actually established because of the requirement in the federal Criminal Code.

I have had a chance to talk to Mr. Moore and explain to him what the mechanism is and what the history is, and I think that like many people he hadn't yet had the opportunity to learn about the history of the development of the review board, just like myself. Up until just
[ Page 6968 ]
over a month ago I wouldn't have been able to tell you that the review board was first established in the early 1990s and the legal underpinnings for it.

I think the whole process and the issue that came to light a month ago, obviously based in unbelievably tragic circumstances and causing a lot of public angst, has actually served at least one positive purpose, and that's to put a spotlight on the current Criminal Code provisions.

In looking at those, I think there is room for improvement. I look forward to working with the federal Attorney General — if it is Mr. Nicholson, or if it's somebody else — to see what we can do collectively to improve the Criminal Code.

L. Krog: Did the Attorney General, after discovering the existence of this board and exactly what it does, consult with his counterparts across the country to see exactly how their appointment process works? If so, were there any improvements that could be made to the appointments process in British Columbia, notwithstanding the terms of the Criminal Code of Canada?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not sure if the member is suggesting that there's something wrong with our appointment process or if there's something inadequate in the capacity of the people serving on the commission. I just caution him about that because it is a quasi-judicial body. They operate with a fair degree of independence, once appointed, from Members of this Legislative Assembly.

In terms of my suggested changes to the Criminal Code of Canada, I did copy all the other provincial and territorial justice ministers on my proposal and look forward to having a chance to speak with them at the next meeting of federal and provincial Ministers of Attorney General to see what their thoughts are.

[1550]

I do know that prior to my becoming Attorney General, there was some discussion at the last such meeting last fall. Some concerns were expressed, I think specifically by the Attorney General for Manitoba, where they had an incident with their review board or a case that caused some notoriety and public concern. There were some general comments, I believe, at that last federal-provincial-territorial meeting indicating, from the provinces' perspective anyway, that it might be time to look at these Criminal Code provisions.

I'm not aware of any specific suggestions from other provinces being made in terms of individual sections or changes to section 672 arising out of that meeting. If there are specific suggestions, I'd be very willing to look at and consider those. But at this point I don't believe so.

What I was able to find was just a general statement to the effect that it's time to take another look at those provisions. I thought by making my suggestions more specific, I could help better frame the discussion and put some specific ideas before the federal minister for him to consider and perhaps bring forward to other Members of Parliament for their deliberation.

L. Krog: It was, I think, with great respect to the Attorney General's response, a fairly straightforward, straight-up question. Obviously, the public looks at a decision like this, immediately has concerns about not just the law but the individuals, as well, and wants to be assured that all of the individuals who are appointed to positions like this are capable of doing them and that it is "not seen as a patronage position" or anything of that nature. I'm not suggesting it is.

Given the decision of the board, which seemed nonsensical to the general public in the circumstances, literally a year and a bit after Mr. Schoenborn was found guilty but not criminally responsible — yes, a year and a bit later; 14 months, roughly speaking — there's a decision made by the board to give permission to the head of the institution to allow him escorted day passes, if you will.

Again, my question is very simply this: is the appointments process to this board consistent across the country? Does the Attorney General know? Did the Attorney General consult with any of his counterparts in the other provinces to determine how that appointments process works?

Hon. B. Penner: The criteria are the same across the country under the Criminal Code, which establishes the test, as I've stated twice already. I can do so a third time if the member chooses to spend our time that way.

Nevertheless, no matter what kind of appointment process he had, there will be times when people aren't happy with the decision of a quasi-judicial body. Now, the member has been trained as a lawyer, so I hope he'll appreciate that just because we don't necessarily like the decision of a judge, a court or a quasi-judicial body, it doesn't mean that elected people should rush to the platform and denounce the person that made the decision.

I just want to caution the member. I do understand why the public was concerned about this, particularly in light of how some people thought they heard the news that Mr. Schoenborn had already been released or actually had been granted release when, in fact, that wasn't the case. It was quite conditional, as the member clearly articulated.

Nevertheless, I still think there are changes that are needed in the Criminal Code, and it's those provisions that govern how these boards conduct themselves. If the member is suggesting that the board members inappropriately or incorrectly applied the provisions in section 672 of the Criminal Code, I'd be interested to hear that.

The provisions in the code have been there now for almost 20 years, and I think it's time for them to be re-
[ Page 6969 ]
visited along the lines that I've suggested. I'm open to additional suggestions as well. But I think the Criminal Code provisions that set out the criteria for appointments to boards of this nature, plus our own rigorous screening process and credentials….

[1555]

By the way, you're free to go on the Internet and take a look at who these people are. It's public knowledge, the people that are serving on the board, including the board chair, who was appointed by an NDP government in 1997. If you're interested in who those people are, you're free to point your browser to Google and take a look at the composition of the B.C. Review Board and take a look at the background of the individuals that are appointed to the board.

L. Krog: Again, I come back to what I think is a fairly straightforward question. The appointments process — does one apply? Is the position publicly advertised? Does one get invited to apply to be appointed to the board? How is it composed? I'm just asking about the process. Is there a diligent search made of people across the province that fall within the parameters as set out in the Criminal Code? Is this a "step up to the plate and offer your services," or is this a process by which the chair or some member of government or an official goes out and asks people to apply? That's what I'm asking. Just how does it happen?

If that's the process, is the Attorney General satisfied that that's the best process possible in order to select individuals like this, or are there alternate processes in other provinces that are perhaps more effective in determining who gets appointed to these boards?

Hon. B. Penner: The information pertaining to the process for recruiting to fill vacancies on the review board is actually listed on the B.C. Review Board website, so you can point your browser there. There's a fair bit of detail, but in essence, the appointment process is initiated by the review board filing a notice or forwarding a letter advising the Ministry of Attorney General and the board resourcing office of upcoming appointment requirements.

This process will include the board — the review board, I take it — publishing a public notice advising of the vacancy, that they're seeking to fill those vacancies, and stating what the qualifications are they're seeking, including the skills and experience the board is looking for, and also describing what the remuneration is.

As I indicated before, most of the positions are part-time. I believe they get a per diem for the days that they actually sit. There's a process involving putting this out there publicly so that people can respond. But just because you respond doesn't guarantee that you're going to be selected.

[1600]

There's a committee that is formed with representation, I believe, from the Ministry of Attorney General and another tribunal chair and the chair of the B.C. Review Board, which screens the applications as they come in. Then the process carries on from there.

L. Krog: Just for my edification, and I'm sure he'll be happy to provide some further edification for me: what does one get paid for a part-time position on the review board? What is the per-diem rate?

[D. Black in the chair.]

Hon. B. Penner: According to the website for the B.C. Review Board, as of April 1, 2011, the per diems range, depending on the expertise or the skill set of the people appointed, from $400 per day up to a maximum, I think, of $962 per day for psychiatrists. I believe that reasonable travel expenses would be on top of that as well.

L. Krog: I want to move on very quickly to an issue that the Attorney General may or may not be conscious of. I hope that he is familiar with the Community Legal Assistance Society. They are funded through legal aid to provide representation to those who have been certified under the Mental Health Act and wish to have their committals reviewed. This follows, if you will, some of the questions I've been asking about Mr. Schoenborn.

My understanding is that there are a number of individuals — and we're not talking about people who have been found not criminally responsible for criminal acts but just people who are certified under the Mental Health Act — who are institutionalized in our various psychiatric units at hospitals around the province.

My understanding is that there are a number of cases where individuals are being held for a great deal of time because they simply can't get assistance from advocates to act on their behalf. I'm wondering if the Attorney General is familiar with that problem and if he has any comment on it.

[1605]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that the staff in the Ministry of Attorney General are having discussions with representatives of the Community Legal Assistance Society as well as the Legal Services Society to explore the potential of providing some form of representation or assistance for those with mental health issues and who are confronted with possible detainment or measures under the Mental Health Act.

For the sake of clarity, just to emphasize, that's different than those people brought up on Criminal Code charges who then perhaps try to avail themselves of section 16, I think it is, of the Criminal Code, seeking to be found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental illness.
[ Page 6970 ]

L. Krog: The reason I raised this topic this afternoon is because of what I had to say about the lack of funding for the Legal Services Society earlier today.

This is an area where, again, the most vulnerable amongst us are being certified under the Mental Health Act. They're being placed in psychiatric units around the province. They are obviously there because they have demonstrated behaviours that indicate they have severe issues, yet at the same time they are being denied, in many respects, the opportunity to secure advocates on their behalf to see if there are alternate, if you will, forms of treatment available for them or whether they should, in fact, be detained in facilities like that.

I mean, they essentially lose their civil liberties when they're certified under the Mental Health Act. I would appreciate it if the Attorney General could expand a little on what discussions are taking place within his ministry and the Legal Services Society and what, if anything, is going to be done to remedy this problem.

I am advised by people who have acted as advocates that this is an ongoing and fairly severe problem, that there is a lack of assistance for people who have been certified under the act and that they are being held in circumstances which, frankly, deny them their civil liberties.

Hon. B. Penner: I just note that the provisions in the Mental Health Act that may be giving rise to these concerns have been around for a very long time. The discussions between the ministry, the Community Legal Assistance Society and the Legal Services Society of British Columbia have just commenced in the last few weeks.

I'm going to allow those discussions to take their course and see what comes of it. I haven't been briefed on the outcome of the discussions to date. I understand that they have been preliminary, and obviously there's more ground to cover.

L. Krog: My understanding is that that's certainly not the case with respect to how soon this issue has been raised. I appreciate the discussion had been entered into, but when was this issue first raised with the Attorney General's ministry?

[1610]

Hon. B. Penner: I am told that my Deputy Attorney General received a letter on behalf of the Community Legal Assistance Society sometime in the last month or so, fairly recently. That did lead to, I think, the talks that we've just mentioned, which understandably are still preliminary, given it's just been a few weeks. But my own knowledge of this matter is also fairly recent.

L. Krog: I was advised last fall that, in fact, the Mental Health Review Board had made written submissions on this matter to the Public Commission on Legal Aid, that they had attached a letter from their previous chair to the Attorney General in their submissions indicating that there was an issue and a problem, and that letter was quoted extensively in their submissions to the Public Commission on Legal Aid.

I'm not accusing the Attorney General of anything, but I just want to confirm. It may be that the Deputy Attorney General has only received that letter recently, but I wanted to ask: was this issue raised last year?

Hon. B. Penner: They may have written to us previously. I haven't seen any letter that I recall from the organization in my tenure, which I think started on December 1, 2010.

L. Krog: The reason I raise this issue is because I think it's important. I'm asking, by way of raising that issue in this chamber on this date, for the Attorney General to pay some attention to it because it is, I think, a very serious issue. It is a frightening prospect, I think, for people who have been certified under the act and that they would not have access to reasonable representation or advocates on their behalf.

As the Attorney General indicated with respect to his own knowledge of the review board, there are many aspects of what goes on in our society that until you become embroiled in the process, aren't important to you. But suddenly, when you do, you realize it is important. Given the level of mental illness in our province and the statistics around mental illness, it would strike me that this is an area that requires some attention.

Moving on, however, and being conscious of the time, I want to go back to a topic that was raised briefly earlier today, and that is the plea bargain deal involving Messrs. Basi and Virk and the forgiveness of the indemnification policy, as it was understood by the general public and certainly by me and others in my caucus.

Can the Attorney General tell us: what was the indemnification policy that existed — certainly last year, in any event — under which the provincial government would indemnify public servants for legal costs in criminal matters?

[1615]

Hon. B. Penner: The member is asking a question similar to one of the first questions I asked upon my appointment back in December 2010, because I wanted to see the actual policy. What I've discovered over the last number of months of asking questions on this and other topics, but particularly on this topic, is that the whole concept of providing indemnification for legal fees for certain government employees…. We're talking about a subset here of what are called excluded employees — people that aren't otherwise covered by collective agreements within government. I think it had its origins back in the 1980s and started in a civil context. That
[ Page 6971 ]
policy today is, I believe, encapsulated in section 73 of the Public Service Agency's terms and conditions for excluded employees.

By extension, indemnity was extended to other employees for other types of matters as time went on. The scope of the indemnity policy, it appears, expanded throughout the 1990s and then in through the 2000s. So there were incidents where it was being applied, I'm told, to not just civil matters but also to criminal matters. It was done on a case-by-case basis, one of the challenges being that when a specific case, particularly a criminal matter, would come up by practice — and we talked about this a while ago — the unelected civil service is not comfortable about talking to their elected bosses about how those criminal matters should be conducted, and I think that's appropriate.

But in taking a look at this, I'm aware that while we can't turn back the date on the decisions that were made in the past, I think there is room for improvement in terms of clarifying the indemnity policy so that the civil servants, the unelected civil servants that were being asked to make these decisions without direct contact with their elected masters on a case-by-case basis, have a clearer set of criteria that they can follow.

I'm of the view that greater clarity is required. Premier Christy Clark has also expressed the same view. I guess she's also now MLA-elect and Premier. Christy Clark has also expressed some concerns around the current policy and whether or not it's sufficiently clear.

My view is that we would all benefit by asking someone from outside of government to lead a review of the policy, to determine how it's been addressed in other jurisdictions and to look at how it's been applied in the past here in British Columbia and to make recommendations for government on how it can be improved in the future. I think it's important that the policy be clear and understandable to British Columbians and to make sure that we're being fair to both taxpayers as well as to those government employees who may or may not be recipients of the indemnity policy.

In keeping with that view on my part — that it would be appropriate to seek some outside perspective on this matter — I have arranged to appoint Mr. Stephen Toope, who is the president and vice-chancellor of the University of British Columbia and a former dean of McGill University's faculty of law, to conduct an independent review of the government's legal fee indemnity policy for the subset of public servants that I described. He has been asked in the terms of reference, which I understand he has accepted and confirmed today, that this report from him will be completed by the end of October 2011.

L. Krog: As the Attorney General might appreciate, the concept — particularly in the Basi-Virk case, arising out of the B.C. Rail corruption trial — that the taxpayers would end up footing a $6 million legal bill for two people who pled guilty tends to attract a certain amount of public attention, without putting too fine a point on it.

[1620]

I haven't heard from the Attorney General in his response, lengthy as it was, as to where the policy is contained. Is the policy in memos? Is it in a letter? Is it in a regulation somewhere, apart from section 73? Is it set out in a manual? Where does the policy exist?

In most aspects of government it's certainly been my experience that nothing gets done without reference to something in writing, unless it's something untoward. So I'm going to assume there was a policy. It was written down somewhere. If so, where?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated, this policy originated in a civil context, I believe, in the 1980s. One of our learned members of the press gallery has written about this. Mr. Palmer of the Vancouver Sun has written about some of the history and the developments, so I'm taking some of this information from what I've learned by reading his column, but also from what I've heard from staff in the ministry.

The history and the development of this policy is something that Mr. Toope will be looking at as part of the terms of reference that he will be working under. As I said in my first answer on this topic just a moment ago, the policy has been expanded in application on a case-by-case basis by analogy with the existing written policy, now contained in section 73 of the terms and conditions for excluded employees under the Public Service Agency.

Whether or not that's an adequate state of affairs is a very open question, and it's one of the questions I want answered by Mr. Toope — whether we would benefit from a clearer articulation of the indemnity policy and the various provisions that may or could apply to the application of that policy.

L. Krog: I'm very amused by the Attorney General's response. I thought earlier I was being criticized for having done my research in the paper. Now he tells me he's getting his education about government policy from Vaughn Palmer's column.

I trust Mr. Palmer's ego won't be too highly inflated as a result of the Attorney General's comments, because the suggestion is that the government's taking all its lessons from noted newspaper columnists. Well, that's certainly an interesting affair, but the question is still the same. Is the Attorney General saying the only policy is contained in section 73?

I mean, there must be something in writing. With the greatest respect to the Attorney General, nothing happens in government without it being reduced to writing at some point. Was there a series of memos? Is there a manual? Is there a booklet?
[ Page 6972 ]

Is there something that the Attorney General can table in this House today that says: "Oh, by the way, if you get charged with a criminal offence, we will pay your legal fees along the way, but you agree to pay us back the money if in fact you're found guilty or you plead guilty"? Where's that contained?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the statutory authority for guarantees and indemnities is contained within section 72 of the Financial Administration Act, which is not a statute that I have responsibility for as Attorney General. It does apply to government employees across the province — that subset of employees that I talked about, the excluded employees, or the ones that have been recipients in certain instances of the indemnity policy.

The member asked the question, and it's a very similar question to what I have asked Mr. Toope to answer for all of us. He is to take a look at the development of the policy and tell us what the objective of the policy is; how it works; who is indemnified and under what circumstances; whether the policy is fair; how it compares to other jurisdictions; and what, if any, changes need to be made.

In doing that work, Mr. Toope is free to consider the history of the development of the policy and how it's been applied in the past and the need for indemnity agreements from a public administration perspective.

Obviously, managers in government, when the policy originated, felt that there was some form of public administration benefit — at least, I would assume so — and that gave rise to the development of the policy. But I think the gist of the member's questions will be answered by Mr. Toope.

[1625]

L. Krog: With respect to the Attorney General, is the Attorney General telling me that the policy is contained in section 72 and section 73 of the Financial Administration Act? Is that it? That's the only place I'm going to find something in writing that deals with this policy?

Hon. B. Penner: The legislative authority or legal authority is contained within the Financial Administration Act. The written policy is contained in section 73 of the Public Service Agency's terms and conditions for excluded employees policy. That relates to civil litigation or non-criminal matters only. But, as I explained, over the last couple of decades it appears that that policy has been expanded on a case-by-case basis, with civil servants who are in charge of applying the policy, expanding it or applying it to new circumstances by way of analogy to the existing policy as codified in section 73 of the terms and conditions for excluded employees.

I totally understand the member's line of questioning because it's actually not dissimilar to mine. It's what led me to conclude that it was appropriate to ask somebody from outside of government to take a look at how this policy developed and how it evolved, and among other things, to make recommendations as to the circumstances in which indemnity agreements should be applied in respect of civil matters, and separately, to consider whether it's an appropriate policy for criminal matters.

Those are, I think, very legitimate questions, and they're the ones that I've asked Mr. Toope to look into for us and to report back.

L. Krog: Happily, it's the Attorney General's responsibility to provide those answers, not the opposition.

So if I can summarize this, there is nothing in the Financial Administration Act and nothing in section 73, nothing in writing anywhere that the Attorney General can point me to — a cabinet minute or an OIC or a regulation or anything — that says what the policy is.

In fact, what the Attorney General is telling the House today, telling this committee, is simply that when Messrs. Basi and Virk got charged, they entered into an agreement with the Crown — with the Attorney General's ministry, I presume — that said: "The Crown's going to pay your legal fees along the way, whatever they are, and if you plead guilty or you're found guilty, then you're going to pay those back." Is that what happened? Is that it?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated previously, the Financial Administration Act gives authority to government to enter into indemnity or guarantees around the performance of an obligation. That's contained in the Financial Administration Act.

[1630]

Now, as I've already indicated, there's a written policy as pertains to civil matters. That's codified in section 73 of the terms and conditions for excluded employees under the Public Service Agency's mandate.

As already noted, professional public servants in senior capacities are called upon from time to time to make decisions about whether or not to extend indemnity provisions to employees in a range of circumstances that came up over the last couple of decades. They did so on a case-by-case basis — in essence, almost like interpreting case law, relying on previous precedents to determine how it should be applied in the future.

I have, as I've indicated, asked Mr. Toope from the University of British Columbia to take a look at this matter — to take a look at the history of the development and make recommendations for changes in the future.

L. Krog: Unless the Attorney General thinks I am very obtuse, I have his point that he's requested Mr. Toope and others to prepare a report on what the policy should be, but we're dealing with a fairly specific case here. As I see it and understand it, there is no authority in section
[ Page 6973 ]
72 of the Financial Administration Act that specifically applies to indemnification with respect to criminal matters. Section 73 I don't think really explains this issue any better.

We have a situation where the government gave carte blanche, if you will, to the lawyers for two Liberal ministerial assistants — carte blanche to their lawyers — to defend them to the nth degree on the public dime. That's really what happened here.

I haven't heard anything from the Attorney General today that explains to me where some unknown public servant, and we'll come to that in a minute, sat down across the desk from Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk — and their counsel, perhaps — and inked an agreement that said: "You're going to get your legal fees covered, and at the end of the day, if you're found guilty or you plead guilty, you have to pay the money back." I understand that there is no policy, then. Really, that's what the minister is telling us — that there is no policy.

The next question that follows from all of this is: who sat down with Messrs. Basi and Virk on behalf of the government and inked this notorious deal?

[1635]

Hon. B. Penner: I don't know the name of the specific employee in the Ministry of Attorney General that would have been having the discussions directly, and I'm not entirely sure that's germane. It does fall under the legal services branch, typically, to arrange these types of indemnity agreements, but I am advised to be cautious in my answer due to the application of solicitor-client privilege when we get into dealing with specific cases.

I could say that the typical or ordinary practice would be for government to appoint an independent lawyer to review the accounts that are submitted by counsel representing someone who is in receipt of the indemnity policy. That independent lawyer would be paid for by the provincial government, by the Ministry of Attorney General, and they would review the accounts as and when submitted prior to them being paid.

That's the process that's been in place now for some time. Those accounts, again, would be reviewed against a case plan to assess for reasonableness.

Certainly, and I've said this publicly already, I was surprised, as other British Columbians were, to learn about the total cost of this particular matter the member refers to which went on for, I think, close to seven years from the start of the investigation through to the charges and then the prosecution and ultimately the conviction of two individuals.

It was very expensive. My concern is how we can put in place policies that will better protect taxpayers while also being mindful that from a public administration perspective there may be a clear rationale or an interest in providing indemnity to excluded employees.

Those kinds of questions are something that I've asked Mr. Toope to look into — to consider the two issues separately, the civil indemnity as well as criminal indemnity — and to report back to us, and publicly, about whether it's appropriate and under what circumstances and with what controls to offer those types of indemnity agreements.

L. Krog: Does the Attorney General have with him today, in particular, the agreements between Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk and the legal services branch with respect to indemnification? If so, is he prepared to table them?

Hon. B. Penner: Two-part answer: (1) no, I do not have them; (2) if I did, I would not table them on account of solicitor-client privilege.

L. Krog: With greatest respect to the Attorney General, perhaps he can explain to me on what basis solicitor-client privilege applies here.

Is the whole system set up specifically so that Attorneys General will never have to answer a question in the House about this? If the Attorney General is suggesting that the matter is between the provincial government and the lawyer they hired, is that the basis on which solicitor-client privilege is being claimed? The lawyer who was hired to look after the accounts and assess whether or not they were fair — is that the solicitor-client privilege being applied?

If it's not, can the Attorney General illuminate and explain to me what he's talking about by way of solicitor-client privilege that would prevent him from tabling in this House the very agreement which has stuck the taxpayers for $6 million?

[1640]

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised that case law has determined that the scope of solicitor-client privilege extends to the retaining of legal counsel and that it is the employee's privilege.

L. Krog: So let's get this straight. The provincial government has entered into an agreement respecting payment — and carte blanche payment — of the legal fees of two Liberal insiders, and the public has been stuck for $6 million in legal fees to cover the legal expenses of two convicted criminals, two Liberal insiders. The Attorney General is telling the House that we can't even see the indemnification agreement which has stuck the taxpayers with that bill.

Hon. B. Penner: I can advise that the agreement did provide for us to be able to announce or disclose the total amount of funds that had been provided and the total cost to government. That total was released publicly several months ago, I think, so it is in the public domain.

Beyond that, I don't think it would be appropriate, given the solicitor-client privilege that case law has
[ Page 6974 ]
determined applies here, to go into any more specifics about the particulars of the retainer.

L. Krog: I'm not a gambler, but I'm wondering if this is a case of Texas no-peeky poker we're playing here today. We don't get to actually look and see what's happening.

Is the Attorney General talking about the agreement that led to the guilty plea that saw Messrs. Basi and Virk walk away with whatever moneys they had without being touched by the provincial government? Or are we talking about the agreement that I presume was entered into — the indemnification agreement, the original agreement — that said we're giving your lawyers carte blanche for legal fees?

So are we talking about the first agreement, the second agreement, both agreements? I want to know.

[1645]

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated, the general process or approach has been to appoint an independent lawyer to review the accounts against the case plan or to assess for reasonableness. Again, for reasons of solicitor-client privilege, I am constrained as to how much detail I could go into involving particular cases. That's just the state of the law.

L. Krog: Of course, the temptation would be to quote Dickens and say, "The law is an ass, sir," but that wouldn't be appropriate, and I'm not sure if we're allowed to use that term in the chamber. But that's certainly the reaction, I think, of the general public in British Columbia.

Again, quite specifically, when this process started and they got their legal fees covered, was there an agreement signed between them and the provincial government? Does such an agreement exist? I don't want to hear about the policy, because we know the policy was breached in any event. I want to know: was an agreement signed that said we're covering their legal fees?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, as I've indicated, in the usual circumstances…. The regular approach by government would be that if we're going to be extending indemnity benefits, there would be written agreement. That would be the approach, and again, that would be based on the usual approach requirement that any bills be vetted by an independent reviewer who themselves would be a lawyer. That lawyer would be retained and paid for by the provincial government, and that person would assess the bills for reasonableness or against a case plan for managing the matter.

L. Krog: Let's get this exactly straight. Is the Attorney General telling this committee that the agreement that has stuck the taxpayers of British Columbia for $6 million in legal fees for two convicted Liberal insiders — that we can't see that agreement because of solicitor-client privilege and that it was structured that way by this government? Is that what the Attorney General is telling the House?

[1650]

Hon. B. Penner: I know the member doesn't like it, but I am advised that case law dictates that we have to be circumspect about discussing specific cases due to solicitor-client privilege. The member himself was a lawyer at one time and perhaps still is, so he'll understand the significance of that in a legal context, about solicitor-client privilege. But I've already indicated that the usual approach by government where we granted, through our deputies or public servants, indemnity for legal services is that it would be in a written agreement and that there would be an independent reviewer to assess the bills as they come forward.

Nevertheless, as has already been publicly disclosed, a very significant amount of money was expended, not just for the defence but also on the prosecution. I think, altogether, that this case, which dragged on for many years, did cost a lot of money. I have some concerns about that, and I want to see what we can do to put some tighter parameters around costs in the future for the indemnity policy. That is the very reason why I've asked Mr. Toope, and he's accepted today, to lead a review of the indemnity policy and to make recommendations for possible changes. I look forward to the work that will be forthcoming.

In addition to the amounts already being disclosed as to how much it cost to fund both the prosecution and the defence in this matter, two deputy ministers have also issued a public statement, which I've already read into the record in its entirety. That statement was dated October 20, 2010, so I won't needlessly fill up the annals of Hansard by restating that document. I have already read it into the record in its entirety.

L. Krog: Well, I want to assure the Attorney General that whether I like it or not is of no consequence. There are millions of British Columbians, however, who don't like it, and that is of consequence.

This agreement has been commented on in various ways at various times. With respect to everything the Attorney General is saying, I would argue, if this was a court, that solicitor-client privilege has to a large extent been waived.

What I want to know is: in that agreement — the first agreement, I'll call it — was there a clause that said that if the accused persons, the two Liberal insiders, were found guilty or pled guilty, the taxpayers would get their money back?

Hon. B. Penner: As I have indicated already, I have read the entire statement by the deputies that was issued October 20, 2010, into the record, but it appears that the
[ Page 6975 ]
member would benefit by me repeating at least a small portion of that statement.

I'm quoting now, partway through the statement: "A major consideration was the relatively small amounts that might be recovered from Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk compared to the millions of additional dollars it would cost the government to continue to fund defence, prosecution and court-related costs through to the completion of the trial and to fund any appeals with no guarantees of convictions." That is, I think, germane.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the Crown may consider that the relative recovery was small, but we have heard questions in this chamber today already that the ministry regards $20 as sufficient funds to survive on for 20 days if you're looking for crisis grants in this province. With great respect to the Attorney General, I'd suggest to him the concept of what is small and what is big in terms of dollars doesn't quite jibe with common sense or the public attitude about this.

[1655]

What the Attorney General is telling me is that on behalf of his ministry, individuals negotiated an agreement that was going to keep this a secret — that was going to keep the legal fees and the indemnification clause, if one exists, and the terms of that agreement completely secret from public scrutiny — regardless of the outcome.

Was that the bargain that the Attorney General's ministry entered into — that they would sign an agreement that meant the public would never get a chance to look at it? And yet the Attorney General on behalf of the people of British Columbia — the Attorney General's ministry, staff on his behalf presumably — negotiated an agreement that gave a carte blanche for legal fees to two individuals accused of political corruption.

Did it not occur to someone in that process that maybe as part of that agreement they could have included a clause that would have waived solicitor-client privilege, as the Attorney General asserts applies here?

Hon. B. Penner: I don't know what was in the minds of the people at the time that entered into the agreement. That's a direct answer, because I wasn't involved in that. No elected people were involved in the decision to extend the indemnity agreement.

We've already canvassed extensively — and I think the member knows that, even if he's not willing to acknowledge it — that on a case-by-case basis when a decision is made to grant indemnity, that's done by the unelected senior civil service without consultation with their elected masters. At least that's how it has been since 2001. I don't know if that was the approach taken in the 1990s when the former Premier was extended an indemnity agreement, but that certainly has been the case, I believe, since 2001.

We have already publicly disclosed the total costs. Nobody's happy about those costs. I'm not. I know Premier Christy Clark has indicated she's not happy about those costs, both on the prosecution side and on the defence side. And it's not the only criminal case that has amounted to a significant number of years and millions of dollars of costs. It's one of several cases that have turned into major trials and put a strain on the coffers.

My concern here is what we can do to better contain costs in the future, and that's part of the rationale for requesting Mr. Toope to conduct the indemnity review, which was announced by myself a few moments ago here in the House. I look forward to hearing back his recommendations, both in terms of civil matters and criminal matters, about indemnity agreements — if any; if they should be extended at all and, if so, in what form — and what additional steps can be taken to try and contain costs.

I'm certainly hopeful that there are ways we can better contain costs. Again, I wasn't involved in the decision-making process when the indemnity was first agreed to in this particular matter, but I doubt very much that anybody expected the costs to add up the way they did or the case to go on as long as it did. I'm guessing, but that's my strong hunch. But that did happen, so that tells me that there's some work to do, in terms of the policy, in terms of clarifying it and strengthening some provisions to better protect the interests of taxpayers while also being fair to employees.

L. Krog: You know, it's pretty hard, I think, for the average British Columbian to swallow the concept that they gave through their government, through the Attorney General's ministry — and I would remind him that he may not have been the minister then, but he's the minister today, and he's responsible to answer questions — a carte blanche for two people charged with political corruption to run up whatever legal bill they would and that that agreement and its contents would be privileged and not subject ever to public scrutiny in this chamber.

I think that's probably a little hard for the average British Columbian to swallow. It's very hard for me to understand how we can publicly discuss and issue statements about the amount of the legal fees, how we have security agreements that are registered in the land title office, including a mortgage on Mr. Basi's View Royal home, but somehow the rest of all of this is privileged and can't be disclosed. It seems awfully convenient.

[1700]

I'm struck by the concept that no one in cabinet…. Did the Attorney General and senior ministry staff…? Did it not, perhaps, cross their minds to ask who was paying for the legal fees, and if so, why, and how they were defending themselves? Did it never occur to anyone in cabinet to ask those kinds of questions?

I mean, the Attorney General expresses great regret and concern in front of us today about how this situation arose, but at the end of the day, what he's telling us in this chamber is that we can't know for sure if there
[ Page 6976 ]
even was included in that agreement a clause that said that if they were found guilty or pled guilty, the money had to be paid back.

Can the Attorney General at least confirm that that clause existed or that it's even policy, whether it's applied on a case-by-case basis or not? Can the Attorney General at least confirm that that's the policy — which no one can point to, which is decided on a case-by-case basis, I'm told over and over again today? Can the Attorney General confirm that if you get charged in this province, and you're a public servant with a criminal offence, if you're found guilty or you plead guilty, the taxpayers get their money back? Is that the policy?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I have to advise the member — and he is a lawyer, so he actually does understand this, even if he's pretending otherwise — that solicitor-client privilege does apply, and therefore, I'm not at liberty to release the specific agreement that may have been signed in a particular case.

We have been able, however, based on advice that I was given, to release the cumulative costs, and that has been publicly disclosed, so the public does know what it cost to fund both the defence as well as the prosecution in this very lengthy matter. I think it first originated in late 2003 and didn't conclude until about seven years later — obviously expensive, time-consuming and frustrating for all those reasons.

It is the standard practice, as I mentioned before…. The member keeps saying "carte blanche." In fact, although it may seem that way with the way the costs did add up, there is an independent reviewer, a lawyer, who government hires on a typical case to review the bills that come in before them being sent to the government for payment.

Now, you may legitimately ask: is that a sufficiently robust method to protect the interests of taxpayers — having another lawyer vet the bills? That's a question that I've asked Mr. Toope to look into, to see if there aren't some better protections we can build around the policy for the interests of taxpayers. Is there a way we can better protect taxpayers while still being fair to employees, because that is my interest and my commitment.

But I am very concerned at the member's suggestion, implicit in his question, that if he was a cabinet minister in this circumstance, he would insert himself into the handling of a specific case and start suggesting whether or not funds should flow to a particular lawyer representing a particular defendant, just because it's politically sensitive or uncomfortable.

It sounded like that in his question to me when he asked: "Did no one in cabinet start asking why we're paying for these lawyers?" That's what he said in this chamber a few minutes ago, and I think it would be entirely inappropriate during the conduct of a matter, when it's underway, for elected representatives to try and insert themselves into the conduct of the prosecution. It certainly hasn't been the practice in the last ten years in our government.

[1705]

From the very start of this matter, when the indemnity agreement was entered into, that was done by unelected people, not going to their political masters. But his question, his comment suggests that he thinks that's what he would do or his colleagues would do, and I find that disturbing.

L. Krog: I think the record will show very clearly that I didn't suggest that whatsoever, and the Attorney General can toss out as many red herrings here today as he wishes, but it's not going to move us past this very basic proposition.

The taxpayers are on the hook for this. To suggest there wasn't a carte blanche, with great respect, is not fair, because the Attorney General can't stand here today and tell me there was a cap on the agreement in terms of legal fees. All we know is that there was a process whereby the bills got sent to somebody who was hired by the Attorney General's ministry, and they okayed the bills, and the bills kept getting paid.

What's even more shocking to the taxpayer, of course, is that it's absolutely clear, if anyone followed the course of the B.C. Rail corruption case, that a lot of money was spent on applications to push the government and the RCMP and everybody else to disclose the documents that would have assisted the defence in the first place. So the taxpayers had to pay for the cost of forcing the government…. It had entered into this ridiculous arrangement, which the Attorney General can't give me the particulars of, causing the legal bill to go through the roof by its failure to disclose and cooperate with the requests from defence.

This is just a remarkable situation. We can't know what's in the agreement because it's covered by solicitor-client privilege. Well, perhaps we can just ask a couple of questions, then, about how the deal was struck last fall that saw guilty pleas entered. It's pretty clear that these two individuals pled guilty because they were forgiven their legal fees, because they wouldn't have to pay back a nickel of the taxpayers' money that was spent to give them a very effective, if I may say it, and highly credible defence to the charges in question for a very long period of time.

Can the Attorney General confirm that the deal that was struck, as I understand it, by the Deputy Attorney General and by the Deputy Minister of Finance, was in fact a deal that said: "You plead guilty. We'll waive your legal fees." Was that the deal, or is that arrangement covered by solicitor-client privilege?

Hon. B. Penner: I've already read in its entirety the statement dated October 20, 2010, but I'll quote from
[ Page 6977 ]
it again here because the member perhaps doesn't have it in front of him. "No one outside the legal services branch, myself and the Deputy Minister of Finance" — and just for clarity here, "myself" is referring to the Deputy Attorney General — "had any knowledge of this or involvement. For clarity, neither the special prosecutor nor the Attorney General had any knowledge of the matter or any involvement in this."

As to the member's comments about capping costs or trying to better control costs in the future, that is something that I've already said that I'm interested in — in particular, the review that Mr. Toope has agreed to undertake of the indemnity policy in British Columbia.

In the terms of reference, specific consideration is asked to be given to consult with the Legal Services Society of British Columbia about how they administer legal counsel retainers and manage costs, and also to make recommendations and determine what measures should be taken when arranging for and administering legal counsel retainers in order to better control costs, ensure appropriate review of billings and protect solicitor-client privilege, confidentiality and privacy.

[1710]

So a key consideration that we're asking Mr. Toope to undertake is how we can, on a go-forward basis, while still affording people the opportunity to make a full answer in defence, get a better handle on costs to better protect the interests of taxpayers.

L. Krog: Section 72, under "Guarantees and indemnities," says quite specifically: "An indemnity, and a guarantee other than a guarantee referred to in section 74 (2), must not be given under this section or under any other Act by or on behalf of the government except in compliance with the regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council."

So I want to ask this question. Were the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Attorney General in a position to write off the $6 million in legal fees? Were they in a legal position to do so, or was an order-in-council required or approval of cabinet?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is asking me specific questions about the Financial Administration Act, which falls under a different ministry and is not something that I'm intimately familiar with. My general awareness is that there are provisions, I believe, under the Financial Administration Act for the Crown to not collect on debts. But I can't say if that's the specific reference here that applies, because it's a matter beyond my ministry and therefore beyond these estimates in terms of how that act applies.

L. Krog: This was a decision taken by the Deputy Attorney General — that's what the minister has told the House — and I think it would be a fairly obvious question that would arise during the course of this estimates process.

So is the Attorney General telling the House that notwithstanding the incredible controversy surrounding this decision — a decision that is absolutely repugnant to taxpayers — he never determined or asked whether there was in fact legal authority or that it was lawful for the Deputy Attorney General, who's responsible to him and whose boss he is, to enter into this arrangement to write off the $6 million in legal fees?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I was not involved in this decision, nor was any elected member, and that's appropriate. We can only surmise that the lawyers acting in the Attorney General's ministry, who were part of the decision independent of the elected level, would have only done so if they felt they had the appropriate legal authority to do so.

L. Krog: Well, I think the question is fairly obvious, with great respect to the Attorney General. Did he never ask, or did his predecessor never ask, if there was legal authority to do this? We just wrote off $6 million in legal fees without being satisfied that we had the lawful authority to kiss off $6 million of the taxpayers' money?

[1715]

Hon. B. Penner: I'll quote again from the statement of October 20, 2010.

"A major consideration was the relatively small amounts that might be recovered from Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, compared to the millions of additional dollars it would cost the government to continue to fund defence, prosecution and court-related costs through to the completion of the trial and to fund any appeals, with no guarantee of convictions.

"Based on the above, in our respective capacities, the Deputy Minister of Finance and I" — in this case it's referring to the Deputy Attorney General — "decided to release Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk from their liability to repay. I communicated that decision to the Attorney General on October 8, 2010."

That's referring to my predecessor.

One has to assume that professional public servants would only intend to conduct themselves lawfully, and you can draw whatever other inference you'd like.

L. Krog: Well, given that the Deputy Attorney General is sitting right beside the Attorney General at the present time and provides legal advice to the Crown, I'm wondering if he can turn to him and inquire: what's the lawful authority for this deal to be made?

Hon. B. Penner: I've said before, but for the member's benefit, I'll say it again. I think we should assume that someone who is a lawyer and a senior public servant would only move to act within the law. If the member wants to suggest otherwise, maybe he wants to say that outside the chamber. But I am advised that at all times the deputies were acting within the law.
[ Page 6978 ]

L. Krog: It's not a difficult question, and it's not a suggestion of anything untoward, notwithstanding how much the Attorney General keeps trying to throw out more and more red herrings during the course of the estimates debate. It's a very simple question. Just tell me what statute — where — gives the authority to the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Finance to write off $6 million in legal fees from two convicted criminal Liberal insiders.

Hon. B. Penner: I've already indicated to the member that I believe it's in the Financial Administration Act, but that is not a statute for which I have responsibility.

L. Krog: I must admit this is getting really quite amusing. I'm asking questions of the chief legal adviser to the Crown of British Columbia, Her Majesty's loyal public servant, the highest law enforcement officer in the province of British Columbia — to answer, quite simply, a very straightforward question that I think he should have anticipated in the course of this debate.

What's the lawful authority? What statute, what section, what regulation gives the Deputy Attorney General, who's sitting beside him today, and the Deputy Minister of Finance the legal authority to write off $6 million worth of money owed to the people of British Columbia, pursuant to an indemnification policy which — oops — by the way, we actually don't have written down anywhere; pursuant to an agreement with two convicted criminals which — oops — by the way, is covered by solicitor-client privilege that we can't see?

What's the authority? Just tell me, and I'll sit down and stop asking the same question over and over again. I just want to hear it from the Attorney General's lips. What's the legal authority?

[1720]

Hon. B. Penner: The short answer is the Financial Administration Act.

L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney General….

Interjections.

L. Krog: Yes, let us just have the section specifically that authorizes that decision and the ability of the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Finance to make the decision. What particular section of the Financial Administration Act says that?

Hon. B. Penner: Again, as I said, I'm advised that the authority exists within the Financial Administration Act to grant indemnities and also to modify indemnities.

L. Krog: If the Attorney General could just be so kind as to repeat that. My friend was whispering in my ear like Nicodemus in the night, and I need to hear it from the lips of the Attorney General. What specific section, again?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the Financial Administration Act has both the power to grant indemnities and the power to modify indemnities.

L. Krog: With great respect to the Attorney General, the power to grant an indemnity or modify an indemnity is a power given to the government. It doesn't say anywhere it gets to be exercised independently of the government by the Deputy Attorney General.

Again, to the Attorney General, can he point to the specific section of the act? Not the big act. It's not like just saying: "It's the law." Point to a specific section. I don't want to hear the big, broad law statement. I don't want to hear the Financial Administration Act. I want to hear from the lips of the Attorney General what specific section authorized the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Finance writing off $6 million in legal fees.

If the Attorney General is trying to tell me that it's just a modification of an indemnity like you're changing a clause in a contract to provide tree-cutting services to the Ministry of Forests, I don't think that legal characterization is, firstly, going to satisfy anybody who's got legal training, and it's certainly not going to satisfy the average British Columbian.

Again, to the Attorney General: where's the section? Or where's the regulation? Where's the statutory authority?

[1725]

Hon. B. Penner: The member would be correct if he was concluding that the Deputy Attorney General doesn't have authority under the Financial Administration Act to release people or modify indemnity agreements. I believe that that would be the authority granted to the Deputy Minister of Finance.

So in this circumstance, as I've already read into the record, both the Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Minister of Finance, looking at these circumstances, agreed that this was the appropriate approach. Given the limited potential recovery versus the potential for spending millions of additional dollars in a case that had already gone on for a long time and cost a lot of money, the decision was made to modify the indemnity agreement.

L. Krog: As I understand the way government works, it is the Attorney General and his ministry who provide all legal advice to the Crown. It is his ministry that advises the Crown. It is his ministry that defends agents of the Crown. It is his ministry that will draft legislation for other ministries.
[ Page 6979 ]

If the Attorney General is suggesting today that the Deputy Minister of Finance was the only person who could make this decision, then I want him to state that clearly. And if that is the case, then what's the statutory authority? He can certainly seek that advice from his Deputy Attorney General and the staff who are surrounding him today.

Hon. B. Penner: Again, I'm advised that it was the advice of the Deputy Attorney General to the Deputy of Finance that this course of action be undertaken. That was advice that was accepted by the Deputy Minister of Finance, utilizing the authority granted under the Financial Administration Act pertaining to indemnity agreements.

L. Krog: We come all the way back again to the same question, which the Attorney General either cannot or will not answer, and that is: where is the authority in the act that allows deputy ministers to write off $6 million in legal fees? Where is the authority?

Hon. B. Penner: As I indicated some time ago in this debate, it's section 72 of the Financial Administration Act that gives rise to indemnity agreements.

L. Krog: I have section 72 in front of me, and it says very clearly: "72(1) The government may, subject to this section, give an indemnity or guarantee the performance of an obligation."

It doesn't say the Deputy Minister of Finance. It doesn't say the Deputy Attorney General. It certainly talks about, in subsection (3), that it must be given under this section only, or it has to be in compliance with regulations of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which leads me to this presumption.

[1730]

I take it from the Attorney General's inability to respond to a very direct and, I would think, simple question that the decision to write off the $6 million had to be made by way of a cabinet decision, by way of a decision of executive council. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Hon. B. Penner: You're wrong.

L. Krog: Then, perhaps, we're getting somewhere. So if cabinet didn't make this decision as cabinet didn't have the authority to do it — if that's what the Attorney General is saying — then where is the section that says the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy AG could make the decision?

Hon. B. Penner: We're now entering into the interesting topic of statutory interpretation. The member may recall that through the Interpretation Act, the deputy of different ministries will have authority under the statutes that are assigned to that particular ministry for administration.

It's my understanding that the Financial Administration Act has been assigned to the Ministry of Finance for a long time. Just when that first happened, I don't know. But it's my understanding and belief that at the time that the indemnity agreement would have been entered into initially, the Financial Administration Act was assigned to the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance.

Therefore, the Deputy Minister of Finance would have had authority under the Financial Administration Act, and when the indemnity issue was revisited again in the fall, the Deputy Minister of Finance would have had authority under the Financial Administration Act.

L. Krog: Responsibility being assigned to the Ministry of Finance — I understand that perfectly clearly. It doesn't get past the same basic question. Where's the statutory authority that would have allowed that to happen?

Hon. B. Penner: As I've already indicated, section 72 of the Financial Administration Act gives authority with respect to indemnities, and my understanding is the Deputy Minister of Finance has authority under the Financial Administration Act to make decisions.

L. Krog: Section 72(3) says: "An indemnity, and a guarantee other than a guarantee referred to in section 74 (2), must not be given under this section or under any other Act by or on behalf of the government except in compliance with the regulations of the Lieutenant Governor in Council." So was there a regulation, and is there a regulation that gave that authority?

[L. Reid in the chair.]

[1735]

Hon. B. Penner: I am advised that there is a regulation or order-in-council that was passed pursuant to the section that the member references. According to the note that I see here on the OIC, it looks like it was deposited in 1992.

L. Krog: I presume the Attorney General is prepared to table that.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd be happy to table that as soon as I can get a printed copy. Just for my staff who may be watching, if they could google B.C. reg 258/87…. It was a regulation that looks like it was initially, perhaps, deposited in 1987. That may go back to the very genesis of the indemnity policy, but it looks like it was modified at different times — perhaps in 1992, in a number of instances, and perhaps beyond that.
[ Page 6980 ]

L. Krog: That might even assist us. You never know. We'll certainly come back to that.

Let's get back to the basics of this. Just a few short days before the former Minister of Finance, Gary Farrell-Collins, is about to give evidence in what is probably the most watched and certainly the longest-running corruption trial in the history of the province of British Columbia, notwithstanding that the defendants themselves have essentially carte blanche for legal fees, this trial comes to a rather dramatic close with guilty pleas being entered. Charges have been outstanding for years.

We are then told that this arrangement was entered into in the interests of saving costs, etc. Now, the Attorney General's ministry has had no trouble providing the estimated costs of the Crown in this matter, and it may be impossible for us ever to determine the costs of the RCMP investigation. We know we have — and I'll call it a secret — an indemnity agreement, which we can't disclose because of solicitor-client privilege, that provided that the government could, if there was a guilty plea or a finding of guilt, collect under.

Now, the Attorney General of the time, the present Minister of Health, when this political fiasco became public knowledge, said something to the effect: "There was nothing left to collect." In order to collect in this case, and this is public knowledge, we understand that certain security arrangements were entered into with Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk and that documents were, in fact, registered, in particular in the land title office.

Now, that's public record — no ifs, ands or buts. That's not covered by solicitor-client privilege. That's a document registered in the land title office — security registered against a home that was estimated by various parties to be worth in the $800,000, perhaps $1 million range.

[1740]

My question to the Attorney General is quite simply this. When his predecessor said that there was nothing left to collect, the information publicly available indicated that there were assets in the range of $322,000 by way of equity in the home and another $30,000 in an RRSP. Given that there was roughly $352,000 to collect, can this Attorney General explain to this committee how $352,000 amounts to nothing left to collect?

Hon. B. Penner: Sorry, I didn't hear all of the member's question. Can the member clarify where he's getting the figures from in terms of the value remaining in the properties?

L. Krog: Well, the Attorney General has pointed out that I do my research through the newspaper, and he takes his advice on the history of this matter from Vaughan Palmer, so let's just say it's the public media. If the Attorney General, whose ministry came to the conclusion to write off the $6 million in legal fees, has a better figure, then perhaps he can advise the House today.

Exactly what steps did his ministry take to determine what equity was available to pay back the taxpayers' $6 million in legal fees?

[1745]

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the ministry did undertake a number of steps to exercise due diligence — including title searches, searches of the personal property security registry — and came to the conclusion that there was not a lot of additional value that would be recoverable.

As I already read into the record and quoted from since then a number of times, the advice from the Deputy Attorney General to the Deputy Minister of Finance…. Given the ongoing costs of potentially millions of additional dollars compared to the relatively small amounts that might be recovered from Mr. Basi and Mr. Virk, the recommendation was not to carry this on any further.

Now, I certainly understand, again, the public interest in this matter and the concern that the member himself is articulating. It's one of the specific things that I've asked Mr. Toope to consider in his review — whether he can provide us with guidance. He is asked to provide us with guidance regarding any conditions or requirements that should apply such as repayment, appropriate security and termination of coverage. In other words, what other steps can we take for future instances to better protect interests of taxpayers by getting better security before dollars are advanced?

I know that many members of the public may have been left with the impression that it was only at the conclusion of this matter — I think it was in September or October of 2010 — that the payments flowed to defence counsel under the indemnity agreement. I'm advised that this matter was underway for many years. So in fact it's likely that those payments were over a period of time, not right at the end, as maybe some people have thought. But in that regard I'm just speculating.

The question that I have is: what can we do to better protect the interests of taxpayers? In addition to what I've previously said in terms of the independent review I have requested about how we can put in place better measures to control the costs of cases themselves, to perhaps put some limits on expenditures by legal counsel when they're retained or operating under an indemnity agreement, are there other things we can do besides controlling the cost end of it to better secure repayment for when the matters conclude so that there is a significant asset or value that government can recover on behalf of taxpayers, if the circumstances warrant?

In the context of all of that, though, we also have to be mindful, in trying to control costs, that sometimes courts will put some restrictions on how much people can limit the ability of defence to make full answer in defence. Again, one of the considerations that Mr. Toope
[ Page 6981 ]
has been asked to balance in this review is: given those potential limitations, what can we do to better control costs in the future and to make sure that whatever the costs are that accrue, if the circumstances warrant at the conclusion of the matter, we have adequate security to recoup the funds that have been advanced?

With that, I see that there's a cast of characters arising, but perhaps the member has an additional question.

L. Krog: We are not going to finish this today. The obvious question, and I don't think the Attorney General has taken up on it, is simply this. As part of the arrangement, a mortgage was taken out against Mr. Basi's home. It's a mortgage. The government was in a position to foreclose under the terms of that mortgage if the moneys owing to it weren't paid — the same position as the Royal Bank or CIBC or TD Canada Trust.

Can the Attorney General outline to the committee exactly what steps were taken to determine the equity in that home which would have been subject to the government's registered financial public charge, the mortgage?

In other words, did somebody hire an appraiser in his ministry and appraise Mr. Basi's home and determine whether or not foreclosing under that mortgage would have meant they'd recover something? Was it a first mortgage? Was it a second mortgage? Was it a third mortgage? Where did it fit? What steps were taken?

[1750]

The public is not satisfied with the concept of being told by his predecessor, "There was nothing left to collect," because no one believes that. The public doesn't believe it. I don't believe it. I'm not going to stand here and be told by the Attorney General that the legal costs of doing a simple foreclosure in the province of British Columbia have become so extraordinary that it's not worth foreclosing for $330,000 worth of equity.

Can the Attorney General outline those specific steps? If he doesn't have time today to respond to it, then I trust he'll be moving that the House rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Penner: I've already indicated that the ministry did take steps to exercise diligence in this matter, related to title searches and other things. We are constrained, unfortunately, in how much we can get into dealing with specific cases, but I am advised that I can indicate that we did do a determination of the value of the property. The advice was given to the Deputy Minister of Finance around the cost benefit of trying to pursue recovery versus the ongoing cost of this trial if it carried on for a number of months.

I undertook to provide the member with a copy of regulation 258/87 under the Financial Administration Act, Guarantees and Indemnities Regulation, and I do so now.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Oh, I can't table in committee? I'm sorry; I'll have to do that at another time.

In the alternative, then, I will move that we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:52 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. R. Coleman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. Monday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); D. Horne in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,330,591,000 (continued).

The Chair: We're currently debating the budget estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

C. Trevena: Moving on to a second stage of the questions about the ministry, as I mentioned before, I'd like to ask a few questions about group homes and residential facilities. I wondered if the minister could tell me, just first off, how many residential facilities there are in B.C. run by the ministry?
[ Page 6982 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: If I could just ask for clarification of the question. You used the term "facilities." Does that refer to youth care homes or mental health homes? What exactly are you looking at?

C. Trevena: I'm looking at the homes where children are placed or where children are looked after if they cannot be looked after within the community — if there's a separation of types of residential facilities between young people with special needs or young people who are more difficult to treat. If the minister could give me a breakdown of that too, just for clarification, I'd appreciate that.

[1435]

Hon. M. McNeil: I will break it down. There are three sections that I'll break it down to: foster care, staff residential care and tertiary care.

Of the first two, foster care and staff residential care, where we have children placed there's approximately 6,235. That includes foster care placements of children in care under the CFCSA, and the staff residential care where it's a residential resource with more than one extra staffing support.

[1440]

Then the third is tertiary care, and that includes Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre — they're in-patient — which is a total of 29. We have three youth custody, which have a total capacity of 162, and then we have the youth justice beds, a total of 144.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister and her staff for that.

Of the foster care and the staffed residential care, is it possible to provide a breakdown of those two? There are obviously very different scenarios between, almost, the regular foster care, where somebody regularly looks after a baby, and….

Hon. M. McNeil: For further clarification, of the 6,235 children within foster care and staffed residential care, approximately 1,086 of those beds are contracted residential. Of that 1,086 — those are actual beds — there are currently 800 children and youth.

C. Trevena: I think the minister said 800 children, and 1,086 contracted. That's the capacity. I'll put this on the record, then. The number of children in the beds is 800, for a capacity of 1,086. These are contracted residential facilities. Is this what we're talking about? If I could ask the minister how those contracts are set up. What is the process to establish a contract?

[1445]

Hon. M. McNeil: Typically we use the standard procurement process, so if it is a new contract that we're wanting to do, there is an RFP process for any net new contracts. However, if we have an existing contract, we have the ability to add on beds and expand the existing contract, if that is the best way to proceed.

We have a range of facilities of different sizes, and I can certainly provide for you more details, if you'd like that.

C. Trevena: Yes, more details on this would be very helpful, but I'd just like to follow this line of questions for a little bit longer. The standard procurement process…. The person or the organization would see the opportunity on B.C. Bid and then apply for it through that, or would it be a separate process through the ministry directly?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, we do go through B.C. Bid, through the standard procurement process. Having said that, if there is an ability to work with an existing provider and expand the contract in certain cases, that's what is done as well.

C. Trevena: And of the 1,086 contracted residential spaces, could the minister tell me how many facilities that is, and if the minister could check whether there's been a decrease in the number of residential facilities in the province over the last, let's say, five years?

[1450]

Hon. M. McNeil: Thank you for these questions. I'm learning.

Of the contracted residential beds, 1,086, it breaks down…. It's in around 354 residences, but I'll break that down even further, because I think it's important. We focus on residences with one to two beds. In those the number of residences with one to two beds is 270, then the number of residences with three or more beds is 84, for a total of 354.

Unfortunately, I can't give you the number of residences, but I can give you the number of children over the last five years. It stayed pretty constant the entire five years. We'll have to look into what the actual number of residences is.

C. Trevena: I'll come back to the number of children in a moment. But when the RFP is approved…. I'll just back up just one step further. Are we looking, Minister, at the bidding? Are we looking at not-for-profit organizations in this, running these 354 residences, or is there a mixture of not-for-profit and for-profit organizations?

[1455]

Hon. M. McNeil: The answer I give will need more clarification, unfortunately. What I've been told is that many of the residences with just one or two beds are actually private families, so they are not non-profit societies. They're not classified as non-profit societies, so
[ Page 6983 ]
they're contained in the number of contractors for profit. So it's a little misleading, the number there.

What I can tell you is that the number of contractors that are actually not-for-profit and have the society registration is 30. Then the number of contractors for profit — we really will have to do another breakdown for you because, as I said, many of them are…. There are some that are for profit, but there are also these private families, which don't have the designation and, therefore, had to be put in within that number. So I'll need some further work to break it down for you.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister, and I would like a breakdown of that if her staff could provide it.

[N. Letnick in the chair.]

For all of these — for the private families, the not-for-profits and those that are for profit — I wonder, when the RFP is issued, what sorts of standards for care provision the ministry is looking at. I know that we're talking about a range of levels of care needed, but I wonder what levels of standards that the ministry has for that.

[1500]

Hon. M. McNeil: The ministry has standards for staff residential resources, and there are three sets of standards that they have relating to the placements of children and youth in care. They are the standards for foster homes, standards for staffed children's residential services and caregiver support service standards.

With respect to the standards for staffed children's residential services, if they're greater than three beds, then they require the community care licensing. If greater than $500,000 — the contract annually — then that requires accreditation.

C. Trevena: When it is fewer than three children or young people, one or two young people, and the value of the contract is less than half a million dollars, there is….

Am I misreading it? There is the children's residential standard. If you could explain what there is for that group — less than half a million and fewer than three children in residential care.

Hon. M. McNeil: I understand that a copy of the standards are available on our website, but I will say that the standards for staffed children's residential services provide mandatory requirements for program staff relating to the care of children and youth. The standards are actually intended to ensure consistent, high-quality services for these children living in these residential settings.

There are expected outcomes for children and youth in care, and many of these expectations are regarding the purpose of the program: personal safety and protection of children and youth; staff recruitment, selection and screening; staff complement; training and staff development — and I can get you this list; staff support and supervision; rights of children and youth in care; complaint resolution; use of physical restraint; family involvement; involvement in decision-making; and shelter and equipment of the setting. Those are the expectations.

C. Trevena: So those expectations are standards that are expected for a home where it is less than a half-million-dollar contract and fewer than three children. Is this regarded as the de facto licensing for these facilities?

[1505]

Hon. M. McNeil: The standards that I listed in the last answer really apply across the board, regardless of how many or how large the contract is. However, if you're over three, that's when they need the community care licensing in addition. They're actually treated more as a resource facility rather than a home setting, if you will.

The licensing is all done through the health authorities, and we can certainly facilitate getting you more information through them if you require it.

C. Trevena: So those facilities with fewer than three children have the standards but have no other licensing. The standards are all that there is there. If that's the case, I'd like to ask the minister: what sort of monitoring happens for those homes, and what sorts of check-ins are there through the staff?

[1510]

Hon. M. McNeil: I guess where I would go with this is that obviously the standards apply to each of these resources. There is a resource social worker who is responsible for doing an annual review where they look at the application of the standards within that resource, but they also meet on a regular basis with the residents to make sure that things are running smoothly.

In addition to that, the child in place has a social worker, and they are also involved with visiting the facility and ensuring that everything is okay.

Then there's the third opportunity where if there is any complaint or any incident that arises, an investigation is done over and above those regular reviews.

C. Trevena: If there was a complaint and an investigation, who would carry out that investigation?

Hon. M. McNeil: It depends, actually, on the complaint or the investigation required. Obviously, if it's something that's not seen as terribly urgent and it's about the child, it would be their own social worker that would go out and take a look.
[ Page 6984 ]

Having said that, if it was something more significant, a complaint of more significance, then we would send out an independent social worker under the CFCSA to take a look and do an investigation.

If the complaint happened to be about the resource home, then it would be the resource social worker that would go out and investigate.

[1515]

C. Trevena: How many children are at these residential homes, the children's residences? Was it the figure that we had earlier on, the 1,086? I'm looking back at my figures here. How many children are involved? How many children are in these homes?

Hon. M. McNeil: The 1,086 number was the capacity, the number of beds that we have. Currently there are approximately 800 children.

C. Trevena: And if I might ask the minister: are there any children who are being cared for out of province?

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that from time to time we do have them going to either Calgary…. If it's a family, for instance, living in the Kootenays, it's closer for them to go to, let's say, the William Roper Home in Calgary for specialized care. It's easier for families. The travel distance is much better.

Certainly, for someone, a child up in Peace River, it's closer to go to Edmonton than, say, somewhere in the Lower Mainland. Right now I have no number that I can give you, but I can certainly have them look it up.

C. Trevena: Yes, I'd appreciate if you can get the numbers, Minister.

The other question is…. We're talking here how for Peace River it's easier to go to Edmonton and for somebody in the Kootenays it's closer to go to Calgary, but I was understanding that these residential facilities or residential homes were closer to children's communities anyway, that it wasn't a matter of going to a city. Why would these children, of an undetermined number, go to a city?

Hon. M. McNeil: The children that we are talking about that would be going either to Calgary or Edmonton — depending on the closeness, the geographical connection — are children that would be requiring specialized treatment, so they would be children within the tertiary care piece. For the staff residential care, it's my understanding that there are none that I know of.

C. Trevena: So there are none for the residential, but for the tertiary that was mentioned by the minister at the beginning were Maples, youth custody and youth justice.

[1520]

What sort of facility is it that would have to be served out of the province that can't be served here?

Hon. M. McNeil: From what I'm understanding, the children that would be going from, let's say, the Kootenays to Calgary or Peace River up to Edmonton are children that are requiring either specialized mental health or addictions support. The decision would be made to have them go there, one, because of the ease of access. It is closer. It's easier on families to be able to visit, and there's that arrangement there.

I don't have, at the moment, the number for you right now. I'd have to have that given to you.

C. Trevena: So it's purely a matter of ease of access for families. It's not a matter of capacity in any facility in B.C. There would be the space in the facilities in B.C. if the families chose that their children should be cared for in B.C.?

[1525]

Hon. M. McNeil: From what I'm understanding, we don't have the numbers, but they are small. As I mentioned, it depends on the need. Most of the time it is ease of access. It's either from the Interior, Kootenays or from the northeast.

Having said that, there might be the occasional time when there is a need that's immediate and we don't have the access. We can do something there if we need to build the program, but other than that, it's for children with specialized mental health or addictions requirements.

C. Trevena: I would appreciate it if the minister could track down the numbers. It would be very helpful.

Who would actually pay for this? Would it come under the ministry's budget or under the health authority's budget to ask for a child to be taken out of province and looked after out of province?

Hon. M. McNeil: From what I understand, it's both. In some cases, if it's a child in care, it can be paid for by MCFD. However, in other cases, if it's an addictions problem, it would be paid for by Ministry of Health.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for this. Just to confirm, then, the only tertiary facility in B.C. is Maples with its capacity of 29 beds?

[1530]

Hon. M. McNeil: The answer is that Maples itself has 24 beds, plus there are five beds at in-patient. Then the health authorities have regional children and adolescent psychiatric units. For the adolescents they have one in Victoria, Kelowna, Prince George, Surrey and in Vancouver at Children's Hospital. Then also at Children's Hospital, they have children's beds.
[ Page 6985 ]

C. Trevena: If the minister's staff could get me the number that we're talking about. It seems like there is quite a lot of capacity within the province, so it would be very interesting to see so that I can understand the geographical demands there.

Just moving on slightly from this one and going back to my last question on this particular area, the question of investigations and monitoring on the smaller facilities. Where are these facilities? Are they close to people's homes? If a child needs to go to a facility, would it be in a community close to the child's home? I was just thinking…. For monitoring, how does that work? Who knows when it needs to be monitored?

If you have quite a small group of people all working together in isolation, and the child is not in a position to make a statement that they are concerned about what is happening, and the staff feel everything is fine, but things are just going more and more out of kilter….

Where does the monitoring come into that? Is it just annual? Does it happen automatically? Are there spot checks? How does it work, and are we talking about facilities that are right around the province? That was my understanding — that they are right around the province. Or are they more likely in specific areas?

[1535]

[J. McIntyre in the chair.]

Hon. M. McNeil: These are, really, located throughout the province. These resources are actually situated within communities, which is very important because the children and youth go to school within the communities, and they are active in the communities.

As I've said in one of the previous answers, the monitoring that's done is…. You have the resource social worker who does the annual review that's set against the standards, but you also have regular visits. The regular visits are done by not only the child's social worker but also the resource social worker as well, and in some instances there may be other visits that occur.

One of the things that we've done just shortly after I came to this ministry is that I had an opportunity to sign an advocacy protocol with the Representative for Children and Youth. I don't know if you've had a chance to see it.

Listed in that protocol there is a place where we talk…. We want to ensure that the child and youth are aware of their rights and aware, if there is a situation, of how and who they can contact, and I think that's a really important part as well.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister on that. I'll come back to some of these issues when we talk about child and youth mental health.

There was obviously a very troubling incident in Prince George not so long ago. I know there's an inquiry going on there, so I'm not going to ask specifically about that, but I did want to know whether the ministry has any protocols or any guidelines about when police should be involved in a facility when it comes to children who are in the ministry's care.

[1540]

Hon. M. McNeil: The incident that the member opposite refers to in Prince George was extremely troubling. I know, for me, I was extremely concerned. One of the things that the ministry did right away was to ensure that we took action. We asked the new provincial director of child welfare to make sure not only of the safety and well-being of the child in question but of the other children in the resources were being met. That was done immediately.

As you know, the Representative for Children and Youth is involved. There is an investigation going on, and I have certainly instructed staff to make sure that whatever is required from the representative that we are there to give that information to her and to make sure that any of the agencies involved in an investigation have the access to information that they require.

To answer the specific question: no, there is not a protocol in place on when they can or cannot call the police. Quite frankly, it's left as a judgment call for the staff. If they feel the situation warrants it, then they go ahead and make those calls.

C. Trevena: What sort of training is provided to staff to make them think about when they might want to call police into a situation? I think it leaves most people just completely surprised that there might be a situation when you're dealing with a young person where you feel the need to call in the police. I know that young people…. Youth goes up to 19, so there is a range. But what part of the training would sort of give staff that trigger moment like: "Oh, we really ought to be calling the police?" I'd just like to know — a bit clearer idea.

[1545]

Hon. M. McNeil: The Ministry of Children and Family Development really does, in many cases, deal with children with some significant special needs and challenging behaviours. There's no question that sometimes there are situations that are very, very challenging for all those involved.

I can't get into the specifics of this case, as you know, but there is some agency-based training for the folks that deal with some of these children, specifically with children with these behavioural challenges, and that does happen.

But there are certain instances where children or youth can present a risk to themselves or to others. In cases like that, it then becomes a subjective judgment call that has to be made by the caregiver as to whether or
[ Page 6986 ]
not the child is behaving in such a way that they do pose a risk to themselves, and in that case, they have to take extreme measures.

C. Trevena: If the caregiver has to call in the police, do they have to report it? Is this part of the practice — that they report it back through the chain so the ministry finds out that they had to call in the police?

[1550]

Hon. M. McNeil: I hope I get this right. There is an expectation that the agency involved maintains a record of any incidents that might happen — in fact, an incident report — that they would report to the resource social worker either at their regular visit or on a one-on-one basis. That's at the local level.

There is no gathering of all of these incidence reports, currently. It's all done one-on-one between the agency and the resource social worker.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. She's just answered my next question, which was how many times such instances have been reported. But is the ministry planning to keep these sorts of statistics in the future, where there might be reporting where they've had to call in the police?

Hon. M. McNeil: I've just been informed by the staff that we are actually, at the moment, actively looking at the kinds of information that we need and should be keeping track of through the quality assurance program. As you know, that's been up and running now for a bit.

We are in dialogue with the Representative for Children and Youth as to what kind of pieces of information we will need to do. I know that I will be actively engaged in that with her, as well, because I think that is important for us to have.

And I would like to propose that in around September or October we should be at a place that's far enough along in the discussions that I would certainly be willing to sit down with you and review what it is that we have done.

C. Trevena: Hopefully, my last two questions on the residential home side of the ministry. The budget sheet that I'm using is one that the minister's staff passed on to me, which is the subvote, so we know we're talking about the same one. The line under "Intervention and support, provincial facilities" is going down from $49.3 million to $48.8 million. Is this the total for running all the facilities that we have been talking about this afternoon?

[1555]

Hon. M. McNeil: I would ask the member opposite if you could just repeat exactly which budget numbers you are requesting.

C. Trevena: The numbers for running the residential services — the staff residential and the tertiary section, not the foster care. Those two. If the minister could break out all three, that would be fantastic, but I know it might not be possible at the moment.

Hon. M. McNeil: I think what I would like to be able to do, if we could, rather than waste the time here as we try and gather up the numbers, is get the numbers, have it typed up and be able to give it to you.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that, Minister, and I hope that our staff, as well as your staff, is keeping records of all the things that the ministry will be providing, because it's mounting up.

My last question on this, then. This area, the residential facilities — do they come under the quality assurance mandate as well? People will be keeping sort of that focus on it too?

Hon. M. McNeil: The answer is yes.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that.

Now I'd like to switch directions a little, coming back to some of the areas that we've been talking about when we move on, hopefully later this afternoon, to talk about child and youth mental health. But I did want to ask the minister some questions on the extended family program that was introduced last year and the transfer from the Child in the Home of a Relative that it took over from.

At the time that the extended family program was brought in, there were, I believe, about 4,500 children in the Child in Home of a Relative. I was wondering: are they still in that category? Does the ministry have those figures? I know that it was a different ministry that was responsible. Does the ministry have the figures with the transfer?

[1600]

Hon. M. McNeil: The numbers for Child in the Home of the Relative — as you know, it was capped. Currently, as of March 2011, there are 3,298 children in that program, and right now in the extended family program there are 305.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Obviously, the numbers of children in the home of a relative are going to decrease as they age out or as things shift in a family situation.

At the time that the extended family program was brought in, there wasn't going to be any screening for those children who are in the home of a relative. This has been in place for a year now. Is there any plan to start some screening there to make sure that everything is okay on that side?

[1605]
[ Page 6987 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: In the Child in the Home of a Relative, as I mentioned, there are 3,298 currently, as of March 2011.

I have been informed that since 2007 we have been screening the families — in fact, it's anyone in the home over 18 — for a criminal record check and a check on previous involvement with the ministry. Of that, the total number, approximately 1,300 have been checked. There is the additional 2,000 that have not.

You know, as a new minister in the portfolio with a new deputy…. We have been taking a second look. It is of concern to the rep for child and youth, and I have had discussions with her about this exact issue. I've agreed that we will…. It's an important issue, and I think that we should review it.

The staff is currently reviewing it, and from what I understand, it should be in early June when we'll have the results of that. But it is something that the rep has brought up with me, and I am certainly looking into it.

C. Trevena: To clarify with the minister: when you're looking into it, you're looking into having rescreening of those children who haven't been screened, those families that haven't been screened. Is that what we're looking at? Right, the 2,000. Okay, that's good to hear.

The number, 305, in the extended family program — does that reflect what the ministry expected the numbers to be when the program was started?

Hon. M. McNeil: I think it's fair to say that staff didn't have a target number or an expectation of what the number was going to be. We're pleased with where we are at right now. I think that as with any new program, it's taking a while to catch on. But I do know that this program is part of the residential review that the ministry is currently doing, and we're continuing to look at all the variety of programs to see where we're at.

C. Trevena: The extended family program was established…. It was supposed…. I believe two years was how long a child was going to be in it. Am I correct in that? If I am, I wondered: why the time limit? What happens after the two years are up?

[1610]

Hon. M. McNeil: It's my understanding that there is no timeline. It is a check-in to make sure that things are going all right, but there's certainly no timeline associated with the program. It's just more or less a review to make sure that no child is falling through the cracks.

C. Trevena: How much does the family receive to have a child living with them, one of their family living with them?

Hon. M. McNeil: Again, to the member opposite, I want to thank you for the questions because I'm learning a lot.

It's a monthly payment of $554.27 per child under 12, and $625 per child over 12. In addition to that, there is extended medical, including dental and optical benefits, if they're required. It depends on the situation, but if they're needed they will get those as well.

These payment rates are comparable to the restricted foster home rates when you combine them with the child tax benefits for children and youth over the age of 12.

C. Trevena: If the minister, then, could tell me just how much do foster parents receive in comparison? Say they're comparable — what does a foster parent receive?

Hon. M. McNeil: From what I understand, it's a range of between $803.81 to $909.95, and that depends on the age of the child.

C. Trevena: I understand what the minister is saying, that there are extended benefits and child tax credits, so it looks like it balances out, but there is quite a disparity there. I wonder why there is the disparity.

[1615]

Hon. M. McNeil: Work with me here. It's a little complicated.

In the case of the restricted foster placement, we actually pay the rate, and then we claim back the amount for the child tax benefit.

In the case of the extended family program, what happens is the family is able to claim the child tax benefit, so they get that in addition to it. Having said that, the child tax benefit is also…. There's an income test done on that benefit, and in the cases where they are not eligible, that poses a disparity that we are looking into.

C. Trevena: It was easy to follow that one. Thank you.

One of the problems being faced is that a number of the people who are participating in the extended family program are grandparents, and they are looking after their grandchildren. They've been encouraged to take guardianship, become guardians of their children, and then they are not eligible for the extended family program payments.

I wonder if the ministry is looking at any way to resolve this.

[1620]

Hon. M. McNeil: We've just been having a good discussion here. The staff have said they do recognize that this is a problem. There is active debate on this issue, and they're actually looking at what options they could come up with. They have had meetings with the grandparents and are looking again at various options. I've
[ Page 6988 ]
just asked…. I'll be getting a briefing on this one, and I can fill you in more later.

C. Trevena: I appreciate the fact that it's being looked into. If I just may quote from the grandparents. I'm sure the minister is aware of this, but it's just to put it on the record.

About 40,000 children across Canada are being raised by grandparents, and it's estimated that 10,000 of those are in B.C. Of grandparents raising grandchildren, 17 percent are of First Nations descent, and 50 percent of those have an annual income of less than $30,000. Sixty-eight percent of grandchildren being raised by grandparents have severe disabilities, and 54 percent have a clinical diagnosis. The number of grandchildren being raised by grandparents is about the same number of children totally in government care in the province.

It's a significant number. There really is a real need to get some sort of solution, so I'm very pleased that the minister will work on that, and I hope that it will happen soon.

The other question that I have about the program is really building the understanding — not just whether the grandparents should become the legal guardians and the implications of that and the change there from the Child in the Home of a Relative and those implications but really how to navigate the system and how best to use the system. I wondered if the ministry is working with communities or with grandparents themselves for them to understand this new system and make the most of it.

[1625]

Hon. M. McNeil: From what I understand, the ministry is actually having active discussions with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren groups. They have funded the legal guide which the grandparents have written, and we have committed to revising it once the policy is complete. So that's good news on that front.

I might add, as you mentioned in your previous question…. You mentioned that there were grandparents raising children, some of them with special needs and mental health issues, etc. It should go on record that these children are also eligible to receive access to the other programs that the ministry offers with respect to special needs, mental health and the like.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that from the minister, but also with the reality that it does cost a lot for a family to raise a child. It costs even more for a family to raise a special needs child. As we go on in some of my questions I have later in other sections, access to services is not always there, which is also a problem for the families.

There seems to be, however…. I'll go back one step. The minister has talked about having discussions about looking at how the program is funded, how there could be greater parity, how we can deal with the guardianship issue and ensure that grandparents are not going to lose out — make it more equitable, which would be fantastic if that could work out.

However, we do have a status quo budget. So how does the minister expect to be able to do that when we already have the amount in the budget for the extended family program for the next three years, which isn't going up?

[1630]

Hon. M. McNeil: In these various programs there is a natural attrition that happens as children age out. In that case we have the ability to redeploy the funds there back to where they're needed. So that's what will be happening.

C. Trevena: If I might. Hasn't the budget been set so that the aging out is part of the budget? I mean, if it's a status quo budget, was it already foreseen that the money from Child in the Home of a Relative would move into the extended family program? If so, why not just establish that — that we're going to make that shift and start ensuring that the money can be paid? Because if it was set up in that way — that it was going to be moved from one budget to the other — it would be easier for many people if they knew that earlier.

[D. Hayer in the chair.]

Hon. M. McNeil: From what I'm understanding, although the budget shows it as a status quo, what will happen is that in the Child in the Home of a Relative, as we said, there will be aging out. That will be happening. Also children sometimes, before they age out, do leave, and the reason they leave is that they are repatriated back to their families, which is good news.

The program is capped. So the expectation is that as the Child in the Home of a Relative budget does go down, those dollars can be put into extended family or other programs as required.

[1635]

C. Trevena: I appreciate that it's capped, but the ministry must be able to work out when children are going to be, particularly, aging out of Child in the Home of a Relative — so know when they're going to have the money free and be able to say much more clearly that this money will be able to go into the extended family program.

If it's the status quo budget that was drawn up back in February with the extended family program as is, we have a new minister and a new deputy minister who are starting to look more openly about the way to make the extended family program work more effectively, particularly for grandparents. When the budget was drawn up, that wasn't in anyone's mind.
[ Page 6989 ]

So who's going to lose out in this? The money is now going from Child in the Home of a Relative likely to the extended family program, but it was going to go somewhere anyway. So where is it going to be lost from?

Hon. M. McNeil: From what I'm understanding from the staff, the only detailed budgeting on budgets for how much is in CIHR, how much is in for the extended family program, etc., has been done just for 2011-2012. The other status quo budget is open. They actually have in fact, which I was relieved to hear, done projections on the numbers going into the various programs — what their projected numbers are.

They do have quite extensive work done. There is modelling being done, options being prepared, but what I can say is that the money going from the Child in the Home of a Relative, as it's freed up, will be going into the extended family program.

C. Trevena: I hope that this will mean there is a greater priority both for the grandparents and the families who are looking after the children, as well as ensuring that we can sort out the whole issue of guardianship. I think that one is really going to be key.

[1640]

Going back on the way that the program runs, looking at the modelling…. I'm just looking at the representative's report on the move from Child in the Home of a Relative to the extended family program. It was June last year, so it's almost a year old.

At that time, the representative notes that the MCFD projects that there will be capacity to fund an average of 35 admissions a month. However, there were 136 admissions a month to the Child in the Home of a Relative program. So the representative notes that there is a problem with maybe a hundred families per month who wouldn't be covered there.

So going back to my original question of numbers. The minister stated that there are 305 children involved, but there hadn't been any projections. I just wondered where that lies. Also, what is happening to those people who would have been in the Child in the Home of a Relative and are not? Is there any way of counting what has happened to them?

[1645]

Hon. M. McNeil: CIHR and the extended family program are actually different approaches. We've moved to a new model. It is a different way of support to families.

The CIHR program was more of a financial assistance program. Now the extended family program is done in a different way. There is an assessment done on the need of the families. We take into consideration quality, safety and accountability in these.

We are in a transition period, and as we've said, that's one of the things we're looking at. For instance, if those hundred families came and met the criteria, funding would be available for them. I think we probably can't get into a lot of the detail here, but if you would like a briefing on how it actually works as compared to CIHR, we'd be very willing to sit down with you.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. Yes, I think I'll add it on to the checklist of things that we're going to be doing. It really is going to be a busy summer.

There is, however, still a need and an approach. There's a need for the care of the children, and the approach is for the children to be placed with a family. It is, depending on how you look at it, either cheap child protection or a very good way of keeping a family together with financial support.

The Children in the Home of a Relative was also a financial way of ensuring that children could stay in a family home and get that financial support. Somewhere along the way there are going to be vulnerable children who could slip through the cracks and families that could be missed out.

I'm wondering, from the ministry, how the ministry can sort of square that circle. Maybe it's another briefing, but if the minister could just address it at the moment.

[1650]

Hon. M. McNeil: I guess how best to answer this is that the program's not set up to be in any way exclusionary. It's absolutely there for the families, but it does have to have the necessary scrutiny that, quite frankly, the Representative for Children and Youth wants us to have. We have worked with her. She wants us to ensure that when we put a child in a home, there is a safety and a quality and in fact it passes an accountability test, in essence.

Really, what we're looking at is a balance between having a child stay with a family, which I believe is very important, but at the same time having accountability, which is something the Representative for Children and Youth wants to ensure as well.

We all want to make sure that the safety and well-being of that child is first and foremost. I think that's really, really important. It's really a balance. It's certainly not exclusionary, but it does have to have some checks and balances, and it's something that the rep has worked with us on.

If you have circumstances where the grandparent has, with the permission of the parents, the ability to have the child, there are a range of options that the ministry can provide, a range of services for these families. But again, there has to be a fine line between checks and balances, and I think that's the line we're trying to balance here.

C. Trevena: One of the issues that I've heard has been a problem in this…. We have concerns about whether the grandparents take guardianship. But on the other side of it is that the parents have to agree to the choice
[ Page 6990 ]
of caregiver and the plan for the child and, where possible, which is often not the case, contribute financially to their child's care.

I'm also hearing a lot of instances where the parent just isn't there. So again, it's the likelihood of children not being able to be helped through this system and therefore possibly still being aided by family and assisted by grandparents or aunties or whoever, but without any chance of financial support because they've not been able to find the parent or get the parent to sign.

Is this an area that the minister will be looking at to try and get a bit more balance there?

[1655]

Hon. M. McNeil: The case that you're citing here is actually in a case when the parent is not available, neither parent is available, and the child has effectively been abandoned. In cases like that, under the CFCSA we are able to do what's best interest of the child, to be able to take the child. In that case, we have the ability to place the child with the grandparents, if that's seen as the best place, under the restricted foster care.

There are other options that we could use as well. It's the opinion of the ministry and the staff here that children do better if there's a family connection. There is evidence with respect to that.

Again, it's a matter of doing what's best for the child — under CFCSA, what is in the best interests of the child. That would come into play in a situation like you discussed.

C. Trevena: My last question on this, just for clarity. I hope it's very quick.

If a child is being looked after by the grandparent because the parent has disappeared and if that grandparent went to the ministry and said, "Help — I need some assistance on this," the grandparent couldn't get extended family because we didn't have the signature of the parent. But if the grandparent wasn't the guardian, what would the grandparent be eligible for? Would it only be fostering — going through a foster parent arrangement? Or is there any other possibility that the grandparent or other family member could have some assistance there?

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, to clarify. It's the same as with CIHR. With CIHR you had to have the permission of the parent as well. With EF, extended family program, it's the same thing.

What would kick in is: what is in the best interests of the child? The child has been effectively abandoned. In that case, they would have to, under the CFCSA, look into other options.

I mentioned the restricted foster care option, but there are other options that could come into play.

I guess, only to reiterate, ministry staff say that evidence shows that children do better where there's a family connection. Having said that, the rep very rightfully says: "Let's make sure we put them into a safe environment." So it's balancing all of those things.

But there's no difference between CIHR and EF, extended family program.

[1700]

C. Trevena: On that specific issue? Yes, right.

I'd like to switch tacks now. We only have about 40 minutes left for this afternoon. Hopefully, we can — unfortunately — get through this section in the 40 minutes. I'm not sure whether we will, but I wanted to switch attention to child and youth mental health.

I thank the minister for earlier discussions about this that we've had about constituency issues. The minister has been talking throughout the period about Strong, Safe and Supported, the guidelines, the pillars. In Strong, Safe and Supported under "mental health" it notes that success to date is "specially trained child and youth mental health clinicians working with children from birth to five years of age who may be at risk of developing mental health problems and their families to enhance the attachment relationship."

An indication of success is "a decrease in the number of children and youth referred for intervention or coming into care or custody." I wonder if the ministry has any statistics yet on whether these indicators are being met — if there is any decrease because of the work being done over the last five years with Strong, Safe and Supported.

Hon. M. McNeil: We've been trying, but we really don't have any data available to us at this time to be able to answer that question.

C. Trevena: The Strong, Safe and Supported has been evolving, obviously, but is in place now. When would we start getting that sort of data? Are those the figures that will be collected?

[1705]

Hon. M. McNeil: As part of our ten-year mental health plan…. I think it would probably be best to go to that rather than Strong, Safe and Supported. But as part of the ten-year mental health and substance abuse plan, we are working with that and building in indicators and measures so that we can monitor. The programs we do are evidence-based, and they do result in outputs that are of value. But I think that it's going to realistically be at least three to five years before we are able to report out on any of these measures.

C. Trevena: How does the ten-year plan jibe with the five-year child and youth mental health plan which is cited in Strong, Safe and Supported?

[1710]
[ Page 6991 ]

Hon. M. McNeil: The five-year mental health plan that you're referring to, that was in Strong, Safe and Supported, was from 2003 until 2008. The plan was for it to then be reviewed. It was reviewed in 2009.

We took the recommendations in that review, which was a good review, and put them into the new ten-year mental health and substance use plan, which is also referred to as Healthy Minds, Healthy People. It was released in November of 2010, and it was a cross-government initiative working with Health and other ministries to make sure that we had a coordinated approach to mental health and substance use.

C. Trevena: In the specific instance of child and youth mental health, we've had the discussion on a constituency level about a wait-list where we have the priorities. The urgent cases are pushed up the ladder, but there's still a wait-list of 50. That's just in one community. I think it's replicated throughout the province — that there is a huge demand for child and youth mental health services.

I wondered if the minister has — two things — firstly, any figures for provincewide wait-lists. And secondly, what is the plan to tackle them?

[1715]

Hon. M. McNeil: In answer to the member opposite's question, we don't have an aggregate list, a wait-list. From what I understand, the wait-lists vary from region to region. But we don't have anything in place where we can give you an aggregate number.

However, the ministry does prioritize the need. If there is an immediate care, an emergent care, that child or youth does get the immediate care that they need. In fact, we're actually part of a broader system. It's not just MCFD. It's also working with the GPs. It's working with the schools and various other agencies with respect to prevention and early intervention — whatever we can do — and we're part of a bigger group.

Currently the ministry invests $94 million annually to address child and youth mental health and substance use challenges. It includes the community child and mental health services. Approximately 20,000 children and youth currently receive community mental health services annually, which is double the number that received services at the beginning of the five-year plan in 2003.

As I mentioned, in November of 2010 there was the release of the Healthy Minds, Healthy People report. A key area in that ten-year plan takes us to the next steps, and some of those next steps are: how do we manage access?

[1720]

It is something that the government takes very seriously, and there is a priority. I think it's really important, again, to note that there is a prioritization — that when there is an emergent need, MCFD works very closely with the Ministry of Health to ensure that those services are received as soon as possible.

C. Trevena: Unfortunately, we all hear the cases where it doesn't work, where the system doesn't work — particularly, I think, coming from a rural area. I know for other people in rural areas, it's the access to the system, access to facilities. I know I've had a few instances of families coming to my office, and they can't get their children the immediate assistance that they and doctors feel they need because the only place available for very serious cases is Ledger House on the Island, and that is very limited capacity there.

I was wondering what the ministry can do — working, obviously, with the Ministry of Health — to increase capacity and increase access for all families who need that sort of support?

Hon. M. McNeil: First, one of the things that you had mentioned is getting access to in-patient services. They are provided by the Ministry of Health, and probably any questions are best directed there on that.

I think that your point and the issue of access to mental health services in the rural areas is a concern, and it's something that I know staff have informed me they are working actively on.

[1725]

They're working with other players — for instance, Health — on various ways that we can make access better. Quite frankly, there are the options like telemental health, which is a program that can be accessed. They have an outreach psychiatric program where they send psychiatrists into various regions.

I think it's something that we recognize as an issue in rural areas. I think it's not just here in Children and Families. Accessing services sometimes in the rural areas is a challenge in British Columbia. It sometimes boils down to a matter of recruitment, recruiting the specialized folks that you need, and it can be a real challenge, but I do know it's something that the ministry is actively working on at the moment with other cross-government ministries.

C. Trevena: Backing off from the residential facilities and the in-patients like Ledger House, what other facilities are available for young people who have addictions or mental health problems, provided through the ministry?

Hon. M. McNeil: Addictions services are actually provided through the health authorities. So that's where those are. If you're looking at Children and Family Development and the mental health services we provide, if it's on the facility side, it's as I mentioned earlier, through Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre.
[ Page 6992 ]

Also our direct services that we have — they're community-based mental health staff with the ministry in actually all of the regions around the province. We have around 100 locations, and we have approximately 500 trained clinicians on staff within those 100 regions.

[1730]

C. Trevena: Thank you, Minister.

The issue of prevention is obviously very important — if there is a possibility of prevention or intervention. I know that these are terms being used by the ministry, but I think that the…. I'm using the colloquial, not the ministerial terms. Areas like help lines…. You've got the FORCE in Vancouver and NEED2 here on the lower Island. These areas where there's active intervention with both young people and with their families.

I know there's been some question about ministerial funding for them or funding from the ministry. I wondered if the minister can give some guarantees that these organizations will continue getting funding for their work.

Hon. M. McNeil: We are, as a ministry, constantly looking at the various programs that are out there and whether or not they're meeting the needs. I think that's something that we should do to ensure that they are as effective as they can be, based on evidence that shows that they do work. I think that's really important.

You brought up NEED2. I do understand that it was part of a bigger realignment of services in southern Vancouver Island. They did take a look at what the services were. Decisions were made, but part of that realignment was to, after a year, take a look at the decisions made and ensure that they were the right decisions.

It's my understanding from staff that they are taking a look at NEED2. They are in discussions with the director about that decision. I haven't yet heard the outcome of that result, but I think it's something that as a ministry we should be doing. We should constantly take a look at the services that we are providing to make sure that they are the best services and those that are needed the most.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that, and I look forward to the results of the review. One of the things is that mental health is very poorly understood, I think, for nearly everybody, and it slips under the carpet. I used the example when I wrote to the minister that if you had an issue of 50 young people waiting for any medical service, traditional medical service, it would create an outrage.

I think that there has to be a greater understanding and emotional and financial investment into mental health services across the province for all ages and children and youth, if we can, because they are very vulnerable — and also support services for their families. I think that the families often feel very, very isolated by what happens. If it gets to the worst case, if there is a suicide, I think that there really has to be extreme support there, whether it's from the ministry or the Ministry of Health.

I have two quick questions that I hope we can slip in here. I'll roll them together. One is — obviously working with those families where the youth is suicidal — whether the ministry tracks the suicidal tendencies and suicides and intervention.

The second question is on those young people who are not suicidal but age out of the ministry at 19. What happens to them when they have mental health problems which wouldn't be covered, that's not a mental challenge that would need CLBC but a mental health issue. Where do they go?

[1735]

Hon. M. McNeil: Yes, there is tracking of suicides in British Columbia, zero to 19. I do know that it appears to be…. Well, it is tracking down from 2000, the earliest that I have. It was at 32, and in 2009 it was down to 17, which is heading in the right direction. It's still 17 too many, but it is tracking down.

Suicide education and consultation — we do, working with communities and families. I think there is crisis intervention for children and youth who are at risk for suicide. There is a development of regional and post-suicide intervention plans to support survivors of youth suicide and to minimize the suicide contagion, as it's called.

I do know that we do have a youth transition protocol in place. We're currently doing a review with the regions to ensure that there's consistency across the province. We start with children around 16 and work on that.

I would like to add a little further note. Saturday, May 7, was Child and Youth Mental Health Day, and I was able to go to a conference which was put on by the Institute of Families for Child and Youth Mental Health. I think it was called Family Smart.

I was able to be there, and I have to say that I was really impressed with the group of people they had in the room. It was downtown Vancouver, and they had not only family members who have been involved and experts in the field. I know MCFD was there, and I was pleased to be able to see the staff we had.

[1740]

Also, there were children and youth — well, youth, really — that have had mental health issues in the past. I was able to sit and talk to a couple of them — just the fact that they were there and working with us, to be able to talk. In this case it was across the country. I was able to speak at it just at the beginning to welcome folks. I was really thrilled to see that they do have a sort of family.
[ Page 6993 ]

The families are participating with the discussions. I think that's really, really important. I think that it's important that the communication is not just from the experts to the families but back from the families to the experts.

I mentioned at that time that I do have a relative who is a youth who does struggle with mental health issues. Seeing it firsthand and how it impacts their siblings and parents is quite significant. It's an area that I'm very, very interested in, and I will be interested in learning more. I'm sure you will probably want to be able to take advantage of some of the information that I do receive.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that, Minister.

Going back on some of our earlier discussions and the pressures that are on families, the pressures of poverty and so on, I was wondering whether, when working with the children and young people with mental health issues, there is a separate strategy, separate stream under the aboriginal side that the ministry works, or if it is all one. The aboriginal communities have a very large sense of family.

I understand that it will be our last question for this section.

Hon. M. McNeil: I get that impression as well.

Yes, there have been several initiatives within the aboriginal youth suicide prevention program funded by the 2003 to 2008 five-year child and youth mental health plan for B.C. They were dedicated to the development of regional-specific aboriginal child and youth mental health plans.

They have strategies such as aboriginal outreach and support workers; implementation of aboriginal school-based prevention and community-based intervention and postvention programs; culturally sensitive programs, activities to work with some of the aboriginal children and youth to make sure that it works for their culture. For instance, a Friends for Life curriculum is to reduce anxiety in children — and the Hope and Healing booklet for aboriginal people.

There's a variety of different initiatives underway, culturally sensitive training for more than half of the child and youth mental health staff. There are lots of different things that are specific to the aboriginal youth program.

I would like, just before I do give my final words, just to clarify something that was said this morning. I wasn't really sure, and I want to verify it. When we were talking about child care funding, we talked about how the overall funding amount was $296 million. Within that, I made the statement that there was $81 million from the federal government, and I want to confirm that that was correct. I was going to get it verified, and it is correct.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:45 p.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule

Copyright © 2011: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

ISSN 1499-2175