[ Page 6635 ]

Hon. P. Priddy: There are three introductions I'd like to make. This morning I met with elected northern leaders to talk about the health situation in the north. In the gallery and in the precincts today are Sonny Beck, from the regional district of Fort St. James; Mayor Frank Read, from the district of Vanderhoof; Bill McIntosh, councillor from the district of Vanderhoof; and Mayor Tom Briggs, district of Mackenzie. I will say that it was a very productive meeting.

Secondly, there are a number of physicians in the precincts today, and I will be meeting with some of them tonight: Dr. Brian Brodie from Burns Lake, Dr. Denis Brown from Fort St. James, Dr. Alex Black from Vanderhoof, and Dr. Alan Gow from Fraser Lake. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

Also in the House today is Fred Cameron, the son of my ministerial assistant. Could the House please make him welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to make a short introduction of two ladies who are visiting the precincts: Jacqueline Forster, an old friend and supporter of mine from the Sunshine Coast; and a new friend, Jess Bond.

A. Sanders: I'm making an introduction on behalf of a comrade of mine, the member for Okanagan East, who's away with a family illness -- a family death, actually, not an illness. I'd like to introduce Brian Lightburn. Brian is a freelance journalist with the Capital News of Kelowna. He's a constituent of Okanagan East and a member of HELP BC. Would the House please make him welcome.

C. Clark: I want to introduce to the House someone who frequently joins us in this chamber. He enjoys the proceedings a great deal. His name is Campbell Achinson, and I hope the House will please make him welcome today.

S. Hawkins: I would like to welcome the northern leaders that were here to meet with the Minister of Health this morning. They also met with us, and we hope it was a productive meeting and will result in a quick resolution.

I would also like to join my colleague from Okanagan-Vernon in welcoming two people in the gallery today. Both of them watch the government very carefully. Mr. Brian Lightburn has been introduced already; he's a local columnist with the Capital News. Mr. David Stockell is a well-known advocate for voters' rights and was here for the budget speech yesterday. Would the House please make them welcome.

V. Anderson: I would ask the House to join me in welcoming a group of future voters who are here today: grade 11 students from Churchill Secondary School, with their teacher Mr. Williams. I ask the House to make them very warmly welcome.

Oral Questions

1998-99 BUDGET

Can the Minister of Finance explain why this government doesn't have the guts or the good sense to do the things that everyone in British Columbia but the NDP knows must be done to take us off the road to ruin, which her government has been paving for the last six years?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, I guess it is good that finally the Leader of the Opposition is revealing what he would do about the economy. He would spend, spend, spend, cut taxes and get rid of the debt. I guess he would be able to protect health care and education too. Certainly he tried to put forward his economic platform in the last election, and they're on that side of the House and we're on this side of the House.

The Premier and I and several of our colleagues met with the business community this morning. In fact, the business community said to us: "You listened to our advice, and you did what we asked you to do." They asked us to do two things.

Interjections.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I actually know that the members on the other side may be out of touch with the business community. They have to get their information from the Province and the Sun and the Globe and Mail, and therefore they have inaccurate information.

We actually met with the business community this morning, and they said: "You're right, Premier. There is no consensus on what we should do, but we do want you to have a stable plan, a consistent plan, a plan you're committed to. We want you to stimulate the economy, to invest in British Columbia, and that's exactly what your tax plan did."

The Speaker: On a supplementary, the Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: That kind of response is going to continue to drive B.C. towards a depression, let alone a recession in the province.

Last year the Minister of Finance said that he did not expect anyone to believe him. This year the Minister of Finance said: "Well, I'm not going to balance the budget, because no one would believe me anyway."

Well, let me say that the minister is right. No one does believe this minister, particularly after an answer like that. Small businesses in this province are suffering under this government. There is nothing in this budget that's going to create one new job in the province of British Columbia -- not one new job. Anyone in their right mind has been telling the government that the first thing you have to do is tell the truth about the state of our economy and the state of the deficit. The government doesn't have just a fiscal or financial deficit; they have a credibility deficit. Why does the minister keep pretending she's got a $95 million deficit, when she knows it's $949 million?

Hon. J. MacPhail: There's a whole range of answers to give to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. It's lucky he has only two sides of his mouth, so he can speak out of only two sides of his mouth. If his mouth were square, he'd be able to speak out of four sides of his mouth.

[ Page 6636 ]

Hon. Speaker, the deficit is $95 million. Yesterday, in what I thought was quite an astounding performance, the Opposition House Leader stood up and read from the Alberta budget. Again, bereft of original ideas, he then stood up and read from the Saskatchewan budget. The same principles on which those budgets report apply to us in calculating and reporting our deficit as $95 million. You can't have it both ways. They can't say hurray for Alberta, hurray for VLTs, hurray for their surplus, and then at the same time say: "You're lying about your deficit." As does the rest of the country report on their deficit or their surplus, so do we. The target for the deficit this year is half of what it was last year, and that year was half of the previous year. It's $95 million.

[2:15]

The Speaker: No props, hon. member.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, the verdict is in with regard to this budget. It's a MacFailure. It is a total and abysmal failure. This Minister of Finance. . . .

The Speaker: Hon. Leader of the Opposition, your question.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am going to get to a question, just as the Minister of Finance may one day get to an answer.

This Minister of Finance has brought down a budget that will not create one new job in this province and will not reduce one person's taxes in 1998. Is the Minister of Finance willing to admit that her budget is a failure and go back to the drawing board and work with us so we can freeze spending and provide real tax relief to the people of British Columbia?

Hon. J. MacPhail: As Minister of Finance, I'm encouraged that this opposition will actually agree to freezing spending. During estimates all they say to us is spend, spend, spend, so I look forward to them committing to freezing spending. I absolutely look forward to that.

Let's talk about who listens to whom. Yes, our Premier, the former Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Employment and Investment, the Minister of Small Business and I, too, went out and consulted with business. We consulted with hundreds of business people; we consulted with labour; we consulted with community groups. And now that opposition would ask us to ignore that advice, to disregard their valuable advice, and listen to them on their economic advice. I say no, we will absolutely not do that.

Here's what the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the mayor of Vancouver. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .I'll just quote.

The Speaker: Minister of Finance.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Sorry. Do you want me to sit down?

The Speaker: Yes, please. I wouldn't be surprised if you get another opportunity.

I recognize the Opposition House Leader.

B.C.'S CREDIT RATING

Last year the NDP's fiscal incompetence finally caught up with them, and our credit rating in British Columbia was downgraded by two bond-rating agencies. In last year's financial management plan the government changed its goal of having the best credit rating in Canada to having one of the best credit ratings in Canada. We know that there used to be a debt management plan, then it became a financial management plan, and now it's the modified financial management plan. Pretty soon it's going to be the now-you-see-it, now-you-don't-see-it financial management plan.

Can the minister tell us when and why her government decided to abandon its commitment to keep British Columbia with the best credit rating in the country?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I would like to thank my hon. colleague the member for Saanich South for meeting every single target in his budget last year -- they fail! -- including the financial management plan, including deficit reduction, including the revenue predictions. Every single one of those targets in the budget was met.

But let's talk about the financial management plan. This is how we determined our financial management plan. We received advice from the business community -- again, advice that is neither given nor taken by this Liberal opposition, for sure. They don't talk to business, and even when they get the message through an indirect way, they ignore that advice.

Here's what the Leader of the Opposition said when he was actually in charge of a budget, when he couldn't just stand up and play cute with it. Here's what he said: "All municipalities have got to realize that on the one hand, they can't expect services and, on the other hand, demand that it not cost them anything" -- as he put up his budget by 16 percent. Truth in budgeting? Let's talk about truth in budgeting. I believe that, as a mayor, he had legislation that didn't allow him to have any deficit, and nor did he run a deficit. But do you know what? Did he do off-book debt? Yes, he did do off-book debt. Hon. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleague the Opposition House Leader are the last people I would take any financial advice from.

G. Farrell-Collins: Throughout the election it was, "The only people the B.C. Liberal Party listens to is business, big business," and now it's: "They don't even listen to business." Which one is it?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, the Opposition House Leader has the floor.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

. . .to remind the minister that not only did the Leader of the Opposition, as mayor of Vancouver, balance his budget, but he had a triple-A credit rating in the city of Vancouver.

[ Page 6637 ]

So I pose my question again to the Minister of Finance: if she is so proud of her budget, if she thinks that her budget has the answers for British Columbia, will she commit today that if she doesn't maintain British Columbia with not even the best but one of the best credit ratings -- right up at the top with the best of the best -- she will forgo her position as Minister of Finance, admit that her budget was a failure and resign her position?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll tell you, hon. Speaker, it's lucky we don't have rules where you give your word and you have to live by it, because that hon. member would have to resign as well.

Our budget is a budget that delivers on our commitment to a new way of doing business. We have made tax cuts and we're making cuts in red tape to encourage investment and to stimulate the economy.

You know what, hon. Speaker? We received advice about how to do our capital spending at times when there is an economic softening. Virtually every single business person said to us: "Don't cut health care and education." That means building schools and hospitals. They also said: "Renew your economic infrastructure -- transportation, the highways -- at a time when you're going to get the best value for your money."

I know they don't understand the principles of that, but it means that we do it now. That means we do it now, when the workers and the contractors are available. That means we're spending our capital now. . .

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .and that makes good economic sense for the north, for the lower mainland, for big business and for small business.

ROAD REHABILITATION IN PEACE REGION

H. Lali: At least we have a real question. I want to thank the member for Peace River South for his question.

As the member realizes -- he was in cabinet in a former government at one time -- once the budget has been brought down, the priority lists that are put forward by the regional and district managers will be analyzed. There will be some announcements coming shortly, and I would just ask the member to stay tuned and wait.

The Speaker: I recognize the member for Peace River South on a supplementary.

J. Weisgerber: Well, my recollection of it in cabinet is that if you put it in the throne speech, you already have the money.The minister toured northern British Columbia to witness road conditions, and we were pleased to hear him say: "I'm convinced that some of the worst roads in the province are right here in the north, particularly in the Peace River region." What specific projects has the minister targeted this year -- this spring, this summer -- in order for us not to have a third year with road disasters in the Peace?

Hon. H. Lali: The member for Peace River South is correct. When I went on my tour of the northern roads, some of the worst roads in the province are definitely up there in the Peace River country and other parts of the north.

Interjection.

H. Lali: I also want to point out, if the member across the way will listen carefully, that last year the participants at the Premier's summit in Prince George identified the transportation and highways needs of the north as one of their top priorities. This government has listened; as the throne speech indicated, there will be a northern roads strategy. We will be unfolding that in the very near future. I also want to reiterate that I might be back up there again to make some announcements.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, hon. members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Are you ready, hon. members? I recognize the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Tabling Documents

Hon. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Agricultural Land Commission annual report for April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1997.

Orders of the Day

The Speaker: I recognize the hon. Opposition House Leader.

An Hon. Member: The member for Calgary South.

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, there are probably more voters in Calgary South from B.C. than there are from Alberta. If the member wants to run there, I'm sure he'd have a chance.

Yesterday I spoke a little bit about how British Columbia was performing relative to a number of other provinces in Canada. I talked about the balanced budgets that were present in Alberta -- the five in Alberta, the five in New Brunswick and the four in Saskatchewan. It's somewhere around there; I can't remember the exact number in each province. But it's a lot more than zero; I can tell you that.

[ Page 6638 ]

I listened with interest yesterday, and in the speech on the budget by the minister and in subsequent comments by the Premier and in comments by other members of the executive council and of the government back bench, one of the things that keeps coming up. . . . One of the explanations that the government has and that the NDP backbenchers have for why it is that we're doing so poorly in British Columbia and why it is that our economy is performing so poorly when everybody else in Canada is doing so well. . . . One of the reasons, they tell us -- actually, it's the only reason they like to use to explain it -- is the Asian flu. They like to tell us that the reason British Columbia is having trouble is the downturn in the economy in Asia, the downturn in the housing starts in Japan and the downturn in the demand for our resources in our biggest export market aside from the United States, the Asian market.

Despite the fact that other parts of Canada export to Asia, the government tells us that British Columbia is being hit especially hard because we're a coastal province. We're right on the edge of the Pacific. Well, we're not the only jurisdiction in the world that sits on the edge of the Pacific. In fact, we're not the only jurisdiction in North America that sits on the edge of the Pacific. Washington State is a stone's throw to the south, and Oregon is about a four-hour drive. If British Columbia's economy were being devastated by the Asian flu, you would expect it to be contagious and that Washington State and Oregon would have the same disease.

I decided I'd go and see what exactly is going on in Washington State and Oregon. Let me tell you what's going on in Washington State: it's booming. Let me talk to you a little bit about how Washington State is doing with its budget and with its taxes. Presently, Washington State has approximately three-quarters of a billion dollars in an emergency reserve account, just sitting there ready for when they need it, ready for something that happens.

[2:30]

In 1993, there was a tax that was added to businesses, and in 1996 that tax was rolled back by half, for a saving of $132 million. In 1997 the tax was cut by another $95 million. In 1997 a limit was put on property tax growth, for an effective cut of $195 million. These are U.S. dollars, so it could be billions in Canadian money. Property taxes were further cut by 5 percent, for an additional $126 million. Also in 1997, targeted tax-relief measures, primarily for businesses, were a further $57 million. In this year's budget, Washington State cut their taxes by an additional $280 million, some of which was used for cuts in senior citizens' property taxes and for business tax credits.

I think the senior citizens' property tax is illustrative of the difference between the NDP and what's going on there. In British Columbia we can all recall 1994, when the Premier, who was then Minister of Finance, brought in a property tax surtax that was going to drive senior citizens across the province out of their homes because the seniors couldn't afford to pay their property tax.

An Hon. Member: Who did that?

G. Farrell-Collins: The Premier did that. And in Washington State, they're giving a break on property tax for seniors so they can stay in their homes.

Total tax cuts in Washington State from 1996 to 1998 were approximately a billion dollars. Do you know what that does? That allows their businesses to reinvest, it allows their businesses to retool and to upgrade their equipment, it allows them to compete better around the world and across the North American market, and it allows them to hire more people.

An Hon. Member: Don't get sick.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's true. The member says: "Don't get sick." It's true. Washington State has a big problem with their health care system, and nobody would want it.

But let's look at what happened to the jobs. Let's look at what happens to employment in Washington State when you have a government that balances its budget. I quote from the budget in Washington State this year: "Unemployment dropped this past year like a rock. The state's overall jobless rate fell nearly 1.5 percentage points immediately in the first quarter on a seasonally adjusted basis, going from 6.4 percent to 5.2 percent and then hovering around 5 percent throughout the third quarter -- the lowest in seven years. The net result is an economy driving full tilt ahead on all burners." It doesn't sound like they caught the Asian flu, hon. Speaker. They're an exporter; they have a forest industry; they have a mining sector. What happened to Washington State? You know what it was? They got their flu shots. They've balanced their budget, they've cut their income taxes; and they've got a healthy economy. That's why.

In British Columbia nobody, except for the Premier, apparently -- he admitted it -- saw this Asian flu coming. As a result, after a decade of growth in this province, we've got a crisis on our hands. The Premier says that he saw the Asian crisis coming. Well, if he saw the Asian crisis coming, why didn't he do anything about it? Why did he raise taxes? Why did he promise 40,000 new jobs in the forest sector? Why did he promise young people 18,000 new jobs? A Premier who is being upfront with the people of British Columbia would have prepared us for the downturn in Asia, if he saw it, not told us one thing during an election and then delivered something completely different after the election.

Washington State is not the only one. Let's look at Oregon. Again, they have a forestry sector. Again, they're hit by the Asian flu, one would think. Again, they've got a downturn in their resource economy. Let me quote from the summary of the '97-99 legislatively adopted budget in Oregon: "All these achievements were accomplished while providing for the return of record high personal and corporate taxpayer credits -- revenue 'kicker' payments." They got money back; in Oregon they get money back on their income taxes. It was ultimately certified to be $635 million that was returned to them. Personal taxpayer refunds will total $442 million, a refund of 14 percent of their 1996 taxes. They got 14 percent of their taxes back; they got a cheque from the government. How many people in British Columbia got a cheque 

[ Page 6639 ]

from the government recently? Not very many. Corporate tax credits, to allow their economy to boom, will be $203 million -- a credit available on 1997 returns of 42 percent of their projected tax liability. They got 42 percent of their taxes back. If that's the Asian flu, bring it on and let British Columbia have some of that Asian flu.

The story in British Columbia is quite different. All you need to do is look at the documents. You need a magnifying glass and a decoder ring in order to figure out what exactly is going on with the budget.

An Hon. Member: A secret decoder ring.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, you need a secret decoder ring -- and to pay GST and PST on it.

Hon. Speaker, if you look at page 33 of "Budget '98 Reports. . . ." The Minister of Finance told us that the deficit for this year is $95 million. Well, let me quote from page 33 of the budget reports. You have to find it, but it's there. This is the summary financial statement: "The statement provides an estimate of the overall surplus or deficit of the government and its Crown corporations and agencies. The summary financial statement of revenue and expenditure, like the consolidated revenue fund statement of revenue and expenditure, is prepared on a basis consistent with the government's accounting policies." It says that the summary financial statement deficit is $949 million. The deficit in British Columbia isn't $95 million; it's $949 million, contrary to what the Minister of Finance is telling us.

M. de Jong: Do you mean that the Finance minister isn't telling the truth?

G. Farrell-Collins: Well, the Finance minister has a different version of what the deficit is.

The minister talked about the debt management plan in the budget, and we referred to that earlier today. In 1995 the government brought out its debt management plan, and it told everybody that it had a plan. It was going to pay down its debt; it was going to pay down the debt it had built up in the last three and a half years over the next 20 years. By the year 2015, the government of British Columbia would have paid back the debt which that government had racked up in three and a half years. They were proud of it, and they trumpeted it. It was running on television ads; it was running on radio ads. It was in brochures dropped on people's doorsteps; it was everywhere.

The next year, when we went to see how well they'd done on that modest debt management plan, they had missed the target. They had missed it dramatically. So what they decided to do was to call it something else. They abandoned the debt management plan and brought in a financial management plan.

An Hon. Member: Doublespeak.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah -- a new management plan, something different. They set these targets, and then they decided that they weren't good enough either.

F. Gingell: They couldn't make those.

G. Farrell-Collins: They couldn't make those ones. So this year, if you look again in the government's own documents, on page 37. . . . I want to read from it, because it's illustrative of exactly what the government has done this year. We don't have a financial management plan anymore. It's called something different; it's the third version. It says: "To address the current period of slower economic growth, the government has modified the financial management plan." We had a debt management plan, then a financial management plan, and now we have a modified financial management plan. Next year it'll be the "really, really neat financial management plan." Well, the debt-to-GDP ratio remains a good measure of long-term affordability. The unpredictability of the rate of economic growth makes it prudent for government to retain some flexibility when establishing targets based on GDP. What they're doing is telling us it's prudent to not follow the plan and actually to spend more money. I don't know how you come up with that analysis.

"Accordingly, the government has added a three-year target range to guide the management of its debt-to-GDP ratio." That means that they can fudge the numbers over three years and nobody will be able to tell exactly what it means. "The new target range will ensure that over time, the level of debt is linked to the size of the provincial economy and remains affordable. By employing a target range, the government is able, during periods of economic slowdown, to accelerate capital investments to stimulate the economy." This government still believes in the 1940s philosophy that the way to get yourself out of a recession -- the way to get yourself out of a financial mess -- is to spend more money. Every other country in the world and every other province in Canada realizes that that dogma is 40 or 50 years old. They have seen the light. Why can't this government finally see the light?

Here's how they rationalize it:

"Advancing capital projects in times of slower growth can also help to avoid the higher costs of construction in boom periods. This notion of counter-cyclical leverage is actually precluded by the present structure of the financial management plan, which further restricts capital investments and other necessary spending when the economy slows. The modified financial management plan will allow flexibility for counter-cyclical capital investment planning and minimize the effects of unexpected changes in provincial GDP."

The reality is that this government can't balance its budget. It doesn't have a clue what it's going to do, so it's made up this neat little modified financial plan to get itself off the hook. When will this government ever show the discipline required to balance its budget, pay down the debt, give people a reasonable tax cut, get them jobs and get this economy going again?

This government has become so adept at hiding the reality within its own budget you wouldn't believe it. Remember the last megaproject this government had? It was a make-work program. Or let me put it this way. It was a job guarantee program that cost $329 million, and it guaranteed one job: the member from Prince Rupert's. It was the $329 million bailout of Skeena Cellulose. But this is the funny -- well, it's not funny. . . . This is the interesting part, if I can put it that way. You know how the government accounts for that bailout? It's amazing. On page 99 of the budget reports one finds, under "Self-supporting debt, commercial Crown corporations and agencies". . . . Right up there with B.C. Hydro, one of the largest Crown corporations in Canada -- and B.C. Rail is the third one -- is Skeena Cellulose. This government is ranking Skeena Cellulose right up there with B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail as a self-supporting Crown corporation. Well, the chances of that happening are pretty minimal.

[ Page 6640 ]

An Hon. Member: He is their business expert, after all.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, that's true.

An Hon. Member: What about the banks?

G. Farrell-Collins: I wonder how the TD Bank has booked Skeena Cellulose? I doubt that it's under "self-supporting Crown corporations."

There is more interesting information in the documents. We heard the speech. Remember, the Minister of Finance told us that they had reduced the number of FTEs -- the number of employees in the government -- by a thousand. It is the lowest since 1988. "Yay for us," she said. Unfortunately, it's not quite that nice.

[2:45]

That the minister would have the gall to stand up in the House and tell us that she had reduced the size of government in British Columbia by a thousand when she knew full well that no such thing happened -- in fact, that we had 980 new employees -- is a tragedy. It's time the minister was upfront. Put the numbers up front and tell people the truth about the budget of British Columbia so they know what this government is doing.

I want to go to the next one. Prior to this budget, the government talked a lot, and we heard the minister again today in question period. . . . She talked about what this government had done in the lead-up to this budget. She talked about their consultations with business; she talked about going out there and listening to British Columbians, hearing what they had to say and reflecting that in the budget. She said in the budget speech that they had brought in tax cuts to make British Columbia competitive again, to kick-start the economy, to create jobs. Well, let's look at what was actually done.

The government has offered a total of $75 million in tax cuts in this budget and another $20 million that they're going to talk about for a while -- and another $20 million that they still haven't figured out what they're going to do with. I suspect that that will never actually end up in the form of tax cuts, but we'll wait and see. Not one of these tax cuts -- not one -- starts before January 1, 1999. So we've got to wait nine months before we see a tax cut. That's about how long it takes to get cardiac surgery in British Columbia; now we know it's how long it takes to get a tax cut too. We've got to wait nine months. But in the meantime, the government is increasing fees and licences and other expenses by tens of millions of dollars. And they're not waiting till January; they're starting right away or they're already in place. It's amazing how eager the minister is to get her hand in one pocket and how difficult it is to get her hand out of the other pocket.

So this government decided they were going to kick-start the economy and create hundreds of thousands of campsites and new jobs for British Columbians with $75 million in tax cuts. Let me put that in perspective for people here and for people across the province. In the Premier's first budget, when he was Finance minister in 1992. . . . Guess how much he increased taxes by in one year. It was $750 million, ten times what this tax cut is, ten times what he has brought in for next year. That's not the worst part. Guess how much he raised taxes by the next year, in his second budget. It was $850 million. We're supposed to jump up and thank the Minister of Finance when she releases the pressure on the noose that's around our necks to the tune of $75 million. That's one twenty-third -- 4 percent of the taxes that the government implemented in its first two years, which we've been paying ever since. We have paid billions and billions and billions of dollars in increased taxes over the last six and half years, and now we get a cut of $75 million.

I challenge the NDP to find all those companies flooding back to British Columbia that left before, because of the $75 million tax cut. I challenge the government to go out there and find all the jobs that are going to be created in British Columbia and all the jobs that are coming back from Alberta and Manitoba and Saskatchewan because of that whopping $75 million tax cut. I challenge them to do that, because I can tell you that it won't come close to the thousands and thousands of jobs that are leaving British Columbia and going to those various jurisdictions. It's time that this government turned that around.

Let's look at what the government has done. The minister said that she had made some changes, remarkable changes, in the corporate capital tax, that by increasing the threshold from $1.5 million to $2.5 million for people to start paying the corporate capital tax she would relieve some of the pressure in the business community, that in fact this was going to create jobs. It was going to encourage businesses to create jobs in the province, to stay in British Columbia, to come and invest in British Columbia. But it amounted to a whopping total of $5 million. Do you know what the corporate capital tax value is that the government brought in when they were elected? It was well over $350 million. That's what they added to the already existing corporate capital tax that was on banks and financial institutions. So instead of $350 million that businesses have been paying every year for the last six and a half years, they get $5 million off. Whoopee, hon. Speaker. I can just see the businesses lining up at the border. I can see the moving vans flocking back into British Columbia with their equipment and their people, to reinvest. . . .

An Hon. Member: There's a reason for that.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's true. The minister says they're happy. She says that she has consulted with them, and they're thrilled. They love the government's budget. Well, I can tell you that I've been listening to the media. I met with small business people this morning, I met with medium-sized business people this morning, and not one of them was very happy about this budget. Not one of them said that they were going to be reinvesting or investing more in British Columbia because of this budget. They don't believe the numbers, they don't trust the Finance minister, and they aren't about to put one more penny into British Columbia until this government turns its act around.

[ Page 6641 ]

Let's talk, first of all, about the cut of the PST on the 1-800 numbers, the call centres. First of all, if members on the government side remember, it was their government that increased the PST from 6 points to 7 points, costing us about half a billion dollars in increased taxes -- every consumer across the province. So for the last six and half years British Columbians have been paying about $450 million each and every year in added PST. Now the minister feels that it's time to lower the tax in order to keep the 1-800 call centres here in British Columbia. I've got some news for the minister. I've got some news for the Premier. When the Premier was the Minister of Finance, CIBC was looking to put a call centre in British Columbia. They were going to employ hundreds of people -- not like $18-an-hour jobs, but decent jobs, a start for a lot of people; a lot of decent jobs for young people going to university or colleges, to pay their tuition, to pay for the books, to get a head start; for people who didn't have any other opportunity available to them. Hundreds of jobs would have come -- and that's one call centre.

M. de Jong: What happened then?

G. Farrell-Collins: Do you know what happened? Those people are making phone calls, all right, but they're making them from New Brunswick, because New Brunswick -- four or five or seven years ago -- realized that in order to keep businesses in New Brunswick, they had to have a competitive tax regime; New Brunswick knew that in order to keep jobs there, they needed a competitive tax regime. Unfortunately, it took British Columbia some four or five years to figure that one out.

Here's another one that was trumped up by the Minister of Finance. She talked about the reduction on jet fuel tax by 1 percent on international flights. Well, guess who it was who raised the tax on jet fuel. Guess who it was -- a thousand guesses.

Some Hon. Members: Who could that have been? Who was that?

G. Farrell-Collins: It was the Premier when he was the Minister of Finance. But what is even more interesting is that it took this Premier that long to figure out the punitive nature of the jet fuel tax. He sat there, trying desperately to bail out Canadian Airlines because they had a tax and a revenue problem, because this government had raised the jet fuel tax. Where was he last year when Canadian Airlines was going down the tubes? He was in there saying: "We're going to do everything we can for Canadian Airlines." So they cut the tax a year later.

Maybe the Premier does get it; it just takes him years and years. Maybe sound travels slower between the front of his ear and his eardrum -- I don't know. But the fact of the matter is that's a tax that this Premier instituted. It almost drove Canadian Airlines out of business, and this minister and the former Finance minister just about lost hundreds of high-paying family-supporting jobs in British Columbia. It's a shame that it took him that long to figure it out.

If you go through and look at what is actually in the budget, if you look at the budget documents. . . . Let's look at what the government is going to do for the oil and gas industry. I love this, hon. Speaker. They realize that British Columbia actually has oil and gas. I know the member for Peace River North has been telling them for years, and maybe they finally figured it out. The government is working together with the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Peace River regional district and the first nations to formulate an incentive package of fiscal and regulatory initiatives that will stimulate exploration, blah, blah, blah -- and it goes on and on and on. Why did it take them so long? Why, after six and a half years, can't the government come in and say: "Here, we've got a plan. This is what we're going to do to help stimulate the oil and gas industry in British Columbia, to continue to make sure it grows"?

When we're in a crisis, and if the minister saw the Asian flu coming -- if the Premier saw the Asian flu on its way -- why didn't they start working last year on the things that would help turn that industry around now? If forestry is going down, you darned well better have something else to rely upon. In the rural areas in the northeast sector of British Columbia, it's oil and gas. Why didn't the government have a plan today, yesterday and the day before to turn those industries around so that they could make up for the losses in forestry?

But there's more. Look at the mining industry. This I love. Here's what they're doing for the mining industry: "The government is working closely with mining industry officials to develop regulatory and tax changes that will stimulate mineral exploration in the province" -- blah, blah, blah. That's exactly what they said about the oil and gas industry, but it's also exactly what they said on Mining Day in this House a year ago. A year ago they said exactly the same thing, and they committed that those would be in place within a matter of months. The mining industry had a tickly throat; it was coughing. The Asian flu was on its way, the Premier saw it coming, and he did nothing. A year later, despite their commitment, they've now decided they're going to start talking.

So let's talk about the forestry sector. Again, the Asian flu is on the way, and what are they going to do in the forestry sector? Remember, this is the industry in which the Premier promised two years ago to create 41,000 new jobs, and in fact we've lost jobs in the forest sector. So what's the government's plan to rescue the forest industry? Let me read it, hon. Speaker: "The government continues to work with the forestry industry to review the stumpage and regulatory framework and develop long-term solutions. The goal is to reduce costs and generate investment" -- blah, blah, blah. There you go again -- more talk. They haven't done anything in the last little while to actually turn the industries around.

Hon. Speaker, I notice the member opposite wants to make an introduction, and I'll take my seat for a moment.

P. Calendino: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

P. Calendino: First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain for giving me the opportunity. I appreciate it very much.

Now I would like to introduce to the House 28 grade 5 students, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Pesa, and 11 parent supervisors, who are here in Victoria to learn a bit about how we do government in this chamber. They come from Holy Cross elementary school in the beautiful Brentwood area of North Burnaby. Would the House make them all welcome, please.

[3:00]

[ Page 6642 ]

So what do we have for the oil and gas industry, the mining industry and the forest industry -- the resource economy, the backbone of rural British Columbia? Do we have any plans? Do we have any real incentives? Do we have any strategies to turn them around, to build them up, to help them recover from the Asian flu? No. What we have is a solemn and heartfelt commitment by the government to talk for another year. They're going to have consultations. They're going to go into little rooms around British Columbia. They're going to have stale coffee and old doughnuts, and they're going to talk about the problems, and the government is going to commiserate with them. A year from now we in this House are going to stand up, and the government is going to have a document that looks a lot like this. It'll probably be a different colour. We'll turn to the mining, forestry and gas sector, and there'll be a solemn commitment to talk. Nothing else. More and more talk.

Those industries have a real opportunity to create jobs, a real opportunity to build this province, as they have for the last hundred years. But if you look at economies across North America, the real area where job creation is happening is in small business. Small business is the driver of the modern economy. They are the businesses that create the high-tech industries. They all start small. They all develop. Small businesses create jobs for young people, give them their first job, their first opportunity.

What is the government going to do? Look at it, hon. Speaker. The government has decided this year that they are going to reduce the income tax rate for small business. Not today but nine months from now they're going to reduce the income tax rate for small business by 0.5 percent. Next year, on January 1, 1998, nine months from now. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: In January 1999 -- I keep getting corrected; I can't believe it's '98 already -- there's a 0.5 percent reduction in the income tax. And then, if the businesses are really, really good, on January 1 of the year 2000, guess what the government's going to do for them. They're going to give them another 0.5 percent reduction in their income tax.

Do you know what that amounts to, hon. Speaker, for 40,000 small businesses that qualify? Three hundred dollars in savings over two years. Actually, it's $150 one year and $150 the next year. With $300 you could hire a young person. . . . If every business went out and put every penny of that amount into hiring a young person and giving them their first job, their first opportunity to work. . . . If every penny went into that from every business, do you know how long that young person would have a job for? Seven days and two hours. That's the opportunity. And that's at minimum wage. If they were to do it at the $10 an hour that the government wants for minimum wage, they'd last about 30 hours, about four days.

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. This is the government's solution to the crisis in youth employment in British Columbia: seven and a half days of work for 40,000 young people. That's really going to solve the problem. Our unemployment rate for young people from 17 to 25 years old is the highest in Canada west of Quebec. It's double-digit and it's going up, not down, and that is a tragedy.

Hon. Speaker, the government talked in the budget speech about the film industry and about some changes they were going to make to the film industry -- a tax incentive. Film Incentive BC, it's called. That's great, if they can do that. The problem is that we're catching up with everybody else in the country. Everybody else in the country is miles ahead of you. Once again, British Columbia is miles and years behind every other jurisdiction in Canada.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: We know exactly what the government has done. It took an economy that was booming and took it to a recession. It took tax rates that were some of the most competitive in North America and made them the most uncompetitive in North America. It took the top credit rating in Canada and lost it. They got downgraded twice last year.

We know exactly what this government has done. They took an unemployment rate that was among the lowest in the country and made it the highest west of Quebec. They doubled the unemployment for young people, at the same time as the Premier was running TV ads shamelessly promising a guarantee for youth. We know what this government has done, and so do the people of British Columbia know what this government has done.

Let's look at the other big key component in this government's budget: reducing red tape and regulations. That promise has appeared in almost every single throne speech and every single budget that the people opposite have brought in since they were elected in 1992. And what's happened? What has their government done, to quote the Finance minister? They have increased the regulatory burden on large, medium-sized and small businesses and individuals beyond their capacity to bear the load. They haven't cut regulations; they have continued to raise them and raise them and raise them.

Do you know what we're going to do now to solve that problem, hon. Speaker? Several years after the government repeatedly promised to deal with the regulatory burden, the government is initiating a review of provincial regulations. I thought that work was underway in the last four years. Is the Minister of Small Business telling us that when it was promised in 1993, in 1994, in 1995, in 1996 and in 1997, it wasn't happening? He's shaking. . . . He says it was before his time. Is there anyone over there on that side who can put up their hand and say that they worked on a government committee to reduce regulation?

Oh, I see one minister putting up her hand. When that minister responds to the budget, perhaps she'll actually tell us what regulations her job, her ministry and her government have reduced in the last six and a half years.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I know the Finance minister doesn't like it. She's right, hon. Speaker. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I'm sorry. I would like to ask you to take your seat, please. There has been a considerable amount of noise and some comments made that I think are not appropriate. One person has the floor, and that's the Opposition House Leader. That's as it should be. Please continue, Opposition House Leader.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I really don't mind their comments. I know it's perhaps not the way it's supposed to go, but I actually enjoy them, so I don't worry too much about it. But the Speaker runs the House, so I guess we'll follow her direction.

[ Page 6643 ]

The other thing that the government talked about was reducing the top marginal rate for income tax for individuals. The income tax. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: It was our platform, the member says. In fact, ours was a 15 percent reduction. This government's is what -- 2 percent?

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yeah, next year, and then perhaps the year after.

Hon. Speaker, if you look at what the government is promising to do. . . . After all those years of increased taxes, the government has decided to do two things: attack the marginal income tax rate and attack the basic rate. They're going to reduce the basic rate by -- I think it says -- 2 points, in the budget. That's going to start to happen next January. Nine months from now, the people of British Columbia might actually see a little more on their paycheques. They might actually get a little more -- enough to go out and buy themselves dinner, enough to take the kids to Pizza Hut.

An Hon. Member: Once.

G. Farrell-Collins: Only once, mind you. I know that right now, across British Columbia, reservations are being made at Pizza Hut for January 1.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The Minister of Small Business says you've got to admit that the trend is in the right direction. The only problem is the speed at which it's happening. We'll all be long gone before we get back to where we were in 1992.

It's fine for the government to reduce taxes. They should be reducing them more. The Minister of Finance tells us that this is going to put us in a competitive position with every other province in Canada. Well, the only problem is that virtually every other province in Canada is reducing income tax faster than this government.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member says: "Along with health care and education." Well, I hate to inform the member that Saskatchewan just lowered their income tax rate again, to 48 percent of the national rate. They haven't cut health care, and they haven't cut education. They balanced their budget, and they paid off half a billion dollars of their debt. I suggest that it would be money well spent if we chartered a 737, boarded all the NDP caucus onto it and flew them to Regina for a week, for lessons on how to balance budgets and how to get the economy going again.

The reality is that this budget is a do-nothing budget. It's been sold as a means to get this economy going again. It's been sold as a means to increase the vitality of this province; it's been sold as a means to create jobs for young people. It won't do any of those things.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: The member for Victoria-Hillside says "Negative, negative," with a smirk on his face, and smiles. But I hope that when he meets the young people in his riding, he's got an explanation for why British Columbia has an unemployment rate among 17-to-26-year-olds that's almost double that of our adjoining provinces. I hope he's got an answer for that other than a smile and a smirk, because they deserve an answer.

The grade 5 kids that are up here, which his colleague just introduced, will be graduating in seven years. I sure hope that seven years from now we don't have an unemployment rate that's in double digits -- 16 or 17 percent. I hope that they can find a real job that's rewarding and that they can stay in British Columbia and not have to leave this province.

Hon. Speaker, by any measure you take, any measure you choose to look at, this budget fails.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: No, they're out looking for a job. They're booking their flights to Alberta right now.

By any measure that you use, if you compare this budget to every other budget in Canada, it fails. If you compare this government's economic performance to just about any other economy in North America, it fails. If you measure this budget for transparency, for clearness in presentation and truthfulness with people so they can understand what's going on with the government's finances, it fails. If you measure it for ability to stimulate the economy, to create jobs, to get B.C. going again, it fails. This budget is a failure no matter how you measure it, no matter how you account for it, no matter how you read it. You can turn the book upside down; you can hold it up to a light and read it backwards. It's a failure. There is no plan in this budget. There is no strategy to save the economy of British Columbia. There is no plan and no strategy to turn the economy around. There's no plan and no strategy to give the young people of this province a future. It's a failure. And that minister and that Premier should be ashamed.

[3:15]

Motion approved.

Personal Statement

It is my understanding that on February 16, 1998, the member for Matsqui had been delegated by his caucus to report back to the government caucus regarding the Liberal position on the review of the funding formula for legislative members. Discussion on this issue has been ongoing for at least six months.

I will relate the conversation to the best of my recollection. It began with the member for Matsqui questioning me on our previous discussions at LAMC. It was as if I was being cross-examined by a court lawyer, which indeed I was. I 

[ Page 6644 ]

remember at the time thinking: not to worry -- after all, we are all honourable members, and we were simply doing the business of the Legislative Assembly Management Committee.

I answered his questions to the best of my ability, pointing out that it was my understanding and belief that the management of members' services is based on the principle of fairness and equity. I pointed out that the Liberal caucus, while serving 33 members, was allotted $2.5 million for the year 1998-99. The NDP caucus, with 39 members, had only $1.3 million to serve its constituents. Based on these figures, it appeared to me that the Liberal caucus enjoyed twice as much money as the government caucus and that if the Liberal caucus also believed in the principle of fairness and equity, one of two things could address the clear inequity.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Surrey-Whalley, would you take your seat for a moment, please.

I recognize the hon. member for Matsqui.

M. de Jong: On a point of order, I am mindful of the practice in this House to allow hon. members to make statements. I am also mindful of the fact that this member had an opportunity to reserve that right at the time this issue was previously discussed. I am also mindful of the comments you yourself made in this chamber at the time this issue was discussed, insofar as dealing in a clear, concise and specific manner with the facts that have given rise to the complaint. I am at a loss -- and these are the grounds for my point of order -- to understand how the information the member is now communicating is relevant to or consistent with those instructions you gave to this House only two days ago.

Hon. P. Ramsey: I hear the point of order. I would only speak to it and say that I thought the member was being entirely concise and to the point in her remarks. Hon. Speaker, I hope the member opposite will allow her to complete her remarks as you consider the very serious matter raised by the member for Matsqui.

G. Farrell-Collins: I too am mindful of the longstanding provisions both here and in Westminster for members to make a personal statement when it involves something of their own. I believe there is a very fine line between doing that and doing what I think the member has just done -- and will probably continue to do -- with her speech, which is re-argue the privilege motion that was made some time ago -- last Friday, I believe.

A member's personal statement is one thing. The member had every opportunity at the time that the motion was raised to speak to the privilege motion. In fact, the Speaker stated at that time, and ruled at the end of my concluding remarks, that she had heard enough and would be deciding the matter later. Unless this member intends to offer new facts or new data, other than just characterizing the data that has already been presented, I would suggest that her personal statement is not in fact a personal statement but is re-arguing the privilege motion from the other day and is out of order.

The Speaker: I appreciate the points that have been made. I recognize the member for Surrey-Whalley.

J. Smallwood: Just to speak to the previous speaker, yesterday I stood and reserved the opportunity to provide information and indeed to speak for myself. It was the first opportunity, on Monday, that I had to actually read the member's submission. The member did not show the courtesy to myself, being the person named, of extending a written copy of his statement to you, hon. Speaker. Having had that opportunity to read it, I felt it was important that I respond today.

The Speaker: Hon. members, this is not a debating circle. On a point of order, I recognize Vancouver-Little Mountain.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I'm mindful of the way this is going, and I understand it. But I think this is a very important ruling that you're about to make, because it will set a precedent for personal statements and privilege motions that will last a long time. It's a very serious ruling that you're about to make. I just want to be mindful of that, because what happened was that the member made his presentation in the House. The member heard it. That's what was in his presentation; she heard it. All the other documents supporting that were documents that the member herself had. In fact, we received them from that member. So there is nothing in what she saw on Monday that is any different from that which the whole House saw -- the Speaker saw; members saw -- on Friday, when the matter was raised. In fact, there is nothing additional that this member has to offer, or saw on Monday, that she didn't already know on Friday. In fact, on Friday. . . .

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: Hon. Speaker, I do know that, because the member read his statement and handed the supporting documents to the member. The member knows the contents of all of those and knew the contents of all of those on Friday. So what the member is trying to do now is reopen the privilege debate, reopen the submissions around privilege -- which, under the Speaker's own guidance, are very limited. The time allotted to it is very limited. For the member to get up now and engage in a speech that's supposed to characterize those documents and re-engage in that debate is unfortunate.

I would advise that what's likely to happen from now on in this House is that privilege motions will be raised, the Speaker will take the information, go away to make his or her ruling, and members will get up at a later date and start offering all sorts of other analyses of the information, new interpretations on the information and new comments on the information as a way of bypassing the very strict rules that this House has set down for itself in its rules -- and through the rulings of former Speakers recorded in the Journals, as far as how that goes. We will end up with a free-for-all here, where members are bypassing privilege motions by using personal statements.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I appreciate the point that you're making. Seeing no further submissions, at this point I am going to make my comments. I am going to allow the member to continue to make her comments. The reason for that is that we are entitled to hear her version of the facts. She did not have the opportunity to have the material in front of her to which she could respond, and at her earliest opportunity she reserved the right to respond with her version of the facts. That is entirely legitimate in this forum. She reserved the right. The person named in any of these. . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: This is not a debating situation. The Chair has spoken.

[ Page 6645 ]

I am now going to accord the opportunity to Surrey-Whalley to continue her statement.

J. Smallwood: To continue, I answered his questions to the best of my ability, pointing out that it was my understanding and belief that the management of members' services was based on the principles of fairness and equity. I pointed out that the Liberal caucus, while serving 33 members, was allotted $2.5 million for the year 1998-99; the NDP caucus, with its 39 members, had only $1.3 million to serve their constituents. Based on these figures, it appeared to me that the Liberal caucus enjoyed twice as much money as the government caucus.

If the Liberal caucus also believed in the principles of fairness and equity, one of two things could address this clear inequity: either the NDP budget could be increased, or the Liberal budget could be reduced. I reminded the member that the phone call was set up for the Liberal caucus to report back on their discussion, at which point I was told that the caucus was not supportive of future discussions or a review of caucus funding formulas.

I stressed that the issue was important to all members of the House. Prior to the creation of the office of the conflict commissioner and the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the separation of responsibilities of ministers was not as clear. I explained that it was my belief that the delineation between the roles and responsibilities of ministers and of private members, or MLAs, was now explicit in the legislation -- section 2 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act.

The government, through the minister's office, does not prepare and mail householders for MLAs, assist members preparing their MLA reports for cable broadcast, provide research support for local issues, provide account management for communications allowances, train and provide ongoing support for constituency assistants. These are a few of the services delivered by caucus staff for all MLAs for which the government caucus receives no funding.

The Liberals, I told him, could not have it both ways. They object to ministers' staff providing political support to their members outside their direct responsibilities, then refuse caucus funding. At that point, the conversation shifted to: "Where do we go from here?"

The Speaker: Hon. member, I would encourage you, please, to wrap it up as quickly as you can.

J. Smallwood: At the LAMC meeting that preceded this discussion, we agreed to seek speedy resolution of this issue. When the member for Matsqui became very irritated, I assured him that I would have further discussions with our House Leaders and that I would get back to him before any decision was taken. He assured me that he would make himself available -- unlike his House Leader -- to ensure that we could resolve this issue quickly.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, while I address what I feel to be the most significant change in the conduct of members and their services, that being the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, that is not the only change over the last 20 years.

The Speaker: Hon. member, you'll have to skip to the very end, please.

J. Smallwood: The rest of the submission you have in writing, Madam Speaker.

I would like to state that I do understand that for some people arguments of fairness and equity can be intimidating. However, I would like to state clearly for all members that it was never my intention at any time to intimidate the hon. member, and I extend my sincerest apologies if any of his sensitivities were offended.

[3:30]

M. de Jong: But I do understand from the authorities, hon. Speaker, that when a personal statement is made, any member cited in that personal statement has the right to reply. That is pursuant to the authorities laid out in May.

The Speaker: I believe that is correct.

M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I am mindful, first of all, of the fact that a complaint -- a point of privilege, to be specific -- was raised in this House and that the member who raised it -- myself -- was asked to summarize it in less than a minute and has met with a response that has extended for over seven minutes.

The Speaker: Hon. member for Matsqui, would you take your seat, please.

There are several different kinds of interruptions happening here that are not appropriate, particularly an electronic one. That is not to happen in this House again, ever. Secondly, there is some conversation happening about other matters. We have a very difficult issue on the floor, and I would encourage everyone, please, to pay attention and if not, to leave the chamber.

Hon. member for Matsqui, continue.

M. de Jong: I am mindful of the fact that at the time this issue was initially raised, when I attempted to provide some context and background for what amounts, at the end of the day, to an impression that I was left with -- and which I communicated to this chamber through you, hon. Speaker -- I was not afforded the opportunity to do that. I was told that those kinds of contextual comments were, in effect, out of order. We have now listened at length to what you might term excuses or explanations, but the essence of the matter that the Chair has been asked to rule on is whether or not a threat was made by one member of this chamber to another member of the chamber.

I have listened with interest. I have heard an apology, but what I have not heard, hon. Speaker, is an acknowledgment of the essence of the complaint or a denial that one member of this chamber told another: "Do it the way we on the government side of the House want it, or you will suffer financially for that." That is the essence of the complaint.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The Chair will retain order. Matsqui, continue.

M. de Jong: The member for Surrey-Whalley, during her comments, during her personal statement, alluded to another member of this House. I need to tell you, hon. Speaker, and through you that member, that I am absolutely outraged and 

[ Page 6646 ]

amazed that she would make reference in a negative way to the Opposition House Leader being absent when she knows very well that he was absent because of the passing of his father that week. For her to somehow suggest in this House, in this forum, that he was unprepared to make himself available to discuss this issue is shameful, given the knowledge she had. She has already tried to apologize to me, and if she has one shred of honour, she will get up now and apologize to the Opposition House Leader. If it was the member's intention to dig herself a deeper hole, she has accomplished that today in spades.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, let me just offer this to the hon. member as an aside. I thought the advice had been well received on how we would handle this, and had been in discussion with members of the House. If I have not conveyed that message properly to the member for Surrey-Whalley, my apologies for that. An apology was given. . . .

We all know that in this House there are times when circumstances prevent us from carrying out our duties -- some of them are personal, some of them are professional. We must, I think, always allow the good grace at every opportunity for us to not have to in any way bare our souls in terms of the personal circumstances under which we operate. I hope that the hon. member opposite can take my words as a general commitment to that. I'm not sure that I had made that known to the member opposite in those circumstances.

It's the beginning of a session. It's a new time for all of us; it's a new time for you; it's a new time. . . . The member for Matsqui is playing a new role too. An apology was given, and I hope that it can be taken as it is and accepted, and that any intent beyond that be withdrawn. I offer that on behalf of this House, and I hope that we can settle this matter as we speak.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. We'll move on now. I recognize the hon. member for Alberni.

G. Janssen: I ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: Joining us in the gallery today is an old friend of the gallery and of the House, Alistair Grant, better known to us as "Red," who worked here for many, many years and cleaned up a lot of things that members left behind. He is joined by his wife Joan. I ask the House to make them welcome.

J. Dalton: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Speaker.

Leave granted.

J. Dalton: I see in the gallery a friend and a West Van councillor who has come over today to watch these interesting proceedings. Please welcome Mr. Ron Wood.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call second reading of Bill 7.

F. Gingell: Hon. Speaker, this is the one opportunity we get every year to come back to another broken promise by this government, to come back to another broken promise by the previous government and, in fact, to come back to broken promises made by virtually every single government within recorded history -- that is, to dispense with and get rid of special warrants.

Special warrants are unique to the colonies. They are a tie to our old colonial past, when expenditures in Canada were approved by Westminster. In Britain they don't have special warrants. They don't use special warrants in Ottawa. They were first provided for in the Constitution Act of 1867. If we all cast our minds back to 1867 -- if we can go that far -- we will remember that it was before Canada had a transportation infrastructure that allowed people to move reasonably quickly. It was the time before airplanes; it was the time before cars; it was the time before Canada was properly serviced with trains.

There were three purposes for special warrants. First of all, they were to deal with unanticipated requirements necessitating urgent and immediate funding. Secondly, they were used for insufficient government budget appropriations, which is the case for these two special warrants for which the government is seeking approval today. Thirdly, they were used to provide routine funding for the day-to-day running of the government -- i.e., in election years.

Well, we all know that a battle was fought between the Crown and Parliament in the early part of the eighteenth century, which determined one immutable fact, and that is that the right in a democracy is for the people to vote supply and expropriation of funds to the Crown before they are spent. The Crown cannot spend money without the approval of parliament -- no taxation without representation. I'd like to read into the record, for the second or perhaps the third time -- because they have appeared in Hansard before -- these particular words:

"Mr. Speaker, our system is founded on some very basic principles, the most basic of which is that the government has to justify its spending and taxing decisions to the representatives of the people before they embark on either. The government has flouted that basic parliamentary principle. It's a misuse of the special warrants. It's the foundation of parliamentary government because we are elected representatives -- all of us. We have to scrutinize the government's and executive council's decisions to tax people and to spend people's money, and the government has to be held accountable."

F. Gingell: The Premier, Mr. Glen Clark, then the second member for Vancouver-East, in May 1991.

When this government came into office, they went and spent a million dollars on the KPMG Peat Marwick report. One of the important criticisms in that report was the use of special warrants. It is very easy for the government to recognize that budgets are precisely that -- they are projections -- and to time the operation of this Legislature so that if something has been underbudgeted, there is lots of time for us to get into debate of supplementary estimates. This government, or the NDP government that preceded it during the thirty-fifth parliament, sought and arranged for the dissolution of this House on April 30, when the House was sitting and interim supply had not been passed. That's disgraceful.

In the U.K. you're not allowed to do that. There is a law that stops an election being called without supply being arranged. This government had the members sitting in this House on April 30. There was in interim supply bill that had been tabled, and all we had to do was debate it and pass it, and then it would have been appropriate for the Premier to go 

[ Page 6647 ]

to the Lieutenant-Governor and ask for Parliament to be dissolved. But oh no, they didn't want to get into that debate: use another special warrant.

Well, special warrants have been used every single year, and every single member of this Legislature that has commented on this issue when they've been in opposition has spoken against the use of special warrants and for their use to be dispensed with. There have been discussions going on in Victoria and around this Legislature since the early 1990s about amendments and changes to the Financial Administration Act of 1981 that would stop or change dramatically the use of special warrants. Nobody, when they get into the government, ever does it. It's too easy to quietly have a cabinet meeting in the west block, sign some papers, slip up to Rockland Avenue and get the Lieutenant-Governor to sign them.

But things have changed. After the next provincial election, when these people -- what's left of them -- are on this side of the House and we're on that side of the House, we will get rid of special warrants. It just means that MLAs will then have to work. If there's a requirement for supplementary supply, they have to be prepared to come back to Victoria and do the job for which they have been elected.

[3:45]

All constitutional advice -- the Premier, when he was opposition Finance critic; the auditor general; Eugene Forsey some years ago. . . . Everybody who has looked into the issue has recognized the historical causes that have brought us to this point and agrees that special warrants are an inappropriate means for government to operate by. This is one opportunity, hon. Speaker -- and I appreciate you giving me this opportunity -- to once more plead for this government to bring discipline to itself and not to spend the taxpayers' money without it having gone through the due process of being voted as an appropriation by this Legislature.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I didn't manage to hear the remark from the member for Prince George-Mount Robson. If she will repeat it, I will. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: Promise that you won't ask for money.

F. Gingell: Well, hon. Speaker, you must let the minister know that this world hasn't changed. Whatever we say, it's still your decisions to do the things. . . .

The Speaker: Through the Chair, hon. member.

F. Gingell: Yes. That's a leg break; it bounces in that direction. What more can I say?

This issue really is a matter of the democratic process. It really is a matter of us, as members of this Legislature, recognizing our responsibilities and bringing the discipline that's necessary to fulfil our functions in a proper manner, to ensure that we debate and vote on expropriations before they are made. I sincerely hope that this government will take this to heart and will take the words that they said when they were in opposition to heart, too, and bring this disgraceful practice to an end.

J. Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to address this interim supply bill, in particular the special warrant for the Ministry for Children and Families.

The Ministry for Children and Families is over budget. Now, this would not be so bad if the government were competent and able to govern. However, it's not the case. This government, and especially this ministry, has shown repeatedly that it has no direction, no plan, no focus and no discipline.

We in the opposition recognized these facts, and on May 1, 1997, the Leader of the Opposition offered to set politics aside and work with the government to do whatever it took to ensure that children were properly protected. As one would expect, this Premier demonstrated his incompetence and turned this offer down, stating that rather than provide adequate funding, they would find efficiencies through reorganization.

Unfortunately, the problems created by this government came to a head in Quesnel, in my riding of Cariboo North, in the fall of 1997. As early as December of 1996 this government was made aware of the lack of resources in the Quesnel area. Excessive workloads were endangering the welfare of children in the community. In August 1997 a youth under the care of the ministry was killed in a car accident. The ministry was warned of excessive workloads once again.

Through the month of November all of the social workers in Quesnel took stress leave -- this began on November 12 -- because the workloads were unbearable. The ministry refused to listen to the pleas of the front-line workers, quite possibly on the advice of an incompetent Premier. The staff of six was replaced by a staff of 14. There were 71 apprehensions in the next two months. This ministry had now become a pied piper.

In an effort to bring some sort of sanity and clarity to the situation, Judge Smith released a report stating that the resources were still inadequate to do the job that needed to be done to properly care for the children. By February the staff had grown to 19. It's hard to imagine why six workers were expected to do a job that is now being done by 19.

The incompetent minister is now removed from her position and rewarded with an appointment as Minister of Health. Heaven help us if we are forced to use the health care system.

A new minister was appointed to Children and Families. She came to Quesnel to deal with the community and to begin, in her words, a healing process. This minister left out an important segment of the community, that being the families involved. Ministry personnel and contractors were the focus of the new minister's discussions. Again we hear the same old line: the blame is laid on the supervisor and front-line workers, not on the government or the Premier, where it belongs.

However, the minister finally bent and admitted that funding and resources were a part of the problem. It seems 

[ Page 6648 ]

rather odd, however, that the minister refused to comment publicly on the report that Judge Smith released condemning the ministry for doing the job without proper resources. Certain things began to come to light. In my opinion, it would appear that the overall funding is inadequate for the population of the area in comparison to other areas in the province.

Another point is that in 1997 the contractors to the ministry were asked to cut 3 percent from their budget, which they did. Then in 1998 they were told that they would have to cut another 3 percent from the budget for this year. The six workers are being retrained, we are told. However, will they be expected to carry on and do the work of 19 when reinstated? How many additional workers will be left on staff? Can we expect adequate resources to do the job properly? I think not, because on the other hand, we are witnessing cuts to the contractors who provide necessary services to the ministry.

How much less can we expect from an incompetent minister who blamed front-line workers and the supervisor, who refuses to deal with the families and who carried on with a cloak of secrecy around all actions of the ministry? What has happened in Quesnel is sad indeed. However, the same problem could arise in any area in this province. I've had reports of two other audits that were started and then dropped for fear of the same thing happening that has happened in Quesnel. On February 4 the Leader of the Official Opposition once again offered his support and again was turned down.

Here we are into a new budget and looking at a $33.8 million shortfall. We find ourselves debating this under a special warrant, because of the incompetence of this government and their inability to budget properly. It's totally unacceptable. I cannot and will not support this bill.

G. Wilson: In standing to speak to Bill 7, the Supply Act, it's not my intention to repeat a lot of the comments with respect to the inappropriateness of warrant spending. As the member for Delta South correctly pointed out, virtually all the members who now sit on the government side and who were sitting on this side in opposition made a commitment that they would not use special warrants. Yet here we are once again, in the sixth or seventh subsequent year of their government, having to bring them in.

I do want to speak very briefly about how I think we should resolve this issue. In principle I think all of us would agree that if we are going to commit the public's money. . . . We're being asked in this bill today to commit $67 million with respect to cost overruns in the last fiscal budget, to provide interim supply of some $5 billion to commence the government's work in this year and, in addition to that, to commit some $1.2 billion with respect to the schedule C transaction, which is loans, investments and other financial transactions that this government will undertake in this fiscal year ending March 31, 1999.

What this speaks to is the need for us to change the manner by which we table budgets. People who have heard me speak before will know that this member and the members of our party are very much in favour of getting rid of the tabling of annual budgets and of moving toward multi-year budgets, where we can implement financing on a multi-year level. The reason is because we are statutorily obliged to provide much of the money that is being demanded for the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Health.

We have to recognize that what has become obligatory within our society -- and I think most people in our community would immediately argue that those resources are necessary -- has to be made in a manner that allows us the most cost-effective way of delivery and the most efficient process through which that money can be put toward the work for which it is needed -- that is, essentially, the delivery of services to British Columbians.

[4:00]

The reason for that is because there are some issues that will affect us no matter which of us forms the government. I think it's easy and often great to stand up and point fingers and say, "Well, it's this government that is responsible for all of these costs," but the fact of the matter is that there are many forces at work in our community and within our society that will put people at risk, that will put families at risk and that will create rising levels of unemployment and poverty. As a society that should pay attention to those numbers, we have to find a way. We need to find a mechanism that provides us with the opportunity to make sure that those resources can go forward. A four-year-based financing plan is, I think, an opportunity for us to do that. I put that forward as a serious suggestion if we start to look at monetary and fiscal and budgeting reform in this Legislative Assembly.

The second part of the suggestion with respect to this proposition is for the government to finally take seriously the need to put into place core funding for non-profit community-based service organizations and to allow those community-based organizations to take that core funding and to apply that in a multi-year process as well. Much of what is being delivered on an annual basis is essentially reargued every year, and without the opportunity for us to have these long-term financial arrangements, we cannot put in place the kind of cost-efficiencies and cost-effectiveness that are necessary for us to deal with it in a budgetary sense. If the government is really serious about hearing some suggestions as to how we might better finance this situation, multi-year budgeting is something the government and the Minister of Finance in particular might want to start to consider.

The second issue is one we need to address as we look at the requirement for the two warrants that are outlined in the schedule attached -- the Ministry for Children and Families in the amount of $33.8 million and the Ministry of Health in the amount of $33.4 million. We have to recognize that when you see those special warrants coming down. . . . We have a budget tabled; that budget was being implemented. I think this government believed -- albeit you can argue, in a sort of partisan political process, whether the people of British Columbia did or not -- that, generally speaking, the moneys that were allocated in last year's budget would be adequate to meet the need for the services that the people of British Columbia required. And they didn't.

Frankly, rather than getting into a partisan wrangle on this question of a warrant, I'm more interested in looking at these two warrants as though they were the canaries in the coalmine. The reason we are overspending is because of two words, hon. Speaker. It's called rising poverty. Rising poverty is a serious, serious consideration for British Columbians and for us in this legislative session to start to deal with. If there are families in crisis, and there are; if there is a greater need for us to look after children who are in need of care, and that is true; 

[ Page 6649 ]

and if we start to see the need for greater use of transition houses because of spousal abuse -- all of the kinds of issues that are fundamental to the need for a ministry such as Children and Families to commission and to apply these dollars -- that tells us there is something systemically wrong in our society. What it tells us is that we really have to start to look at what it is we are doing within our communities and our society that is not addressing -- or that is causing, possibly -- these issues. More particularly, what are we doing that does not address the rising poverty that British Columbians are facing?

I would say that the same thing is true of warrant 2, with respect to Health and the Ministry Responsible for Seniors. If rising health care costs are a fact of life in British Columbia, it tells us something about where we are going as a society. These two warrants are very much the canary in the coal-mine, and if it tells us that we need more money committed to it, it tells us there is something fundamentally wrong with what is going on in our communities. Rather than get into a partisan wrangling debate in this House as to who's to blame, I think what we really need to do is to start to analyze what it is in our society that has gone so dramatically wrong that it is requiring escalating costs for services to the people who now, for reasons quite beyond their own control, demand these services as they are to be provided.

We can see that rising poverty is a key. It is a real key, and that is occurring as a result of economic downturn. Therefore what we have to do is start to seriously address whether or not we as a society are prepared to take the necessary steps with respect to putting in place the mechanisms that are needed in order for us to look toward economic recovery and economic development.

Much more will be said as I rise to debate the budget in detail, and I don't intend to do that on this matter of the special warrants. Similarly, as we have an opportunity to look at government priorities in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, it will be an opportunity for me to put forward, certainly from our perspective -- the perspective of the Progressive Democratic Alliance -- where we are coming from as a political party.

As this session tends to progress, I think that we are going to start to see some very real differences in the approach to problem-solving between the members of the government, who have their own particular philosophy and ideology and direction; the members of the Liberal Party, who have their own particular philosophy and direction; and the members of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, who take a somewhat different approach to and a different view of how we will find solutions to the problems that are coming out.

As we start through this debate, we will see that there are very real differences in our approach to solutions. I heard the Minister of Finance say the other day -- in fact, I think it was even this morning -- that the problem with the members of the opposition is that they are constantly asking for more money, more money, more money, except when it comes to debating the budget, when we're saying that there is too much debt and the government is spending too much. I can understand, possibly, the frustration. Not having been in government, I know that there would be enormous demands placed on government by people who believe the government should provide services when you have a limited amount of money to be able to apply to those services.

From our perspective, we're not suggesting that we commit more money. What we are suggesting is that we redefine and redirect -- redefine our priorities, certainly, redirect our dollars -- to make sure that the priorities that we set are going to start to address the systemic problems within our society -- namely, rising poverty -- so that as we do address those issues and concerns, the demand for increased costs and increased dollars, the demand for increased money in the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Health, declines. It declines because we are a healthier society, a healthier community. It declines because our communities are able to do for our families that which our families require to be done.

Similarly, it's our approach to say that rather than look at the government as a sort of Big Brother or as our keeper, what we need to do is take that money and apply it through core funding to non-profit community organizations, so that there can be long-term, multi-year budgets. We could do long-term fiscal management and make sure that we do in fact have the resources delivered to the people who need them.

What I'm saddened by in this warrant is that nothing has changed in our approach to budgeting in the time that I've been elected. From 1991, being elected in the fall of that year, we went to special warrants in '92, '93, '94, '95 and '96. We had an election in '96. We had a new Premier, somebody who was on record as being entirely opposed to special warrants. Here we are through '97 and now into 1998 with a budget that essentially requires us once again to go to special warrants.

The concern is not so much that we're being asked to approve these moneys, because I'm convinced that the people of British Columbia need those dollars. My concern is that there is nothing being done to address the rising poverty in British Columbia. There is nothing being done by this government in this budget that recognizes that people in British Columbia are seriously hurting as a result of fiscal and monetary policies that are made and directed by the members opposite, who sit as the government of British Columbia.

So as we look at the special warrant debate in principle -- and as we get into committee stage, it will be interesting to hear in much more detail exactly where these dollars are to be applied -- it seems to me that we have come to a point in our evolution, in our democracy, in our parliament here where we need to redefine our budgeting priorities. We need to put in place a process where we can have multi-year budgets to provide us with the opportunity for long-range fiscal planning, so this kind of after-the-fact approval is not required, so we can address the systemic needs in our communities in advance of their occurrence, so we can start to recognize that the way to limit government spending, the way to reduce debt, is not necessarily through draconian action but rather by making sure that the overall health of our communities and people is improved because we are looking after their needs in the most primary way.

That's the difference between members of the Progressive Democratic Alliance, members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal Party. As this session continues and we proceed through the next number of months, I think that those differences are going to become more and more obvious to those who follow and deal with our debates. They will become more and more obvious as we start to recognize the different approach that each of the parties represented in this Legislative Assembly will take toward solving the needs of the people of British Columbia.

With that, let me say that there is no choice but to approve these warrants, because they are in areas where there is absolute need. But there is reason to suggest that this government should feel ashamed that it has not done the kind of fiscal management and revision of budgeting that was necessary many years ago and is even more necessary today.

[ Page 6650 ]

J. van Dongen: Hon. Speaker, despite the fact that I feel somewhat slighted for being passed over last time, I want to congratulate you on your election as Speaker and wish you well in this coming session.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 7, the supply act. In particular, I am pleased that the Minister for Children and Families is here. I want to address the special warrant for Children and Families -- $33.8 million. Given the amount of activity, starting with the Gove inquiry and the objectives of the ministry and all of the time and resources put into the ministry by people like those in the Children's Commission, I think it's particularly appropriate to spend some time discussing this special warrant.

I also am concerned that in a ministry where. . . . I think this ministry is probably more vulnerable to partisan politics than any other. I too am disappointed that the government did not see fit to accept the offer of the Leader of the Opposition to sit down in a non-partisan manner to work out the resource needs of the ministry and to work together with the government to improve the operations of the ministry, to improve the situation for staff and to improve the work and the results of the ministry. I wanted to register that disappointment.

Along the same lines, if there were a standing committee that should be operational, certainly a standing committee on children and families is one. For that very reason, I think this ministry is more vulnerable to partisan politics than any other, and we need to do whatever we can in this Legislature to remove the impacts of that.

[4:15]

I'm wondering if the ministry has done a full, open and honest analysis of the problem. I know that the Government Employees Union has done its own analysis, and that's one perspective. But I'm wondering if the ministry has done its own review before going on this nationwide recruitment program. It isn't good enough to just hire more people if they're going out on stress leave, if they're leaving this particular job, if as soon as they get there they're trying to move up into management and supervision just to get away from the front line, where everything ends up.

I think it's important that social workers and front-line people in particular know what the mission of the ministry is and are comfortable with the mission of the ministry. Certainly when I look at the mission statement, it doesn't provide a clear vision for me. I just want to quote one thing out of a government employees' report, which I think hits home. This is a quotation from a youth probation worker: "The only vision the ministry has is to cover your ass. If something goes wrong, the line worker pays." We're well aware of that phenomenon within most government ministries, but I think it's particularly bad in this ministry. I would hope that government and opposition members, working in our constituencies and working in this Legislature, can collectively address that problem.

I think it's very, very critical that government workers and front-line workers in the Ministry for Children and Families have a clear understanding of what their expectations are -- that there are clear performance standards, that people know what's expected of them and that they're measured for their performance. At the same time, I think it's important that they have some confidence and security that they're going to be treated fairly and openly. We can't spend enough time and energy focusing on that, working on that. I have no doubt that staff issues and performance issues are a big part of this special warrant and this overrun of the budget of the ministry.

I've had a good working relationship with the people in my area, and I work with them on a number of individual cases. Certainly one high-profile case involved the suicide of a nine-year-old boy over a year ago. When I look at the accountability and the reporting relationship between the ministry and the father of that child, I am somewhat disappointed. I look forward to working with the ministry and the new minister to ensure that that is improved. This individual never did have a proper interview by either the ministry staff or the children's commissioner's people and never did get any report back as to the ministry's involvement and the decisions that were made in the life of that child.

I also want to mention an area that I think is somewhat akin to the situation being faced by front-line workers, and that is the whole area of foster parents. I'm privileged to serve on a children's committee in our caucus, and recently we met with representatives of foster parents in this area. Certainly in talking to them, it's clear that very often they feel like they're the dumping ground for some of the ministry's problems. I'm hoping that more efforts can be made to treat foster parents with the respect they deserve. A lot of them are professionals. They're trained. They're highly educated and looking at making foster-parenting a career, but certainly they suffer from some of the same difficulties that I think front-line workers currently face.

I also want to mention a case that I've been involved in for over two years now. That is a young boy with an eating disorder -- again, a very high-profile case. We've spent a lot of time on that case, working with the ministry, and I have to say that our office and myself personally should not have to put the amount of time into that case that we're putting in. But it's happening, and we're doing it because we see gaps. We see difficulties; we see a lack of resources.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

We see a number of problems in the ministry and between ministries, involving the Ministry for Children and Families and the Ministry of Health. That particular young boy had to be sent to England. He was very, very close to death. He's made a very good recovery. There's a lot of work to be done, but we're hoping to work with both ministries to improve the government's handling of that situation and those types of situations. In working with care teams and looking at protocols between ministries, I will simply sum it up by saying there's a tremendous amount of work and improvement that needs to be done.

I also want to mention briefly the whole area of contract review within the Ministry for Children and Families, includ-

[ Page 6651 ]

ing the review of the supported child care program, and simply emphasize my concern that volunteers are a very, very essential partner in our society -- a very essential partner with the ministries in providing services to people. Any changes that are made need to be done with the fullest of consultation, the fullest of respect and the fullest opportunity for the continued involvement of volunteers.

So with that, I will close my comments and look forward to, hopefully, a better working relationship in the Ministry for Children and Families. I would simply urge the Premier and the government to look at a standing committee on children and families. I think that if we can do that, we will have a better prospect not only of coming in within budget but probably of doing a better job in the process. Thank you for this opportunity.

S. Hawkins: I now rise to join the debate on Bill 7, in which the government is asking this house for interim supply. I note that attached to this bill are two special warrants -- budget overruns, if you will: one for Children and Families and one for Health.

Many of my colleagues have spoken quite eloquently on the special warrant for the Ministry for Children and Families. They have spoken for the children, they have spoken for the families, they have spoken for the front-line workers, they have spoken about the resources that seem not to be enough for this ministry, and they certainly have spoken about the offer that this side of the House made to the members opposite, to the government, to the Premier and to the minister responsible that we would work with them in any way to help the children and the families in our province that need our help. We said we would meet with them at any time and work with them in any way. That offer was scoffed at; it wasn't given any attention. At the end of the day we find that, lo and behold, there were moneys needed for that ministry. There were resources needed for that ministry.

Frankly, I think it's shameful for the government to not take up an offer of working in a non-partisan way for children and families in this province. I hope they'll still listen, because I understand that the critic for Children and Families and the Leader of the Opposition have kept the offer open. We hope that this government will listen and work with the opposition -- work with all members of this House -- to make sure that children and families in this province are safe and get the services they need.

Because my colleagues have spoken so eloquently about Children and Families, I want to concentrate on the Ministry of Health and the overrun in that ministry. I'm going to confine my comments to that. It's interesting that this government has said that it spends a lot of money on health care in this province. They say that they spend more per patient in this province than any other province in Canada. They say that they're putting more money into health care, and they say that they've protected health care for patients in this province.

Well, you know what? The truth is that they haven't. We hear health care horror stories every single day, and I know that the Minister of Health gets letters about health horror stories and about patients on waiting lists and patients not getting the services or treatment or surgery they need. I know that, because I get copies of those letters. They're heartbreaking. Patients across the province do not believe this government when they say that they are protecting health care for patients here. They're not, and that's the truth of it.

There's a crisis in health care in this province. They have not recognized it. We've all heard the stories, and I hope they're listening. Right now I'm going to share some of the stories about some of the areas in this province that are in crisis, and I hope they'll listen carefully. I understand they have not done a good job of listening to people outside this House. I'm going to bring into the chamber today some of the voices of people from outside this House and from around the province.

The first crisis is certainly one that is affecting a lot of patients in rural and northern B.C., and that is the crisis that's going on right now in northern communities. This crisis has been going on now for nine weeks -- a job action that was created by 22 physicians in northern communities who pulled their services after they had given the government ample notice. They gave the government notice back in October of 1997 that they intended not to work incredible hours, totally exhausted, not having locum relief and not having services that the government over there promised. They promised them a locum agency that would work; they promised them relief; they promised them grants; they promised them continuing education grants. Nothing!

[The Speaker in the chair.]

You know what? The member for Prince George-Mount Robson speaks in the House today, but in the last nine weeks where has her voice been for the patients up in the north? The silence has been deafening. That's what her constituents say; that's what the media say. Has she even been in the hospital, hon. Speaker? I have toured Prince George Regional Hospital twice in the last eight weeks, and our Leader of the Opposition has been up to her riding and has talked to patients, families, community leaders and hospital administrators. He has also been in the hospital and toured, and talked to families who are facing the crisis. She speaks in the House today. I would ask her to rise after I'm finished and stick up for her constituents today, because you know what? That hospital is absolutely stressed to the max. They have added more staff. They usually can only handle about 15 maternities safely in that hospital, I understand, and you know what? Because of this job action and the lack of the government's leadership in resolving the job action, sometimes they are handling up to 23 maternities, some of them emergencies.

[4:30]

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please. There is another member on the floor. I recognize the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I am new to the interim supply bill, but I do know that in the rules of the House the debate has to be relevant to the bill. I also know that there is leave for wide-ranging discussion, but the warrant specifically addresses Pharmacare. I'd be pleased to hear the comments around Pharmacare, but we really should try to make the debate relevant.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. minister, and I'm sure the member for Okanagan West will take the words under advisement.

[ Page 6652 ]

S. Hawkins: Well, hon. Speaker, you can tell me if I'm going off track here, but I understand that interim supply for three months includes Health spending for the next three months as well, does it not? I'll ask for a ruling from the Chair.

The Speaker: The debate is indeed wide-ranging, but the topics are there.

S. Hawkins: Thank you, hon. Speaker, because I understand that some of the money, hopefully, that will help to resolve the issue over the next few months will go into this crisis in rural health as well. Anyway, it's nice to see that the Minister for Children and Families has found her voice for northerners during this debate.

H. Giesbrecht: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

H. Giesbrecht: I thank the member for Okanagan West for the slight pause for me to make one of those rare introductions of people from my constituency. I see up in the gallery today Garry Williams, a member of the Gitwangak community, just east of Terrace. Also with him is Lonnie Hindle, who's actually from Qualicum Beach but is the acting director of the C-Ged mill. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

S. Hawkins: I think I've highlighted the rural crisis, and I know the Minister of Health has met with some of the mayors today. . .meeting with the doctors. We will keep pushing them to solve this, and we certainly hope that there's a quick resolution, because we certainly feel for the patients that are being held hostage in this, and the government isn't helping that one deal.

We put forward a constructive plan for this government. No response, but what do you expect? We put forward an offer for Children and Families last year -- no response. We hope they'll take us up on the offers that the opposition constructively puts forward.

Another crisis is in waiting lists, and certainly in the last year this government -- the previous Health minister, now the Finance minister -- promised to reduce waiting lists in this province. You know what? Nothing has changed. In fact, things have gotten worse. We are hearing stories about patients dying on waiting lists. One was a constituent of mine: Philip Georgiou. They put out a report -- a so-called investigation, done internally by the ministry -- saying that waiting lists weren't an issue. Well, we know that that's not true. Mr. Georgiou, who was urgently in need of cardiac surgery, died in the cardiac excellence centre at St. Paul's Hospital. I think that's a shame, when the cardiac centre for excellence can't even operate on a patient who was waiting 11 days in the hospital for urgent surgery. It's unbelievable.

I know that patients are dying on waiting lists, because I get the same letters that the Minister of Health now gets. Doctors have written to her, sending me copies of those letters, and I hope she learns to deal with that as well.

Do we need more examples? We had a Burnaby patient who broke his hip, was carted around all over Vancouver and had to wait two days for surgery. He was refused at Lions Gate and was moved back to Burnaby Hospital. We have another situation right here in Victoria. We had an elderly woman who died while waiting in the emergency room.

You know what? All across this province, do you know what they are saying? They are saying that this government has neglected patients; this government has neglected to protect health care. They've ignored the needs of patients. They are spending all this money -- that we do know -- but it's not getting to patients. We know it's not getting to patients, because waiting lists are getting longer. If you go up north and into rural areas, we know those resources aren't getting to patients there. We know that there is a lot of bureaucracy taken up in the way this government -- the members opposite -- implemented the regionalization experiment. We know that, because the auditor general just released a report in the last month or so, talking about how. . . . He is absolutely shocked that they actually tried to implement a regionalization scheme without a strategic plan. Imagine that! They didn't even know that they needed a strategic plan to implement a vision.

Well, we've been telling them that, and I know that the critic before me has been telling them that for the last six years. It took six years for them. . . . They say now that they are coming up with a plan. You know what? In this year's budget we will be questioning them on that plan, because finally we know from the auditor general's report that their regionalization experiment was a total disaster. We'll be holding them to account on that. We certainly will, hon. Speaker.

The government put out a waiting list report in November. The critics around the province called it a cruel hoax. So we know that people in the know -- people who work in the system, patients, hospital administrators, front-line workers. . . . I know, because I went into hospital emergencies. I have been in ambulances around the province, working on the front line to find out what the problems are. We know that the government is not putting the resources at the front line. We know that hospitals are overburdened, and certainly Prince George Regional Hospital is at this time overburdened. We know that. Again, we hope that the government will take another look at what they are doing to fund programs that help with waiting lists. We will be raising that when estimates come up.

I could go on and on. I mean, the mentally ill. . . . What happened to the resources for the mentally ill? We got a plan this last year that is supposedly going to be introduced in this year's budget -- a seven-year plan, at $125 million. I wonder how much of that is going to be spent in the first three months of supply that they are asking for in their supply bill. We got this wonderful press release, this wonderful news announcement that the government now cares about the mentally ill, that they weren't wrong in what they did about downsizing Riverview; they just hadn't done a lot of the right things. Well, how nice. Is that an admission of error? I don't know. Anyway, on this side of the House we will be speaking for the mentally ill.

The HIV crisis. It just goes on and on and on. If you don't believe health care is in crisis, just read some of the newspapers every day, hon. Speaker, and you will see the horror stories there.

The Pharmacare warrant. The Minister of Finance wanted me to pay particular attention to the Pharmacare special warrant. Why have we got warrants on Pharmacare overspending? This government said that they implemented a policy -- reference-based pricing -- that was going to save Pharmacare $75 million. That's what they said: it was going to save them money. I've got all kinds of. . . . The previous Minister of Health said $30 million. The Minister of Finance, who was previously the Health minister, said $75 million.

You know, now we've got an overrun in Pharmacare, and it will be interesting in committee stage to find out why the 

[ Page 6653 ]

costs went up there. What happened? Why can't they manage their budgets? If they say that they're implementing a policy that's going to save money, why are we seeing an overrun in that budget? Patients across the province want to know, especially since this government has been denying all kinds of drugs to patients. We will be asking those questions.

I suppose it's no surprise that I can't support this supply bill. There are too many patients across the province that are suffering. There are too many children and families across the province that are suffering. This government -- I said this last year, and I'll say it again -- does not deserve to have a penny approved for spending. They have demonstrated over and over again how irresponsible they are, how incompetent they are and how totally, totally inept they are in managing this provincial budget -- the seventh consecutive deficit budget. I don't think I can support it. With that, I'll sit down.

G. Campbell: I'm sorry to have to stand and speak to this interim supply bill, because it speaks to the negligence of this government. It speaks to the fact that this government, in spite of being warned time and time again, in spite of being asked time and time again to support the young people of this province. . . . It speaks to the fact that for a number of months they did not pay attention. They did not listen to front-line workers. There was only one group in the province of British Columbia that suffered as a result of that, and that was the children.

On May 1, 1997, last year, I said to the Minister for Children and Families: "There is clearly a problem. You need more resources." The voices from social workers, from front-line workers across this province, have been clear: month in and month out they are overworked. They can't do the job that this government claimed they were charging them with.

I can tell you that people on this side of the House were committed to making sure that they had the resources so they could do it. On that day, May 1, the minister basically turned aside our request to bring together every member of this House to look through the budget and find the resources within the existing budget that were necessary to provide the children of this province with the support they need to make sure they are protected at times when they're in danger and to provide for the front-line social workers of this ministry -- the Ministry for Children and Families. It's the ministry responsible for children and families, hon. Speaker, and this government turned away.

The Premier of this government scoffed not just at the offer of the opposition to try and come together and offer some constructive solutions so we could find the resources to make sure our children were cared for and protected, but actually at the words of the child, youth and family advocate, Joyce Preston. And this is a quote: "He disagreed with Preston's conclusion that the government isn't putting enough resources into children's protection."

For two years now we have listened to this government mouth the words, but they have not put in the resources that they need to protect children in this province. For two years we have listened to the Premier of this government pretend that he care about the children of British Columbia and yet not fund the Ministry for Children and Families the way it had to be funded to make sure that children were protected.

The problem with this government is that they don't understand that if your priority is protecting children, that's what your priority is. Your priority is not providing for fixed-wage legislation; your priority is not providing for government propaganda. It's protecting children; it's making sure that children are cared for, not politicians.

We now know, after offering on May 1 and having the Minister for Children and Families say, "Well, no, resources really aren't the problem," in spite of what she's hearing from her front-line workers. . . . I grant you, hon. Speaker, that the previous Minister for Children and Families had a lot of difficulty hearing from the people in the field. In fact, many times, and at least once that I can recall, she stood up and gave us a totally wrong report on what had taken place in the field. We certainly hope that won't happen with the existing minister, the new Minister for Children and Families.

[4:45]

Interjection.

G. Campbell: Unfortunately, it's last year's problem as well. It's this year's problem, and we're finding it in every single part of the province.

Interjection.

G. Campbell: The Minister of Transportation may think this is funny, but I can tell you that children who are not protected by this government don't think it's funny for one minute, and neither do families think it's funny for one minute. It's exactly that kind of cavalier approach that has really hallmarked this government's approach to the Ministry for Children and Families.

The fact of the matter is that when you look at the kinds of significant changes that were taking place in that ministry, it is necessary to apply resources to the ministry. It is necessary to supply support to the front-line workers. It is necessary to supply support to the families and the children of British Columbia who need that support. There was lots of money in the $20 billion-plus budget to make sure that those dollars were available -- lots of money available for that. I can tell you this, hon. Speaker: if there is money for one more advertising program, there is certainly enough money to take care of one more child in the province of British Columbia.

On February 26, 1998, after almost a full year, finally the government comes clean with the people of British Columbia. Finally they say: "Oh, we better have some resources." What brought that about? Incredible tragedies in children's lives took place in the summer of 1997. That didn't seem to have any impact. Then we had the exceptional situation that took place in the town of Quesnel, where families felt raided by their government. The courts had to step in and correct a minister who, once again, had tried to mislead the people of British Columbia. The courts had to say that the minister who was responsible for protecting children in this province did not tell the truth. The courts of British Columbia had to do that. The first responsibility of the minister responsible for children and families is not to the government; it's not to a political party; it is to the children of the province of British Columbia.

The Speaker: Hon. member, would you take your seat, please. I recognize the Minister for Children and Families.

Hon. L. Boone: Surely the member recognizes that it is unparliamentary language to say that this minister did not tell 

[ Page 6654 ]

the truth. I would ask the member to withdraw that because that is not true. I would ask him to withdraw those remarks, please.

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I did not say what the minister just reported. I'm glad to withdraw whatever the minister thinks that I said, and I will repeat what I actually said.

The Speaker: No, there is no need to repeat what you actually said. I think it's been accepted, so if you would carry on with your remarks.

G. Campbell: I think a repetition would be excellent, hon. Speaker.

The issue here is that the courts of British Columbia, instead of the minister responsible, had to stand up and say: "This is what really took place." I think the least we should be able to expect, the least the children, the families and the people of British Columbia should be able to expect, is to get the straight goods from the minister responsible for children and families. We knew a long time ago. This government knew a long time ago that they did not have the resources required to protect the children of British Columbia. It wasn't until February 26 that finally the truth came out: a $33.8 million shortfall.

Hon. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this is not the way to make sure that we proceed in the future. I would like to continue to hold out the offer to this government that if they would listen to the front-line workers, if they would work with the opposition, we can find the resources within the existing budget.

This government seems to think the only way to do anything is to continue to add to the budget. That is not the case. There are lots of places in the budget where we can find savings for our priorities, and our priorities have always been the children of British Columbia. I would hope, as we go through this year, that we don't see the same mismanagement, that we don't see the same negligence, that we don't see the same lack of understanding from this government in 1998-99 as we did in 1997-98, because behind that lack of understanding is a tragedy. There will be family tragedies; there will be children's tragedies that we have to do everything we can to stop.

This government has failed that test; they have failed the test consistently. They failed it in 1996; they failed it in 1997. And I just pray that they will not fail the children of British Columbia again in 1998.

Hon. L. Boone: We've heard a lot of talk from the other side about working cooperatively, but I see they've started on the same tone that they did last year -- using families and using children as a political football, which. . . . In fact, the member for Surrey-Cloverdale actually stated that they didn't want to see that happening. The member for Surrey-Cloverdale said last year: "The opposition has stated many times in the House that we are very concerned with the protection of children and do not want to make children a political football. Our concern is for the protection and safety of the children in this province."

Last year we heard this opposition condemning this government, condemning this ministry, condemning the minister for not acting, saying that they didn't remove children, they didn't intervene, they didn't talk fast enough, they didn't work fast enough, they didn't do all of those things. Now we actually have workers who are doing those things, are removing children. And what do they say? They say, "Don't do that; don't remove children; don't act on behalf of the children; don't put the child first," which is what we are doing.

This ministry has some extremely hard-working people throughout the ministry, who are working on our behalf, and yes, they are working with a very high workload. I will say that, I've said that publicly, and I'll say that again. We acknowledge that the workload has to be reduced, and we are doing what we can to reduce that workload.

However, it doesn't help them when individuals go into communities, hold public meetings, condemn the workers who are doing the job the best that they can, condemn the work that they are doing and make it very difficult for them. At the same time, they go into a neighbouring community, put fear in the hearts of every parent out there and say, "You too could be next," when they know full well that there has been an audit done in that community. There has been an audit done in the Williams Lake community, and that community was found to have no problems whatsoever. Knowing full well that that community does not have something to fear, the opposition critic went into that community and said: "You too could be next. You too could have your children removed." Well, tell me. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, "Protect children," and then when we protect children say: "Don't do it. They're not doing their job." We have some hard-working people, and it is absolutely shameful the way that this opposition member has been kicking around the government employees out there.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I know feelings are running high, but I want to bring everyone back to order. I think it's important that as others have had the freedom to make their comments, so too should the minister.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, as I said, the Minister of Finance said it all. You know, I suppose if they could talk out of both sides of their mouth. . . . Maybe if they had a square mouth, they could see more sides of it.

But you can't do everything. We have workers right now who are under a high stress level trying to do a job that is very, very difficult -- a very difficult job. At this time they are condemned if they don't act and something happens to a child. And now we are having condemnation coming from the other side, saying: "You shouldn't do this." We also have workers who cannot speak for themselves, because they cannot talk about issues that are private. We cannot talk about the issues as to why children are removed. So they have to sit there and listen to the bafflegab that comes from the other side of the House, condemning them. They know that if they left a child in a home and something happened to that child, this opposition would be down their throats, condemning them at every opportunity. Shameful discussion! Shameful! Hon. Speaker, we have people that are doing their jobs the best they can. They are stressed. Yes, they are stressed, because it is a very difficult job to do. We all ought to be grateful that they're doing these things. We ought to give them the support that we can, not condemn them at every opportunity.

The Leader of the Opposition just stood there and said that we found that we suddenly needed $30 million on February 28 or whatever it is. We didn't suddenly have an infusion of money at that time to meet those needs. Those are dollars 

[ Page 6655 ]

that have already been spent protecting the children in our province. If you vote against that, then you are voting against protecting our children. You can do that, but I lay it on your shoulders, then, that this money will not be there. Our children will not be protected, and I fail to see how anybody on that side of the House can say that they're not supporting a special warrant of $30 million to provide protection for our children. I trust that these people will vote for this special warrant, knowing that this is going to be providing special support to our children. I hope that they will be supporting this, and I trust that they will all vote in favour of this special warrant.

I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 1), 1998, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1998

On section 1.

C. Clark: I have here the press release the ministry produced when they announced the special warrant, which goes into a very small amount of detail about. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: On a point of order. Could we have a procedural question here? There's section 1, section 2 and then the schedule, which is the warrants. Could we just have some clarification and some order? We have a whole bunch of officials that are ready, willing and able to discuss this matter. But we can't do it if we don't have some order to the debate. I assume we're dealing with section 1, section 2 and then the warrants.

The Chair: Members, for clarification, we are dealing with section 1, section 2. . . . Initially, we're dealing with section 1. Shall section 1 pass?

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On warrant 1.

C. Clark: I want to direct my questions to the first part of the schedule: "to supplement vote 21" in the Ministry for Children and Families. I have the press release that the ministry produced when the warrant was passed, which describes a very small level of detail what the money was specifically being spent on. I wonder if we could start. . . .

The total amount of the special warrant is $33.8 million. According to the ministry-produced press release, the $29.6 million funding portion of it was for residential and related support programs to ensure that children and youth are appropriately protected from harm and abuse. I'd appreciate some detail from the minister about what that $29.6 million represents. Perhaps she could define for us the "residential and related support programs to ensure that children and youth are appropriately protected from harm and abuse," by a category that would be normally included in the estimates.

[5:00]

C. Clark: Could the minister break down further for us the $27.8 million for children in care? For example, what portion of it goes to foster care, and what portion of it goes to staff salaries? I'm looking for a little more detailed breakdown.

Hon. L. Boone: About $26 million of it is for care such as foster care, group home care, and the other part of it would be for the legal-related costs.

C. Clark: So $26 million of it is for foster care, group home care and all the other various related kinds of care, which is a big chunk. I'd ask the minister to define it for us, if she could. How much of that is foster care? How much of that is group home care? Normally, when you look at the estimates you get a little more detail than we've been provided with so far. That's the direction I'm going in. I hope we can try and keep this short.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know why the member thinks we have that broken down, but we don't have that broken down, and we don't have the ability to break that down. That is all included in the costs that are there. It's about $23,200 per child for care.

C. Clark: Maybe I should be more specific and help the minister and her officials understand my question better. Perhaps I wasn't very clear. I assume that the ministry knows how much it pays for foster care -- the total to contractors in foster care. I assume the ministry knows how much was budgeted for that as well. Maybe we could start with just foster care. Those are contractors that are paid by the government, that exist as a category for the ministry. Maybe I'm taking a leap of faith here, but it seems logical to me that the ministry would have access to those numbers.

Hon. L. Boone: Well, no, it's all in one budget; it's all on one line. It's foster care, residential care. All of those things are on one line of the budget.

C. Clark: I am informed by our able former Finance critic and deputy leader that in his experience, the government in most ministries keeps better records than that. I am sure that the Ministry for Children and Families isn't the only ministry that keeps less than good records. I am sure that the Ministry for Children and Families doesn't have a substantially different way of accounting than other ministries. I mean, we are talking about $26 million. Can the minister provide any more detail at all about where that $26 million went? Or does she not know? Do the officials not keep any records? When you have a line item of $26 million, isn't there anybody in the Ministry for Children and Families who figures out which portion of that $26 million went where?

Hon. L. Boone: I guess I can't make it much more clear to the member. We have residential care programs, and foster parents are part of that. This is our budget. This is just part of that budget for residential care. I don't know how many other ways I can say it that will make you understand that. At this particular time I don't have the breakdown. I mean, I suppose 

[ Page 6656 ]

we could go out and ask for the breakdown at some point in time, but at this particular time I don't have that breakdown. This is just part of the residential care program.

C. Clark: This is a disgrace. It is an embarrassment to this House that this minister would come in here with her officials for the interim supply debate without the numbers to back it up. What does this minister think we do in this chamber? What does she think the interim supply debate is about? It is about talking about the numbers and where this government is spending people's tax dollars. That's what it's about.

You get a number like $26 million, and this minister can't even tell us where she is spending that. It's not a matter of me not understanding the answer or her not understanding the question; it's a matter of her not coming prepared. It is a matter of this minister having so little respect for this chamber and so little respect for the taxpayers, who pay her cheque every month -- the taxpayers who pay for her ministry -- that she can't even come with the numbers that she knows, as a minister of the Crown who has been in and out of cabinet a few times, I grant you. . . . She should know what happens in interim supply debate. She should have known that these very basic questions would be asked.

Nobody wants to be here all night asking these questions. What we'd like from this side of the House is a simple breakdown of where the ministry is spending its money. But if the smallest chunk she can break her budget down into is $26 million, that is not good enough. Taxpayers deserve better than that. Everybody pays for this government, and we deserve to know where that money is going -- $26 million that was spent without approval, without scrutiny.

We frequently get up in this House every year, and we talk about. . . . Goodness knows that this government, when they were in opposition, said the same thing every year: "Not a dime without debate." We are not going to let the government. . . . This is what they said when they were in opposition: "We are not going to let the government go out and spend money when they make decisions secretly in cabinet without a shred of scrutiny from the public." That is what this government used to say when they were in opposition. Well, now here we are in opposition. The government has done that year after year after year. They've abused the budgeting process, not even lived up to their basic obligations to the public and the people that pay their cheques every month -- not even done that.

Every year they've done that, and now they come into this chamber after having been through interim supply time and again, and they can't even come up with the information. The smallest amount of information that they can break their budget down into is $26 million. My God, it's no wonder the finances of this province are in such a mess.

When government doesn't even know where it's spending its money, is it any wonder that taxpayers are concerned about why they should keep giving it to government? Is it any wonder that taxpayers. . . ? When a bigger chunk comes out of their budgets -- out of their taxes and their cheques every single year -- and the services from the government get worse, most people wonder why. Well, here we have a perfect example. We have a minister that walks into the House with her officials for an interim supply debate which she's been expecting, which she's known about since February, and she doesn't even have the basic information to present to this House. That is a total disgrace. It is an embarrassment not just to this House but to every British Columbian that you claim to represent.

The Minister of Finance. . . . It's no wonder. We've seen the chain of command in this government. The Minister of Finance started out in the Ministry for Children and Families, and she messed it up. So she went to Health, and then what happened? The new Minister for Children and Families messed it up. She went to Health; she bounced the new minister to Finance, and guess what. We've got a new Minister for Children and Families, and now we know that none of them know what they are doing -- not a single one of them.

How long is it going to be before this minister, who has already proven herself totally incapable of keeping track of her own budget, finds her way to Finance and that minister finds her way to Advanced Education or eventually to the back bench? Who knows how long that's going to be? It's a disgrace and it's an embarrassment. This ministry has existed for well over a year. We have been through three ministers now. This minister has a duty to inform the public about where she is spending her money. That is democracy; that is what the system is all about.

When the public give their money to government, they expect to know where their money has gone. The Minister of Finance can sit there, and she can move everything off the books. She can make the deficit look like it's almost zero when we know it's really a billion dollars. I suppose she can try and do that. But our job, on behalf of the public, is to stand up in this House and find out where that money has really been spent, and that is the purpose of the interim supply debate. It's for us to be able to get up here on behalf of the public and find out where their money is going. For the minister to sit there and say: "Well, I'm sorry, I don't know what I'm talking about. Gee, I'm sorry. I didn't feel like getting my books together. I didn't feel like coming with the information today, or maybe I just don't have it. Maybe my ministry is so out of the loop and off the ball that it doesn't even know where it's spending its money. . . ."

Well, if that is true, then this minister has no right to sit in this House. If that is true, she should not be here and she shouldn't collect another penny from the taxpayers, who are paying her to do a job. It's disgraceful. We already know. . . .

Hon. L. Boone: Do you have a question?

C. Clark: You know, the minister asked me if I've got a question. I've got up with a bunch of questions already -- questions asked in the friendly spirit of debate. But this minister says: "Well, gee, I didn't come prepared. I didn't feel like it. I didn't have enough respect for the legislative chamber. I didn't have enough respect for British Columbians. I didn't have enough respect for the parents and the families that depend on my ministry to supply them with the information that they need, so that they know that I'm doing my job. I didn't feel like coming in and demonstrating that I could do my job." Is that what the minister is saying? That is incredibly cavalier. It's incredibly contemptuous of the public, and it's a disgrace.

I will ask this minister again if she can break down that $26 million into a smaller chunk, because really, when you're talking about that much money. . . . I know we have some members in the government who say: "Oh, it's just peanuts. Gee, when you think about how much the government really spends in its total budget, $26 million is just peanuts." Well, it's not peanuts to me. It's not peanuts to all those social workers who are working with 70 cases in their caseloads because there aren't enough people in their offices. How many social workers and how many child protection workers does $26 million pay for? Good question, huh? Well, that's the 

[ Page 6657 ]

question we're here to ask today. That's the question that the minister has a duty to answer today, because that's the purpose of the interim supply debate. And we expect an answer.

[5:15]

I hope, as we start this new session of the House, that this minister can get off on the right foot. And here's her chance. Here is her chance to get off on the right foot. I mean, this is a ministry that has been well known for covering up and for obfuscating almost since its inception. Now is this minister's chance to make a change, to prove that her appointment makes her different from her predecessors, that it signals a change in this government, that they care about children in British Columbia. That's her opportunity here, and that's what I'm offering to her.

I will ask again. She is accountable for this money. The taxpayers have entrusted her with this money. It's central to our democratic system that she should explain where that money has gone. So can she break down that $26 million into any smaller figure and tell us where some of it has been spent?

Hon. L. Boone: My goodness. Finally you take a little breather, eh? Take a little water. Calm down a bit over there.

Hon. Chair, the member there may not like the way the records are captured. She may not like the way the financing is taking place. However, the bottom line is that the $26 million has gone into residential care. That has all gone into supporting children. There are no workers being hired on this. This is strictly the number that is there to support the families. I advised you that it cost $23,200 to support a child in care. Those are for the residential facilities, whether they be foster parents or whether they be group homes. You may not like it, but that is the way our records go: it goes into residential care.

Now, if the member wishes, we can at some point in time do a breakdown. It may take a lot of staff work to do a breakdown to find out how much of this went into foster care, how much went into residential care, how much went into group home care and all of those things. However, at this particular time our budget shows that residential care is $26 million. That goes to support and to provide funding for all those kids who have been taken into care.

I don't think that we're unaccountable; I think that we are accounting for those moneys. I don't think that we're saying that those kids don't count or those families don't count; I say we are saying that they count. I'm just saying that that money has gone into supporting children whether they be in foster care or in a group home. All of that money has gone into supporting children -- very worthwhile money that I don't think anybody would object to. We need to put that money into supporting the children out there.

C. Clark: Hon. Chair, perhaps I should thank the minister for the secret glimpse into the way cabinet works. Now we know that when a cabinet minister wants a couple of million dollars -- no, many millions of dollars -- to spend, what she does is walk into cabinet and say: "Can I have 26 million bucks? I'm not going to tell you what it's spent on; we don't keep our records that way. I'm not going to tell you how we're going to spend it. Just give me $26 million." And the cabinet goes: "Okay." Is that how this cabinet works? Because if it does work that way, it's a rare glimpse in, I'll tell you.

You know, if it does work that way, it will certainly explain why this government has failed to balance a budget ever since it got into office. It will certainly explain why the economic growth in this province is so slow and why we are sliding into a recession. If that is the way this government manages its money, taxpayers are not getting their money's worth out of these cabinet ministers.

It's not just the opposition that has a duty to ask questions; it's all members of the government too. It's the members of cabinet. It's grossly irresponsible when somebody comes into cabinet and says: "I want some extra money. And do you know what? I don't feel like going to the House and having debate on it. It's urgent, I tell you. I know that I need it, but I can't tell you what it's for, because I don't know." It is grossly irresponsible for cabinet members to sit there and say: "Okay, you can have it." Even worse, it is grossly irresponsible for a minister to sit there and ask for the money from cabinet herself and not demand answers from her officials and not even question them about where that money's going. Because $26 million is not peanuts. That is a lot of money. That is a lot of foster care or a lot of group home care. But you know what? We don't know which, because this minister says that she doesn't bother to ask. She never bothered to ask.

So what's going on in the Ministry for Children and Families? What's going on in this cabinet when their accounting procedures are so poor that she can't even break down that amount of money? That is disgraceful. It is an embarrassment, it's disgraceful, and it's an insult to everybody who pays for this government.

You know, this government said in the last election that British Columbians deserved a government that worked as hard as the people who paid for it. Well, I'll tell you, the British Columbians that are left working in British Columbia must be working a heck of a lot harder, because I don't see this minister or this cabinet or the members of this government doing anything more than punching the clock. I don't see them asking the tough questions that need to be asked. I don't see them coming up with solutions to the really serious problems that we face in British Columbia. I haven't seen that.

In fact, today we've seen the exact opposite. We have seen the astonishing admission by this minister: "Well, I forgot to ask. It's 26 million bucks, but I didn't remember to ask for the numbers. I'm going into interim supply debate, but don't worry; I trust you guys." When they went into cabinet, why didn't any of the cabinet members say: "Gee, you know, minister, we'd like a little more detail. That's a lot of money, and it's taxpayers' dollars we're responsible for"? Why didn't that happen? What is the matter with this system when you've got a minister who doesn't ask questions of her officials, a cabinet that doesn't ask questions of their fellow ministers and a government that sits mute while their representatives in cabinet prove to be totally unaccountable, irresponsible and embarrassing to British Columbians?

If the minister doesn't keep the records in any way that might allow her to break it down from $26 million -- and I know, because the ministry operates on a regional basis -- perhaps she has at least remembered to ask her officials 

[ Page 6658 ]

whether they have broken it down by region and whether they have any sense of how much of this $26 million is being spent where and in what region.

Hon. L. Boone: We do have the breakdown in terms of the numbers, and we'll get that for you in a very short time. We do have the breakdown in terms of the numbers. We'll get that for you in a very short time. I'll bring that back to you.

C. Clark: Thank you.

Interjection.

C. Clark: Yes. We could declare a national holiday.

From a quick calculation from the. . . . If it costs $23,000 to support a child in care, we calculate it at about 10,000 child-months that would have been represented by this portion of the special warrant. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not quite sure what the question is there. We said that it cost $23,200 per year for a child, so I'm not quite sure what your question is.

C. Clark: It costs $23,000 a year to support a child in care. If you look at the total special warrant for residential care, that represents 1,000 child-years of children in care that have been paid for by the government. What I'm trying to get at here is how many child years were paid for by the government for children in care -- how many children by the year -- by this portion of the special warrant.

Hon. L. Boone: We anticipate 1,200. I think it's 1,200 that we're dealing with.

C. Clark: Is that 1,200 new children that came into care that you didn't originally estimate for in the estimates of the previous year?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that's an additional 1,200.

C. Clark: Does that 1,200 represent a full year? What I'm trying to get at is the difference between the way we calculate FTEs -- for example, where you've got. . . . Is it actually 1,200 children in care, or is it 1,200 child-years that you're talking about?

Hon. L. Boone: I'm not sure about the terminology you're using, like 12 child-years, or whatever it is there.

As you know, children come in, they go out, they come in, they go out. But this is an anticipated 1,200. . . . We're saying "anticipated" because this special warrant was done at the end of February, and, of course, the fiscal year doesn't end till the end of March. So we're still working through this month as well. But it's 1,200 full years with children coming in and out. It's not necessarily 1,200 kids that have been in care for a full year, but it's 1,200 years, I guess, of service for those. . . . No, it's years of service for 1,200 children. I guess that's it, yeah.

[5:30]

At the start of the year, when we were going through the estimates process last summer, you must have developed a budget and sufficient resources to fund the anticipated number of children that were going to be in care and come under the responsibility of your ministry. So you would have included that at that point and felt comfortable, as we were going through the estimates process, that you had sufficient funds. So if we call this $2,000 a month, it is roughly 12,000 child-months. That's probably easier to deal with, because children come and go.

At what point in the year did you realize that the numbers were getting out of whack -- that you had more children coming into care, that you were getting over budget, that you were beginning to build up a shortage, that by the time we got to February your whole budget for this particular cost category would be spent and you'd have to go and seek a special warrant for an additional sum?

Hon. L. Boone: They go up and down from month to month. I can give you the percentage change, if you like, from month to month. The year we're looking at, of course, is from April of 1997. There was actually a 2.2 percent increase in that month; in May, 1.3 percent; then a 1.7 percent increase; then it actually went down in July, a decrease of 0.8 percent; in August, 1.4 percent; then a decrease of 0.3 percent for September; October, 1.5 percent; November, 2.6 percent; December, minus 0.2 percent; January, 0.4 percent; February, 1.8 percent. As you can see, it goes up and down.

F. Gingell: If there is variation, like all kinds of government costs or government revenues, there must be some kind of pattern that you anticipate that builds up over the year. I would imagine that holidays or vacation times -- these kinds of issues -- may well affect the number of children that are required to be taken into care. From what the minister said, the recognition that there were more children coming into care started early in the year -- started right as soon as the year started. It was April, May, and you suddenly got a greater number. Even though the numbers go up and down from that point on, they tend to stay with you. Was there not a recognition when we were going through the estimates process last year that perhaps more resources would be required to look after this critically important responsibility?

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously the member knows I wasn't going through the estimates last year, so I can't comment as to what the minister of the day was thinking.

F. Gingell: Perhaps the officials that are with you could advise you, minister, whether there was a recognition last summer that these costs were getting out of line. Or did all that knowledge go with Mr. Plecas when he left for other responsibilities?

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously we don't have Mr. Plecas here either. What I am told is that they were looking at some means of efficiencies within the ministry, and they were hoping that they could cover some of the costs by efficiencies, such as a CPR review that was taking place. Those efficiencies, I think it's fair to say, never really materialized. That's why we are facing a special warrant right now.

F. Gingell: Just like this government's promises to reduce regulation in industry and all kinds of other things, it's all talk. You make a press release, and you believe that it has happened. You don't bring the discipline and the dedication to following through.

Can the minister advise if any of this overexpenditure is related to the issues that surrounded the attempt by the gov-

[ Page 6659 ]

ernment to withdraw from adoptive parents of special needs children, which I believe are funded through your ministry, the monthly support payments that had been promised to those parents at the time that the adoption of special needs children took place? Or was it anticipated that funding would continue all the way through the 1997-98 fiscal period?

Hon. L. Boone: None of the special warrant is related to the costs that you're talking about.

C. Clark: The minister indicated that one of the efficiencies that the government expected would have come through the restructuring for contracts. I wonder if the minister could advise how much that anticipated saving was expected to be. I guess I could put it in the reverse: how much did it turn out not to be, so that we ended up with the requirement for the special warrant?

Hon. L. Boone: We're trying to sort through the various back-and-forths that took place there, with going to Treasury Board, etc. Of course, I don't have the corporate memory, because I wasn't there. So it was hoped to save $24 million.

C. Clark: I notice that the review of the review didn't start until this new minister came in, but, of course, the special warrant was signed in February. So can the minister advise what happened that made the ministry realize that they weren't going to meet these efficiencies -- that they were going to require more money?

Hon. L. Boone: I think it's fair to say that when I came into the ministry -- and my deputy as well -- it became clear in our review of the CPR review that the efficiencies just weren't going to be there, that the cost savings just weren't there. And that came from talking to staff out in the field and everybody that we spoke to. So I asked for a review of the review -- the contract and program restructuring, actually -- because I wanted to be assured that services were not going to be decreased to individual families; that people who were concerned out there. . . . As you know, you've heard concerns expressed from people that there were necessary plans in place to do a transition from one service provider to another, that there were transition dollars to deal with employees as well to recognize some of the problems with regards to their problems. So I needed to be assured that those things were being covered, and that's why I asked for the review. But I think we also were aware -- and I think the ministry was probably aware earlier on -- that in fact the savings weren't there and that we weren't going to be able to have the dollar savings that we had expected.

C. Clark: I understand why the minister initiated the review. My question, though, was really more focused on what happened in the ministry that made them realize. . . . I recognize that the minister came in and initiated a review, but it was long before that, on February 26, that the cabinet signed the special warrant -- and I think the minister was a member of Treasury Board at the time. They needed the special warrant, they needed more money, and one of the reasons that they needed more money is because they weren't going to meet the efficiencies that they thought they might find in the contract and program restructuring. So my question, very specifically, really focuses on what happened at that time to make the ministry change its projections that forced the ministry to reassess and recognize that there weren't going to be savings, or that they couldn't expect the savings that they had originally budgeted for from contract and program restructuring.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess it's just a matter of actually working through it. And when the various regions out there. . . . As you know, the 20 different regions were all approaching this on a different time schedule, all in a different manner. Some of them hadn't. . . . Some of them were ready to go, and we recognized that the information coming from the field was that the dollar savings just weren't there. I think that recognition came about before I came into this position, and it was just. . . . We became assured that the dollars weren't there. And so it was something that we had to deal with, and we did.

C. Clark: The estimates that we're dealing with -- the supply that the government is looking for here -- deals with '97-98. My understanding is that contract and program restructuring wasn't going to occur until the new fiscal year began. And it is my memory that contract and program restructuring was not supposed to start and was not supposed to even be yielding any savings because it wouldn't be in place as early as February 26. I ask this question because I think I must be missing something about the way the ministry is thinking about this. The special warrant was signed on February 26. It's to provide supply until March 31, but program restructuring wasn't supposed to kick in and actually yield any savings until after that. So I'm wondering why the ministry budgeted for those efficiencies from contract and program review at a period of time in the budget when contractor program restructuring wouldn't even have been completed, and they couldn't even have anticipated any savings for that fiscal year at all.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't really know why those things were booked. I do know that I have been told that there were some savings booked, and we expected to find some efficiencies in the ministry in other areas as well. I do know that there were some dollar savings booked there, and that's why we ended up with a shortfall. As to why it was booked, I can't tell you right now.

[5:45]

My issue here is that the contract and program review was to apply to new contracts. I recognize that the minister is now reviewing the review and it's on hold, but it was to apply to new contracts. There wouldn't have been any savings that could have been yielded from that until the new fiscal year anyway. Call me suspicious, but that leads me to think that maybe the ministry thought that they were going to get some savings out of contracts that were already in place. That is the only conclusion I can come to. Can the minister tell me if those savings that they expected to find from contract and program review were expected to come from contracts that were already in place and whose terms were not yet up before they came up for renegotiation?

[ Page 6660 ]

Hon. L. Boone: I think the member is confusing contract and program restructuring with something else. Contract and program restructuring was not just new programs or new contracts; it was pulling together existing contracts. In fact, as I said, one of the problems that we had was that they're all operating on a different basis. We have some that have already happened, where people have come together voluntarily and restructured the way they operate. It was hoped, I guess, that they would be able to find that.

I also really object to the member saying that we don't know where the dollars have been spent. We do know where the $26 million was spent; it was spent in services, in providing residential care to children. We do know that. I object to you doing this, and I hope that we're not going to get into that kind of banter back and forth, because I don't think it serves any of us very well. The member opposite who dealt with me in the past knows that when we operate in a cooperative manner, we generally get a lot more information exchanged. What I truly want to do is to give you information.

Yes, there were some expectations that we could get some savings on the contract review restructuring. Like I said, there are some that have already started restructuring. Others were not, and quite frankly it was all operating on a different basis -- 20 different regions, all operating at 20 different timetables, all operating differently. Those are the concerns that I raise. There were some expectations of savings there. There were some expectations that we could make savings internally through contract and program restructuring, with us not having to administer as many contracts. It's not unusual for Treasury Board to set a high level for a ministry to try and meet, whether it be in saying that they have to achieve some efficiencies in certain areas. . . . Unfortunately, we couldn't achieve those efficiencies due to the problems around the contract and program restructuring, and on top of that, when we had an influx of more children into care, we couldn't just suddenly say that we weren't going to provide for those children. We do have to provide for those children. We do have to provide for those children. We have to make sure that the foster parents and the group homes receive the necessary dollars to make sure that those kids are kept in care. So we are in a bit of a dilemma there. It's not like in Highways, where we can say: "Well, we just won't pave this, or we won't do those things." We have to make sure that those children are taken care of. We have to feed them; we have to make sure that they are clothed and housed. I don't think anybody out there would object to us doing those things.

C. Clark: Okay, so the $24 million that the ministry had expected to save from contract and program review and restructuring was going to come out of existing contracts that they held with contractors out there, I understand.

Interjection.

C. Clark: All right. I guess $24 million is a big, big chunk of money to try and squeeze out of contracts from many contractors who are operating on a shoestring basis. My question is, then. . . . The minister says that they have been successful in some cases with contract and program review, that some of them have already voluntarily gotten together and that there have been some administrative savings as a result of that. Can the minister tell us, then, what kinds of savings they did get out of the portions of the contract and program review that the minister has indicated have gone ahead and have yielded some savings?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know. Quite frankly, I don't think we achieved any savings per se in that. We did downsize our headquarters from 800 to 450. We achieved some savings there. Some of those individuals may have been dealing with contract and program restructuring, but I think it's fair to say that we did not achieve any of the efficiencies that we were looking for.

C. Clark: I want to stick with the contract and program review for a just a few more minutes, if I can. On the $24 million saving that had been budgeted for, could the minister provide us with a breakdown of where that was supposed to come from in the original estimates, which they're now trying to make up for? Did the ministry break it down between the. . . ? We know that the ministry has different ways of classifying the different kinds of services that are provided -- for special needs, for drug and alcohol -- through all those contracted services. So can the minister give us a breakdown, then, of what sections of ministry spending they expected to achieve those efficiencies in?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, this member is getting back to last year's budget, which is something that I can't do at this particular time. We're here to discuss the special warrant, and I'm asking that we restrict it to that.

C. Clark: Well, hon. Chair, I hate to have to inform the minister, because I know that she's been a member of this House for a long time, but special warrants are last year's budget. They are to make up for overruns on last year's budget. It's a special request for money because the government didn't budget enough in last year's budget. That's what it is. We are still in the last fiscal year. That's what we're talking about; that's the information we're seeking.

All I'm asking is: why did the ministry overshoot its mark? Why did the ministry underestimate how much it needed? The minister indicated that one of the reasons was that there was $24 million which was supposed to be gotten out of contract and program review. That $24 million got pushed aside, that target got pushed aside, and now the ministry has to get more money out of this special warrant we are discussing today. What I am asking is: why couldn't they meet that target for the $24 million in efficiencies? And where were they expecting to get it in the first place in their original estimates?

Hon. L. Boone: We expected that we would be able to achieve some efficiencies in administration. As I said earlier, that wasn't done.

C. Clark: Was that an estimate that the ministry came up with across the board for contracts that are out there? Was it just a ballpark figure that the ministry came up with? Or did the ministry come up with any specific figures for what they thought might be a larger saving in administration in some sectors than in others? All of us who have dealt in the non-profit sector know that some areas are heavier on administration and some are lighter. Some have greater savings to be had, and some have less. I'd ask the minister if she could just provide us with a little more detailed breakdown of where they expected those savings to come from and if they did do it on a sector-by-sector basis. Or is it just a ballpark figure for the total contract and program review?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, earlier in the budget procedures last year it was expected that we would be able to do the contract and program restructuring sooner than we were able to do -- or not able to do. So there was an expectation 

[ Page 6661 ]

that we could save between 6 and 24 percent in administrative costs from organizations as they reduced the organizational structure. If you were able to pull together ten organizations and have them come down into five, you should be able to see some administrative efficiencies. As we said, that was done when we originally started out and when they first thought that they would be able to do these efficiencies. Later on, I guess, that timetable was moved on to April 1. Originally, when it started off, it was anticipated that we could do some of those changes sooner rather than later.

C. Clark: Could the minister tell us what the original time line was that the ministry was working from?

Hon. L. Boone: September of last year was the first time frame, and then it was moved onward from that.

C. Clark: I just want to be clear that September was the date that the ministry originally anticipated that they would have contract and program review in place. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: Can the minister give us a breakdown. . . . I guess she's not able to give us a breakdown by sector within the ministry of where the savings were expected to be found. Can she give us a breakdown by region? Perhaps that's a better way to go after this. I know that the ministry is organized into 20 regions. Can they give us a breakdown of the savings on that basis?

Hon. L. Boone: That's one of the problems that I'm having reviewed -- and what Doug Allen is looking at -- because we found that each region was doing things differently. I really need to get more information on that. That's one of the things that Doug Allen will in fact be looking at.

C. Clark: My question really was: where did the ministry see the savings on a regional basis before? I know that the minister has put in place a review of the review. I know that. What I'm asking is: where did the ministry anticipate the savings on a regional basis when they came up with their budget that we are now being asked to supplement with this special warrant?

Hon. L. Boone: The regions were not given a target. They were asked to look to see what they could achieve, depending on the number of contracts that they had in the region and how they could amalgamate some of those to achieve some efficiencies. Obviously, in some regions there are more contracts than in others, and hopefully they could get more efficiencies than others. But there was not a target given to them in each region. As I stated, those were some of the problems that I saw and why I need to get more definitive information with regards to what exactly the savings are and how they can be achieved.

[6:00]

Hon. L. Boone: The ministry looked at the contracts, and they were looking at about 3.5 percent savings based on what the contracts were for each region.

C. Clark: Did the ministry anticipate, then, that each region would make a 3.5 percent saving on its contract obligations? I recognize that this is, of course, within this current fiscal year which we're now in. Did each region assume that they would make a 3.5 percent saving, or did that differ from region to region? If it did differ, could the minister provide us with those numbers?

Hon. L. Boone: Not everybody was asked to find 3.5 percent. They varied from area to area, and they were asked to report back to us as to how much money they could find. As I've said to you, the dollars just weren't there in terms of the amount of money. We didn't say: "Find a million dollars in your area." We asked them to review the contracts and programs in their areas to see if they could restructure them, bring them together to find some efficiencies and then advise us what efficiencies they found. Unfortunately, we have not found a huge number of efficiencies there.

C. Clark: That's because they're not there; those administrative efficiencies aren't there. When you bankrupt 80 percent of the non-profits, you drive 80 percent of the volunteers and 80 percent of the fundraisers out of the system too. So those savings are not there. I hope that at the end of this review that will also be the conclusion of the minister's consultant. We know that not only are they not there, but that the restructuring as it was proposed will drive up costs. We know that.

So did each of the 20 regions provide the minister with some numbers and some targets? If they did, could she also provide us with those targets?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, we took a global figure of 3.5 percent. We said: "We should be able to achieve some 3.5 percent in the contract and program restructuring." That was our global number for the ministry. We then asked the regions to go out and see what efficiencies they could find, and they were to report back. But we did not go out and say: "You must find X number of dollars' efficiencies in your region."

C. Clark: I thank the minister. I understand that the ministry didn't go out and set targets and tell the regions that they had to find a certain amount of money. What I'm asking is: if instead of that, the ministry went out and said: "We'd like you to find savings. . . ." What I'm interested in knowing is what the regions came back with. What were the numbers that they came back with on a region-by-region basis? The reason I'm interested in that is because I want to figure out why we didn't meet this target and why we need the special warrant.

Hon. L. Boone: We haven't finished it yet. No, they haven't come back to us, but there have been three that are close to completion. As you know, they have indicated to us that the savings aren't there. But the rest have not reported back to us, because it hasn't been finished, and they're not. . . . We can't get the finished product until they've actually finished their restructuring program.

C. Clark: How did the ministry come up with the $24 million number? Was that a ballpark figure?

Hon. L. Boone: I've told you three times now. It's 3.5 percent of the overall contractual amount. Yes, it was a ballpark figure. They figured that if they went out there 3.5 percent, they should be able to find 3.5 percent efficiencies in restructuring.

[ Page 6662 ]

C. Clark: The press release from the ministry also refers to higher than anticipated compensation increases for child development centres. I wonder if the minister could expand on that for us and tell us what the level of higher than anticipated compensation increases for child development centres was.

Hon. L. Boone: That's Community Living bargaining that took place last summer. The compensation packages were about $4 million, I believe, in additional costs that we did, to supply dollars to increase the wages of those who are providing that very worthwhile service of Community Living and services to the adult handicapped.

C. Clark: Can the minister tell us if that total amount for higher than anticipated compensation increases is for the unionized sector, for the non-unionized sector or for both?

Hon. L. Boone: These are agreements that were bargained, so they're through the bargaining units. If the member is interested, there's a lot here. I would be happy to have this information sent to her office so that she can see -- rather than me reading it into the record or anything like that -- the actual increases and the number of dollars that were given to each society. There are a lot of different ones here.

C. Clark: I appreciate the minister's offer. I'd very much like to see that and have the opportunity to review it. I take it from her answer, then, that it does include both unionized and non-unionized employees in the Community Living sector in general. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: No. This is the result of collective bargaining agreements. Those are with the unionized sector.

C. Clark: Does the $4.2 million that they bargained for include detox, alcohol and drug services, Community Living, child development centres and services to people with mental handicaps and multiple disabilities? Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: And the document, I assume, breaks it down by those sections as well, does it?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: I want to get back, just quickly. . . . I know some other members want to have an opportunity to ask some questions, and I don't want to take up the whole evening, that's for sure. The minister did talk about streamlining headquarters, and I just want to touch on that a little bit -- a downsized headquarters to 450 people. I just want to make sure that I'm not confused about the September date that the minister offered for contract and program review and the administrative streamlining that was supposed to occur as a result of that. Was that deadline just for the headquarters streamlining, or was it for across-the-board streamlining that the ministry anticipated in the non-profit sector?

Hon. L. Boone: That streamlining took place very early in the formation of this ministry, when we pulled everybody together. That streamlining took place quite early in the history of this ministry. The September deadline is the deadline that we have been told. As I said, our corporate history is not that long. We've been advised that September was the original deadline the ministry had set for contract and program restructuring. I guess it became clear that that was not achievable, and so it was moved on. It was originally anticipated that they could do the contract and program restructuring by September.

C. Clark: One final thing. Did the $24 million include savings and efficiencies that would be achieved through supported child care as well?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

G. Wilson: I only have a few questions.

One of the difficulties about ministers who get shuffled into a cabinet position right before these estimates is that they often are not as familiar with expenditures as we might like them to be. What I didn't hear the minister say in response to the questions of the official opposition critic is: of the $33.8 million, how many children does that affect? What is the total number of children impacted by this additional expenditure?

Hon. L. Boone: There are 1,200 additional children that have been taken into care, over and above what we originally anticipated.

G. Wilson: So in the original anticipation, perhaps the minister can tell us what the total was of the number of children either in care or anticipated to be in care, so we can get some understanding of the total number of children in the care of this government and of this province at this time.

Hon. L. Boone: In February 1998 the total number of children in care was 9,292. That's an increase of 14.1 percent since February of 1997.

G. Wilson: I don't know how anybody else reacts, but if you consider that 9,292, which I think is the correct number, and we can add 1,200 to that. . . . Or is that inclusive of the 1,200? I see the minister saying that that's inclusive of the 1,200. That's a staggering number of young British Columbians in the care of this government, receiving this kind of money.

I was interested in listening to the questions of the official opposition critic with respect to how this Children and Families ministry is going. I'm curious to know whether or not the warrant we're dealing with now, the $33.8 million, is really a matter of a 14.1 percent increase as a result of a calamity that is going on out in our community -- rising poverty. I think I mentioned that in second reading debate. It is one of the systemic reasons why you're seeing so many children in care now. It's because of rising poverty, and there's a whole host of reasons for that. Or is it because the legislation that was brought in by this government through past ministers -- and I recognize that this minister wasn't responsible -- puts requirements upon ministry staff to act in areas where they previously would not have acted? I'm curious to know whether or not it's a legislative change that has created this need for additional resources. Or is it because there is systemic and rising poverty in our communities that is pushing us into having this alarming number of children in care?

Hon. L. Boone: I think they are very good questions, hon. member. I think it's probably a little of both and a lot of some. You're right, this is an outrageous number of children to have 

[ Page 6663 ]

in care. But from my perspective, I guess I would sooner that they be in care than be at risk. That's one of the problems that workers are being faced with.

[6:15]

But you're also correct that as a result of the Gove report, the changes that took place in the legislation and that have come about through the risk assessment tool that workers now have do mean that they have to put the child first, deal with issues and act differently than they did in the past. I think it's also fair to say that some of the tools that have been given to people out there mean that there are more children being reported -- that people who are in contact with children, whether they be educators or child care workers or whatever it is, are reporting situations more. So we have to investigate those. And as a result of those, we do see more children coming in.

But it is an alarming number. I would prefer, of course, to have no children in care. But I think we have to recognize that our workers are doing the best job they can. They are making sure that the children they come in contact with are being serviced, in that they are not left in risk situations.

G. Wilson: But picking up where the minister left off, in terms of the workers, I'm sure that the minister has read the report card on the Ministry for Children and Families prepared on November 26, 1997, by the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union. The report card goes through, I think, 14 different issues in which they indicate that the government and this ministry are failing. The grade and some of the comments are just phenomenal. I mean, just let me give you one example, hon. Chair. It says here: "It is traumatizing to work here. We're observing the dismantling of social programs by an NDP government! They have put their faith in the wrong people. Only a commitment to a viable public service will address the structural needs of B.C.'s children and their families." This report is full of those kinds of comments. Yet if we read it, the documentation, within these front-line workers. . . . This report is quite thorough, and it's got a whole host of different issues addressed.

One of the things that was very clear back in November -- that is when the minister said, I believe in response to the official opposition critic, that they were already considering looking at the fiscal viabilities of this new ministry. . . . One of the directions that's being promoted and being put forward by members of the BCGEU, who are front-line workers, people who know what's going on, is that the new structure that this government entertained in terms of the bringing together and amalgamation of ministries wasn't going to work. In fact, they made it really clear in November that this was going to cost more money. That's made really clear in this November report.

I wonder if the minister can tell us, now that we're faced with having to spend or approve an overrun of $33.8 million, whether or not any of the three recommendations that were made by the front-line workers -- namely to "alleviate the workload crisis; provide adequate training to workers; reduce the undue delay and wait-lists for services; ensure that service providers' jobs are safeguarded through contract reform. . . ." That's No. 1. No. 2 is: "Restore the alcohol and drug, youth corrections and probation services to their former ministries until such time as a process is in place to ensure a smooth transition. . . ." No. 3 is: "Engage in a meaningful consultation process to allow front-line workers input and involvement in the new ministry in order to ensure quality service delivery." Those three issues underscore what were identified last November as serious needs, to both address the needs -- rising needs, an alarming rise in the need of family services, especially for "children in crisis. . . ." I put that in quotes because of some dispute as to whether or not all of them are in crisis, or whether or not the government is just acting because there are children in poverty. Poverty is not a crisis. It's no shame to be poor. Because a family -- especially a single-parent family -- is poor, that is not necessarily a reason for the government to take their children away. Yet there's a growing number of cases that fall into that category, which we'll deal with in a debate at another time.

I'm just wondering whether or not there was any attempt made by the government to address these needs. And hon. Chair, it's frustrating, because in a way I think members of the Liberal opposition. . . . Certainly I would prefer, in some senses, that we had the former minister here to tell us in detail what was going on, because I realize this minister is new to the job and, you know, there are realistic expectations as to how much she can be aware of at this particular point in time. But clearly this was all documented. I wonder if the minister can tell us what steps were taken to alleviate the cost overruns and what has clearly become a crisis in service delivery.

Hon. L. Boone: Let's make it clear that the cost overruns we have are not due to ministry overruns in terms of the administration of the ministry. These are cost overruns where we are providing care for children. So it's not overruns for the ministry; I need to make that clear.

But in answer to your questions, I think yes, we are doing a lot of these various things. I think if you talk to the union today, they would have a different view of what's taking place right now. I have recognized, as I've said, that we do have a workload problem. We have been working with the union. We now have an assessment tool to assess the workload, recognizing that workloads differ. You can't just go on a case basis, because various cases are different; some take a lot more work to deal with than others. So we have a workload assessment tool. We are assessing those workloads. And we have made a commitment to the union to work with them to put extra staff out there. We are doing those things.

We have been addressing training. Training is a difficult one; it's a very difficult one because it's a costly one. But we have been dealing with the training through the 20-week program on the risk assessment tool and child protection for. . . . All new workers who are coming into child protection now have the 20-week program. It costs us a lot of money to do that. So we're looking at that. We're also looking at how we can deliver that. I would prefer to do it as a pre-employment. I mean, it's kind of amazing to me that we actually hire people and then spend 20 weeks training them, which costs us a pile of money. So we're looking at the training aspects.

We're looking at everything that we can. I think that the union is very happy right now just to have us acknowledge that there is a workload problem and that we're working with them. We will do everything we can to try and alleviate the pressures that are out there.

I know that my deputy is looking at finding ways that we can free up dollars within, internally, whether it be through some changes in structure or what have you, so that we can 

[ Page 6664 ]

put the resources. . . . My goal is to put as many resources as I can into the front-line workers. That's where I believe it has to go, and that is what my goal is. So I'm doing what I can to make those workers out there recognize that their work is valued, that the jobs they do are valued and that we appreciate the job they do. I think that's extremely important right now, because it's fair to say that for the past couple of years they have been very much under the gun, that they have been criticized loudly for not doing certain things and then criticized loudly when they do certain things. That doesn't lead to good morale; that doesn't lead to a good spirit. And when you top it with heavy workloads as well, it makes for a pretty bad working environment. But I'm doing what I can. I think they recognize that, and I think the union recognizes that we are doing what we can right now to try and alleviate those problems.

G. Wilson: I have only a couple more questions on this warrant. Of the 9,292 children in care -- recognizing that a 14.1 percent increase and the 1,200 additional children are responsible in part for the overrun and therefore this warrant -- how many of those are aboriginal children?

Hon. L. Boone: You seem to be hitting on the things that I'm very sensitive around right now, and this is a high amount. It's 31 percent. I just met with the staff. . . . Actually, I've been talking about this for some time -- 2,850 out of 9,296 are of aboriginal ancestry. That's far too many. When you look at the percentage of our population base as a whole, it's not acceptable. We must do whatever we can, so we're working on an aboriginal strategy to try and work with communities, with bands and with tribal councils so that they can try and take back control of this into their jurisdictions.

We're working on protocols for areas that don't have those agreements in place, but it's clear that we have to do a better job of making the aboriginal communities more involved in this. I'm not happy with what we have here. I don't think the ministry is happy with what we've got here. We need to work harder at it, and we will continue to do that.

G. Wilson: I couldn't agree more, because 31 percent of the total number of children in care is a much higher percentage on a per capita basis than of the number of people in British Columbia. This is an alarming statistic, and one that absolutely has to be at the top of the priority list of this government. I would, by way of suggestion. . . . I don't know if the minister has thought about this, but it would seem to me that the federal government commits roughly $9.6 billion annually to first nations people who are status, on-reserve aboriginal people, of which less than 20 cents of every dollar of ours that that federal government is committing actually goes to aboriginal people.

That's an atrocious statistic, because there's a whole whack of people who are getting very, very rich on first nations concerns, and the people who are in abject poverty are the first nations people themselves. I don't know if the minister has thought about going after the federal government on this issue, but it seems to me that when we look at the percentage of landed first nations people -- status aboriginal people -- in Canada living in British Columbia, and look at what percentage of money we get back in the $9.4 billion or whatever it is they committed this year, British Columbia doesn't get its fair share.

If we have cost overruns as a result of that, we need to go after those feds and get that money back in British Columbia, back on the reserves, so first nations people can look after their children, deal with their education and deal with their social services concerns. Rather than come with special warrants to put to the taxpayers of British Columbia at this level, it seems to me there is a fiscal responsibility, a fiduciary responsibility, of the federal government to make sure that those moneys come into this province. I would certainly offer my help in support of this minister if this minister wants to take up this cause to get more of those dollars back in this province. They have to come back, and they have to go on reserve so that first nations people can administer and look after their families, and so they can raise their families in a manner that is suitable to them.

My last question on this, and it's a bit by way of a statement as well, although I'll try to refrain from making long speeches. . . . I'll leave that to my colleague, who's the official opposition critic, who I think actually made some pretty good speeches tonight.

Let me just say this. It would seem to me that in looking at this percentage, even though the minister has said that this money is not related to administration of this ministry, there is no question that the legislation that has been brought into this House now puts requirements upon front-line workers that were not previously there, that those requirements are ambiguous with respect to provisions as to what constitutes a child in crisis, and that there are children being apprehended because they are poor, because the mother -- and it's usually a mother, a single parent frequently -- is living in poverty. I would argue that rather than put more money into dealing with poor children by taking them into care, what we need to do is spend more time getting rid of poverty, eliminating poverty.

I would ask the minister if, in all of her deliberations around this, she has ever given serious consideration to the establishment of a guaranteed annual income in British Columbia that would allow people the opportunity to be able to live with dignity in this province -- because a guaranteed annual income's time has come.

[6:30]

R. Neufeld: Just a couple of questions. The minister said $26 million was for the foster care, home care and group homes, and the other $7.8 million is legal fees. Could the minister tell me what the total legal fees are for her ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: No, the $27.8 million was children-in-care caseload increases. Out of that, $26 million was for children. The legal fees were $1.8 million; it would have been in that. The early intervention, Healthy Beginnings-Healthy Lives, which is called Building Blocks out there -- there are several pilot projects around that -- was $1.8 million as well. There's a separation there. So there's $1.8 million that would have been the legal fees.

R. Neufeld: I clearly recollect the minister saying the balance was legal fees, so that's why I assumed the $7.8 million was legal fees. If the $1.8 million is legal fees in the warrant, what are the total legal fees for the ministry for the year?

Hon. L. Boone: I'll answer this, but it's not within the special warrant. It's $7.25 million for the whole year.

[ Page 6665 ]

R. Neufeld: The $7.25 million is inclusive of the $1.8 million? Or is the $1.8 million in addition?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, it's inclusive.

R. Neufeld: Can the minister maybe explain to me why there's $1.8 million extra in legal fees? It seems that it's a fairly high portion of the total legal fees for the ministry for the year. But maybe you could just give me an idea of why that $1.8 million showed up.

Hon. L. Boone: This is a charge that we get from the AG. The AG is responsible for hiring lawyers throughout the province to deal with legal cases for the ministry, and this was the amount that was charged. I don't know why lawyers charge so much. I never know why lawyers charge so much, but I'm not a lawyer. It seems like a high amount. I wish it was less, but it is.

V. Anderson: Following up on the question of legal fees, in legal cases where children are involved, does the minister provide legal support for families or persons to act on behalf of the children, apart from the lawyers who are hired to work on behalf of the ministry or the government? If so, what portion would that be?

Hon. L. Boone: We're just getting some legal advice on that. I know that the majority of this would have gone to support our costs. I'm very reluctant to give you a definitive answer. Perhaps you could go on to another question, hon. member, and then when we get the information, I can get back to you, please.

V. Anderson: Regarding the total $33 million, is it reported in last year's budget statement, or is it carried over into this year's budget statement? Which of the two years is that reported in, and which financial budget is it a part of at this point?

Hon. L. Boone: We've got two questions. I'll do the two of them here. This shows up in the forecasted expenditures in the '98-99 book. With regard to the legal fees, no, we do not pay for lawyers for the families, other than. . . . A small portion of this would go for those who had access to mediation services, but the families would get their services through legal aid. That is not in this budget here.

V. Anderson: Does the minister have any record of those families who have had to get services through legal aid and of those families which were not eligible for legal aid and therefore had to pay it out themselves rather than getting legal aid support?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't have the information with regards to the legal aid budget. That would be the AG ministry that you would have to talk to.

V. Anderson: Just briefly in passing, then, I think it's something the minister needs to look at, because many of those who come before the ministry are having to use private funds because they don't meet the category for legal aid. I think that's a concern that we'll discuss later.

In the $26 million for children in care, how much of that money would have been used for administration costs, in effect, for those extra 1,200 youngsters? There would be administration costs for those 1,200. How much of that would have been used in that regard?

Hon. L. Boone: I've already stated that none of this goes to administration. This is strictly for the residential care for those individuals.

V. Anderson: Is it because of the overrun that a number of foster parents have not been able to receive their payments on time and have had to wait weeks and months in order to get the payments? The payments come after the fact, so they're having to put out money for children for one and two or three or a number of months without getting paid. Is that because there's an overrun and there's a shortage in the ministry to pay these people on time?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

V. Anderson: If it's not because of an overrun, could the minister tell us why these people who have been looking after children have not been paid on time during the last year?

Hon. L. Boone: That has nothing to do with this warrant. If the member would like to wait until our estimates debate when we get into those things, we can deal with that. But we know of no foster parent that has not been paid. If you have information about that, would you please let us know afterwards so that we can try and deal with the various problems? I've not been made aware of any particular problems with foster parents not receiving payment.

An Hon. Member: It's part of the $33 million.

V. Anderson: Yeah, it's part of the $33 million, but that's okay.

Hon. Chair, with regard to the Healthy Beginnings and the extra programs for the $1.8 million, could you explain to us briefly what those programs are and why they come under emergency programs? Were they not planned? Are the extension of programs. . . ? Why are they programs that. . . ? I can understand that there needed to be care for the 1,200 children, but what is the emergency nature of these programs such that there was an overrun that could not be taken from other parts of the budget?

Hon. L. Boone: We heard from individuals about spending some money on prevention, which is what these were. These are early intervention programs to help break the cycle of poverty, which the previous member talked a lot about. Services for fetal alcohol syndrome children, special services for special needs children, speech and language services -- a lot of various services that require intervention. . . . We heard from individuals, as had the member speaking before, who were saying that we need some earlier intervention. The ministry felt that if they could put some dollars into these programs, then it might stop some children having to come into care and to eventually be removed from their homes.

We make no apologies for actually putting some early intervention programs -- Building Blocks programs -- in place. In fact, the ombudsman, when she recently did her review of how far we'd gone on the Gove report, actually encouraged us to move and implement the Building Blocks programs provincewide, instead of just on a pilot basis, which is what we have them on right now. That's why we moved on them. We felt that they were important and for us to invest in early intervention programs.

V. Anderson: I commend you for the early intervention programs, and we'll discuss that more in the estimates.

[ Page 6666 ]

Just one final question. In the restructuring program it indicated that no money was saved. Was there an indication that the restructuring program cost extra money in the processes that took place and that money therefore had to be taken out of other items in the budget? Did it have a cost to the ministry, not a saving? You've indicated that it did not have. It did in fact have a cost to the ministry because of the effort and the time and all of the other things that were put into it, which were taken out of the other parts of the ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't believe it has cost us dollars. We have a review that's taking place. Doug Allen's review is going to cost us some money. I believe that those dollars are well spent and that hopefully we will get some good information about what the actual program restructuring is doing. Maybe we can proceed on a limited basis. Maybe we can proceed on the same basis. I haven't prejudged anything on this thing here, but we will get some information from Doug Allen's report as to what the whole review did.

[6:45]

When I look back through my files, I can't find a single press release or a single piece of correspondence to any non-profit in British Columbia informing them that the ministry was intending to cut $24 million from its budgets -- not a single piece of paper. I cannot find a single piece of paper which outlines any process for consultation, any process for informing those non-profits that the big cuts were on their way. I can't find any evidence that the ministry planned to inform these non-profits that there was a cut on the way between February, when the ministry appears to have decided that it wanted to try and find these savings, and September, when they decided that they wanted to actually realize the savings. That doesn't provide a great deal of comfort -- to imagine that all of these non-profits out there would have been hit with a cut of $24 million without ever having been told about it in advance.

I'll ask the minister if, perhaps, she can point to some evidence that indeed the ministry's time line was September and that they did hope to achieve the $24 million savings. Then perhaps we can carry on.

Hon. L. Boone: Now, what I am told is that the ministry was aiming for September. The savings would not have been achieved just from that short period; it would have been achieved from September till this April, because that's the fiscal area that we're talking about.

We were not advising that we were going to be cutting $24 million; we were hoping that we could find some efficiencies through administration efficiencies when we combined some of these services into one. Rather than having ten agencies delivering services, you have five agencies delivering services. It was hoped that we would be able, obviously, to get rid of five administrations at that time, so that we could find some efficiencies. There was never any thought that we were cutting services or eliminating services or cutting the budgets in services to the individuals out there. But they were hoping. . . . They then started, through the various regions, to have discussions with the various agencies to try and find out how they could restructure themselves so that they could find some efficiencies. That's where we went.

I've told the member that they were never given a target stating that they had to get X number of dollars. We, as a ministry, were given a target that we had to try and. . . . We thought we could get $24 million in savings from this; we had that target. But we then went out and tried to work with various organizations out there to see if they could reorganize themselves so that they could get efficiencies. That's where we were at when I came in, and that's what I said. Each different region was on a different time frame at that point in time, and they all had different forms of consultation. But there was never any direction saying: "You must get $24 million," or "You must get $10 million from this region." As a ministry we hoped we could get that, but it was never a direction to the various regions, saying: "You must receive those dollars from the various agencies out there."

C. Clark: When it did first become apparent to the ministry that there was going to be a shortfall or that they weren't going to meet their target of $24 million in efficiencies?

Hon. L. Boone: When did it become apparent to me? When did we get sworn in? The day I got sworn in I received a briefing on this, and it became clear to me that we were not going to be able to make these efficiencies. So that was day one of me becoming the minister.

C. Clark: In the grand parliamentary tradition, I was asking about the ministry which the minister represents. That's what I was asking about. The special warrant was signed on February 26, 1998, long before the minister became a minister. She is still responsible for debating that special warrant whether or not she was the minister when it was signed. So my question is: when did it become apparent to the ministry that they were not going to realize the efficiencies that they predicted in their original budget estimates?

Hon. L. Boone: It was in the late fall of the year, when people started to deal with the agencies out there. When they looked at how they were going to be restructuring, if they were doing any restructuring and what the bottom line would be, it became clear that there weren't going to be the administrative savings that we were hoping for.

C. Clark: When did the ministry revise its. . . ? I understand that the ministry is organized into 20 regions. It sounds from the way the minister is talking about it that the information sort of trickled in when the regions got it and when they were able to determine what the savings might or might not be. So I wonder when it was that the ministry revised its bottom line to suggest that there wouldn't be a $24 million savings.

Hon. L. Boone: I thought we'd already gone through this. We haven't got a final figure from all of the regions yet, because they haven't all completed this. There are three that have more or less gone through the whole process. The rest are at various stages and haven't actually got to the final stage, 

[ Page 6667 ]

so we don't know if there are going to be any savings there or not. We are still hoping that we could save, and if we still proceed with this, then we're hoping that we are going to save some dollars there. But until we actually finish the process, which has not been done, we won't know if there are savings or not. As I said, right now we're getting the review. We're going to figure out what happens after that review. By April 30 we'll have a better indication as to how we've been proceeding and how we're going about these things.

But you are correct. We had 20 regions out there -- 20 regions operating on a different time line; 20 regions operating differently. It's very difficult to get the type of information that can say, "At this particular time we suddenly became aware that the savings weren't there," because each and every region was doing this differently.

C. Clark: I want to touch, finally, on the issue of the growth in the caseload that the new ministry has witnessed. We understand that there are 1,200 new children in care, and that's an increase of 14.1 percent over last year. I wonder if the minister could give us a breakdown. Of those new children who are in care, how many of them were apprehended? How many of them are with the ministry through voluntary care agreements? How many of them came into the ministry's care by some other method?

Hon. L. Boone: It's 47 percent voluntary, 53 percent otherwise.

C. Clark: The 53 percent otherwise -- is that all apprehensions by ministry social workers?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes.

C. Clark: How does that compare to last year's numbers?

Hon. L. Boone: Okay, we're going way back. The information we have -- this is Ross Dawson, who is the director of child protection -- is that they're approximately the same.

C. Clark: I'll hand the questioning over to anyone else who'd like to ask questions on the special warrants for Children and Families. But I suspect that we may be moving into the special warrants for Health at this stage. So, unless any other members have any questions, I've concluded.

The Chair: Seeing no further questions on this warrant, we'll move on to the Health warrant.

On warrant 2.

S. Hawkins: I do have some questions on the Health warrant -- questions on the overrun in the Health ministry with respect to the Pharmacare program. The first question for the minister is: what is the reason for the cost overrun?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are actually several reasons for the cost overrun for Pharmacare. One is around utilization. The utilization in the province is up about 8 percent this year, so one is utilization. One is some of the new drugs that have come on the market that are efficacious, if you will. Let me give you just one example. One is betaferon, which is used for people with multiple sclerosis. It's about $17,000 a year per person. So part of it is new drugs on the market. There's a population increase, and price increases as well.

S. Hawkins: I understand that the minister has given a few reasons. One was new classes of drugs -- betaferon. But I understand that betaferon was approved. . . . Or I could be wrong. Was it not approved before the last budget?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is correct. But one of the things we have seen, at least with a number of new drugs, is that it comes on the market and there isn't much of an uptake in the very beginning. Then suddenly there's a huge uptake because it's a new drug, it's been marketed and so on. So although it was approved before the last budget, the real significant rise in uptake has been over this last year.

The Chair: Before I ask the member to continue, perhaps we could have a little order in the room. It's getting a high level of noise.

S. Hawkins: What I want to ask the minister is. . . . Surely the ministry has a business plan for Pharmacare. And in the business plan, surely it was foreseen that there would be a population increase. What population increase had the business plan projected for in the last year?

Hon. P. Priddy: When I say population increase, it's about population increase in terms of number of claimants, not population increase for the province. So it's based on an estimate of how many people claimed the year before, and what you would project over the last couple of years, having seen annual claimants increase? So yes, we have used that as one of the ways of estimating. We actually not only do a monthly, but we review those on a weekly basis to see where that is going. So we were certainly able to make a projection. For instance, the number of prescriptions being written for seniors and some of the expense of the new drugs on the market were simply ones that. . . . We don't control when they get a drug identification number from the federal government, so we're not able to project some of those things at all.

[7:00]

Hon. P. Priddy: I do not have that figure, but we can get it really quickly for you. What I can provide for you is the inflation factors that the budget is based on, and these are the price, the population, the utilization and the quantity. I have those figures from March '97 to February '98, but I don't have the projections with me. I can get that for you quite quickly.

S. Hawkins: I would appreciate those numbers.

I understand that what the minister is trying to tell me is that there was an increase in the number of beneficiaries of the program. Can the minister be a little more specific and tell me under which plans the increases occurred?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, I can. The increase in plan A, which is the seniors plan, was 24.31 percent. The increase. . . . Sorry, it's not an increase. Plan B, which is residents of long term care facilities, was actually down 3.04 percent. In plan C, which is income assistance, the increase is 7.32 percent. Plan D is cystic fibrosis as a category, and it's down 13.28 percent. Plan E, which is children who have very high medical costs or Pharmacare costs for drugs, is actually down 21.37 percent. Plan F, medically dependent children, was up 22.61 percent. Sorry, I do apologize, member. Plan E is the universal plan. I will soon be able to pronounce all the names in the CPS, but I am still working on acquiring all of that. Plan E, the universal plan, was down 21.37 percent. Plan F, which is medically dependent 

[ Page 6668 ]

children, is up 22.61 percent. Plan G, which is mental health drugs, is up 55.58 percent. HIV-AIDS drugs are up 29.36 percent, and home oxygen, which comes under this program as well, is up 2.94 percent.

S. Hawkins: It's interesting to have a breakdown of the plans. I'm sure the minister must be concerned that the costs are actually going up in some of these areas. In several areas there is a considerable increase, and I'm wondering if the minister or her staff can tell us if the business plan actually projected any of these increases.

Hon. P. Priddy: I had part of the answer but needed some more detail. Thank you for waiting.

Some of these projections were actually quite close, but some of these projections are higher than we expected. They're higher for two or three reasons. One of them is that the drugs coming on the market are not always possible to project, because of when they get approval. Secondly, we can predict a seasonal use of drugs, and it's the answer you might expect -- you know, winter and flu time, whatever -- but we can't always project how high that spike will go. So we try and do it based on last year, but in this case the spike was higher in some of those seasonal times, so that affects it as well.

The other thing, particularly around seniors, is that we have more and more. . . . Well, for one thing, we have more and more seniors -- many of us currently resident in the House.

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: Not that member over there. No problem.

As the population ages and we simply have more seniors -- although you'd be quite correct in making the point that we can project that -- there are many more seniors' drugs coming on the market, which in many ways help keep people out of some medical interventions that ten years ago they would have needed. But it does mean that there are more drugs for them in their lives.

S. Hawkins: I find it hard to understand. I mean, some of these are significant increases in the programs. I can't believe that just a flu season or a spike in different seasons is going to give the kind of increase in projections that we're seeing here.

I've heard criticisms about the Pharmacare program. One of the criticisms is that it's not predictable, and I think we're seeing that here. Year after year the program has increased. I know that last year the overrun was explained by PharmaNet. We were starting to track people. Maybe because in other years people didn't submit their claims, they never got their deductible or whatever back. This year we're hearing that it's overruns because of seniors' drugs and everything else.

I'm just wondering, I guess, when the business plan is being put together. Obviously the ministry is having trouble predicting. We on this side of the House want to know what the program is based on. Are there consultations or negotiations with other agencies? What other agencies does the ministry talk to when it's preparing its business plan for the upcoming year?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's done in about four ways. One of them is that we consult with the College of Physicians and Surgeons. We consult with the Pharmacy Association. We look at the MSP trends to see if there are more MSP billings. It's at least possible that there will be more prescriptions written if the visits are up. We look at -- and we get some advice on this from folks as well -- the pattern of physicians prescribing, not simply the numbers. Is there a trend towards physicians moving from one class of drug that treats cardiac problems, as an example, to another class of drugs that might have a cost increase or a cost effect on the Pharmacare budget? Lastly, we also work quite closely with the therapeutics initiatives committee, which does about three tasks for us. They do the research on new drugs and present that to us, but during that time they try and help us predict what kinds of new drugs and what trends they are seeing from their professional perspective.

S. Hawkins: Does the Pharmacare program -- I guess I should be very direct -- have a business plan?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, it does. We have a business plan that's projected month by month for the Pharmacare program.

S. Hawkins: So it doesn't have a plan at the beginning of the year that says: "This is where we should take it." It's a monthly plan that's just done on projections from the last month. Is that what I'm hearing?

Hon. P. Priddy: It is an annual plan. It's a 12-month plan, and there are projections or targets, if you will, for each month. It's not a revolving monthly plan, but it is one that has markers for each month that people review. It is a 12-month plan with objectives to it, but it's looking at what we project we will have spent in April, in May, in June, in July and so on.

S. Hawkins: Well, every year it seems to me that the Pharmacare program seems to go over budget. We certainly saw that last year, and we're seeing that this year. There doesn't seem to be any flexibility built into this program to absorb the cost overruns. It seems to me that the projections have been quite out of sorts in the last couple of years. Because there's no flexibility in the plan, the events that the minister has been talking about, like the different seasons or catastrophic events. . . .

Certainly in the last year we've seen an epidemic of HIV in the downtown east side. The minister has told us that they've had to expend quite a considerable amount on AIDS drugs. The plan doesn't seem to have had the flexibility in the last couple of years to deal with this. I'm just wondering: is there an evaluation process? Is there a review of policies and procedures that the ministry follows? What are they? What is the evaluation process so we don't run into this the same time next year?

Hon. P. Priddy: There are evaluations built into the Pharmacare plan. From time to time there is action taken for two reasons: first, as we see costs rise, but secondly, for reasons of efficacy. From time to time drugs are delisted. Drugs aren't always added; sometimes drugs are delisted, which will reduce a cost. Sometimes a drug is moved from being what's called a first-line drug to a second-line drug. A second-line drug has more restrictions around how it can be used and tends to bring costs down as well.

We do look at those kinds of things to be able to bring some cost control to that. We will try and be as good at predicting as we can be, but in the end, it's very difficult. If 

[ Page 6669 ]

somebody brings a new drug on the market or you have more people requiring it, I don't think saying, "Sorry, after the end of January we're not going to pay for anybody's drugs anymore," is an option that I see available to us. We try and be as good as we can about predicting; some things we cannot predict. And given the kind of drugs we're talking about. . . .

[7:15]

The Chair: Minister, perhaps I could just ask the House to show some order here, so we can hear what is going on in this debate.

Hon. P. Priddy: The other thing that we sometimes look at, in trying to do some kind of cost containment without unduly providing a barrier for people who truly need the drugs, is deductibles. Two or three years ago, we made a change in the deductibles, so we're trying to do that as well. I think the dollars are well spent on health care. We will work as hard as we can to do good predictions; we won't always be on. I know that, because there are some things that we cannot predict as accurately. But when we think about the drugs on the market and what people need -- the example I gave was $17,000 a year for someone with multiple sclerosis -- I guess we wouldn't argue that we shouldn't spend it.

S. Hawkins: I guess one of the big criticisms that we do hear from groups -- and I know the minister hears this as well, because I have a submission before me from a group that's given this submission to the minister -- is that there is no evaluation process in place for review of policies and procedures. If the minister has an evaluation process, is the minister willing to share it with us?

Hon. P. Priddy: Two things. We certainly do our own inside evaluation. I mentioned some of those ways of doing that, and I'm happy to pass that on. Secondly, if you're looking at external evaluation as well, the auditor general has just completed a review of the Pharmacare program. As well, we're having an external evaluation done of the reference-based drug program.

S. Hawkins: I will continue that in the budget estimates when they arise.

In the last few years we've heard of all these savings that are going to be realized by some of the policies that have been implemented by Pharmacare. One. . . .

Interjections.

The Chair: Excuse me, member. Members, it's really difficult for the Chair to hear and for the minister and the member to hear themselves talking. So please, let's have a little more order. Thank you.

S. Hawkins: In the last few years, and certainly in the last few months, we've heard varied numbers of savings that are going to be realized by policies or programs that have been implemented by Pharmacare. One of them is the reference-based pricing program. The previous minister, who is now the Finance minister. . . . I don't know if she got the numbers wrong; she might have. She's got them wrong before, but she has indicated -- as has the minister now -- that there's going to be considerable savings from the reference-based pricing program. If we're getting savings from that program, why the overruns now?

Hon. P. Priddy: The savings over the last two years from the reference-based program have been $74 million. It's a $44 million annual. . . . If you include the categories that are reference-based -- the anti-hypertension drugs; the NSAIDS, or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; the nitrates; the H2S, which is really Losec; and proton pump inhibitors -- it's about a $44 million annual saving.

S. Hawkins: We just went through the different programs and the increases in the different programs. The minister has told us that there have been a lot of prescriptions written in the last year. I know the minister is concerned about that; so am I. I'm wondering if the ministry has a way of tracking patients that are on reference-based drugs to see if their drugs are being changed and more prescriptions are being written. Has that been looked at? Is there an evaluation of that done?

Hon. P. Priddy: We do some of that. There are some that I want to speak to in a minute. We have looked at things like the hospitalization rate among seniors who switched medication. So we do try and track the number of people who are changing. But to do the kind of in-depth study to know what individuals are changing requires more data than we currently have. Part of the external evaluation of the reference-based drug program is going to look at being able to do that kind of tracking. We currently don't have the data to do something that in-depth.

S. Hawkins: Well, I guess I have to ask the minister, then, what the PharmaNet program is all about, because every prescription -- as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong -- goes onto the PharmaNet system. If you have a patient that's on a reference-based drug, you should be able to track on the computer whether they've changed their prescription two or three times. Maybe the reference-based drug didn't work the first time; the second time it didn't work; the third time it didn't work; and they finally went on the drug that they probably should have got the first time -- I don't know. Is that something that the ministry is considering? Or is that data not available on the computer right now?

Hon. P. Priddy: We can, through PharmaNet, track whether people change a prescription. That's correct -- you know, whether they move from one reference-based to a non-reference-based or whatever. The thing that we don't have available to us is why. People change either because it didn't work or because it had side effects. There are a variety of reasons. They may change because of their actual health condition. What we don't have are the reasons that it is happening. So we could track whether they're changing prescriptions, but we don't have any in-depth data on why. Is it because it's marketed differently? Is it because it's got more side effects and so on? That's what we don't have yet.

S. Hawkins: I would think that would be important information to have, because in the last few years we've seen significant increases in this program. Certainly in the last few years, since some of the policies of Pharmacare have been implemented, we have seen significant increases in this program. So I'm asking the minister: is the ministry now thinking of finding out why?

Hon. P. Priddy: Yes, that is something that the ministry is not only considering; that was part of the reason for the external evaluation we have underway, which is the evaluation of the reference-based drug program. So yes, we too see the need for the information, member.

[ Page 6670 ]

S. Hawkins: When can we expect the report on the external review?

Hon. P. Priddy: This work is just about to begin. It has a fairly long time frame attached to it. It can be as long as 18 months or two years. What we're talking about is, if you will, New-England-Journal-of-Medicine kind of research, for want of another phrase. It's very in-depth, and it takes a significant amount of time. We actually have 30 million -- 29 million; let me not round up -- prescriptions written every year in the province of British Columbia. So even with the reference-based ones, there are just a significant number of prescriptions written to be able to get in-depth data about why people have changed and so on.

S. Hawkins: It's good that we've got a number of prescriptions -- 29 million. Is that an increase over last year, and are you projecting an increase for next year? Because the ministry overran the budget this year, is it something that we're going to be concerned about next year as well?

Hon. P. Priddy: When I said that 29 million are written. . . . We pay for about half of those. The others are private insurers, different kinds of plans, self-paid. About 15 million of those are ones that actually come out of the Pharmacare plan.

Yes, we are projecting an increase. What we have seen steadily over the last number of years is an increase in the number of prescriptions written. We would actually be projecting that for next year.

S. Hawkins: Obviously the ministry has some utilization strategies, which they say they have implemented. Can the minister outline those utilization strategies and tell us which ones were the most successful? What utilization strategies will be implemented so we won't have these cost overruns?

Hon. P. Priddy: We actually contract with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to monitor the prescribing habits of physicians. One of the ways in which you can start to do some management of utilization is by looking at prescription patterns of particular physicians. The therapeutics initiative committee is in contact with physicians. They put out a newsletter on a regular basis, talking with physicians about what drugs might work but in what circumstances you might want to try a non-pharmaceutical solution for a particular health issue. It's actually a very good communication and has some impact on physicians. There will be a number of new initiatives through the health transition dollars -- which I will speak to as the session progresses, I guess -- to also look at utilization.

S. Hawkins: I understand that there is one strategy called the trial prescription program. Is that the one the minister was talking about just now?

Hon. P. Priddy: No, as a matter of fact. That's in addition to it. Thank you for reminding me.

S. Hawkins: I understand that there is a concern that the trial prescription program isn't working. Is the ministry aware of that, and what are they doing? How are they following up on this program to realize utilization?

[7:30]

S. Hawkins: I think one thing that was suggested there was that PharmaNet flag the trial prescriptions on the computer system. If that's happening, that's great.

Because the ministry follows it month to month, then the ministry must have been aware at a certain time that their program was going off the rails and that there was going to be an overrun. When was the ministry aware?

Hon. P. Priddy: In the fall, member.

S. Hawkins: If the minister could be more specific as to when in the fall.

Hon. P. Priddy: The November time period, member.

S. Hawkins: So $33.4 million is the overrun from November to the end of the year. Is that correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That's correct, member.

D. Symons: I guess my question is a little more mundane than the questions that have been asked. I just have concerns. You're asking for a $33.4 million lift in the funding for Pharmacare. I'm basically asking which base that $33.4 million is being added to. I looked at the estimates book for last year that we went through, and in the supplemental one for the '97-98 fiscal year, we authorized $430-million-and-some-odd. So is it that figure that you're asking for the $33 million more on top of? If we look at this year's estimates books, where they put on the left-hand side of that the restated voted expenditure from the previous year, what we find there is $412 million. There's an $18 million difference between what we voted for last year and what it says in the new estimates books for this coming fiscal year. The figure for that year was $412 million. So I'm wondering: which figure are we including this lift of $33 million on? Also, if you might explain the difference between last year's voted expenditure and what it now says last year's voted expenditure was in this year's book.

Hon. P. Priddy: It is on the base of the. . . . By the way, two things. One of them is that there is often a difference in terms of estimates and restated estimates, and that's not uncommon. But it's on the base of what was stated for this year, so it's the $424 million.

D. Symons: The reason I say: "Woops. . . ." It's just a case of wondering where the $424 million came from. The restated figure is $412 million, and that, theoretically, was the figure, as you had the experience of the year gone by, that was the expected expenditure for the fiscal year now ending. Whereas a year ago we authorized $430 million, you've now given me a third figure of $424 million. At least it's somewhere between the two.

Hon. P. Priddy: I think the member was correct. It's based on the $412 million. The $424 million was. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. P. Priddy: An attempt to get more? No, not at all. It's based on the $412 million. The member was correct.

[ Page 6671 ]

D. Symons: Then that raises another question. If we authorized $430 million in spending last year, and you are now basing your lift on the $412 million figure, what happened to the $18 million difference in there that we authorized last year? It seems that if you need that money, you should be coming back to us and asking for somewhere around $15 million now, rather than $33 million.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Chair, just a point of order. I'm unclear about the questions. They're very good questions. But is the hon. member asking questions about the estimates coming up? Because we're on our warrant for the past budget. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm going to try this one again and try to get it right -- okay? The $33 million is on the base of $430 million. There was confusion around the information, so I certainly was not trying to mislead you but at least to correct the information.

D. Symons: I thank the minister if that is in direct contradiction to what you gave me as an answer a few minutes ago. But we'll accept your revised answer. Then what we're getting is that the total spending you're expecting now, at the end of this fiscal year that ends in a few hours from now. . . . You're expecting the total spending for Pharmacare to be $463 million. That's the figure, then, if you add this $33 million onto that. Would that be correct?

Hon. P. Priddy: That would be correct, member.

S. Hawkins: Just on the heels of the question from my colleague, I'm getting confused with all of these numbers. The $412 million was the number that the government had estimated. And $463 million is now what the total budget is going to be, for a $50 million overrun on what the government had estimated.

Hon. P. Priddy: I'm trying to do some translation here too. The $412 million that was last year's estimate is actually what you see. . . . The $412 million that you see as last year's estimate is the same as what you see as restated, because what that does is include the transfers in and out of the ministry. There was a reorganization. There has been some transfer out to the organizational system and administration for this.

S. Hawkins: It's clear as mud, but I'm sure we'll get into that in the budget estimates coming up.

It seems to me that the current system appears to be not that financially viable. We have an increase in the budget every year. It doesn't seem to be that predictable, and it will not be sustainable if we get the kind of increases we do every year. I think the ministry needs to look outside and perhaps consult some of the groups that are affected, which I understand feel sort of left out of the loop and don't feel that they get any consultation with the ministry. We can get into that in estimates as well. Certainly the budget has to be flexible enough to take into account some of the factors that the minister is citing this year as cost overruns.

With that, I have no more questions. I'm sure we'll continue this well into the Health estimates.

Schedule approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 7, Supply Act (No. 1), 1998, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I was just going to take this opportunity to remind the House -- it's the first time, and I always welcome this -- that we will be sitting tomorrow to receive more good news.

The Speaker: Before we have the Lieutenant-Governor come and join us, I thought I would share with you a special report that I received this afternoon from a former Speaker, the Hon. Emery Barnes. He wanted me to convey this to all of you:

"I am very thankful for the cards and flowers that I received in hospital. It's nice to know that I'm in your prayers. I believe it really has made a difference. I'm slowly getting some balance in my life. It has been a real challenge coping with the nausea and getting food down. I've been working very hard at getting a little strength back, and it seems to be paying off this week. The pain is being managed pretty well today, and it's at an acceptable level. I figure I've dropped about 25 pounds.

"The good news is I'm able to get up and about a bit this week. I am optimistic that I will have a period of recovery to find some enjoyment in life. Don't stop praying yet."

And now the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precincts.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

[7:45]

Supply Act (No. 1), 1998

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I move that the House do now adjourn -- doth now adjourn.

The Speaker: Those "doths" are very important.

Hon. J. MacPhail moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 7:46 p.m.

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