[ Page 6623 ]

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1998

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 1998-99 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

The bill will provide interim supply for the initial three months of the 1998-99 fiscal year. This will allow time to debate and pass the estimates. This interim supply bill is required because spending authority will expire on March 31, 1998. Therefore, in moving the introduction and first reading of this bill, I ask that it be considered as urgent under standing order 81 and be permitted to be advanced through all stages today.

I move first reading.

The Speaker: That has been done, minister. At this point the bill is usually circulated. It will be done by the Sergeant-at-Arms momentarily.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I wonder if we might recess for 15 minutes for the purpose of distribution and reviewing the bill.

The Speaker: That sounds appropriate to me. How about a recess for ten minutes?

The House recessed from 10:09 a.m. to 10:18 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

The Speaker: The Chair has been asked to make a ruling, and it is as follows. This interim supply bill falls into the category of bill which, by practice, has been permitted to advance through all stages in one day, and I so rule.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1998
(second reading)

The first section of the bill requests one-quarter of the voted expenditure presented in the estimates, to provide for the general programs of the government. The second section requests the disbursements required for the government's voted financing transactions, which appear in schedule C of the estimates.

I now move second reading.

C. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I want to speak on this bill today to focus in particular on the special warrants that are attached to it. I am the official opposition critic for the Ministry for Children and Families, as you know. In the schedule to the act -- the special warrants that were approved on February 26 this year -- it sets out that $33.8 million would be voted to supplement the budget for the Ministry for Children and Families.

My issue with this is simple. It's the fact that this government should not have ever had to go to a special warrant for the Ministry for Children and Families. The reason that this government should never have had to do that is because we sat down in this House in May of last year -- almost a year ago -- and said to this government: "We will sit down with you and find more resources for this ministry." And what did the government do? They scoffed. They said: "Oh, we don't need more resources for this ministry. Gordon Campbell stood up in this House and said: "This ministry needs more resources."

There is clearly a problem in the Ministry for Children and Families; there is clearly a problem of resources in the Ministry for Children and Families. We've known for a year now that this is a ministry that's been struggling without enough resources, without resources properly deployed within it. People in the front lines have been starved for resources in this ministry, and we have known that. When the tragic case of Mavis Flanders was raised in this House and when the tragic case of Baby Molly was raised in this House, we said to the government: "This isn't good enough; there is clearly a problem." We sat down and offered to take the politics out of this issue. We offered to sit and discuss with the government, on a non-partisan basis, ways that we could find resources for children in British Columbia, because they have to be a top priority for government.

What did the government do? What did the Premier do? He's quoted in the newspaper as scoffing at the offer, saying: "Oh well, we don't need more resources for the Ministry for Children and Families. Kids have got enough resources out there." Now we have a special warrant that the government passed in cabinet when the House wasn't even sitting, admitting that they do need more resources. But how do they get the money? They don't get it with debate; they don't get it with discussion. They don't get it by coming to the House and talking to members from all sides about how that money should be spent or where it should come from. They don't call committees to go out and ask the public what's needed. They don't go to foster parents; they don't go to social workers. They don't go out there and find out where the money should come from and where it should go. What do they do? They pass it in cabinet, where there's no scrutiny.

After we offered, in May of 1997, to sit down and discuss the lack of resources in the ministry, where in government we could get the money and how we could better spend it and make sure that children were better protected. . . . We did that in May of 1977. We made that offer again and again and again, and every time the government refused. The government refused to sit down and discuss it with us, take the politics out 

[ Page 6624 ]

of it, talk to the people on the front lines and find out what could be done -- because there is a serious problem in this ministry.

We see the tragedies of people like Mavis Flanders and Chabasco Flanders and Baby Molly, and we see the crisis in the foster care system. Those are just the symptoms that we see, but the problem is deep-seated. It is a very serious and fundamental problem in this ministry.

While the government has pushed up the timetable for creating the ministry and integrating all these services, they've created chaos in the front lines. Social workers can't do their jobs. I've been to Quesnel to talk to families up there, and that's only the most recent incident of what's happened with this government's failure to act with the Ministry for Children and Families.

I've been up there to talk to families. We held a public forum, where anyone was welcome to come and talk about what was going on in that community. I was up there with the member for Cariboo North to talk with foster parents, to talk with adoptive parents, to talk with the people who had their children apprehended by this ministry -- who, in the middle of the night, had a police officer and a social worker arrive at their door and say: "We're taking your kid." They were not telling them why and, worst of all, not telling them where they were taking their children. Afterwards, when parents went to those social workers and tried to find out where their children were, they couldn't get through on the phone.

Can you imagine anything more scary than not knowing where your children are? Not everybody is a good parent; not everybody has the skills to be a good parent. As a community and as a government, we have a duty to help people learn how to be better parents. If they can't be good parents, certainly we should apprehend their children. But every parent who's got a child in their home -- or almost every parent, certainly -- loves that child. Can you imagine what it would be like to have your child scooped from your home and never even be told where your child is going to be -- and, worse than that, to have one child taken and a couple of others left, so you can't even tell his or her brothers and sisters where their sibling has been taken? Can you imagine anything scarier than that?

While the minister is content to say that this is the fault of the social workers, while she is content to blame the supervisor in Quesnel for this problem and to lay every inch of blame for this at the feet of the front-line workers, I am not. The reason I'm not prepared to lay the blame at their front steps is because it's not their fault that they lack resources. It's not the fault of one social worker in Quesnel, who was carrying 70 cases in his caseload, if he couldn't do his job properly. It's not the fault of the social workers who had to go on stress leave because they were carrying 40, 50 or 60 cases. That's three times what they should be carrying.

How can the government expect social workers to protect children? How can they expect this ministry to do its job and to ensure that children are cared for, that children are left in homes when they're safe or taken out of homes when they're unsafe, and that social workers have the skills, the resources and the time they need to make sure that the right decisions are made, when they don't give social workers the resources they need to do their jobs?

It's all very well for the minister to just lay the blame at the feet of the front-line workers. I suppose it's fine for her to do that. But the problem, hon. Speaker, is the minister's problem. It's not just this minister's problem; it is the problem of all the previous failed ministers who have gone before her, all the previous failed ministers who have been shuffled out of their portfolio because they couldn't do their job either. Where do they end up? Well, I guess the first failed Social Services minister ended up in Health. Then the second failed Children and Families minister also ended up in Health. Now we've got the first failed minister in Finance. That's a scary thought.

This is a ministry that is in chaos. It is a ministry that doesn't have the resources to do its job, and we have seen successive ministers who don't have the clout or the guts or the backbone to go to cabinet and get the resources. There is clearly a problem of political will with this government in protecting children. That is the problem, and the blame for this must not be laid at the feet of social workers on the front line. The blame for this must be laid at the feet of the minister who sits in cabinet, who is supposed to be fighting to protect children in British Columbia.

Surely she should know what is required to protect children. Instead, the government says: "What problem? There is no problem." You know, the first step to recovery is admitting you've got a problem. It's my job, as the critic for Children and Families, to get this government to finally admit that they do have a problem. If the government is prepared to admit that they have a problem, maybe they'll ask us. Maybe they'll ask the public, the front-line workers, the foster parents. Maybe they will go to them and come to us and take the politics out of it and ask how we can fix the problem. When the government rejects an offer that was made in May and June and July and August, scoffs and rejects it out of hand, and says, "No, we don't need any more resources for the Ministry for Children and Families," and then in February comes and says, "Oh well, actually we made a mistake; we think we do need some resources. . . ."

So they pass their special warrants. Then what do we find out? We find out that all the time the opposition was calling for more resources for this ministry, so were the front-line social workers in Quesnel. They were going to the ministry, they were going to the minister, they were going to the deputy minister, and they were begging for more resources. They were begging, saying that they couldn't do their jobs, that a caseload of 70 was just too high.

You know, when you are dealing with a caseload of 70. . . . I haven't been a social worker myself, but I can imagine that with a caseload of 70, you only deal with the most urgent cases first. Something is bound to fall off the table -- and that's something the child advocate said last May. In her report she also said that there was too much on the table and that things were going to start falling off.

[10:30]

Quesnel is a good example, because we know that social workers talked to this government for months. At the same time that we were asking the government to provide more resources, so were they. They couldn't do their jobs, and they warned the government again and again and again. They told the government that they could not do their jobs, and the government ignored them too. Then, finally, the government decided: "Well, maybe we should do an audit in Quesnel; maybe we should find out what's going on up there."

So they do an audit, and guess what they find out. They find out that the social workers, the opposition, the foster 

[ Page 6625 ]

parents and the children out there who aren't being adequately cared for were all telling the truth. The government was wrong all along, and they should have listened in the first place. That's what they found out from that audit: that office was starved for resources. It had been for a long time, and social workers couldn't do their jobs.

So what's the ministry's response? Well, at first, nothing. Then the ministry does another audit, and guess what they found out. Gee, they found out that we were telling the truth all along: that the social workers were right, that the ministry was starved for resources, that the social workers couldn't do their jobs, that they needed more resources in the front line. So what did the ministry do? They waited until all the social workers went off on stress leave because they couldn't do their jobs, and then they finally said: "Well, gee. You know what we'll do? We'll fly in a SWAT team of workers from everywhere in British Columbia, put them in Quesnel and expect them to do the job without any knowledge of the community, without any background of the community" -- without the resources that they needed to do it either. They brought them in, and guess what happened. Seventy children were suddenly apprehended in Quesnel.

You know, the Quesnel experience proves to us that there are two things that happen as a result of a lack of resources in this ministry. The first is that because social workers don't have the resources to do their jobs, sometimes they won't be able to make the right decisions. If they're rushed and they're panicked, sometimes they'll leave children in homes that are unsafe. Equally, they'll sometimes take children out of homes when they shouldn't be taken. When a child is taken out of a home, particularly in a small community, it's heart-rending. The family is stigmatized; they lose their child. It's not something that should be taken lightly.

We have frequently heard previous ministers get up in the House and talk about how we should have the least disruptive measures, that we shouldn't be so intrusive with families and that we need to find a balance. But the fact is that we can't find a balance unless social workers can do their jobs properly. We can't find a balance unless social workers are given the skills that they need to be able to make the right decisions. Otherwise, things are going to happen like what happened in Quesnel. You know, Quesnel isn't an isolated incident, I'm sure. It's quite likely that unless this government gets its house in order and takes the first step of admitting it's got a problem, we'll have another Quesnel somewhere else.

What about the next audit? What's that going to prove? What's that going to demonstrate? I'd be prepared to bet that it's going to demonstrate that the problem isn't only in Quesnel. We've got problems everywhere in British Columbia; we've got problems in the Ministry for Children and Families offices in Prince Rupert, in Kelowna -- you name it, there are problems. This ministry has been starving the front line of resources for far too long, and they haven't been prepared to address it.

So the social workers get flown into Quesnel, and what happens? Seventy children are taken from their homes. Parents aren't necessarily told why; they're not told where their children have gone. But social workers panicked. And you know what they did? They said: "Well, we've got a big caseload here; we don't have enough resources; the ministry is panicking. Let's just push the panic button and get those kids out of the home."

When I talked to parents in Quesnel, families were broken in half by that. Whole neighbourhoods were turning against each other. It wasn't a pretty sight. I know that social workers take it very seriously when they have to remove a child from a home. But the ministry, at the bureaucratic and political level in Victoria, doesn't appear to. When they push the panic button, social workers had better move their butts and get those kids out of the home, and that's what happened in Quesnel. The problem in Quesnel was that social workers didn't have the resources. I keep coming back to that, because we made the offer, and at the same time we were making the offer, social workers were telling the government that they needed help. The government turned a blind eye to it, and it is terribly, terribly irresponsible to wait until there's a crisis. When there's a crisis, of course, things aren't dealt with appropriately all the time. Of course they're not.

After the 70 apprehensions, the government had the gall to say that it was the result of a long backlog -- in the ministry office -- of apprehensions that hadn't been undertaken. Well, it was not the first time that a judge said that the government's story wasn't exactly right on, and I'm sure it won't be the last. But for me, it was resonant to hear the family court judge in Quesnel get up and say: "That's not true; they're not from the backlog." He heard every case. He went through his files, and he said: "You know, only five of those cases were from a backlog." The rest of them were new cases.

Here again we have another Minister for Children and Families getting caught out. We had the first Minister for Children and Families get moved because in the Matthew Vaudreuil case, it turned out that not all the stories communicated to the public were exactly quite right, so she had to be moved to Health. Then we had the next Minister for Children and Families get moved on because it turned out that the Quesnel story wasn't quite right. You know what? They got caught by a judge that time. Well, let's move her to Health, the graveyard for failed Ministers for Children and Families.

Now we have a new minister who still won't admit what's going on, who still won't give the community access to the information about what's going on up there in Quesnel. It would be sad to believe that it's because she doesn't know. I have to believe that this minister does know what's going on. She sat in cabinet and approved the special warrant. She sat in cabinet and admitted, along with the rest of the cabinet, that they didn't have enough resources in the Ministry for Children and Families. She knew as far back as before she was even in the ministry that there was a problem, that they were short of resources. That's why they approved the special warrant. Now that we've got these problems in Quesnel -- and probably across the ministry -- the minister still won't come clean and say what the problem is. She still won't reach her hand out and ask for help. She still will not admit that there's a problem in this ministry, that the minister needs help. She needs help not just from her cabinet colleagues and from her spin doctors; she needs help from everybody in every community in British Columbia. She needs input from social workers, from foster parents. Goodness knows she needs input from the other members of this House. We're here to help this ministry, because we know the minister needs the help. That's why we've made the offer, and it's a sincere, genuine offer.

In the opportunity to debate the special warrants today, hon. Speaker, I want to put that offer back out on the table for the government. I want to put it out on the table and ask the government to include us in decisions about where this ministry is going, because we're prepared to help. There is a problem, and we're not talking about cheap politics; we're talking about children. We're talking about the rights of children in British Columbia to be protected and to be safe in their own home. And if they're not in their own home, we're talking 

[ Page 6626 ]

about the right of children to be cared for well -- if they're in another home or if they're in the care of the government. That's what we're talking about. This isn't about an ideology. It is not about politics; it's about political will.

This government and this ministry appear to have lost their direction. It's a ministry in chaos. They don't know where they're going; they don't know what they're doing. It's a ministry without direction. It's a minister, I think, who seems to have trouble deciding to do the right thing -- choosing to do the right thing as opposed to doing the wrong thing, taking the road that's open and inclusive, the road where she can get real input from people and find out what's actually happening on the front lines. Ultimately, this is a minister and a government without a conscience, without a moral compass. This government has lost that. And when putting this offer on the table, I am inviting the government to find its moral compass, to find its conscience, because we are talking about the safety of children in British Columbia. They deserve better. They deserve better than what happened in Quesnel. Mavis Flanders deserved better. Baby Molly deserved better. All those children who are currently in the care of the government, in foster care, and who never see a social worker except when they come to pick them up and drop them off deserve better. All those children deserve better, and their parents deserve better.

This ministry and this minister are in dire need of assistance, and that's why I'm speaking to the House today -- to make that offer again. The last time, the minister refused it. The Premier scoffed at it. So I'm making it again. We have a new minister. We have a new session, and hopefully it's an opportunity for a new start for the government.

With that, hon. Speaker, I'll end my remarks and thank you for the opportunity to speak.

B. McKinnon: I'm pleased to rise and speak to this interim supply bill. Every year this government has to bring forward an interim supply bill because they don't have the foresight to call back the Legislature until late March. We've continually stated that the government should have set days every year for the budget. If we had set days, we would not have any need for going through this process right now.

Over past years we have seen this government continually trying to find ways to take money from our most vulnerable: our children, the sick and the needy. They have done this through drastic cuts to the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Health. This government has tried to convince the people of this province that it is putting patients and the protection of children at the top of its priority list.

Well, hon. Speaker, we are able to understand why these ministries have overspent their budgets when we take a look at what has happened over the past years. There has been no vision or direction given by this incompetent government. These ministries have been stretched so thin that they are incapable of preventing children from falling through the cracks or preventing people from dying in the emergency wards of our hospitals.

Resources were taken from these ministries over the last couple of years, and that made it impossible for them to operate without going into debt. We all know that this money will barely cover their current needs, if even that. We've read in the paper that the Ministry for Children and Families will spend $250,000 on advertising across Canada to try and attract up to 100 new social workers. We only have to take a close look at these vacancies to know that they have been around for a long time. In other words, there is a high vacancy rate in this province, and it is not easy to find social workers because of the caseloads and the stress levels our social workers work under. Two years ago, 300 social workers were hired from across Canada, and so far 250 have quit because of stress. We cannot afford to operate under this kind of management. This government is destroying this province with its mismanagement. They don't seem to have a clue about what it's all about: train our social workers properly and hire enough of them to protect our children.

The ombudsman just came down with a report -- "Getting There" -- on Judge Gove's 118 recommendations. According to the ombudsman, Judge Gove's recommendations can be grouped into 84 separate areas. Thirty-nine of these recommendations have been implemented, and 45 have yet to be implemented.

On recommendation No. 56, it recommended that the ministry establish a bachelor of social work equivalency course for underqualified protection workers. Approximately 90 workers graduated from this program in the fall of 1997. The course has since been frozen, leaving at least 300 active social workers underqualified and on the waiting list for this training. The official reason cited for the freeze was excessive cost.

[10:45]

In 1995 the ministry estimates placed the shortfall of child protection workers at 450 full-time employees. The current workload for our front-line workers far exceeds recognized child welfare standards and therefore endangers the lives, safety and well-being of our children and youth.

Let's take a look at the crisis that happened in Quesnel. This same situation could be a time bomb waiting to go off in any part of British Columbia. We have a government that refuses to listen to its own workers. They can't afford to train them. The ministry's response to the crisis in Quesnel was utterly pathetic. Victoria blamed social workers for the problems that caused this mass removal of children from their parents. There were six social workers with caseloads of 270 families, with 80 children. This is unacceptable; it's unacceptable for any human being to work under such conditions. Two years after the plea for help went out, finally a busload of staff arrived to do the so-called catch-up removals -- and at the same time blamed the Quesnel workers for the situation.

The family court judge in Quesnel spoke out and said that in his opinion, the social workers -- and even the replacement social workers -- are being called upon to do far more than they have hours for in a day. He also stated that out of 40 cases, only five fell into the category of children in immediate danger. Now we have a community paying the price for an incompetent ministry. This is a ministry in chaos, and children will continue to fall through the cracks until this government makes protecting children a priority.

What happens in our foster homes when there is a crisis such as what happened in Quesnel? They have to take on these extra children. Are they trained to handle all the children that come into foster care during a crisis? I think not. We have consistently offered to work with the ministry to find the 

[ Page 6627 ]

resources within government to ensure that B.C.'s children are protected. We continue to put this offer forward, and the government continues to refuse to take us up on it.

When we look at the Ministry of Health, we can only shake our heads at the mess this government has made of our health care. We have people ignored or dying in our emergency wards. Our paramedics have to play nurse or doctor until the patients they bring to the hospital are taken into hospital care. Ambulance delays at the lower mainland hospitals are worse now than they were last December, when a child died tragically after waiting 13 minutes for an ambulance.

I had to go into the hospital last January, hon. Speaker. The experience was enlightening. Staff trying to keep up with their workload were run off their feet. They were getting burned out with the pace they had to keep up day after day. In the wards, the emergency bells -- the ones by the bedside -- kept ringing day and night without any respite. Nurses were trying to figure out which to answer first. "Is it an emergency?" This government needs to take a good look at what it has created. They're not protecting medicare, nor are they cutting waiting lists, as they would have everyone believe.

This government has wasted $40 million on New Directions and $5 million on severance pay for fired health care executives. With that money, the cardiac wait-list for the past six years could have been wiped out and this year's list cut by 300. The list goes on and on, showing this government's incompetence. The Premier promised to cut the waiting list for cardiac surgery, but like the debt in this province, it continues to grow like the nose on Pinocchio.

M. Coell: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to rise in response to Bill 7, the Supply Act. But I would first like to add my congratulations to you on assuming the Speaker's role. I hope you find your stay in the chair happy, and I hope that you find satisfaction in that job.

In addressing Bill 7 and the special warrants that we have been asked to address by the government, I offer the following comments. There was a time in British Columbia when the budget was put to bed before Christmas, when the Legislature sat in early February and was well underway to pass a budget. What's happened in the years of this particular government is that we've been pushed to debate supply and start a budget debate on March 31. That simply isn't good enough. To be asking for additional moneys for Children and Families and additional moneys for the Ministry of Health, the Ministry Responsible for Seniors. . . . Those two issues, I think, need to be debated separately from the need for a supply act at this time.

Madam Speaker, this government's continual piling-up of debt. . . . When you look at the last seven years, you have an additional $14 billion of debt -- $2 billion of debt every year -- and this year is no different. This year we'll pay $1 billion in debt servicing, and we'll add $1 billion to the debt. Compounded with government waste and debt, these are the areas that the government needs to look at. The people of British Columbia cannot sustain the continued increase in debt, and they cannot sustain the waste of government spending.

I wish to add from my own riding a few examples of where the waste in government spending could go and where the money spent on servicing a $32 billion debt could go.

Last year the Attorney General closed a number of courthouses in the province and shifted the payment onto local government. That has merely cost the taxpayer more. Sometimes I think government forgets that there is only one taxpayer at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. What they've done is shift their responsibility to local government.

The transition house on Saltspring Island still doesn't have core funding, yet the government increases its debt -- and in increasing its debt, increases its debt servicing.

B.C. Ferries have assumed almost $700 million in off-loading from the government. Someone has to pay that debt. The government seems to have a desire to see that Crown corporations hide their inability to cope with their own debt. They've off-loaded to the Municipal Finance Authority; they've off-loaded to B.C. Ferries; they've off-loaded B.C. Transit to municipal government. Yet their budget doesn't go down. Their budgets keep going up, when they off-load and off-load and off-load.

One of the problems that this government faces -- we saw it in the budget yesterday, and we'll see it in the debate in the coming weeks -- is their inability to manage. I know the NDP has a reputation of not being able to manage, but what we have is just a band-aid over a band-aid over a band-aid on problems.

I look at the waiting lists. Government says that they put more money into health care. Every year they've put less money per patient into health care. We have huge waiting lists in this province. We have huge amounts of suffering in this province -- people who are ill and facing surgery, heart surgery and cancer waiting lists. And the government continues to mismanage. They ask us for permission -- in one day -- to keep government functioning, but they don't offer us any hope that they're going to manage the economy and government any better.

My colleagues have mentioned the Ministry for Children and Families. Last year we made an offer to work with government. That offer is reiterated again today by our critic. I want to add my voice to the hope that the government will allow an all-party committee of this House to deal with Children and Families. It's true that over the past five years the government has not managed this ministry as well as it could, and it continues to flounder. We sometimes see the government blame their staff; we sometimes see them blame the inability to fund. Yet this year the funding is $33 million over.

But, Madam Speaker, we told the government that they would overspend their budget last year. We wanted to work with government to find areas other than this ministry to cut -- to allow this ministry to have this budget. I suspect that this ministry's budget will continue to be overspent until the government deals with the fundamental problems in this ministry -- those being caseloads, training and work to keep families together on a long-term basis.

I look at some of the things government has done. The Skeena Cellulose deal cost $300 million, and it is going to cost another $100 million to upgrade it to their own environmental standards and another $100 million after that. Now, the government may say that this was necessary. But what I look at is that this money could have been used throughout the province for children and families, for health and for seniors.

I look at the mismanagement in this province, and I'm drawn to the government's desire for gambling funding, for moneys to come from gambling. Do you think that the province would be interested in that if they weren't in debt and if they weren't mismanaging the economy? They're simply desperate for funds wherever they can get them. The 

[ Page 6628 ]

search for money by this government is only because they've mismanaged what they have. No matter how much money this government will have, they will continue to mismanage it.

With a $14 billion debt over seven years and huge increases in taxation for individuals and business, their budget has gone up every year, their debt has gone up every year and the mismanagement has gone up every year. At the same time that we see job losses, we see a decline in health care and we see a decline in education. I think the government may be trying to put a band-aid on education, but we've certainly seen a reduction in education throughout this province.

The government has attacked volunteers -- volunteer agencies, volunteer boards. The government, I believe, wants to put volunteerism out of business in this province. Our health care system and our education system are full of volunteers and volunteer agencies -- thousands of them helping British Columbians. The government has confiscated their assets, put them out of business and degraded the health care and education systems because of that.

Rural medicine is fundamental for the people of the north. We find that their doctors come here and that the government won't even meet with them. Government must spend more time and energy listening to the people in the north of this province, in the Peace region, to understand the problems they have with health care. It's not the same as it is in Victoria and Vancouver.

[11:00]

So what I'm saying is that we see cuts throughout government, mismanagement throughout government, an increasing debt, increasing budgets and increasing taxes. We see a government that really doesn't want to be in this Legislature, that would much prefer just to govern by themselves behind a closed door, without public input, without an opposition.

In the coming weeks we'll begin to develop the budget; we'll begin to look at estimates for this year. But the overriding problem I have with Bill 7 is that we have one day out of the year to deal with the Supply Act that could have been started in February.

This government is crushing this province; it's crushing it with debt and mismanagement. The people of this province deserve better. They deserve a government that listens, a government that understands that they can't spend their way out of debt and a government that understands that business creates jobs and that those jobs create opportunities for young people and for families.

Madam Speaker, this Legislature is a place for British Columbians. I am pleased to have an opportunity to offer comments on Bill 7 at this time, and I thank you for that opportunity.

S. Orcherton: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Orcherton: Joining us today in the gallery is Ms. O'Neill, who is a teacher at St. Andrew's elementary school on Pandora Street in my constituency. Accompanying her is her entire grade 5 class. They're here to learn about the Legislature and see what we do here in terms of serving the people of British Columbia. They're learning about our history. I think the young people of British Columbia are truly our future and I ask the House to make them welcome today.

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver-Langara.

V. Anderson: Thank you, hon. Speaker. Like others, I would like to congratulate you on your new opportunity to bring decorum and serious discussion into this Legislature. Hopefully you can aid all sides of the House to work together for the well-being of the people of British Columbia. Unfortunately, you aren't in a position to help us to hear each other. You are in a position to help us to have the opportunity to speak to each other, as well as to speak to the people of British Columbia, but the opportunity to hear and to follow through constructively on what we hear has to be left to the members of the Legislature itself.

I rise to speak on the interim supply bill that will give the government permission to spend approximately a quarter of the budget for this coming year before we have the opportunity to discuss or to debate any aspects of that budget. As has been mentioned by others, it is regrettable and disturbing that this comes in on the last possible day before it needs to be voted on in the beginning of the new government year.

One of the prize characteristics of the British Commonwealth system of government is that the opposition must have the opportunity to debate, give serious consideration to and provide the funds available to the government for their programs. To bring such a bill as this in on the last day of one year and the beginning of the next goes against that whole principle. And to bring it in and ask for it to be presented even before we have a chance to view it on first reading, to have it presented and expect it to be debated even before we had received the bill -- we had to call for a recess to get the bill in order to have the opportunity to read it -- is just unforgivable in the operation of this government. But there will be the opportunity to discuss the totality of the inadequacy of the management by this government of the operation of the business of the people of British Columbia. I have to say quite clearly that that's what it is: mismanagement of the operation of the business of the people of British Columbia.

Today we can focus on a very significant part of that, and that has to do with the children and the families of B.C. Children and Families, a ministry which was created only recently. . . . I might say that I voted heartily in favour of that ministry coming into being because it promised to be an improvement upon the kinds of services that we previously had. It had a quality and an integrity in it, at least in its conception and its implementation in the beginning, which promised us that the wholeness of what we do in government would be for the benefit of all the children and all the families of British Columbia.

We've had concerns that that promise has not been fulfilled or borne out, and nothing brought it home to me more drastically than in the last two weeks. I received a letter in my mail, and on it in bright, capital letters was "URGENT," and beyond that: "Please send the enclosed postcard, and tell the Premier to stop." Immediately, the first thing I did was find out who this came from. It was the B.C. Association for Community Living, which works on behalf of and with the people in our province who have developmental disabilities -- on behalf of them and of their families. It's an association created some 40 years ago by the parents of people with 

[ Page 6629 ]

developmental disabilities to make sure that their children, as they became adults, would have the opportunity for the fullness of life in our province, which had not always been the case.

Inside I found a postcard. When I read the postcard, which was the one we were invited and encouraged and urged to sign and send to the Premier, it said on one side: "Dear Premier, Stop the Ministry for Children and Families' contract and program restructuring process, which is eroding vital supports to children and adults with disabilities. Look at the impact on our lives. Listen to and work with us to honour your government's commitment to community living."

Having read that, I looked at the other side. It said: "Stop the chaos in the Ministry for Children and Families. Look at the impact on the lives of children and adults with disabilities. Listen to the people whose lives in the community are at risk. Honour your commitment to community living."

It was only a few weeks ago that I had the opportunity and the privilege to attend a provincewide rally which brought together 500-plus persons from across the province who are members of the Association for Community Living. They had come together because they were concerned, frightened and outraged that the processes of caring for people with disabilities, which had been built up over all of these years, were now being taken away from them and destroyed. The whole process of support was being undermined. Certain of those persons who have had the privilege and the opportunity to go into adequate housing facilities in a family setting, where they have the care and the support that is needed by them, already have had those supports and those opportunities taken from them. They have been forced to move from their own community, close to their family and friends, into strange communities where it is difficult for their family and friends to attend to their needs.

So I wanted to find out more about why, at this particular moment, this postcard had come. It's extremely relevant to the process that we are discussing today, to the overrun in the Ministry for Children and Families. . . . Yet even with that overrun, the facilities and the opportunities are being taken away.

I'd like to read a portion of that letter to explain why this has happened and what the concern is.

"Our government is not keeping the promises it made to people with developmental disabilities. Please sign the enclosed postcard today to tell the government that it has to live up to its promises.

"You are one of the BCACL's most loyal supporters, and I thank you again for your recent gift. I'm writing you today to ask you to be a part of a special campaign to help protect people with developmental disabilities. Here's one story that tells why your support of this campaign is so important.

"Not long ago, Jenny didn't have a place to go where she felt safe. She was placed in a large group, and for her that's a very scary place to be. It frightened her, so she started lashing out. It was terribly hard on her family. Taking care of Jenny, who has a severe developmental disability and autism, was becoming even more difficult. But worse, they couldn't bear seeing their 20-year-old daughter be so unhappy.

"Fortunately, Jenny's parents, after three years of searching, found a caring and safe day program in Coquitlam. It's a personal program, and it's just what Jenny needs to feel good. In this community program, Jenny's true nature shines through. She's fun, loving and very social. What she needs most of all is personal care. She needs to know that the same person is going to be there for her each day, and she needs a flexible program that can quickly adjust to her needs or even to her daily moods.

"But Jenny's father John fears for his daughter's future. He's unsure about what the B.C. government is going to do. They could be shutting down Jenny's program. That means Jenny could be forced into a bigger program, with less personal attention. That could be traumatic for her. He fears Jenny could lose her feeling of security and her sense of purpose.

"As you know, the B.C. government is restructuring services in order to save money, but they've been moving too quickly and excluding parents like John from the process. The concerns of parents are being pushed aside in favour of 'fiscal efficiency.' The special needs of people like Jenny are being forgotten. That's a mistake. It means a loss of choice for children and adults with disabilities. Supports and services will be disrupted.

"There could be less innovative and personalized services, that are the core of the community living movement. People fear that there will be reinstitutionalization under the guise of program restructuring. That's why the BCACL insists that the provincial government stop, look, listen and honour.

"Our campaign has already influenced government policy. At the end of February they announced a review of their restructuring program, but we are unsure of what this means. So we need to continue to let the government know about our concerns. That's why I hope you will help today by mailing the enclosed postcard."

[11:15]

Hon. Speaker, we saw what happened to those persons with a program which theoretically should have been helpful in restructuring and downsizing -- from Riverview Hospital, the mental hospital facility for this province. We know of the disastrous results that it has had for hundreds of persons and families in this province. The facilities that they should have been transferred to were not available to them, and they are still not available today.

I've heard from across the province. We were traveling in the area of the Kamloops community and on the Island. On the Island, the people could only meet me in private, because they were afraid that if they met me in public, something disastrous would happen to them from this particular government. That kind of fear is not a healthy place for our community.

When we met with the people in the communities surrounding Kamloops, where this same restructuring is taking place, we found that the small communities are being devastated because their probation worker is being pulled out, their social worker is being pulled out, their Children and Families workers are being pulled out and their Health workers are being pulled out. Not only are the particular programs that those workers used to engage in being dismantled, but the cumulative effect of that is that the families of those workers are leaving the community as well. These families were the volunteers in the community. They were the leaders in programs within the community, and the whole community is losing its heart and its soul under this restructuring process.

This is a crucial concern, and this particular desire to have to come for extra money for the Ministry for Children and Families. . . . It's not that we begrudge them the money, because probably even more money needs to be spent in the ministry, but the money is being wasted in a process of restructuring that was put on hold and is being reviewed again. How much did it cost?

When the Gove report was given and the transition commissioner was asked to bring a study forward, she brought 

[ Page 6630 ]

forth a study and recommended that the implementation of the program be over a three-year period. Even that was too short, but with enough planning and resources it probably would have been feasible. But somehow, it was decided -- and in the community it was our understanding, whether rightly or wrongly -- that the Premier would step in. The Premier stepped in and said: "Yes, we'll do the restructuring program, but we won't do it over three years; we'll do it over one year." It was an impossible process, so from the very beginning it was doomed to failure. It was doomed to waste funds. It was doomed to put unbearable and irresponsible pressure on the front-line workers. The front-line workers in the ministry are devoted and dedicated people with years of experience, for the most part. To ask them to undertake this kind of program in one year, this kind of revamping which has to deal with the most fragile people of the community in the greatest need in their lives, was impossible and improbable, and that is exactly the way it has turned out.

We met with members of the medical community in Kamloops, for instance, who have been trying to get psychiatric treatment and care for the youth and children of their community. They have the facilities to diagnose the needs and to set up a plan of action, but even though they have been promised it for a number of years, they do not have the resources to put that plan into place.

What we have here is a symbol -- a symbol of the devastation that's happening across our province to the children and families within our communities. We have to realize that this is a cumulative effect, because as well as the particular problem within this ministry, we have whole communities where up to 50 percent of the working community have lost their jobs or are in the process of losing their jobs. The impact that has upon families puts even greater pressure, then, on the children and families of our province.

We have whole communities where the forest community resources are not functioning. We have communities where the fishing resources are not functioning. When we talk about forests and fisheries, we have to remember that we're talking about people -- about the men and the women and the children who are part of the families of those communities. We're talking about the small businesses that have had to close down or go into bankruptcy because their communities are decaying round about them.

That's children and families; that's not dollars and cents. We find that the effects are so great upon these families that they will bear the scars for the rest of their lives. I find it particularly distressing -- and it's not the first time I've said it in this House -- that this is happening under this particular government with its heritage and its history in the CCF movement, which was founded on the principle that it would care for the people who had disabilities, who had emergencies in their houses and in their family, in their lifestyle. And they have done anything but this.

I go to meeting after meeting in my communities -- not only in Vancouver-Langara but in the other ridings in downtown Vancouver and across the province -- and the same message is there. Why have they not kept their promises they made to us in 1991, in 1992, in 1993, in 1994, in 1995, in 1996 and in 1997? Hon. Speaker, we then come to this year of 1998, and we find that in the budget speech they are saying that there's going to be some financial relief, which should bear on program relief -- but that's for 1999. It's always some other time. We've had enough of this suffering and discouragement and degradation of the people of our province.

Just recently there was a booklet put out by the government, and properly so, about abuse prevention and how we should deal with it in the community. I hope the government members will read that book and that they will apply its principles to the activities of the government, because at this moment, the greatest abuse of the children and families of this province is by the government itself in its policies, its programs and its mismanagement.

We have to say again and again that our youth are not having the opportunity that should be theirs, and that's an abuse of their integrity. They are not having the opportunity for jobs or experience or training. We have to say that for our senior citizens, the promise they had over the last few years is gradually being taken away from them. What we have to realize, when we talk about the Ministry for Children and Families, is that it's just a small segment of the broader picture of the wholeness of our community at large.

People are leaving this province not just for financial reasons but because the quality of life is going down. They're leaving this province because they cannot be sure of what will come next. What will the government do next that has not already been thought of to destroy or take away our opportunity to be here?

I think a really telling comment about our government is the amount of time our government has to spend in court -- cases brought by the citizens of this province because of the misuse and the abuse of the government against them.

We talk about the Queen Alexandra Hospital. They had to go to court to win their case. We talk about those who were concerned with gaming, and they had to go to court to bring to the attention of the government the illegal activity in which they were engaged. We talk about those in the communities that I visited on the Island -- senior citizens whose homes and facilities were being taken away from them without compensation because the government had said they had to do this. They did not have the resources to defend themselves like others.

Again and again, we find our people having to go to court, because when they come to the Legislature and to government offices, they may be listened to, but that's the end of it. They don't have the opportunity for the government ever to say that they had made a mistake or that they will correct the mistakes they made or that they will listen to the people of the community. So it's not only for the people with developmental disabilities, who are speaking out not only for themselves but on behalf of thousands and thousands of people in this province, that we need to stop, look and listen.

We need to go before that and take the last of those comments -- that we need to honour the people of our province. We need to honour the children and the families of our province. We need to honour the budget process so that it is fair and open for people to look at and understand. We would not deprive the Ministry for Children and Families of the money they need to do their process. But we would say quite clearly that the money -- no matter how much we gave to them -- would not be enough because of this mismanagement, this disrespect and the haste and frustration that people feel in trying to implement this program.

So in speaking to this, in spite of the difficulty, we must support Children and Families, but we must clearly state that we want the process cleaned up. We want the reorganization to stop and be clarified. We want the people of every part and region of our province and of every concern -- like the people for community living -- to be heard and responded to, not just in words, but in actions that are supportive, caring and considerate.

[ Page 6631 ]

A. Sanders: I rise today to speak to Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 1), 1998.

You know, less than a year ago -- actually, nine months ago, on May 1 -- a very uncommon event occurred in the afternoon question period of this Legislative Assembly. On that day the Leader of the Opposition extended an olive branch to the Minister for Children and Families. With a spirit of cooperation uncommon in this Legislature, our leader offered to sit down with the Minister for Children and Families and work together to find answers that would protect children in British Columbia.

[11:30]

A few days later this address was underscored by B.C.'s child, youth and family advocate, Joyce Preston, when she presented the results of her annual report to the Legislature. The report revealed her skepticism that services for children and youth can be delivered under the present budget. She pointed out to the government that the issues that had been brought forward to her office in 1997 were in fact a repeat of the issues from 1996 -- issues that remained the same despite all of the cost-cutting and major changes in the delivery of social services. Preston's report to us that summer insisted that the government allocate more resources to four separate priorities. She insisted that prevention and early intervention be accounted for, that child protection and investigative functions be accelerated, that planning for children in care and improved services for youth aged 15 to 19 -- who often fall through the cracks of the system -- be strengthened.

While the child advocate recognized the need for cost-cutting measures and balancing budgets, she also maintained that this must not come out of the Ministry for Children and Families. The ministry suggested reallocating funds, but robbing one agency to fund another was not the answer. And Preston, at that time, pointed out to all of us that changes cannot be done with what is on the table without something falling off.

Preston's report is not something new in the office of the MLA for Okanagan-Vernon, hon. Speaker. In fact, MLA offices across the province are aware of the difficulties facing the Ministry for Children and Families. I've met with the local social workers; I've heard their concerns. They deal with constantly changing guidelines and staff shortages. They are often required to appear in court, and their caseloads continue to increase while they are in court. They are usually the first individuals to be scrutinized when something goes wrong. We've very clearly seen an example of this in Quesnel recently. Two years ago during the election campaign, the B.C. Liberals recognized the need for more front-line staff and pledged funding for an additional 700 social workers. We still maintain that that policy is necessary.

Our leader's gesture is my gesture, one supported by the entire Liberal caucus. It may not solve the problem; it may be viewed by some with cynicism. But it is a sincere effort to put aside ideology and work for the betterment of the child welfare system. For the children of B.C., cooperation, not conflict, is absolutely essential.

On May 1 last year, when the opposition leader extended that olive branch on behalf of all our children in B.C., did the minister accept the gesture? Did the minister put aside ideology and agree to work for the betterment of children? Absolutely not. On May 1, did that same minister jump at the chance for all MLAs to cooperate to protect kids in B.C.? Absolutely not. The suggestion was at best dismissed and at worst derided by several members of this government caucus. And what was the result of the ministry found to be in peril on May 1, 1997, and left hung out to dry by the government caucus? The November 1997 report card on the Ministry for Children and Families, composed by 1,200 front-line employees, whose daily life focuses on protecting and delivering service to kids in our communities around B.C. What did that report card say? It said that the Ministry for Children and Families was failing the children, failing the families and failing the front-line workers all over B.C. When asked, the 1,200 front-line respondents resoundingly concurred that the Ministry for Children and Families had failed on all 14 crucial questions asked in the report card given to those front-line workers.

What kinds of questions were asked of those front-line workers? The first question asked if the Ministry for Children and Families had a clear vision for its future. Seventy percent of those 1,200 workers said no. The ministry workers were asked: does the Ministry for Children and Families adequately consult front-line workers; do they consult them to achieve the mandate of the Ministry for Children and Families? Eighty percent of the respondents said no.

Front-line workers were asked: has the Ministry for Children and Families trained their staff to meet the needs of children and families? Seventy-five percent said no. Has the ministry provided sufficient resources to ensure that children and families receive the services they need without wait-lists? Seventy-five percent said no.

The fifth question: has the Ministry for Children and Families reduced workloads so kids are protected and families supported? Absolutely not -- again, over 70 percent of respondents working in the field all over B.C. said no.

Has the Ministry for Children and Families improved services through the consolidation of the programs? After all, that was the whole reason for the inception of this large megaministry. Seventy-five percent of front-line workers said no.

Integration of child care, alcohol and drug services, mental health and other services into the Ministry for Children and Families -- did this amalgamation improve services? Seventy-seven percent of those working in those areas said absolutely not.

This is a very serious problem. We are looking at services that go not only to children but also to people with addictions, with mental health problems, and all these other myriad services that now come under this megaministry. Almost eight out of ten workers providing those services say that this ministry is failing to deliver when compared to what it was doing a year ago. This is a very, very concerning result.

Another very contentious point was the moving of corrections services for youth into the Ministry for Children and 

[ Page 6632 ]

Families. When asked whether moving youth custody centres and corrections staff into the Ministry for Children and Families improved programs, 76 percent of those working in the field said no. In fact, one corrections officer said that it was not long before the experience would come where an offender in his community -- an accused -- would be sitting in the waiting room, waiting to see the Ministry for Children and Families. This is a very serious problem.

Not very long ago, I had the opportunity to go to the mental health centre in Vernon. What I found there was that in order to run the gauntlet to mental health, families had to go by the Ministry for Children and Families. In some cases, the parents who were being treated at mental health were being persecuted by Children and Families. Do you think that's a healthy way to get help when you have acknowledged that you need help? I can tell you, from front-line workers in my community, that they are finding people -- families -- falling through the cracks: families where they have addiction problems; families where the mother or the father requires mental health services; families where there are different mandates -- one for the protection of children and the other for the processing of families -- meeting together under one roof, and nobody is getting any help. Out of something that worked not well enough, we have created something that works 80 percent more poorly than it did a year ago.

The ninth question asked front-line workers was on preventive services funded under the Ministry for Children and Families: are these preventive services reducing the need for child care protection in your community? Over 80 percent said no.

When asked whether all of this bureaucratic transitional muddle had disrupted services or not disrupted services -- in other words, were people in the communities getting better services? -- 74 percent of front-line workers said no. Does the Ministry for Children and Families listen and respond to service providers, to clients, to workers, to communities? Again, the front-line workers' perception in 74 percent of the responses was no, the ministry does not.

Well, then, some would say, that it must be that direct services to clients are better. After all, that was the whole purpose of the amalgamation. When asked that question and whether services were being protected, 75 percent of individuals said no. Well, aren't our children safer now? They must be. We've dumped a whole bunch of money into this system. I guess if you don't have a vision, it doesn't make much difference, does it?

When asked if children were safer today because of the Ministry for Children and Families than they were a year ago, 75 percent of front-line social workers said no.

The final question was a summary question -- a put-everything-under-one-umbrella kind of question. That last question was: front-line workers in communities around B.C., do you give this ministry a passing grade? Seventy percent said no.

One of the comments by one of the front-line workers, which I think will hit to the bottom of the boots of any good socialist. . . . That front-line worker said that today in British Columbia "we are observing the dismantling of social programs by an NDP government." The Ministry for Children and Families has failed. They fail to consult workers, clients and families. They fail to train staff appropriately for the expanded and sometimes contradictory roles that they're asking that same staff to play. They failed in improving the service delivery so necessary to kids in B.C. They failed at enhancing the quality of services, and this negative attitude commenced with failing to cooperate, as was originally suggested May 1 by the Leader of the Official Opposition.

[11:45]

J. Weisgerber: Again, my congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment as Speaker of the House.

I rise today to speak to Bill 7, the supply act, with some mixed emotions. Bill 7 has two basic elements. One is to provide the government with interim spending authorization for the next four months, until such time as the budget itself is passed. The second is to approve special warrants for the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Health. I've certainly got no argument with the notion of interim supply. I hear members talk about whether there should or shouldn't be. . . . I would only observe that as long as I've been around, we've had a budget introduced, we've had interim supply, we've done the estimates and then finalized the budget debate. I strongly suspect that if and when the Liberals form a government, they will introduce a budget, they'll introduce interim supply, and the members opposite will stand up and suggest that it's inappropriate and improper -- when in fact I don't think there is anything wrong with interim supply.

I do think it's unfortunate that we see the throne speech introduced on a Thursday, the budget introduced yesterday, March 30, and on March 31, this House presented with interim supply -- even before the official opposition Finance critic has had an opportunity to complete his response to the budget speech. I think that the timing of this is an affront to this House. I think it's inappropriate for interim supply to be introduced before the budget has at least had its mandatory debate. I think there should have been an opportunity for members to have debated the budget prior to us passing interim supply.

But my real concern is with the ongoing use and abuse by governments of special warrants. Special warrants are introduced at the same time as interim supply to rationalize or condone spending which has already been done -- spending that has already been incurred by ministries -- in excess of the spending approved by this House. That's fundamentally wrong. It seems to me that if ministries find themselves in a position of being unable to live within their budgets, they should come back to this House and the elected members of this Legislature and ask for authority before the spending is incurred.

Again, it seems tragic that we have the Ministry for Children and Families having spent $33.8 million in excess of its budget without the minister even bothering to come to this House and speak to the issue. We've had no one tell us why the ministry spent $33.8 million, other than one line in this bill to suggest that it's to provide funding for costs arising from 

[ Page 6633 ]

services. Surely to goodness, taxpayers and their representatives deserve a greater explanation of the spending of $33.8 million of their tax dollars. Surely the ministers involved in the two ministries -- the Ministry of Health and the Ministry for Children and Families -- should be in the Legislature making the pitch to the members of this House as to why we should approve this spending, which has already occurred.

Madam Speaker, it's a process that makes absolutely no sense. Special warrants are a Canadian aberration. They are not something that is endemic to our British parliamentary system. They evolved over the years -- in the 1800s and early 1900s -- in this country because of the incredible difficulty in recalling members to this House should an emergency arise. That's not the case any longer. If this House is adjourned, the House can be recalled within a day or two. I believe that we should abolish special warrants and go to some process. . . . I've talked about something called supplemental supply.

It seems to me that if a government ministry needs more money than was originally budgeted, then it should come back to this House. The minister should come back before the money is spent and seek the authority of this House for that spending. I think that would do two things. First of all, it would legitimize the expenditure. But I expect that in a ministry as large as the Ministry of Health, with a $5 billion budget, if the management within the ministry were faced with coming back to this House and seeking permission before the money was spent, they would find, in many cases, an alternative. They would find a way to manage within the budget. But no -- instead, ministries routinely overspend their budgets and then simply come, on the last day of the fiscal year, to have a ratification for that spending which has already been incurred.

One has only to look at last year, the 1996-97 special warrants. There was the Ministry of Health; there was the Ministry of Human Resources. I expect that if we look back over the years, we will find that the same ministries consistently overspend their budget, receive permission from cabinet and then come back for a rubber stamp from this Legislature. I argue that we need a better system. We need a system that obliges the government and government ministries to come back to this Legislature for authorization before new spending takes place.

It seems to me that this would, in this current day, be something reasonably easy to do. We called the House back on February 10 to celebrate the 100th anniversary. On February 23 this government decided it needed the money -- an extra $66 million -- to fund two ministries. Why couldn't that at least have been anticipated on February 10 -- a mere 13 days before -- and a bill brought to this House saying: "Look, an emergency has arisen in Children and Families. There is an emergency with respect to spending for Pharmacare. We need some more money." I don't suspect that many members here would have said: "No, don't pay for Pharmacare." I don't think many members would have said: "No, we simply will not provide any additional spending to Children and Families." I don't think that's what would have happened. But it would have been a far more legitimate process had that occurred. It would have a more respectful process had that occurred.

Having said that, I have the very uncomfortable feeling that next year we will be presented with an interim supply bill, and we will be presented with some special warrants for spending, much as we were this year and much as we have been in every year that I've been in this House. Quite candidly, Madam Speaker, regardless of who is government the year after and the year after that -- again, tragically, I think -- the same process will be repeated. I expect that maybe parties will change size. Maybe some new folks will sit over there, and the other folks will move back here. But the rhetoric won't change. The ministers will still introduce interim supply, they'll still bring in special warrants for extra spending, and the opposition will cry foul. Some things simply never change. If there is an argument for us to sit down and reform some of the practices in this House, I want to argue that this practice today is one of those which should be seriously considered.

I want to close by saying that I suppose the only surprise for us should be that in fact only two ministries have overspent their budget. The surprise for us should be that only two ministries have simply either ignored or been unable to live within their budget, because I think we have an incredibly bad example set by the government caucus. If indeed a ministry is responsible to a government and a caucus who willingly exceed their budgets, who wilfully overspend their own budgets, why should anyone be surprised that we have ministries that do the same? Perhaps one of the unfortunate outfalls of the decision by the NDP caucus to overspend their budget will be that next year and the year after, we'll have not two ministries, but perhaps 20, who say: "Look, if it's good enough for the caucus, it's good enough for us. We simply will not concern ourselves with budget requirements and spending limits. We'll spend whatever we think is necessary, and we should feel very confident that the government will find a way to make the money available to us, just as that government found the means to make money available to its own caucus to cover excess expenditures."

With that, I conclude my remarks. I'll be voting in opposition to this bill on the basis of the special warrants, and I move adjournment of this debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.

Copyright © 1998: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada