1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 8, Number 5

[ Page 6635 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

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

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, two months ago, when the Premier first started raising expectations about tax cuts in the budget, he said: "People know me. I am not interested in timid initiatives." Yesterday those expectations were shattered by a cowardly budget, a budget that will not create one new job in the province of British Columbia and that will not leave one single penny in the taxpayer's pocket in 1998.

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]

G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, some things never change -- nothing last year, a "MacFailure" this year.

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

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker, and thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.

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

J. Weisgerber: My question is also about paving, but not the road to ruin; rather, the road to prosperity. My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. People in the Peace region were encouraged by this government's throne speech commitment to pursue a major new initiative to rehabilitate roads in northern B.C. but were baffled by the lack of details in the budget. There is no indication as to where that money is coming from. My question to the minister is: how much new money is going to be available this year for road rehabilitation and construction -- money in excess of the routine maintenance budget?

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. C. Evans: Well, that was pretty neat; a real debate almost broke out.

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

Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, I call budget debate.

Budget Debate

(continued)

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]

Washington State has a spending cap, and in order to exceed the spending cap, the government of Washington requires a two-thirds vote in the Legislature and the state Senate. They have a balanced-budget law in Washington State, and it focuses people's attention. It focuses you on doing the right thing. The advantage of that isn't just that you get to balance the budget; that's not all there is to it. The advantage of that is that you get to give tax cuts to individuals. You get to reduce the taxes on corporations.

Individuals have more disposable income to educate their children, to clothe their children, to feed their children, to take care of their parents, and businesses have more revenue to reinvest, to create new opportunities for their workers.

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."

What a load of fertilizer, hon. Speaker!

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]

If you look at page 301 of Estimates -- the government's own document -- it shows that what the government has in fact done is increase the number of employees in every single ministry except Health. But that's misleading. If you look at it, what happened in the last year is that the government hid 1,400 employees in the Ministry of Health. They've shuffled them off to the regional health boards. We still pay for them; they still get a cheque every month from the taxpayers of British Columbia; they're still working for the government. Not one of them has disappeared. They're all there.

So instead of a thousand-person cut in the civil service, what you find when you shuffle the numbers around and get to the bottom of it is that in fact we have increased the number of civil servants. We have increased the size of government by 980 people. Every other jurisdiction in Canada has reduced the size of their civil service, reduced the size of government, reduced the burden on the taxpayers -- except for this one.

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]

G. Farrell-Collins: I too, on our side, would like to welcome the students here. I wish we had better news, but we don't, so I'll keep going.

[ 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]

I move adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Personal Statement

J. Smallwood: On March 30, hon. Speaker, I rose to reserve my right to make a personal statement. Pursuant to practice, I have submitted for your consideration a copy of my remarks. It's my hope that this additional information may be of some help to you and to all members in what I consider to be a very serious allegation made by the member for Matsqui with his point of privilege. The member for Matsqui has fully stated his views of the facts of this case, and as I am personally involved, I wish to state my views of the facts as well.

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]

The Speaker: Hon. member for Matsqui, I'm sure you appreciate that this is not a debatable point.

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.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1998

(second reading continued)

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."

An Hon. Member: Who said that?

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]

As we're all aware, the auditor general prepared a report in 1996 called "Issues of Public Interest," in which the issues surrounding special warrants were dealt with. This report was referred to the Public Accounts Committee; we discussed it at great length. We were fortunate to have available to us a constitutional lawyer from a major British Columbia law firm, who came and advised us on the issues. You could tell, sitting in the committee room, that we all agreed that special warrants are an inappropriate way for the government to fund its ongoing expenditures.

But we couldn't get a recommendation, because all of a sudden the members of the government -- who, when they were in opposition on the Public Accounts Committee, had been of the mind that special warrants were an inappropriate method of funding government expenditures -- wouldn't commit themselves to making a firm recommendation.

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]

I suggest that what is necessary if we are to get serious about eliminating interim supply and putting in place a better system of budgeting and budgetary delivery is the opportunity for us to go into multi-year budgeting, to be able to do long-range planning, to be able to carry a surplus from one fiscal year to another and, where there is a deficit, to carry that as a functional part of a long-term budgetary plan.

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 think that the impacts of politics make it very, very difficult to foster the kind of openness and accountability that are required in terms of measuring the performance of that ministry. I want to address, first of all, one topic, and that is the issue of staff -- the turnover of staff, in particular front-line staff. It's an open secret that the morale in the ministry is still in very difficult shape. The ministry hired a number of staff some time ago; I think 300 new front-line workers were hired. A lot of those people have left the ministry. I think that's a very, very bad sign.

Now we have the ministry embarking on a renewed effort to replace staff, and we have a press release talking about a nationwide recruitment program. I don't think that's anything to be proud of. It seems to me that the profession of social worker is an honourable profession. There are certainly people in this province that have an interest in pursuing a career as a social worker. For us to have to mount a nationwide search . . . . I don't think that's anything to be proud of.

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]

What have they done with that hospital? All of the community hospitals are up and running full-bang. They haven't reduced services there. They are able to take patients if they get the doctors back to work. But what they've done is created a MASH unit out of Prince George Regional Hospital. That's what they've done, because they had ample opportunity in the last seven years . . . . You know what, hon. Speaker? The crisis in rural health care is not new. It didn't just start eight weeks ago. In fact . . . .

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 g