British Columbia Hansard — THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2002 (37th Parliament, 3rd Session) (20020328pm-Hansard-v5n3)
20020328pm-Hansard-v5n3
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2002 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
Official Report of
DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
(Hansard)
THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2002
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 5, Number 3
CONTENTS
Routine
Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17)
Hon. G. Hogg
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Hugh A. Curtis
I. Chong
Fetal alcohol syndrome
K. Stewart
Kenney Dam proposal
D. MacKay
Oral Questions
User fees for emergency services
J. MacPhail
Hon. S. Hawkins
Long term care beds
J. Kwan
Hon. K. Whittred
Funding for Surrey school district
D. Hayer
Hon. C. Clark
Funding for women's services
G. Trumper
Hon. L. Stephens
Petitions
Hon. R. Thorpe
Tabling Documents
B.C. Transit and Rapid Transit Project annual reports, 2000
Reports from Committees
A Future for Learners: A Vision for Renewal of Education in British Columbia
Petitions
J. Nuraney
Committee of the Whole House
Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13)
Hon. G. Collins
Report and Third Reading of Bills
Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13)
Committee of Supply
Supplementary Estimates (No. 2)
J. MacPhail
Hon. G. Collins
Introduction and First Reading of Bills
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)
Hon. G. Collins
Second Reading of Bills
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)
Hon. G. Collins
Committee of the Whole House
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)
Report and Third Reading of Bills
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education ( continued )
J. MacPhail
Hon. S. Bond
Royal Assent to Bills
Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002
(Bill 2)
Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13)
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations
(continued)
J. Kwan
Hon. G. Plant
[ Page 2285 ]
THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2002
The House
met at 2:03 p.m.
Introductions by Members
Hon. G.
Bruce: Mr. Speaker, you know all of us have very busy lives, and our lives
are made considerably easier by the people that work with us. From time to time,
as life goes, people move on. Sometimes they retire, and sometimes they just go
on to other vocations.
Today, sad
to say for me, but I'm sure it's happy for her, I'm losing a lady who gave us an
enormous amount of extra effort and help during the busy time that we had here
this past summer in moving from the ministry into my office. I don't know why
she would leave me for the man that she's going to, but in fact she is, and
she's been with him for many, many years.
Margaret
Ketchen is sitting in the gallery today wearing a beautiful purple orchid
flower. She's an avid gardener, and Laird didn't know this, but he's about to
become an avid gardener as well. Margaret, on behalf of myself and really, in a
sense, for everybody here: thank you for those many extra hours, and enjoy your
time in the garden.
One other
thing I'd like to point out is that it's important for all of us to have
somebody who wears that yellow vest who knows, when it's time for a fire and the
bells go, that you have to get out of the place. We're in a lot of trouble now
in 310, because we don't have that person who knows how to throw on the yellow
vest, wear the yellow cap, burst into the room and say: "You guys gotta get
out of here." But luckily for Laird, he does. All the best.
[1405]
Hon. R.
Coleman: Finally, someone from Fort Langley–Aldergrove has come to
Victoria. I am proud to introduce Jim and Marjorie Shiell, who are chicken
farmers extraordinaire from Fort Langley–Aldergrove. Jim is a former realtor.
Marg is a retired nurse. She could probably tell us all how to fix the health
care system. She certainly told me enough times. They're great volunteers, great
people and great friends. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. G.
Plant: Mr. Speaker, we're joined today by two future members and bright
stars of the legal profession of British Columbia. They are members of a mooting
team from the University of Victoria law school who succeeded in not only
winning a western Canadian mooting cup called the William McIntyre Cup but going
beyond that to win the national Sopinka Cup on behalf of the University of
Victoria.
I heard a
little bit about what they had to do to get there and the work they did in the
moot. The moot was presided over by a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.
One of the members of the team that I'm going to introduce gave his opening
remarks in perfect French without a single note, which I think was a surprise to
the people who were hearing him, and he said it was a bit of a surprise to him.
The other was, in fact, so recognized for her achievements at this event that
she will be attending the annual meeting of the Association of Trial Lawyers of
America soon.
The two
up-and-coming stars are Almira Esmail and Timothy Livingston. Importantly also,
they are joined today by their coaches: Nils Jensen, who is a well-respected
lawyer in British Columbia and a member of my ministry; and a respected local
barrister named Adrian Brooks. The two of them gave many, many hours to helping
these two younger people succeed.
Let me tell
you: mooting is tough work. To succeed at mooting does truly mean that you have
a bright future in the practice of law. I hope the people on the floor of the
Legislature will welcome those four individuals to the precincts and gallery
today.
MacPhail: I rise today to announce a birthday. One of our interns, Richard
Overgaard, turned 23 today. That, combined with earlier events this month, makes
our average age not that bad. [Laughter.]
Hon. J.
van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature 40 ESL
students with the Abbotsford Community Services. Abbotsford Community Services
provides great service to my community, and I ask the House to make them all
welcome.
Stewart: We're joined today by Sonja Puhringer and her mother, Renate
Puhringer. Sonja is a Rotary exchange student for the Victoria-Harbourside
Rotary Club. Sonja has been visiting our province this year. I ask the House to
please make her and her mother welcome.
Hon. K.
Falcon: In the gallery today I am pleased to welcome Annie Peraddy. Annie is
a grade 6 student from East Kensington Elementary School in Cloverdale, which, I
might add for the benefit of those here today, is the oldest school in Surrey.
It's over 100 years old. Annie is representing the grade 6 students from Ms.
Larch's class. I would ask that the House please make Annie feel welcome today.
Hon. G.
Hogg: We are joined in the House today by a lifelong friend of mine, a
fellow I went to school with, and he still admits to knowing and liking me.
An Hon.
Member: This I've got to see.
[1410]
Hon. G.
Hogg: Okay, so I'm making all this up. He's not really here. I had to feel
better about myself. [Laughter.]
Would the
House please welcome Wayne Proctor, Wilma Proctor, Carmen Proctor and their
friend, Vanessa Henneau.
[ Page 2286 ]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002
Hon. G.
Hogg presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled
Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002.
Hon. G.
Hogg: I move that Bill 17 be read for a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Hogg: The Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002, is a
package of three major, two minor and several housekeeping amendments which will
make further improvements to British Columbia's child welfare legislation.
In the
February Speech from the Throne, this government promised to give social workers
more options to provide safe care for children within the environment of
extended families. Today we are delivering on that commitment.
The
amendments we are proposing are necessary to better serve children and youth at
risk as well as their families. This will be done by increasing the range of
options available to ministry workers and to family court judges. The current
legislation limits the choices for judges and child protection workers when
confronted with a child at risk of harm in their home. Currently, there are two
options: the child must be either taken into the care of the ministry or left
within their own home. We believe that extended families and communities should
be considered as part of the solutions for these children and youth at risk.
The Child,
Family and Community Service Amendment Act makes these options available when it
is deemed to be in the best interest of the child or youth involved. These
amendments uphold the principles of the act.
A new
section of the act has been developed to allow the director of child protection
to apply for an order to transfer guardianship of a child in the director's
continuing custody to a person other than the child's parents.
Another
amendment will clarify the role and mandate of ministry social workers and
refocus ministry resources on vulnerable children and their caregivers. A lack
of clarity in the current language of the act around the duty to report has
meant that limited social work resources have been strained to investigate and
assess reports in areas where they have no legal jurisdiction to act.
A further
amendment imposes penalties on individuals who might disclose private or
identifying information about children in the care of the ministry. This
amendment makes B.C.'s laws consistent with similar legislation in other
provinces as well as with the principles of confidentiality that's widely
accepted for youth under the Young Offenders Act.
I'm pleased
to be able to introduce these amendments today, and I move that this bill be
placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the
House after today.
Bill 17
introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for
second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25
b) HUGH A. CURTIS
Chong: Today I have the pleasure of paying tribute to a constituent, a
well-known citizen of Saanich and also a great British Columbian.
This past
weekend the highest formal honour possible from the municipality of Saanich was
bestowed upon this citizen in recognition of his long and outstanding career in
public service and to acknowledge his commitment and dedication to the Saanich
community.
The honour
of Freeman was bestowed upon Hugh Austin Curtis on Saturday, March 23.
Throughout history, municipalities have acknowledged the accomplishments and
contributions of specific citizens with this honour, which is much like being
given the key to the city. Once the citizen is a Freeman, they can always vote
in elections regardless of where they reside, and their name is printed in the
front of the list of electors.
Hugh began
his career as a radio broadcast announcer, and it was not long after that that
his interest in public service took hold. He was elected for the first time to
Saanich council in 1961 and re-elected in '63. He was elected reeve in 1964 and
re-elected for three consecutive terms. It was in Hugh's reign, in 1968, that
the term "reeve" was changed to "mayor."
[1415]
He was the
first chair of the capital regional district, and during his municipal years he
also served as president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, vice-president for
B.C. of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and chair of the
Municipal Finance Authority. In 1972, Hugh Curtis was elected a member of the
British Columbia Legislature, where he was subsequently appointed Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing, provincial secretary, Minister of Government
Services and Minister of Finance.
Hugh's
legacy of dedicated commitment to public service is much broader than the
government spectrum. He has committed energy to many worthy endeavours,
including the Variety Club of B.C., the David Foster Foundation and, as honorary
director, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.
The legacy
of Hugh's work and public service is felt not only in Saanich but provincewide.
After a unanimous vote of council, Freeman of the municipality, the highest
honour of the municipality, was bestowed
[ Page 2287 ]
upon Hugh Austin Curtis. Hugh has indicated that while free parking is not
included with the title of Freeman, it will nonetheless be very treasured.
FETAL ALCOHOL SYNDROME
Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present some disturbing facts about
the leading known cause of intellectual disability in children, a disability
which is 100 percent preventable but 100 percent incurable. Fetal alcohol
syndrome is the leading known cause of mental disability in children. The damage
is permanent. Most children with FAS will never be financially or socially
self-sufficient. They are also more likely to be in foster care, require special
education, drop out of school early, develop substance use disorders, have
trouble with the law, and experience joblessness and homelessness.
For an
estimated 140 children born with FAS in British Columbia this year, between $140
million and $280 million in additional funds will be required to care for them
over their lifetime. This cost will continue every year that FAS rates remain
high. The human costs — the loss in quality of life, effects on mental health,
joblessness, homelessness and even early death — are immeasurable.
Children do
not grow out of FAS, even with the best family environment and schools. Early
diagnosis and intervention make a difference in reducing the secondary problems
mentioned above. In my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, we are fortunate to
have the Asante Centre. This centre is championed by Dr. Asante, an acknowledged
world leader in the assessment and care of children with FAS. The centre is
progressive in the diagnosis, assessment and family support that is so essential
in a solutions-focused intervention by providing family caregivers and educators
the correct tools to care for and support children and adults with
alcohol-related disabilities.
These
programs give the best opportunity for normalizing the disabilities afflicting
those with fetal alcohol syndrome and are most worthy of our support. In the
words of Dr. Asante on his centre: "We do good work here."
KENNEY DAM PROPOSAL
MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Kenney Dam, which is located west of Vanderhoof,
was completed in the early 1950s. When the dam was created, several lakes were
created behind the dam, such as Eutsuk Lake, Tetachuk, Ootsa and Whitesail.
Collectively, those lakes are now known as the Nechako Reservoir or the Nechako
watershed. The water from that watershed travels down Tahtsa Narrows and
produces power at Kemano, which then travels on to Alcan and into the B.C. grid.
In 1997 we
saw the formation of the Nechako environmental enhancement fund, which was made
up of three people. The purpose of this committee was to look at options to
enhance downstream benefits to Vanderhoof and Prince George, which suffered with
the lack of water in the Nechako River. In 1998 the Nechako Watershed Council
was formed. It was made up of 18 different organizations with the same purpose
— that is, for the social well-being and environmental benefits to downstream
communities.
I am
pleased to report to the House that the Nechako Watershed Council has developed
a proposal for a cold water release facility at the Kenney Dam site, which will
see cold water taken from deep inside the reservoir and released over a spillway
to be built near the Kenney Dam. The preliminary work for this proposal will be
funded jointly by the province and Alcan over the next three years. With this
implementation we will see less water having to come from the Nechako watershed
to cool the Nechako River during salmon migration — less water than we
presently have going over the spillway today.
[1420]
This
proposal will create economic opportunities while maintaining environmental
standards and ensuring sustainability. The fact that consensus was accomplished
within the Nechako Watershed Council, which now consists of 25 members, is
indeed a worthy accomplishment, and I would like to add my note of gratitude to
all the members of the Nechako Watershed Council for a job well done.
Oral Questions
USER FEES FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES
MacPhail: The Vancouver coastal health authority wants to make patients pay
for emergency care in Richmond. The Minister of Health Planning has said that
she is currently working on signing off on these health authority plans. Will
the Minister of Health Planning authorize this change?
Hon. S.
Hawkins: The member knows that we are committed to being in full compliance
with the Canada Health Act. What she's referring to is working documents.
Nothing's been signed off yet.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.
MacPhail: I fully expected the Minister of Health Planning to skate, as she
always does.
Well, every
day British Columbians learn more and more about cuts to health care in this
province, and every day this minister washes her hands of responsibility. It's a
old document; it's a working document; it's up to the regions.
Again, to
the Minister of Health Planning: will she or won't she authorize charging
patients for emergency care in Richmond, and how much are they going to be
charged?
Hon. S.
Hawkins: Our government is fully committed to being in compliance with the
Canada Health Act,
[ Page 2288 ]
and we expect the health authorities to be that way too. And you know what?
We've given our health authorities a challenge: to go out and plan in the best
way for the needs of their population.
And you
know what? That member over there, when she was Health minister, agreed with
that because she said that her government was moving health care decision-making
out of Victoria and into the hands of community and regional authorities who had
their hands on the pulse of patient priorities. And you know what? We agree with
that, and that's what we are expecting our health authorities to do.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.
MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the only difference is that our government knew what
we were doing, as opposed to this…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
MacPhail: …minister, who gets faced with a leaked document day after day
after day. She has no idea what's going on, and this is another example.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
MacPhail: It's apparent that this minister has no concept of what's going on
at all with the health authorities. That's the difference. There's chaos out
there in the health system, and she has no idea what's going on, although she
does admit, Mr. Speaker, that she's got to sign off on the plans. It's almost
the end of the fiscal year.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Would the
member now please put her question.
MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It's almost
the end of the fiscal year. Hospitals and patients need to know now what
services are going to be available and which ones are going to cost more. Will
the minister stand today and tell us when the health plans will be signed off
and made public, and just when will patients get to know what extra costs they
have to bear under this government?
Hon. S.
Hawkins: For the first time ever health authorities got their budget letters
on time, and for the first time ever they got three-year budgeting envelopes.
They were told what their budget was going to be for three years. What we have
asked them to do….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. S.
Hawkins: I find it really interesting that she's talking about plans, Mr.
Speaker. For the last ten years there was no planning, and that's why we're in
the mess we're in. We're asking good people on the ground to help us identify
the needs of their community and what the plans are. They're working documents,
and — you know what? — we're working closely with them. She obviously
doesn't believe they're capable of doing that. We have every confidence that
they are capable of doing that.
[1425]
LONG TERM CARE BEDS
J. Kwan:
What we're concerned about is that this government is off-loading its
responsibilities to the local authorities, and when programs are cut they're
saying: "Hey, we didn't do it." In the New Era document the
government promised to create 5,000 intermediate beds, but in communities around
the province that promise is being broken. This week workers at the Penticton
Retirement Centre were told that that facility and its 100 long-term care beds
is going to be closed.
To the
Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care: would she like to
explain to the senior citizens living there, many of whom I'm sure voted for
this government, why she is breaking her promise to them?
Hon. K.
Whittred: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to say that I, in fact, was in
Penticton just last week to open a brand-new campus of care for 135 new units.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Hon. K.
Whittred: This new campus of care is the latest in what the research tells
us seniors want. It consists of 35 assisted-living units, where seniors can live
independently while enjoying support. It consists of four brand-new dementia
cottages, each one housing ten individuals. It offers care to 60 multilevel-care
patients and an adult day centre.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary
question.
J. Kwan:
This minister knows that not one new bed was added. She knows that those were
replacement beds.
[ Page 2289 ]
British
Columbians with aging parents are counting on the government….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please, hon. members. The member for
Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.
J. Kwan:
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
British
Columbians with aging parents were counting on this government to fulfil its
promise of 5,000 new beds. If mothers and fathers get sick, and they have to
provide care around the clock, they need to know that they will have a safe,
comfortable and caring place to live. Most children simply cannot afford to
provide the care that their parents need at home.
To the
minister once again: it's time to come clean with the seniors and their
children. How many more new long-term beds is this minister planning on putting
in place for British Columbians, and how many beds is this minister closing?
Hon. K.
Whittred: This government is going to deliver 5,000 new beds.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.
Hon. K.
Whittred: Over the break not only was I honoured to go to Penticton to make
this announcement, I was also in Williams Lake, where I announced a new seniors
facility. I was in Victoria, where I announced a new supportive living
housing….
The
facility in Penticton is the new for the old. What we have done is phase out,
over time, an old facility that is no longer useful. In addition, Mr. Speaker…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Hon. K.
Whittred: …this represents a new partnership. It is not a drain on the
public purse. This is a partnership between the interior health authority, B.C.
Housing and a non-profit society. This is how those 5,000 beds are going to be
delivered.
[1430]
FUNDING FOR SURREY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Hayer: I would like to ask a public written question submitted by Mary
Polak, chairperson of the board of school trustees of Surrey school district 36,
to the Minister of Education.
Ministry of Education table entitled 'Comparison of Each School District's
Enrolment and 2002/03 Estimated Operating Grant' indicates Surrey School
District's student population represents 10.2% of the provincial student
population. Under the terms of fairness and equitable distribution, why
would Surrey only receive 9.4% of the total education operating grant when
it represents 10.2% of the provincial student population, when just about
every other school district is within 0.1 percentage point in their funding
allocation and their student population, while Surrey's gap is 0.8%,
representing $16 million, the dramatic shortfall that we are currently
facing?"
Hon. C.
Clark: We introduced a new funding formula this year, and we are moving
towards equity in funding of school districts for the first time in quite a
while in British Columbia. That doesn't mean, though, that it's not still more
expensive to educate a child in a district that's widely dispersed and rural
than it is in a district that's highly compact and urban.
In a
district like Surrey, where the transportation and heating costs may be less, we
recognize that. In a district like Bulkley Valley where schools may be widely
dispersed, where schools may have a low population, where they may have extra
heating costs, we recognize that it's more expensive to educate a child there.
We are
moving towards equity for every child in British Columbia because every child
deserves the same opportunity to learn in our schools.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Surrey-Tynehead with a supplementary question.
Hayer: The minister has previously committed to directing every possible
dollar to where it is needed the most: providing services to students in the
classroom. Can the Minister of Education confirm that any additional dollars
that become available will be allocated to the public school system on a
per-student basis?
Hon. C.
Clark: I am delighted to be able to announce today that we have available,
at the end of the fiscal year, $44.6 million that we will be making available to
school districts across the province. This is good news for students.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. C.
Clark: Our government has a commitment. When we save money in our ministry,
we will deliver that money to school districts so that they can deliver that
money for better education for every child in British Columbia.
In Surrey
that means an additional $4,320,523 — money that they will use to ensure that
every child in Surrey gets the best top-notch education that we can provide.
FUNDING FOR WOMEN'S SERVICES
Trumper: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I
understand that the minister
[ Page 2290 ]
announced today one-time funding grants for providers of women's services
across British Columbia. Can the Minister of State for Women's Equality tell us
where those dollars are being allocated.
Hon. L.
Stephens: I'm very pleased that the member has asked this question. Our
government very much values the fine work being done by women-serving
organizations across this province.
That's why
I'm extremely pleased to announce today that over $954,000 will be going in
one-time funding grants to women-serving organizations across the province.
Again, through those ministry savings, we were able to make this limited
contribution to these organizations. What we are doing is making sure that our
government recognizes…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.
Hon. L.
Stephens: …the priority essential services of this government for
women-serving organizations across this province.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Alberni-Qualicum has a supplementary question.
Trumper: The minister has committed to protect the funding for essential
women's services, including transition homes, second-stage housing and
counselling services. Can the Minister of State for Women's Equality tell us if
today's funding announcement will be directed to these priority services?
[1435]
Hon. L.
Stephens: Yes, in fact I can. There are 145 community organizations that
will be receiving this one-term funding. They include women's centres, family
emergency societies, women-in-need societies, multicultural family support
services, community services societies and a number of others around the
province. All of these organizations will be receiving this one-time funding
because the government is well aware of the extremely critical work…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. L.
Stephens: …they do in the province to support British Columbia's families.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Hon. L.
Stephens: This government does indeed recognize the value that women-serving
organizations bring to this province and the services that they provide…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.
Hon. L.
Stephens: …through these organizations to the women and their families in
British Columbia.
[End of question period.]
Petitions
Hon. R.
Thorpe: I have the honour to present a petition from the Summerland Hospital
Action Committee regarding the Summerland Hospital.
Tabling Documents
Hon. J.
Reid: I have the honour to present the annual reports for B.C. Transit and
Rapid Transit Project 2000 for the year ending March 31, 2001.
Reports from Committees
McMahon: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour
to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Education for the
third session of the thirty-seventh parliament, entitled A Future for
Learners: A Vision for Renewal of Education in British Columbia . Hon.
Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion
approved.
McMahon: This report reflects the Education Committee's consultation with
students, parents, educators, administrators and other British Columbians on
measures to improve access, choice, flexibility and quality in public education
and measures to strengthen our network of colleges, institutes and on-line
learning throughout the province. The committee's report concludes that the
economic, social and democratic interest of learners, of local communities and
of the province are best served by a seamless education system that enables all
British Columbians to access a variety of world-class learning opportunities.
To achieve
this vision, the committee agreed that we must refocus attention on learning and
on the needs of learners and communities. The report identifies strategies and
actions in three major areas: mandate, service delivery, and governance and
management. The recommended changes will create a system that is focused,
responsive, accountable and professional.
appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and
I would like to thank the members for Delta North, Surrey-Whalley,
Okanagan-Vernon, Burnaby North, Surrey–Green Timbers, Port Coquitlam–Burke
Mountain, Vancouver-Kingsway, Victoria-Hillside and Coquitlam-Maillardville, as
well as the Clerks to the committee, Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Anne Stokes,
consultants to the committee, Bob John-
[ Page 2291 ]
stone and Tarry Grieve, and research staff and Hansard staff.
Mr.
Speaker: The member is now moving adoption of the report, and that requires
leave. Shall leave be granted?
Leave
granted.
J. Kwan:
I seek to leave to table a document.
Mr.
Speaker: Please proceed.
J. Kwan:
I have the honour to table the opposition's report on the future of education in
British Columbia, entitled Excellence and Opportunity for All: Investing in
Education and Investing in People .
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Hon. member, it's out of order. The report is not in order
at this time.
Hon.
members, the motion is leave to adopt the report, and further debate is allowed
on the motion. Is there any further debate?
[1440]
R. Masi:
Over the months that the select standing committee held public hearings, the
members heard many, many education stakeholders present reports of how they felt
government should best deliver education to the learners of this province. The
report represents the voices of a broad range of interests which include
parents, learners, teachers, community activists, post-secondary educators,
union representatives and business interests. It also reflects the serious
deliberations of the select standing committee.
The report
focuses on the development of a seamless education system, a system which will
allow learners to enter and re-enter the system at any age, at any level of
education; a system which provides flexibility, unencumbered by excessive rules,
regulations and contractual restrictions; a system that provides maximum
opportunities for learners by reducing bureaucratic duplications and territorial
duelling.
Mr.
Speaker, this report represents a vision for the future, a vision for the
renewal of education in British Columbia.
Mr.
Speaker: Further debate on the motion to adopt the report?
Motion
approved.
Petitions
Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 158 people
concerning our health care system.
Mr.
Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant seeks the floor.
J. Kwan:
I seek leave to table a document.
Mr.
Speaker: Please proceed.
J. Kwan:
I have the honour to table the opposition's report on the future of education in
British Columbia, entitled Excellence and Opportunity For All ….
Mr.
Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. We must ask leave to present a document.
Would the member please ask leave. The House must give leave.
J. Kwan:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did ask leave, and you asked me to go ahead.
Leave
not granted.
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Collins: Despite what the member opposite thinks, the rules are the same now
as they were a year ago, two years ago and three years ago.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you.
Hon. G.
Collins: She should have known them then; she should know them now.
Mr.
Speaker, I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply. For the information of
members, they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General,
followed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.
In this
House, I call committee stage on Bill 13.
Committee of the Whole House
SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2002
The
House in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 13; T. Christensen in the
chair.
The
committee met at 2:44 p.m.
Sections 1
to 3 inclusive approved.
[1445]
Preamble
approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill
complete without amendment.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 2:46 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[ Page 2292 ]
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 13,
Supply Act (No. 1), 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time
and passed.
Supplementary Estimates
Hon. G.
Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: supplementary
estimates (No. 2) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.
Hon. G.
Collins moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the message
be referred to Committee of Supply.
MacPhail: I'm sorry. I was out for 30 seconds. I don't understand this
referral, Mr. Speaker. Could you explain it to me before I vote on it?
Mr.
Speaker: Yes, one moment, please.
Hon.
members, all estimates are referred to Committee of Supply, and we'll have a
brief five-minute recess for distribution.
MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this comes as brand-new news to me that we're doing
this today, so I'd appreciate very much that as we distribute…. I'd also ask,
Mr. Speaker, if you could consider the fact that I'm going to need time to
consider the content of the supplementary estimates after its distribution. It's
brand-new news to me.
Hon. G.
Collins: Supplemental estimates and bills in the House are almost always
news to the opposition. In fact, every one is. This procedure is not without
long historic precedence. There's nothing nefarious here. I'm glad to provide
the member opposite with time to look at the supplemental estimate. I'm glad to
have somebody talk to her if she has some questions about it. It's not
complicated. In fact, it's simpler than the one we did two weeks ago. I'm glad
to provide whatever information the member needs, but this is not an unusual
process.
Mr.
Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The House will recess for ten minutes.
The
question is to refer the bill to Committee of Supply.
Motion
approved.
Mr.
Speaker: We will recess now for ten minutes — till 3 o'clock — for
distribution of the bill.
The House
recessed from 2:49 p.m. to 3:06 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Committee of Supply.
Committee of Supply
The House
in Committee of Supply B; T. Christensen in the chair.
The
committee met at 3:07 p.m.
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (No. 2)
On vote
58(S): government restructuring, $95,000,000.
MacPhail: Could the minister please explain the reason for this vote?
Hon. G.
Collins: I'd be pleased to do that. I just did so outside the chamber in
response to the comments of the member opposite, and I'm very glad to do that
here.
As the
member knows, supplemental estimates are required when government anticipates
there will be an expenditure over and above that which has previously been set
out and approved by the Legislature. In this year there was a previous
supplemental estimate about two weeks ago. The member will recall that dealt
with the write-down, virtually in its entirety, of the asset which was Skeena
Cellulose as a result of decisions made by the previous government — some $400
million, I believe.
As well,
included in that was the request for approval from the Legislature for several
hundreds of millions of dollars in order to provide the funding to pay
physicians as a result of the arbitration and legislation that had passed with
regard to physicians' compensation.
Since that
time, we have had a couple of things happen. First of all, there was the
workforce adjustment numbers, which were included in the budgets and the
quarterly reports over this last number of cycles over the last ten months. The
number that government had reported was, I think, about $85 million. That was
determined for this fiscal year based on the government's restructuring plans
for changes that are happening now and in the future.
As the
member will recall, the adjustment plan included voluntary severance. If people
chose to volunteer to leave their positions, there was a package. We announced
that in November. Certainly, there was a briefing at that time provided to the
member, the public and the media on how the workforce adjustment programs were
going to work and the costs associated with them. There was a volunteer
severance provision. There were also early retirement provisions made available
to public servants who would choose to retire early, thereby voluntarily leaving
the public service.
[1510]
We found we
put forward the best estimates. I know that Vince Collins, who is the deputy
responsible for PSERC, had put forward a plan of what that might look like and
how that might phase in over time. I'm pleased to say that we have had a
slightly higher take-
[ Page 2293 ]
up on the voluntary provisions than was originally anticipated, so there will
be a larger proportion of the people leaving who will be doing so in a voluntary
capacity or doing so as a result of the early retirement provisions.
There have
also been opportunities in some cases to start to implement the service plans of
government earlier than had been initially planned, so in fact we're a little
bit ahead of schedule. That has resulted in a higher amount for severance and
restructuring for this year. Any amounts that are additional this year are
amounts that will not end up being funded according to the number that was
forecast in the plan for the next year or the year after.
Essentially,
what has happened here is that people are leaving earlier. As a result, they're
leaving in this fiscal year as opposed to next fiscal year. I was hoping for and
we may still end up in a situation where we could fund these out of
contingencies with the room in the contingencies budget.
However, as
we near the end of the fiscal year, it has become clear to us that as a result
of the windup of Tech B.C. and as a result of the lease arrangement the previous
government entered into with ICBC under the administration of the member
opposite, the cost of the lease to Tech B.C. was well above market rates or at
least a certain amount above market rates. As a result, we will probably need to
incur in this year a write-down of the future costs of that lease as we
extricate ourselves from that building and that lease.
I am still
hopeful we will be able to contain this within the contingencies — both the
Tech B.C. write-down, although we have not been able to put a fixed number on
it, as well as this cost. However, given the slimness of the room that's left
after many of the other things we've been trying to clean up for the last year,
I thought it was prudent to come to the House to seek a supplemental estimate as
opposed to using a special warrant, which was something the previous government
used quite regularly.
Doing this
process of coming for a supplemental estimate allows us to ensure that there
will be appropriate funding there and that government will not run afoul of the
appropriations and will not have to seek a special warrant or use that process,
which we've committed not to doing. It will also ensure that we book the costs
in the appropriate year.
certainly hope, and I hope, that once all the numbers are in for this fiscal
year, this appropriation will not be required, either all or in part. I hope we
don't need it at all, but I think that given the tightness and the
unpredictability of the final amount for the Tech B.C. write-down, it's
appropriate to seek the provisions in advance.
MacPhail: Here we are at ten after three just before a long weekend, and
here's what the public has found out today about this Minister of Finance's
budget. "Oops, we found $44 million in the education budget that we had no
idea was going to occur. We've made lots of mistakes, and there were cuts to
education, so let's get that out the door."
Then we
have a bill where, no matter how much the minister tries to skate and bring up
things he has no responsibility for, we are paying out $95 million for this
reason:
"This
vote provides funding for costs associated with voluntary departure and
early retirement incentive programs, employee termination benefits and
related severance costs, facility closure costs, costs to consolidate and
relocate operations and other costs associated with the government's
approved plan for restructuring."
No matter
how much the minister tries to make up for his inability to budget anything in
the way anybody can predict, here we are today. That's what the vote is about.
Let's discuss it in the context of the vote, the $95 million. Let's start with
the less controversial part, I assume, of the $95 million: the operating costs
that are supplemental. Could the minister identify what that $1 million is for?
[1515]
Hon. G.
Collins: There is $85 million for the workforce adjustment. That's $81
million for voluntary departure. That's estimates to date. There's $4 million
for involuntary departure and related severance costs, estimates to date.
There's $1 million in accommodation restructuring — that's tenant improvement
payouts and lease payouts. There's $9 million for other restructuring, which is
write-offs for capital assets and contract termination penalties incurred for
cancelled projects.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, maybe I could seek guidance from you. I received this
information moments ago, and the minister's reading out very quickly. Either he
can repeat it, or we can go though it line by line. I asked about the $1 million
in terms of operating costs.
Hon. G.
Collins: I'm glad to move more slowly, if the member would like that.
The $1
million in costs she refers to, as I said, is accommodation restructuring, which
is tenant improvement payouts on vacated properties as well as lease payouts.
MacPhail: And where are those improvements? What is meant by improvement to
a property — improvement to sell, to lease again? And where are those?
Hon. G.
Collins: If I'm not accurate on this, I'm sure my staff will tell me.
understanding is that when you occupy an office space, it is not unusual in the
public or private sector for the tenant to seek improvements — changes to the
layout, carpet, different lighting, moving a wall, paint, curtains, blinds,
those sorts of things. Those are generally known as tenant improvements.
In some
cases the tenant may pay for those themselves. In some cases they may be folded
in as part of the ongoing lease and will be paid out over a period of
[ Page 2294 ]
time as part of the lease. So when someone vacates that property prior to the
end of the lease, there are penalties associated with it. In some cases that
means you have to buy out the lease; there are various contractual arrangements
around that. In some cases it means that you have to pay the remaining portion
for those tenant improvements which you would have paid over the term of that
lease, but now that you're not there and you're getting out of the lease, you
have to pay them up front.
MacPhail: I'm curious as to that, because clearly this didn't come as a
surprise. The restructuring was announced to the world on January 17. I assume
the government knew about the restructuring well before January 17. What
possible reason could there be to incur an unconsidered cost of $1 million about
lease improvements? Maybe the minister could list the properties in which that
occurred. Were they public service properties? Why has this come as a surprise?
Hon. G.
Collins: In fact, it hasn't come as a surprise. It is part of the
government's estimates, having canvassed in a general way what provisions there
are, what leases are in place and where leases will be vacated. It wouldn't come
as a surprise to the member opposite if she'd raised this in the estimates of
the Ministry of Management Services, where it all could have been discussed in
great detail. That didn't happen. That's fine. But there is no surprise here.
The tenant
improvements the member refers to, for example, may have been on a lease that
was entered into three years ago, and there was a term left on the lease. There
would have been a requirement to pay out those tenant improvements over a period
of time. Perhaps the final two years of, let's say, a five-year lease are not
going to be taken up. Then you would have to pay out the lease, which is part of
the $1 million, as well as the improvements there.
There
certainly has been no attempt by government…. It certainly hasn't happened, to
my knowledge — although, given the size of government, one never knows —
that there would have been improvements in a leased property that would have
been approved after government had decided they were going to close that
particular property. Given the size of government and the difficulty for
communication, I'm not going to say that would never happen. I'm just not aware
of it, nor would it be our intent to have that happen in any way, nor would I
think any manager would intend that to happen either.
MacPhail: I don't want to talk in the hypothetical; I want to talk about the
$1 million here. This $1 million is spent for costs associated with government's
approved plan for restructuring, which was announced January 17.
For the
minister to somehow suggest that we could have discussed this under the
estimates of Management Services…. The reason we're here is because these are
costs that weren't contemplated in the estimates for '02-03. The reason we're
here is because they're expenditures for '01-02. Could the minister please name
the properties and the improvements?
[1520]
Hon. G.
Collins: In fact, this debate could have happened in the estimates of the
ministry, because government has made it public since at least November that we
had forecast, I believe, $85 million for restructuring for this fiscal year.
As early as
November the member opposite was aware, as well as everyone else in the public
and the public service, that government was forecasting an additional cost over
and above the budget from July 30 last year for these restructuring costs.
That's been out there for some period of time. There's not a surprise on that.
That's why I don't understand why the member would be surprised. These are not
costs government is surprised today, all of a sudden, that we're going to incur.
We said in
November when we released the restructuring package that these costs would
incur. We estimated them at that time to be about $85 million. As I said
earlier, they're going to be more than that for the reasons I've already stated.
This was in the quarterly reports as well. It's been out there to a great
extent.
I had not
brought this supplemental estimate in last time, two weeks ago, with the other
one, because I was hopeful we would be able to contain it within the
contingencies and other previous appropriations government already had. As a
result of the Tech B.C. potential write-down on the lease, it's not guaranteed
that room will be there or that it will be sufficient and still leave enough
room to allow me as minister to be comfortable. That's why we're doing this. As
I said earlier, I hope we don't end up having to spend this, and we'll do
everything we can not to spend the additional appropriation in whole or in part.
There are
no surprises here. If the member wants to have a detailed breakdown of each site
or place, then I will be pleased to try and get that for her. I can't do it
today obviously. But I'd be glad to try and get that for her, make that
available and provide a briefing for her. I'm sure the deputy minister for PSERC
would be able to provide that in some detail. If there are other officials that
are helpful — BCBC — to try and do that, I'd be pleased to provide that if
that's what the member would like.
MacPhail: I don't think it's any surprise to the Minister of Finance, the
fact that nobody knows what's going on with the finances of the province.
The
minister may have said that the costs for severance were going to be around $85
million in the fall, but that was at the same time the government was denying
they were going to increase MSP premiums. Someone needed to get a new deep
throat. The opposition said that the government was going to increase MSP
premiums. Well, it turns out that the government increased MSP premiums.
[ Page 2295 ]
At the same
time that the government was speculating that the costs for severance for this
year — in fact the government didn't specify that it would be for this year
— may be around $85 million, there is also a leaked document for health
suggesting that the costs for severance are well over $200 million.
This is the
time when we actually get the facts. It's the first time we've seen these facts
on paper. Yes, I do want a list of every property, what the improvements are and
why the improvements need to be made for $1 million.
This is up
to March 31, 2002. This is dealing with the budget that changes daily. Today we
had $44 million restored to help with education cuts that the government has
made. It turns out that money was available too. I'm sure the public is not
quite sure what's happening with their finances.
The next
one I wanted to deal with was the $9 million under "other expenses"
— an accounting of that, please.
[1525]
Hon. G.
Collins: I'll say again that this isn't a surprise to anyone other than the
member opposite apparently. It was disclosed in November with the workforce
adjustment and the restructuring at that time.
I've
explained why the number is slightly higher. I've explained the fact that we
hope we don't have to use this appropriation, and we'll do everything we can to
not use it. Given we're at the very end of the fiscal year, rather than have to
correct this after the fiscal year, if we can't and there is insufficient room,
I think the appropriate thing to do is come to the Legislature and seek the
appropriation. Then it's there if necessary. If it's not, then that's good news.
So I think I've explained that.
I would be
very happy to provide a briefing to the member opposite on the details and
breakouts of all of these items, this $95 million. Perhaps we can do that at the
same time as we're providing her with the briefing I committed to on how Skeena
Cellulose went south and the costs that are associated with that. When the time
is appropriate and amenable to both the member and staff in this ministry, I'd
certainly be pleased to provide all of that detail.
The member
asked about the $9 million for other restructuring. That is for write-offs of
capital assets — i.e., information systems. We could have a long discussion
about information systems and what they've cost the government and taxpayers
over the last decade, but now is probably not the appropriate time. I'll wait
for estimates.
The other
is contract termination penalties incurred for cancelled projects. Again, I
would be very happy to provide the same detail on these as I would on the
million-dollar items that she was referring to.
Further, in
response to the member's comments — although not particularly relevant here
— about the education decision today, I just want to make it clear that the
money being granted to school districts is money that was contained in the
education budget for this year. It is not additional funding. It is money that
was in the budget, and because of proper planning and cost control within the
ministry this year and a variety of issues, the ministry has money that is
available.
This
government committed to not cut the funding for education or health care. There
is money left in the education budget. We also said in the election that we were
going to focus education dollars on students. That's why that money is being
directed back to the school districts for them to provide for the needs of
students at their will.
MacPhail: Could the minister please name the information systems that are
being written off and the contracts that have term penalties being paid out?
Hon. G.
Collins: I am not able to do that. I am very happy to provide a detailed
breakout and briefing for the member when the time comes. As I said, these are
estimates. We don't have all of the information from the information systems as
to what the total cost will be, but I'm certainly prepared to provide for the
member a breakout of that and a briefing at the same time if she wants the
details on all of these items. I'd be more than happy to make that available.
MacPhail: I had ten minutes to prepare for this, and I'm prepared. I'm not
quite sure why we can't have this information. This is the place where this
information is revealed, not in private briefings. Please, what are the
write-offs for the information systems and the contracts that are cancelled that
require penalty payments?
Hon. G.
Collins: My answer is the same. It is not uncommon at all for briefings to
be provided in general estimates during, before or after. In fact, I recall
numerous times when that member was the minister of various ministries, when
more detailed information was offered to members either prior, during or after
an estimate. I will stand by that longstanding practice here and make that
information available to the member.
MacPhail: Briefings were always provided before. Well then, let's adjourn.
Let's recess, and I'll take a briefing right now before we pass this.
[1530]
This is
ridiculous. At 3:30 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon this government is spending $95
million of taxpayer money, and nobody can get any detail on it. Why isn't the
Liberal back bench rising up and saying: "What's going on?" These are
pretty basic questions, Mr. Chair, and I can't get answers to any of them — to
any of my questions. It is unbelievable. It is an abuse of the time in this
chamber, and it's abuse of the taxpayers as well.
I request
again that we recess and that I get a briefing on this. Then I can reveal to the
taxpayers what this money, the $9 million, is being spent on.
Hon. G.
Collins: It is not required. In fact, the information is as in the
legislation. It is an estimate. I
[ Page 2296 ]
would state to the member that despite her hysteria, there is nothing
different today from what her government did except for the fact that we've
taken it to the Legislature rather than merely sending the Minister of Finance
over to the Lieutenant-Governor, without knowledge of anyone, to get a special
warrant. This is part of the new transparency. That's why there's a supplemental
estimate as opposed to a special warrant, which was the practice of the previous
administration.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, members. The Minister of Finance has the floor.
Hon. G.
Collins: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As I said,
despite the member's hysteria, this is a practice that is longstanding in many
jurisdictions. In fact, there were times in the last parliament, just before the
last election, or the session prior it, I guess…. That would have been the
2000 session. I believe — and I stand to be corrected, but I'm pretty sure —
there were supplemental estimates tabled by the then Minister of Finance, Paul
Ramsey. In fact, the scope of the information is identical to the information
that is here. The member can go back and check the Hansard . She wasn't
involved in the debate; I was. She's welcome to check that, but we intend to
move forward. As I said, although I'm not required to, I'm very happy to provide
further detailed information to the member and to provide a briefing to her as
I've offered her repeatedly in my time in office.
MacPhail: This is worse than a special warrant. There is no detail. There is
absolutely none. The minister shows up in this chamber hours before adjournment
for a long weekend, hours before the conclusion of the fiscal year, spends $95
million of tax money and has no answers for anything — absolutely none. That
is different; that is new. It's unwarranted, and it's an abuse of this
procedure. There is nothing transparent, and there's nothing accountable about
this.
request…. Mr. Chair, I'm shocked that I'm being refused a briefing so that we
can actually ask questions. I guess these members must know what the $9 million
is being spent on, because they're going to stand up and go: "Yes, I'm in
favour of this." They're going to vote in favour of it without knowing.
Well, maybe they had those caucus times. Maybe in caucus they all sit around,
all 76 of them, and say: "Oh, that's good — to spend that $95
million."
Guess what.
The public isn't at the caucus meeting. This is the chamber where this
government is required to be open and accountable. It's the only way anyone can
hold this government open and accountable other than through leaked documents.
That's the other way. That's how British Columbians find out about what's going
on here: through leaked documents or through this procedure. Through this
procedure the answer is: "I don't know. I'll get back to you." That's
the answer. It's unbelievable.
Well, I am
extremely disappointed on behalf of the taxpayers that there are no answers
forthcoming.
On the item
of $85 million — $85 million. The minister broke that down into two parts of
$81 million and $4 million, I think. Could the minister repeat that?
[1535]
Hon. G.
Collins: I'd be pleased to in a moment, but before I do that, I would like
to refer to just how much briefing the member opposite has had and the
opportunity she has had to receive briefings on this issue. In November, when
the government put forward the workforce adjustment package for staff in the
public sector, there was a great deal of information put out. I believe there
was a briefing provided to the member opposite; in fact, I'm positive there was.
Indeed, there have been opportunities since then for the member to request a
briefing.
Secondly,
in the quarterly reports this issue has been referred to repeatedly. As well,
I'll direct the member…. I know she did receive provision before the public
and privileges as opposition that we never had when we were in opposition. There
was a lockup for the member, and she was allowed to come into the House and
released from her lockup. That's something that's never done in opposition, but
that's fine.
I'm sure
that in the member's time in her lockup, she would have referred to page 67 of
the budget and fiscal plan for 2002-03 to 2004-05. For the member's benefit,
page 67 actually has government restructuring which includes the workforce
adjustment strategy, the accommodation restructuring initiative and other
restructuring costs. The estimates are there, and the only reason we're here
today is because there is a requirement for a supplemental estimate. As I've
explained repeatedly, it was hoped that we wouldn't need to do that despite the
fact that it was what had been said. The member has had certainly more
opportunities….
Thirdly,
she had every opportunity to canvass in whatever detail she wanted from the
Minister of Management Services, who is part of this as well through PSERC, if
she wanted detailed information. Certainly BCBC, the Crown corporation, was
available for the member to receive a briefing. Across the floor I've offered
her briefings dozens of time on a whole range of issues, and to my knowledge
they've never been taken up.
I know the
hysteria and the fevered pitch at which the member is pursuing this issue. I
would just say that if that feeling was genuine, if her outrage was genuine and
if her desire to do the public good was genuine, she's had a multitude of
opportunities to get whatever details she wanted prior to today on this subject
or many others. Clearly, she hasn't thought that was sufficiently important to
put at the top of her priority list, which I know is clogged with many things. I
understand that, but those offers are available. They remain available. The
government is going to proceed with this estimate in the legislation today.
We're nearing the end of the fiscal year.
[ Page 2297 ]
If the
member wants to talk about abuse of this House and its time, I recall being in
this House around the clock on a number of times on the very last day of the
fiscal year, and sometimes that was even on weekends. Here we are, and despite
the member's outrage, this government is behaving in ten times more responsible
a fashion than was ever displayed by the previous administration, including the
time when she was Minister of Finance.
Despite all
her bluster, despite what she's saying and despite trying to make this into some
sort of political issue…. Perhaps she's not prepared for the estimates that
are to follow. Despite that, Mr. Chairman, all of this information is available
if she wants further detail: contract by contract; address by address for
buildings; individual by individual for workforce adjustment, not using their
names, of course, but by positions; individual contract by contract; lease by
lease. I would certainly be more than happy to make that information available
to the member opposite as it becomes available.
There is
nothing here that should cause her to be as exercised as she is. As I stated,
this information has been out there since November. It was included in the
budget; it's been included in the quarterly reports. Briefings have been offered
to the member repeatedly. I don't know what more I can add.
MacPhail: Methinks thou doth protest too much. Frankly, I'm always surprised
at how little the minister knows about his job. This is the budget for '02-03
and refers to costs of $215 million that would be incurred in '02-03, which
starts April 1. Fair enough. The Minister of Finance and I will debate that cost
when we get to his estimates.
You know
what? If the minister himself would actually like to treat this House with
respect, he'd actually answer my questions.
[1540]
Hon. G.
Collins: I'm trying to be as respectful as I possibly can to the member
opposite. In doing so, I'll draw her attention to the fact that if she looks at
page 67, which she was just referring to, and goes to the very bottom of the
page — I'm pleased to highlight it and send it over for her — she'll see a
table where it says funding categories for operating, capital and total
restructuring costs. There are a range.... The 215 number that she's referring
to is the total workforce adjustment strategy in salaries. I'm assuming that's
salaries; that's right. The 85 across is 215. If she looks across the top of the
chart, she'll notice that there is a total column at the right, but it's a total
for four fiscal years: 2004-05, 2003-04, 2002-03, which is the next year that
she was talking about, and I think mistakenly referred to the 215 number. In
fact, next year that number was 65.
Also here
in this, because we're trying to disclose as much as we can, she'll notice that
the first column is 2001-02. That's the fiscal year we're in right now. The
number is 85 for the workforce adjustment strategy as has been disclosed
repeatedly and, as I said moments ago in answer to the member's question, $85
million for the workforce adjustment, $81 million for voluntary departure —
that's an estimate to date — and $4 million for involuntary departure and
related severance costs. That's an estimate to date as well.
As I said,
if the member wants a further breakdown on that position by position, as it
becomes available, I would certainly be pleased to provide it to the member.
MacPhail: I'm well aware of what the book says. Frankly, all of this trying
to somehow say that it's ridiculous that these questions are being asked doesn't
wash with the public out there. Just the same way that every time this minister,
and this minister particularly, stands up and arrogantly says that he doesn't
have to answer these questions, it makes people out there in the public
extremely angry.
It's
particularly related to the position of the Minister of Finance. The fact of the
matter is that this has not been debated in this chamber. The public has no idea
what this money is being spent on — until now. This minister won't answer the
questions — full stop. That's what taxpayers know — completely. Despite hour
after hour after hour of being in this chamber, there have not been questions
answered on this matter yet, and today the minister won't answer it either.
In fact, no
one knew until an hour ago that we were going to have to rush in here and debate
this matter. No one knew that. As a matter of fact, it's because the minister
wants to slip it through; $95 million of taxpayer money to go because this
government wanted to do a radical, extreme restructuring of government. I can't
get any answers about that extreme expenditure of $95 million.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'd like an accounting by ministry, then, of the
severance costs and the early retirement costs.
Hon. G.
Collins: In fact, the member is correct. There have not been a lot of
questions about this issue in the House. It's because she hasn't asked them.
MacPhail: I'm asking them now.
Hon. G.
Collins: There were plenty of opportunities in the estimates of the Ministry
of Management Services to do that, and she chose not to. As I said, I would be
more than happy to provide more detailed information than what is here to the
member if she'd like that. I'm very happy to do that. I would be glad to set
that briefing up for her sooner rather than later.
MacPhail: I'll go through it alphabetically. How much of workforce
adjustment money in terms of severance is going to the Ministry of Advanced
Education?
[ Page 2298 ]
Hon. G.
Collins: As I said, I am very happy to provide the member with a more
detailed breakout, if she'd like that. This is an estimate of the cumulative
amount. It's an estimate that has been disclosed previously; there is no
surprise about it. As I said, I'd be more than happy to provide her with that
information in a briefing.
MacPhail: So the minister doesn't know how much is going to Advanced
Education.
How much of
severance and early retirement is going to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and
Fisheries?
[1545]
Hon. G.
Collins: My answer is the same, and it will be the same answer as she goes
through the alphabetical roll call. She can ask the question repeatedly if she
likes. I'll answer her in advance, and the answer remains the same.
MacPhail: How much is going to the Ministry of Attorney General? Does the
minister know? And if not, why doesn't he know? How much is going to the
Ministry of Children and Family Development? Does the minister know? If not, why
not?
The
Chair: Shall vote 58(
S) pass?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: How much is going to the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and
Women's Services for severance and early retirement? Does the minister know? If
not, why not?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: How much money is going to Ministry of Competition, Science and
Enterprise for severance and early retirement?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: How much money is going to the Ministry of Education? The minister
must know this one because he spent $44 million today of money that he said was
extra money. The minister must absolutely know about the Ministry of Education,
because this is an expenditure for '01-02.
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: I can't believe it. We spent $44 million in education money today.
The minister stood up and said, "Oh, we had money left over in the Ministry
of Education," and he doesn't have the answer of how much for severance and
early retirement is going to the Ministry of Education. How could he have made
the statement? How could the Minister of Finance have made the statement that
there was money left over? Perhaps he can answer that question.
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: Well, isn't this an interesting, open, transparent and accountable
process. It's $85 million of taxpayer money. Even the ministry today, where the
Minister of Finance stood up and said: "Oh, we know exactly what's going on
there. As a matter of fact, there's $44 million left over…." Perhaps the
minister wasn't being quite forthright, because he can't answer my question.
This is an
expenditure for '01-02 out of the same pot of money that the Minister of Finance
said today: "Oh look, there's $44 million extra because we've managed so
well." My gosh, isn't that interesting? You know what could be the problem?
Maybe the Minister of Finance doesn't know what's going on.
Hon. G.
Collins: My answer remains the same. If the member wants to move onto the
Fs, Gs and Hs, we can continue.
MacPhail: There is no answer to the question I just asked. It probably puts
under a cloud of suspicion whether indeed the government was maybe meeting other
concerns around that $44 million under the Ministry of Education. That surely
should be a ministry that the Minister of Finance could tell me how much out of
this is for severance and early retirement. Here's what he would have had to do.
He would have had to calculate what the costs are for education, and then he
would have had to say: "Well, that money isn't available from Education, so
we have to come in here and do a supplemental estimate." Meanwhile, he went
out the door and spent $44 million, which…. Thank God for students in
classrooms that they saw the error of their ways.
How much
money is for Ministry of Energy and Mines for severance and early retirement? I
actually believe that the minister does have this information.
Hon. G.
Collins: As the member knows, as far as the direct government goes and
what's listed here, there are not the direct workforce adjustments in the
Ministry of Education. The budget hasn't been cut. As I said, if she wants to go
on to the Fs, the Gs and the Hs, we can move along, but my answer remains the
same. I'd be more than happy to provide the member with the information in
detail when it's available for her at a time that's amenable to her —
hopefully sooner rather
[ Page 2299 ]
than later — and that works with the staff's time here as well.
MacPhail: One of the reasons why we have this process is so that members can
be informed and see whether they wish to vote to support this expenditure. I'm
trying to find out information to determine my vote. That's this process here,
Mr. Chair. That's why I'm asking these questions. These questions are completely
legitimate, they're on topic, and this is the place and time to ask them.
[1550]
How much
for early retirement or severance is being allocated for the Ministry of
Finance?
The
Chair: Shall vote 58(
S) pass?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: How much money is being allocated for the Ministry of Forests for
severance or early retirement?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: Well, I'm going to continue, Mr. Chair. Here's one: the Ministry
of Health Planning. How much money is being allocated for severance and early
retirement for the Ministry of Health Planning?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: Is the money for restructuring of the health authorities that has
occurred in this year dealt with under this $85 million?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm not going to get an answer to that question. I have
actually a specific question for the minister. Maybe he'd answer this question.
In the Central Vancouver Island health region the CEO, the head health
administrator, quit last week — quit voluntarily. He's been given 16 months of
severance. Not fired. Not anything. He quit. Where's the cost of that being
allocated?
Hon. G.
Collins: I wish it was allocated out of that member's legislative budget,
because it was her government who was responsible for signing it.
MacPhail: In fact, there is legislation passed by our government that
specifically precludes this payment — specifically. In fact, this payment is
in violation of that legislation. Our government passed that legislation. This
payment is specifically precluded. So, sorry, nobody's responsible for that
except this current regime who refuses to enforce legislation. That's why I'm
asking this question. Voluntary departure — how is it and where is it being
paid for? It was precluded by legislation.
Hon. G.
Collins: If there are severance arrangements that have been made by the
previous government which are in violation of the legislation, then those
provisions will not be honoured. Clearly, the legislation has precedence. I
don't think we need to have a debate on that. That's the law.
In fact,
the Premier has asked myself to review many of those outrageous severance
provisions that were in many of the contracts set up by the previous
administration, with an eye to protecting the public interest. That is underway.
I'm sure we can talk about that at some later date.
MacPhail: Clearly, the Minister of Finance has no idea what's going on —
absolutely none. In fact, he wasn't even aware of the legislation. It's all very
well and good for this government to do radical, extreme restructuring, and they
don't have a clue what's going on. They don't have a clue how the money's being
spent. They don't have a clue whether their government is upholding the laws of
the day. Yet patients are suffering. Kids can't get treatment for autism.
Inner-city funding is gone, not to be restored. This minister, this government,
has no idea what's going on right under their nose on their watch.
How much is
for restructuring for severance and early retirement for the Ministry of Health
Services? The leaked document said it was going to cost about $227 million, in
terms of restructuring costs for severance and early retirement. How much of
this $85 million is going toward the cost of the $227 million in total for
restructuring under Health Services?
The
Chair: Shall vote 58(
S) pass?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: In the estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources, they're
talking about office closures throughout the province. How much are the
restructuring costs for early retirement and severance for the Ministry of Human
Resources, as part of this $85 million?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
[1555]
MacPhail: Oh, my gosh. Isn't this great? Don't you feel good? Don't you feel
good about democracy?
[ Page 2300 ]
To those of you who are watching, isn't this a good process? There's $85
million of tax money being spent, and no answers. None. Zero. No answers, and
somehow the minister says: "Why don't you go into a private room with some
of my officials? They'll give you a briefing, and that way, nobody will
know."
Isn't this
good news for all of those MLAs who have to return to their constituencies?
Return to Penticton and say: "Where are the 5,000 beds? What portion of
these new 5,000 beds have I got here in Penticton?" Isn't that good news?
How much money is being spent for restructuring for severance and voluntary
retirement for the Ministry of Provincial Revenue?
The
Chair: Shall vote 58(
S) pass?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: How much money for restructuring for voluntary retirement and
severance is being paid for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: I'm sorry this is taking so long, Mr. Chair. It's because it's the
largest and most expensive cabinet in the history of British Columbia. That's
why these questions are taking so long, and that's why the lack of answers is
taking so long. We have the largest cabinet in the history of British Columbia.
Gosh, I wonder how effective that cabinet is. Well, let's just continue going
on, then. Let's see what else the minister doesn't know.
The
Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is suffering substantial cuts to the
ministry. Those have already occurred. Those estimates did explore this issue,
and the minister didn't have the answers, so this is the place where we ask this
question. How much of severance and early retirement costs of the $85 million is
being allocated to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management?
Some
Hon. Members: Aye.
The
Chair: Leader of the Opposition.
MacPhail: Oh, gosh. Even when the minister was given the direction to ask
the question by one of his cabinet colleagues, he can't answer the question.
Now, the
Ministry of Transportation. That was an interesting set of estimates, Mr. Chair.
Two members have to either be in the little House or…. I was actually
answering questions of the public, and there were 76 MLAs. No, there would be 75
MLAs. Let's see. Ministry of Transportation and Highways, a very important
matter. It's huge. The concerns of the MLAs in their ridings I've heard over and
over again. They have concerns about transportation and highways. Let me see:
the estimates went through in — what? — 25 minutes.
Interjections.
The
Chair: Order, members. Can we try to keep the discussion relevant to the
estimates that are before us this afternoon. The Ministry of Transportation
estimates were concluded yesterday, I believe. If the member could please limit
her comments and her questions to these estimates.
MacPhail: Mr. Chair, that's good guidance. I'm about to ask a question about
the Ministry of Transportation and how much of the costs of the $85 million are
allocated to severance and early retirement for the Ministry of Transportation
and Highways. As you know, it was decimated by over a thousand layoffs.
I checked Hansard
this morning to see if in the 25 minutes the 75 MLAs in the Liberal caucus stood
up and said: "Oh, my God. What are you doing about those layoffs, and how
much is it costing us?" You know what? It wasn't asked. Isn't that
interesting? That's why I'm asking it now.
Right
through in 25 minutes. I guess under the lob questions on transportation and
highways, there won't be any questions to the Minister of Transportation and
Highways. Knowing that this question wasn't asked last night, how much of the
severance and early retirement costs of the $85 million are being allocated to
the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?
Hon. G.
Collins: The reason why the members of the government, the MLAs, didn't have
to stand up and spend hours after hours asking irrelevant questions of ministers
is because they took the opportunities that were afforded to them to have
lengthy briefings and discussions on the issues at hand. That's something I
would advise the member opposite to do.
My answer
to this question is the same as for the others, and it will be the same answer
right to the end of the alphabet. Then we can proceed with the next matter the
member wants to discuss.
MacPhail: If indeed, Mr. Chair, the minister has the answers for Liberal
MLAs, why does he not have the answers for me?
[1600]
Hon. G.
Collins: I do have available, probably, to the member the detailed
information that she seeks. As I've said, I've offered that repeatedly. If she
would like a briefing on the detailed information, I'd be more than happy to do
that. That is a very common practice. As I've said, there's a backlog of
briefings offered and not accepted. We'll continue to do that.
MacPhail: What we know is that the minister is fine to give the details to
his own caucus members behind closed doors, and yet he won't give the
information either to the public or to members of the opposi-
[ Page 2301 ]
tion. Clearly, he just admitted that the information is available. That's
exactly what he said right now. The information is available, but the Minister
of Finance refuses to make it public.
How much
severance and early retirement payments of the $85 million are allocated to the
Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection?
Hon. G.
Collins: I'll repeat. These are estimates, and when the information is
available, I'll make it available to the member opposite.
MacPhail: Well, I find it unbelievable that this Minister of Finance, who
spent $44 million just like that this morning, who said he knew what was going
on, said: "Oh gosh, you know what? It's Thursday. I woke up this morning,
and I figured out there was extra money for education." Well, clearly, I
guess the public will take him at his word that he knew what was going on.
All I'm
asking is for that same kind of calculation from the Minister of Finance, that
he knows what he's doing when he's spending this $85 million. It's a pretty fair
assumption that a Minister of Finance would spend $85 million of tax dollars on
the basis that he knows what he's doing. That's the reason for these questions.
You know
what I have to say? Let me be very clear. This is the time when people get the
information to make an informed vote. I didn't receive any information that
would allow me to make an informed vote — none. I'm worried about what this
expenditure is on — absolutely worried. I have no idea why it is that the
Minister of Finance would deny me information so that I can make an informed
vote.
I have no
idea, based on the public record, how any one of these Liberal MLAs can make an
informed vote on this matter — none. They certainly won't be able to stand up
and say: "Look, here was the discussion, or there was the information
before; here's the information today." They're going to stand up and go
aye, aye — little ducklings in a row — and say: "Oh sure, go ahead.
Spend that money. We don't know what it's for. We have no idea whether it's
legitimate or not." They're going to say to the Minister of Finance:
"Fine, go ahead and spend that money." I can't do that, Mr. Chair. I
can't do it because I have no idea what the money is being spent on.
I don't
want to vote against it. I'll tell you why. I don't want to vote against it
because there may be families who are relying on this, but I don't know. It may
be that this money is a necessary expenditure. Maybe I could find out whether
there are some things going on in the ministries that I didn't know about
before. Maybe I could have an answer to my question about the Health Services
expenditures of 16 months of salary that isn't necessary and isn't required by
law.
So I can't
do that. Mr. Chair, here's what I'm going to have to do. I can't vote. I can't
vote because I have been denied the information on the basis of which I can make
an informed vote, and unless the Liberal MLAs in this chamber have had secret
briefings about information that the Minister of Finance refuses to give me,
they are not making an informed vote either.
Hon. G.
Collins: Let me just pursue the logic being used by the member opposite for
one moment, if I may. She says that she doesn't want to vote against this
because there may be families who are reliant upon the severance available. She
says that she doesn't want to hurt them.
Let me put
it this way to her. There's an estimate of about, I think, $85 million, which is
going…. Perhaps she might want to stay around. She can offer her wisdom.
[1605]
There's
an estimate that there will be about $85 million which will be directed to
individuals for retirement or voluntary severance. Her questions have centred on
which ministry that's in. It would seem to me that if she favoured all employees
in the same way, it wouldn't matter whether all of it were in one ministry or
whether it was split equally amongst all the ministries or whether it were
divided according to where the demand was. She would therefore support what that
amount was to those employees in the various ministries they happened to be in.
As I said, if she's interested — I can't imagine how it would sway her vote
for or against — in a breakout, I'd be glad to make that information available
to her in the future with a briefing.
I can't
understand her logic that somehow having more or less of it in one ministry or
another to different employees in different ministries would change her vote —
whether she supports it or not. I've been somewhat baffled today by the
exercised nature of the member opposite, given the long history of supplemental
estimates, given the opportunities that have been provided to her over the last
four, five or six months to get detailed briefings on this, given the
opportunity to ask these questions of the Ministry of Management Services and
given her alleged concern for this issue.
What I've
seen today by the member is pure politics. I expect it's done because she's not
prepared for the estimates which are to follow the supplemental estimates.
As I said,
that information will be available to the member. I've offered her numerous
briefings in the past. To my knowledge, she hasn't taken them up yet. The offer
stands. There's nothing unique, different or unusual in any way, shape or form
about what's being done here today, other than that this government chooses to
bring it to the Legislature for approval the way it's supposed to be done,
rather than do it through a special warrant. I don't know what more I can add to
what should be a very simple debate.
I notice
the member didn't seem to want to respond to that, so with that, I call a vote
on 58(S).
Vote 58(
S) approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the committee rise and report resolution.
[ Page 2302 ]
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 4:07 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the report of the resolution from the Committee of Supply on
March 28, 2002, be now received, taken as read and agreed to.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated
revenue fund the sum of $95 million. This sum is in addition to that authorized
to be paid under
section 1 of the Supply Act, 2001-2002, in
section 1 of the
Supply Act 2001-2002 (Supplementary), and is granted by Her Majesty towards
defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the
fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.
Motion
approved.
[1610]
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
SUPPLY ACT, 2001-2002
(SUPPLEMENTARY No. 2)
Hon. G.
Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2).
Hon. G.
Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I don't know if you want to distribute the bill. Perhaps we can
take a moment.
Mr.
Speaker: If we could just ask members to remain in their seats for a few
moments while we distribute the bill.
Hon. G.
Collins: The use of supplemental estimates is consistent with the spirit of
the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This bill is introduced to
provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 2001-02 fiscal
year, as outlined in the supplementary estimates tabled earlier.
The bill
will provide the additional funds required to defray the charges and expenses of
the public service for the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.
accordance with the established practice, the government seeks to move this bill
through all three stages this day.
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the bill
will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.
Second Reading of Bills
SUPPLY ACT, 2001-2002
(SUPPLEMENTARY No. 2)
Hon. G.
Collins: I move that Bill 14 now be read a second time.
Motion
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House
for consideration forthwith.
Motion
approved.
Bill 14,
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2), read a second time and referred to
a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.
Committee of the Whole House
SUPPLY ACT, 2001-2002
(SUPPLEMENTARY No. 2)
The House
in Committee of the Whole (Section
B) on Bill 14; T. Christensen in the chair.
The
committee met at 4:15 p.m.
Section 1
approved.
Schedule
approved.
Preamble
approved.
Title
approved.
Hon. G.
Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without
amendment.
Motion
approved.
The
committee rose at 4:16 p.m.
The House
resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 14,
Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2), reported complete without
amendment, read a third time and passed.
[ Page 2303 ]
Hon. G.
Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll
be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.
Perhaps we
could wait a couple of minutes. I notice we're still awaiting a member of the
opposition. Ah, she just arrived.
Committee of Supply
The House
in Committee of Supply B; T. Christensen in the chair.
The
committee met at 4:17 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 10:
ministry operations, $1,900,016,000 (continued).
MacPhail: Some of these questions came into our office via the public. I
read this over the lunch hour. This is from a Monica Andres in Surrey:
"Could you please ask the following questions of the hon. Minister of
Advanced Education? When the Minister of Advanced Education refers to 'student
needs'" — this was from the debate this morning — "is she only
referring to students that manage to be accepted and registered for
post-secondary education? What about the individuals that want to be students in
post-secondary education? How will they be accounted for?"
It's
important that I read this whole thing for the minister, because it has come
from the public.
"What
is there for individuals who want to be students and can't because they
don't qualify for loans? How will the Minister of Advanced Education monitor
or evaluate the needs of the individuals that want to be students of
post-secondary education? In an evaluation accountability process, will the
minister review (1) how many individuals tried to register for
post-secondary versus how many individuals were accepted as students versus
how many were rejected? Will the outcomes of a such a review be made public,
and if so, when?"
[1620]
Hon. S.
Bond: We have, in the budget letters sent out to institutions across the
province, set targets and measurements in terms of what the expectations are for
the institutions, in that we are looking at a projected growth across the
province of 2,700 students at minimum. As we work on the accountability
framework with institutions over the next year, we'll be looking at other
measures for outputs. Obviously, we have set targets. We expect institutions to
increase the number of seats.
In fact, we
also have given them as much flexibility as possible in looking at class sizes.
We want to increase the number of seats. We recognize that over the next ten
years there will be significant growth. There will continue to be numbers of
students who want to get into post-secondary education, and we are working to
increase seats. We are looking at measuring how many students get in, and we're
going to work as hard as we can to ensure that the number of seats continues to
grow over the next three years.
MacPhail: Well, I'll just have to rely on Ms. Andres from Surrey about
whether the minister has answered her questions or not. I suspect that she'll
say: "What about the question? What is there for individuals who want to be
students and can't because they don't qualify for loans?"
Hon. S.
Bond: We have a student assistance program in this province. We will
continue to help students who are most in need. In terms of how students are
accepted and who's accepted, there's a specific set of criteria. In addition to
the assistance that we provide, institutions are also working very hard to
provide additional assistance for students. The criteria are very clear.
Institutions, as I've said, are adding to the program of student financial
assistance that we have.
I certainly
can't comment on individual cases or why a particular student doesn't qualify,
but there are very clear criteria. We want to help those students most in need
in this province.
MacPhail: I don't think the member of the public was asking an individual
question. This question came in to us via letter while the minister and I were
discussing the government's refusal to guarantee a bursary system, somehow
suggesting that there was greater student financial aid available through a loan
system.
I have no
idea whether Ms. Andres is in this category or not; I'm sure she isn't. The
government is kicking people off welfare and expecting them to get a job. I
expect that there are many people in that category who, through no fault of
their own, won't have the credit rating to qualify for a student loan. I'm sure
that's why that question arose.
Here's some
more questions that came in from the public while the minister and I were last
talking. The minister kept on saying that there are new tools given to
institutions to manage their costs that the government isn't funding. What are
those tools?
There's two
parts to the public's question. What are those tools, and how much will each of
those tools save?
[1625]
Hon. S.
Bond: Obviously, the first tool is the decision that we made to send
resources to institutions using block funding, which allows them to look at how
best to use those resources to meet the requirements and demands of students in
communities. We've also given institutions the ability to determine and adjust
class sizes and the number of students that
[ Page 2304 ]
are assigned to faculty. We've looked at how they can extend the hours of
operation and times when instruction can be delivered. As I've said, we are also
looking at improved utilization of facilities. In fact, we have given a number
of tools to allow for the kind of decision-making that needs to take place.
In terms of
the amount of savings that will be generated, that's dependent on each
individual institution and the usage of the options that have been provided
them. An example of that is one that I also shared this morning with the member
opposite. For example, if class sizes were adjusted to include one additional
student, we would be able to add, significantly, thousands of seats over the
next number of years at institutions in the province.
MacPhail: When this member of the public sent this question in, I saw that
the minister has actually given a number for savings for productivity. In the
three-year fiscal plan it talks about productivity tools. The minister has been
referring to it as flexibility to institutions, but in the document it's called
productivity tools. There's a savings of $37 million over three years booked for
that. How did the minister come to that figure?
Hon. S.
Bond: That is the estimate we would use, for example, if one student was
added to each class in the province over the next number of years. It would make
some assumptions about class size and how students would be added to that. It
would make assumptions about extended use of facilities and the offering of
courses. It is an estimate of potential cost savings as a result of looking at
class sizes and the way facilities are operated in the province.
MacPhail: I'm curious about that because my understanding is that there are
very, very few restrictions in the college and university sector on class size.
Am I correct in that?
Hon. S.
Bond: In fact, there were no restrictions in the universities as
institutions. Having said that, there were significant numbers of restrictions
in colleges and institutes in the province, and that's why those changes were
made.
MacPhail: In fact, that's not the case. There were a few restrictions at the
college level — a very few. There were none at the faculty level and a few at
the college level.
Here's the
reason I asked this question. If the minister has such great faith in the
institutions, which I do as well…. The institutions which had no restrictions
on them on class size must have done their class-size determination according to
what makes most sense for education, and the minister never received one single
request from any institution that class size was an issue. How is it that all of
a sudden the minister says, "Here's a new tool," when in fact this
tool has been available to institutions, and institutions which may have been
restricted by class size never brought it to the attention of the minister as a
problem?
Hon. S.
Bond: In fact, across the province, in the institutions and in the colleges
and institutes, there were very different restrictions, particularly on academic
class size. Certainly, the comments in the consultations I had with lots of
people over time talked about the ability to manage the system, and so one of
the things I looked at and considered were the kinds of things that created
inconsistency in the institutions.
[1630]
Let me give
you an example. At Capilano, for example, the academic class-size restriction
was a maximum of 35. Let's just choose another one here. At Northern Lights
lecture courses, the restriction was 35. Tutorials and seminars were 20, labs
were 18, and labs with support staff were 18 to 24. At Northwest there were 36,
with a number of reductions for specific courses, and the list goes on. At
Cariboo it was related to a particular academic year.
In our
view, we wanted to find as much flexibility within the system as possible, and
we took the very basic principle that by adding one student to those classes....
We looked at the issue of quality and class size, and we looked at the research
behind that and asked: "If one student were added to a class, what would
that do to the class?" It would give us one more seat in the institution
and across the sector.
We did
consider all of those things, and in fact a great variation of restriction
existed across the province.
MacPhail: Well, I know the minister has read out the couple of examples that
exist in a system that's substantial — no class restrictions in the university
sector at all. Yet the minister takes.... The minister can count up all she
likes, but the College Institute Educators Association has done this
calculation, as have the faculty associations, and there are no restrictions at
the university level — none.
Yet the
minister says: "Across the system, the system needed this
productivity." Well, the productivity has been available. Here's what I can
tell that the minister has done. She has to justify the fact that her government
is underfunding post-secondary education. She had to have some justification for
saying, "Oh, the issue was really a productivity issue in the system,"
and that she could then do a silly, silly, simplistic calculation by just
putting one more student in every classroom. That is the silliest calculation
I've ever heard. She said: "Now these new productivity tools are available
to the institutions." They're not new; they're silly. It's merely a
justification for cutting $37 million over three years out of the education
system. That's why.
The
minister's plan also says that there's a three-year fiscal plan that estimates
$14 million in savings moving to results-based management. What does that
[ Page 2305 ]
mean, and how much will be saved this year on moving to a results-based
management?
Hon. S.
Bond: First of all, I would like to ask the member opposite to direct us to
the source of that particular question — the $14 million generated savings.
I would
just like to make one comment about the fact that adding one student to each
class in this province is a silly, silly suggestion. I would suggest that it's
not so silly if you're the one student who actually couldn't get into that
particular class.
In fact,
let's talk about what this government did to funding in post-secondary
education. We protected nearly a $2 billion budget. In fact, we're trying to
work with institutions to generate as many seats as we possibly can, because we
know the number of students is going to increase. You know what? As we fix the
economic state of this province, we're going to reinvest in education. In the
meantime, we're going to be as creative and think as hard as we can to put even
one more seat in a classroom in this province.
In terms of
your second question, if you could direct us to the particular area that you're
referring to, I'd be very appreciative.
MacPhail: I'll get that information. It was off the ministry's own website.
Sorry, I've done my research and put it in a binder. I'll certainly get that
information. It's exactly out of the ministry's fiscal plan.
[1635]
When I said
it was simplistic and silly, the minister knows full well that there are all
sorts of ways of calculating what the most effective way is of teaching
students, the most effective size, the resources needed, safety requirements,
tutorial requirements, adviser requirements — all of that. For the minister
and these people who sit here and applaud and say: "Oh…." You know
what? I know that the parents sitting in my riding, hoping like heck they'll be
able to afford to send their child to school, probably say: "Well, that
makes sense. Just add a chair." The minister knows full well that's not how
our post-secondary institutions are run. They're complex, diverse beings.
It's
ridiculous to simply make a silly calculation like just add one student to each
class. That's what I'm saying. The simplistic attitude is to merely justify the
cuts this minister has made to post-secondary education. You know what? I
actually do say something. You're right. The fact that the government has
protected the previous government's record for spending on post-secondary
education is good news, because people on welfare are having their resources cut
by $500 million, kicked off welfare and told to get a job. I guess that is good
news. That's why I'm trying to find out what sort of commitment this government
made in terms of their strategy to help all people in this province, not just
the rich; how they've decided to help all people in terms of their strategy.
Let me ask
this. It's a follow-up to the woman who wrote in about student aid. Can the
minister tell me how many more students it is estimated will need to borrow
student aid? What is the minister calculating for the average increase that will
be needed in order to make up for tuition fee increases?
Hon. S.
Bond: With the changes we have made in the student financial assistance
program, we are looking at an increase of approximately…. In 2001-02 the
projected number of students we would provide assistance for was 67,000. The
budget is now in place for 71,737 — so 4,000-plus students. The maximum award
available will be $9,350 for students with no dependents. It will be $14,790 for
students with one to two dependents. That is the case of students who have
dependents.
MacPhail: Does the 67,000 estimate include students who get first-year
grants?
Hon. S.
Bond: Yes, it does.
[1640]
MacPhail: Okay, we have a system here now where the elimination of the
first-year student grant program saves the government $39.6 million. The student
financial aid is going up $2.3 million. Can the minister explain where the
students are going to have access to student financial aid or these student
loans equal to $39.6 million, or are they supposed to go and work for six bucks
an hour?
Hon. S.
Bond: The position we find in student financial assistance is that we were
over budget in this fiscal year on grants. We are very close to being on budget,
however, in student financial assistance, and that was primarily due to low
interest rates. We couldn't count on low interest rates for the next fiscal
year. We needed to take measures to address the pressures year over year. We did
that by shifting; in order to offset those pressures, we shifted from the grant
to the loan. We also needed to be aware of the additional requirements that we
felt would be necessary by students in the province.
MacPhail: Well, there's some interesting forecasts on interest rates.
That'll come as a shock to the Minister of Finance, I'm sure. His debt servicing
is predicting continued low interest rates. Let's just go right to the book,
could we? Student financial assistance programs in '01-02 are $154.444 million.
Now the government is expending $156.756 million. In '01-02 what portion of that
was student grant, and what portion was loan? And then I know the answer. I
assume that it all becomes loan in '02-03.
Hon. S.
Bond: In '01-02 the grant amount was $83 million, and the balance was loan.
[1645]
MacPhail: So what we now have is a situation here where…. Oh, I'm sorry.
That would be the grants
[ Page 2306 ]
over the four years. What portion of that is first-year grants that have been
converted to loans?
Hon. S.
Bond: We don't have with us the number for first-year grants that was
budgeted in '01-02, but we will be happy to get that for you.
MacPhail: But I assume the $83 million is for the four years of grants? The
minister is nodding yes. I'm wondering, then, how the ministry calculated that
there would be $39 million saved. I assumed that maybe that would be the $39
million saved that they announced — or because they were cancelling first-year
grants.
Let me ask
this, then. The minister says they overspent. What portion was budgeted for
first-year grants, knowing that they overspent?
Hon. S.
Bond: If the member's referring to '01-02, I don't have that number. I just
said that, and we would be happy to get that for you.
MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. I'm going from the information that the ministry
released earlier — that they planned on saving $39.6 million by cancelling
first-year grants. I'm combining that with the information that the minister
just gave me — that she's aware that they overspent on first-year grants. I'm
just asking for a rationale or a rationalization of those two facts.
[1650]
Hon. S.
Bond: What I'll do is walk through how the base budget number was created.
The potential pressures we faced, should the demand continue in terms of the
grant program, would have been $31.7 million. Those were the potential pressures
we faced. By making the shift from grant to loan, that would have been a gross
savings of $47.8 million.
So we're at
$47.8 million. When we moved that to the loan program, there were costs
associated with that. The cost associated with that would have been $8.2
million, therefore coming to the number the member suggested in terms of savings
of $39 million, which we needed to apply to the pressures that were anticipated.
In addition
to that, as part of it, $3.7 million went to offset the increased cost to
students of $15 per week. We also enhanced by $4.2 million the loan provisions
to assist students with higher debt. When you take the savings and look at the
pressures we addressed and also the other items mentioned, the total then comes
to $156.8 million.
MacPhail: The minister has put into the pot for student financial aid an
increase of $2.3 million, but she has converted the money and deducted costs of
the grant program to the student financial aid. Now that is all 100 percent
loan. Is that basically what the minister…? Actually, it's not a trick
question. I'm reiterating what I think the minister is saying.
Hon. S.
Bond: In the first year a typical eight-month program is considered 34 weeks
in duration. For any program that is 34 weeks or less, all of the programs are
loans. Grants are available to students who take programs that are longer than
34 weeks in duration. Of course, the grant program exists in the second, third
and fourth years as well.
MacPhail: Sorry, that wasn't the question I asked. Anyway, let's just leave
it at the fact that student financial aid is going to have to cover the
first-year grants now. Let's ask about what the minister knows about these
students who will have to take out the loans. What's the student loan default
rate now, and can the minister break it down between private post-secondary
institutions and public post-secondary institutions? I assume that the student
financial aid program changes are for both private and public institutions.
[1655]
Hon. S.
Bond: We can certainly go through the default rates by institution type.
Indeed, the changes to student financial assistance do apply to both private and
public institutions. I should point out that there is a difference between
default rates and bad debt, in essence. Default rates is a student who has
missed even one payment, so when we talk about default…. Often students miss
one. Default is typically anything beyond one payment. Bad debt is obviously
students who at the end of the day simply cannot pay back and won't repay. We
just need to have the
definitions clear.
In B.C.
universities the default rates for 2000 were 5.1 percent; B.C. colleges and
institutes, 7.5 percent; B.C. private institutions, 19.9 percent; and the
average in all British Columbia schools was 11.3 percent. We also have to
caution that the rates for 2000 may rise slightly when the rest of the data is
included, because borrowers who have gone into repayment in that calendar year
may default in the future, so that the rates might rise slightly. Those are the
student loan default rates. Again, I want to point out that default can mean one
payment.
MacPhail: I'm happy to have the minister just work with bad debt statistics
if she wishes.
My next
question is going to be: what does the ministry anticipate in terms of the bad
debt rate rising as a result of conversion of first-year grants to loans?
Hon. S.
Bond: We currently, looking at past history…. I should point out that
we've only been back in the direct lending business to students for a year, so
it's difficult to calculate exactly what the bad debt will look like. We've only
been doing that for a year. That responsibility was given back to government. We
look at 10 percent in terms of bad debt. The portfolio is built around a 10
percent assumption. Because there will be higher costs for many students in the
coming year, we anticipate that those numbers will increase. But I also need to
point out that while that is a challenge, students in British Columbia currently
have and will continue to have some of the lowest debt load in the country.
In answer
to your question, the portfolio around bad debt is based on a 10 percent
assumption.
[ Page 2307 ]
[1700]
MacPhail: I'm not looking at this from the point of view of the student. I'm
looking at this from the point of view of the taxpayer about penny-wise,
pound-foolish decisions, because, of course, the bad debt is absorbed by the
taxpayer.
What is the
assumption of what the taxpayer will be absorbing? The policy, I assume, is the
same — to write off bad debt eventually. What is the assumption of what that
will cost the taxpayer based on this change?
Hon. S.
Bond: I wanted to point out once again that before we get to the place where
a student loan is actually considered bad debt, there are a number of steps we
go through to ensure that that student gets all of the help, and we are also
protecting taxpayer dollars.
I want to
point out that as we looked at the possibilities of the options of what to do
with student financial assistance, we tried to take a balanced and blended view
in terms of the taxpayer and the student. As the student has difficulty paying
back the loan…. As I've said previously, we are enhancing eligibility
requirements for interest relief. We are improving assistance benefits under the
B.C. debt reduction in repayment program. We are providing repayment options,
including principal deferral opportunities and extended amortization periods.
We're moving from 15 years to 20 years.
We're
trying to give students as much help as possible and balance that with what is
reasonable for the taxpayers of this province. I think the approach is a blended
one. We have budgeted conservatively for an increase. The assumption around the
portfolio is 10 percent currently. We assume that will increase. We believe
we've looked at this from the perspective of the taxpayer, and we're also trying
to help those students who will struggle when they have to pay back the loan.
[1705]
MacPhail: The minister failed to give me a number in that time. Could she
give me a number, please?
Hon. S.
Bond: Well, certainly at 10 percent it would be approximately $10 million.
As I've said, we are looking at a conservative number in terms of the increase
and because we do not have a history — only a year. We've only been in the
business for a year. We're looking at a historical portfolio, an amount of 10
percent. That would be approximately $10 million.
MacPhail: I have an incredible admiration and great respect for the
bureaucracy, and I know how hard people work, so my comments are intended with
only the greatest of respect. But it's not as if student loans were invented in
the last year. It's not as if the history about private institutions in terms of
bad debt wasn't passed on to the government. It's all very well and good to say
that, gosh, we've only been in the business a year, but the experience of all of
this has been passed on to the government.
So it's $10
million. The only reason why I raise this is to explain to the public that there
are hidden costs to the taxpayer when one moves to a completely loan-funded
system for providing post-secondary education. Not only is it regressive in that
the rich have a much greater advantage in access to post-secondary education,
but what it means to certain families — you know, it actually breaks my heart
that this is going to occur — that have been struggling for years to save and
send their children to post-secondary education, who are not going to give up
that dream just because this government has imposed more costs on them….
What
they're going to do is go into debt, or their child is going to go into debt,
probably for the first time in some cases. Or they're going to go into debt and
risk everything, including their financial well-being. That's what this
government is doing instead of — in the year 2002 — moving to a place where
the child of a forest worker can get an education even if that forest worker is
laid off, the same way that the child of a physician can get an education.
That's gone now. In fact, forest-worker families probably can't get any loans
because of the trouble that they find themselves in. That's where we're moving
to in the year 2002.
There's a
cost to families. There's a cost to the children. The minister needs to know
that as a result of this minister's policy change to say no more grants in the
first year, there are families out there whose children will not be going to
university or college.
The next
step is that if a child is going, families will be risking debt accumulation for
the first time in their lives — probably debt that they can't afford. In fact,
if you're in an area of this province where the economy is greatly at risk, in
the rural areas, there's a decreasing potential that you will even qualify for a
loan. We know that because the banks have already…. I met with a person from
Port Alberni today who said that town is struggling and almost shutting down in
terms of economic activity, including loans being made.
[1710]
On top of
that, there are costs that the taxpayer will have to bear because of the lack of
generosity, for the mean-spiritedness of this policy by this government. It is
mean-spirited; there's no other way of looking at it. The cost to the taxpayer
is going to be that bad debts will increase, and the taxpayer will have to bear
the burden of that.
I can't be
anything other than sad about it, actually, when I contemplate it. We heard from
people over the lunch-hour who said: "That example of a family isn't
hypothetical. It's exactly the circumstances we find ourselves in." Only
the family wasn't making $54,000 per year; they were making far