Hagen Refuses to Answer

November 3, 2005

Hagen Refuses to Answer

What may be the most controversial ministry in government, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, had its budget (termed "estimates" in the legislature) called for debate at 6:38 PM on November 1st. Debate continued until 8:54 PM when it adjourned for the night. The debate was carried live on the legislative TV channel but it was competing with "Bones" on Global and "The Biggest Loser" on NBC. The drama in neither of those shows could match the exchange between Stan Hagen and Adrian Dix on the issues that surround child protection. Fortunately, it is possible to click on Hansard and either read or view the full exchange.

Hagen, first elected as a member for Social Credit in 1986, used many of the old dodges that were typical of that era. When asked about cuts to child protection services in 2002, 2003 and 2004, Hagen responded that those were in the past and he was in estimates to answer for the current budget. When asked whether there would be further layoffs of child protection workers, Hagen responded that the question dealt with future policy so he wouldn't answer. In over two hours of questioning, Hagen rarely provided any useful information. He continually hid behind "his social workers", as he called them, saying: "We actually trust our social workers to make the best decision with regard to children, whether it's going into a foster family or whether it's under a kith-and-kin arrangement." That tactic was used to shift the blame from the ministry and government to individual workers who feel threatened by the ministry and who privately complain about a lack of resources and support. Child and Youth Officer Jane Morley reviewed those concerns in her report titled "Asking Questions".

One of the many disturbing exchanges occurred on the issue of kith-and-kin agreements and whether the ministry sees them as a lower standard of care:

A. Dix: Does the minister agree that the home study conducted by resource social workers for, say, a restricted foster parent is different than the paperwork study done under a kith-and-kin agreement?

Hon. S. Hagen: There's a difference between a child coming in under foster care and a child coming in under a kith-and-kin arrangement. Under foster care, he's under the director - the director's responsibility. Under kith and kin, it's a family-to-family responsibility.

A. Dix: Well, I didn't realize that sophistry was the official policy of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I mean, so what? The question I had for him is this: why aren't there home studies for kith-and-kin agreements? Aren't children involved in kith-and-kin agreements worthy of protection?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm told that since 2003, which I mentioned before, there are studies of the home done for kith and kin. They're not the same as the home studies that are done for foster parents. I've said that.

A. Dix: Does the minister believe that a lower standard of home study is the right public policy?

Hon. S. Hagen: To the member: it's not a lower standard. It's a process that's used to reflect the difference between a foster arrangement and a kith-and-kin arrangement.

A. Dix: Well, with great respect, it is a lower standard. There's less work involved. There's less cost involved. There's less investment by the ministry involved. So what the minister and what the ministry are saying is that we can accept a higher level of risk in these cases.
I have to tell the minister that I find that disappointing and extraordinary. I don't believe that kinship agreements should not be allowed, but I believe there should be the same level of home study, the same level of assistance from social workers, the same ability to access programs for children going into this program as there should be for children going into a restricted foster parent agreement. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. S. Hagen: No, I don't. I think that our policy that's in place now is the correct policy.

A. Dix: In other words, the minister has created a class of children whom he doesn't have to count as children in care, so they help his statistics. Oh, how important their statistics are. They have less access to government programs, less access to support from social workers, fewer home studies, and he thinks that's an acceptable arrangement.
I've got to tell you…. I think the evidence of this case shows it dramatically, and if the minister has read - as I presume he has - the report on this case, he will draw the same conclusions. I disagree with that approach. I think it's the wrong approach, and I'd ask the minister two questions. Is he planning at any point to do a review of this program? Considering the extraordinary failure in its launch, is he planning to do a review of this program? When? And if he hasn't, why hasn't he?
In other words, here we have a government program - let's just say to the members of the House - where they cut standards, where they cut the standards of reviewing homes, where they cut the standard of support for the child in the home. They implement this program. It has cost savings for the government, and then three years later they don't even review the consequences of their decisions. I ask the minister very simply: is he planning to do a review of section 8 agreements?

Hon. S. Hagen: The objective of our social workers is actually to keep kids in families, to keep kids in their homes. Now, if kids have to be removed, there's the option of foster parents. There's the option of kith-and-kin. Kith-and-kin is usually for a shorter time. It's usually with a family. It's usually at the request of the parents who know they need some help. I think the policy that's in place is the correct one.

When the Minister who is responsible for vulnerable children is asked to review the consequences of applying lower standards for approving a home for a kith or kin placement, his answer amounted to saying that his mind is made up, no research is necessary. That wasn't acceptable to Gordon Campbell when he was leader of the Official Opposition, he led people to believe that protecting vulnerable children was his priority. It isn't good enough today.