British Columbia Hansard — THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004
20040429pm-Hansard-v24n8
British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
2004 Legislative Session: 5th 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, APRIL 29, 2004
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 24, Number 8
CONTENTS
Routine Proceedings
Page
Introductions by Members
Tributes
Rudolph Sieg
R. Hawes
Kerrie Sieg and Herman Cheung
R. Hawes
Statements (Standing Order 25 B )
Crime Prevention Awards
Hamilton
Lyme disease
B. Kerr
Youth Week
K. Manhas
Oral Questions
Retroactivity clause in legislation
on health support workers
MacPhail
Hon. C.
Hansen
Hon. G.
Bruce
Arbitration option in legislation
on health support workers
R. Hawes
Hon. G.
Bruce
Financial assistance for
post-secondary students
S. Orr
Hon. S.
Bond
High-speed Internet access in
Kootenays
W. McMahon
Hon. J.
Murray
Impact of legislation on health
support workers
J. Kwan
Hon. C.
Hansen
Tabling Documents
Workers Compensation Board, annual
report, 2003
Workers Compensation Board, service
plan, 2005-06
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Advanced
Education (continued)
J. Kwan
Hon. S.
Bond
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of Supply
Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable
Resource Management
Hon. G.
Abbott
MacPhail
Hon. S.
Santori
K. Manhas
[ Page 10681 ]
THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004
The House
met at 2:04 p.m.
Prayers.
[1405]
Introductions by Members
Hon. R.
Harris: It's actually not that often we have someone from Skeena coming down
to visit. I can't seem to find her at the moment, but up in the gallery we have
a very good friend of mine. She happens to work in the district forest office up
in Terrace. She's down here in Victoria just basking, I think, in the lovely
weather and enjoying herself and having a great holiday. Would the House please
welcome Heimke Haldane.
J. Kwan:
Visiting us today is Warren Kline. Warren is a fourth-year engineering student
at the University of Victoria, and today is the second-to-last day of his co-op
program with the Legislative Assembly, computer services branch. In addition to
taking on a full load as a student, Warren is also a dedicated foster parent to
two teenage boys, and he and his wife are expecting their first baby this
October. Would the House please welcome Warren to this Legislature.
Hon. C.
Clark: On behalf of the Premier, I am delighted to be able to welcome to the
chamber today a group from Queen Mary Elementary School in Vancouver. There are
76 grade 5 students here to observe our proceedings. They are joined by their
dedicated teachers, Ms. King, Ms. Dixon and Mr. Carpenter. I hope the House will
make them welcome.
Hon. G.
Plant: I am delighted to have the opportunity today to welcome to the
precincts and the gallery two constituents of the Minister of Health Services.
They're actually connections and friends of my family: Marjorie and Reid
Mitchell. Marjorie will be well known to many west-side Vancouver people for her
work in the real estate business. Reid is, along with my father, a member of the
UBC Thunderbird Hall of Fame for the 1948 UBC Thunderbird basketball team and
was an Olympian. He was a member of the 1948 Canadian Olympic basketball team
and went to London to play on behalf of Canada. In addition to all those other
many good things, Marjorie and Reid Mitchell are the parents of my ministerial
assistant and longtime assistant, Joan Dick. For all of those reasons, I'm very
glad to see them here today. I hope members of the House will welcome them to
the proceedings.
Hamilton: Visiting us today are four of my constituents. They are Ron Boyce;
his father, Murray Boyce; his mother, Tracy Bryant; and his grandmother,
Jeanette Bryant. Would the House please make them all very welcome.
Tributes
RUDOLPH SIEG
Hawes: Two nights ago Rudolph Sieg passed away in Kelowna. He's the father
of my constituency assistant Wilson Sieg and the grandfather of Kerrie Sieg, who
works in the Premier's office. I would ask that the House send condolences to
both Kerrie and Wilson.
KERRIE SIEG AND HERMAN CHEUNG
Hawes: I would also like to note that Kerrie will be leaving. I think today
may be her last day working for us here. She will be leaving with Herman Cheung
for Ottawa to take up a position with the Conservative Party there. Herman, of
course, is our computer wizard. I'd like to also ask the House — all of us —
to wish them best of luck in their new positions in Ottawa.
Mr.
Speaker: So ordered.
Introductions by Members
J. Bray:
On behalf of the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, it's my pleasure to
introduce four hard-working staff members from that ministry who are down
visiting Victoria for the weekend and have chosen to take in question period
today. These staff members are Patricia Marsh, Diana Gallacher, Lisa Paquin and
Kelsey Selbee, and I'd ask the House to please make these hard-working public
servants very welcome.
[1410]
B. Kerr:
I'm going to be making a statement to the House in a few minutes. I'd just like
to introduce the two people that introduced me to this topic. Pat Cooley is a
Lyme disease awareness and support group for Vancouver Island, and Lee Haines is
a biochemist specializing in vector-borne diseases. Would the House make them
feel very welcome.
Hunter: It always surprises me that people would leave Nanaimo on a
beautiful day like today to come to Victoria, but two people in the gallery did.
I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today. They are Wendy Smitka and
Gord Halkett. Would the House please make them welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25
b) CRIME PREVENTION AWARDS
Hamilton: Every year the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General
hosts an awards ceremony to recognize individuals and organizations across the
province who have made outstanding contributions in the field of crime
prevention and community safety.
[ Page 10682 ]
Selected for their commitment, perseverance, innovation and contribution by
representatives of the safe communities working group, these award winners are
exemplary members of our community and should be congratulated by all.
was quite proud to learn that one of my young constituents had been nominated
for one of these awards. He was later given a youth leadership award along with
only one other young person in B.C. Ron Boyce, who I introduced earlier, at 13
years old is a fine example of how young people can make a difference in our
community working side by side with adults to encourage community safety.
Over the
past summer Ron volunteered with the Rock Solid Foundation to help develop and
promote methods of dealing with violence and intimidation among youth. With the
help of people like Ron, this organization has already communicated with over
500,000 young people in the greater Victoria area.
Ron has
also been an active and eager participant in phase 2 of the Trackside Art
Gallery project. This project is one that I find particularly interesting. He
has helped with other Rock Solid volunteers to transform a dangerous urban
corridor into a safe, clean and beautiful community space that all residents can
be proud of. Every year new works of art are unveiled, painted by local young
artists, sponsored by local businesses and organizations. The track site art
project is now a positive place for gathering to associate with positive
community togetherness instead of drugs and violence, as in the past.
In keeping
with this focus on community involvement projects, Ron has the admirable career
goal of one day becoming a community police officer. This is a path I can, from
experience, assure him will be both rewarding and beneficial throughout his
life.
congratulate Ron on his success, and I urge him to continue playing an active
role in the community. I urge all young British Columbians to get involved and
discover the rich rewards that come with volunteerism. I would also like to
congratulate all recipients of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Awards
who have worked hard to make a difference in the community. You are leaders of a
much larger movement to improve the health of our neighbourhoods, and I commend
you on all your efforts.
LYME DISEASE
B. Kerr:
When I first moved to the Island, we took our son's dog, a beautiful
malamute husky, for a romp in the woods. When we arrived home, I was shocked to
see a number of black marks on Kimo. Upon inspection I discovered they were deer
ticks. Upon further investigation I found that although ticks do carry a number
of pathogens, my area of Vancouver Island carries the most dangerous pathogen,
called Lyme disease.
Lyme
disease has only been recognized since 1975. Left untreated, late-stage Lyme
disease is a debilitating arthritic and neurological illness that may mimic many
of 200 other diseases such as MS, ALS, chronic fatigue syndrome, reactive
arthritis, Lupus or Crohn's disease. Vancouver Island supports the right
combination of environmental factors to facilitate the proliferation of ticks.
Tick season begins in spring and goes through to the end of June.
Studies
have shown that up to 6 percent of ticks will carry this debilitating pathogen.
Because of the type of testing currently used in B.C., many patients are not
being diagnosed with Lyme disease. Consequently, the treatment is not always
appropriate for the circumstance.
This begs
the question: what percentage of chronically ill patients of Vancouver Island
actually have undiagnosed tick-borne infections? With recognition and treatment,
many chronically ill patients who actually have Lyme disease could be brought to
better health and lessen the burden on our social and health care systems.
Some tips
that should be followed at this time of year are: always wear a hat when you're
in the woods, particularly when you're looking for your golf balls and, if
possible, wear a hat with neck protection. If you have a tick….
Interjection.
[1415]
B. Kerr:
My colleague from Maple Ridge says he never goes in the woods.
If you have
a tick, send the tick to the Centre for Disease Control, and they can determine
if it has Lyme disease. If you are experiencing symptoms after being infected
with a tick, see your doctor, but be sure you have your blood test before taking
any antibiotics. The test for Lyme disease is based on antibodies in the body,
and taking antibiotics will undermine the value of the tests.
In essence,
we must recognize on the Island the prevalence of Lyme disease and recognize the
latest and most appropriate testing techniques. My understanding is that with a
proper diagnosis, health care dollars can be saved and patients' suffering
reduced. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to bring forward
this rather esoteric but nonetheless important risk that we experience on
Vancouver Island.
YOUTH WEEK
Manhas: Yesterday I had the wonderful opportunity to speak to a group of
kids from across the lower mainland, including kids from the Coquitlam area. It
was a gathering of the Student Street Squad in Burnaby along with Barb Stegemann,
Coquitlam's director of tourism, who talked about challenges she overcame in her
life and gave an inspiring talk on visualization. It was an awesome start to
what's in store in the week ahead.
Next week
marks International Youth Week, May 1 to 7. Youth Week is an international
celebration of the efforts, energies and positive contributions that youth
[ Page 10683 ]
put into their communities all year round. It's an opportunity for people
around the world to learn about and from young people. To kick off B.C.'s Youth
Week, I'll be joining local youth in my neighbourhood where they'll disperse
around the city to dispense random acts of kindness.
Leigh
Square will be the stage for the youth festival in Poco, while Teen Idol, a
showcase of youth talent, will take the stage. I'll be watching precariously
from the cage filled with water where I'll be the dunk-tank target. Carly
Travers and the Youth Matters! group — an initiative I started last year to
build assets, empower youth and build relations amongst teens and the rest of
the community — will be hosting Bring in the Noise, Bring in the Peace, a
battle of the bands on the main stage, and a run-up version to the bigger Rock
City Coquitlam concert. The kids will be involved with planning through Youth
Matters! On Sunday there will be a scavenger hunt at the request and inspiration
of a local reporter and events throughout the rest of the week.
Youth Week
is a great opportunity for everyone, no matter their age, to get up, have fun
and connect to youth in the community. Young people will inspire you, teach you
about yourself, introduce you to all kinds of different things — music,
poetry, art, movies, sports and things that you may have never found on your
own. Adults are welcome, too, at Youth Week events.
You know,
it only takes one adult that shows interest and faith in a young person to help
that young person succeed, and I'm sure we can all remember those few who helped
us and shaped our lives. This Youth Week, be that change for a young person you
would otherwise not have met. Come out and celebrate at events around the
province. Events can be found in your local community newspaper or by logging on
to bcyouthweek.com.
Mr.
Speaker: That concludes members' statements.
Oral Questions
RETROACTIVITY CLAUSE IN LEGISLATION
ON HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS
MacPhail: Earlier today the member for Peace River South said that had he
understood the implications of the retroactivity clause in the legislation
rammed through the Legislature yesterday, he might have rethought his support
for the bill. A few minutes later, the Health minister insisted there was no
retroactive compensation takeback to April 1. It would be nice if the members of
government had read and understood their own legislation before casting their
vote.
To the
Health minister. He has probably had a chance to read the bill he rammed through
last night. Will he now stand up and tell health care workers how this
retroactive stripping of wages will work? Will health care workers be required
to cut a cheque to the government, or will this minister require them to work
for free until they've paid off the debt to the company store?
Hon. C.
Hansen: The member is misquoting me. I never said in any interview this
morning that there was no retroactive component to this bill. What is important
is that there are options for the workers, and that is set out clearly in the
bill. They can go the route of the arbitrator that gives them more flexibility
around the mix of wages and benefits, and once the workers understand the
details of this, I think they will realize the fairness of the approach we've
taken.
Mr.
Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has another question.
MacPhail: Unbelievable. I don't know what's worse — the vicious attacks on
working families and patient care in Bill 37 or the fact that the members of
this government caucus and apparently the Minister of Health had no idea what
they were voting for but stood in blind obedience to the Premier and made this
law.
[1420]
There is no
option about retroactivity. No matter what this government does to these
workers, their wages and compensation are retroactive to April 1 — a minimum
of one month full retroactivity.
understand the government caucus received a briefing today on Bill 37 — a bit
late, but at least they finally got one. Now that the Minister of Health and the
member for Peace River South have been briefed on the bill they voted for
already, can the Minister of Health explain to this House how he can possibly
justify forcing health care providers to pay back the wages they've received for
work they've performed in good faith throughout the month of April?
Hon. G.
Bruce: The contract expired at the end of March of this year. The
unfortunate thing is that we had been able to fashion an agreement between the
parties during the course of last year. It was called the tentative framework
agreement. Had the parties at that time accepted and understood what it was all
about…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Bruce: …they would have — and had the leadership of the union gone and
tried hard, vigorously to sell this deal — found a situation…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Bruce: …where much of the anxiety that had been displayed during this past
while would have been mitigated, and you would have had peace in the labour
field right now. Quite frankly, we canvassed
[ Page 10684 ]
this for hours last night, and you're continuing along a path that is spewing
misinformation.
MacPhail: What misinformation? The bill has a retroactive clause on wages
and compensation. There is no misinformation. It's here in writing. Working
people who have given their time throughout the month of April to care for the
patients are going to have to cut a cheque or work for free. That's the truth.
Over and
over again the Premier told health care workers they had nothing to worry about.
He said he valued them. He said he wouldn't rip up their contracts. Now he's cut
their wages, taken their jobs away, and they're either going to have to work for
free or cut a cheque to this government for the wage reduction for the month of
April.
Laura
Ferguson has worked as a health care worker for 17 years as a pre-admissions
clerk. She's a single mom. She has two children. She's trying to pay for her
daughter to go to college. Her son requires special medical care. With this
legislation she's worried that she's going to lose her job as well as have to
take a huge pay cut for the time she's already put in. Why did the Premier not
tell the truth to Ms. Ferguson when he said she had nothing to worry about?
Hon. G.
Bruce: I think it's very important at this point that people understand
there is an election that the members of the union can take by asking me to
appoint an arbitrator.
MacPhail: What has that got to do with my question? You can still contract
out the jobs regardless. Did you read your legislation?
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Bruce: What's important about this is in respect to the reduction of wages,
if an arbitrator is put into position.…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Mr. Minister, we'll continue when we have order, and we'll
add the time on at the end of question period. Would you like to start again,
please.
Hon. G.
Bruce: What's important to understand is that there's an election the
members can take — the union. They can ask within the next 14 days…. This
concerns me greatly. While there are different things taking place, they don't
take the action that's necessary. What will happen with an arbitrator being
asked….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. G.
Bruce: With an arbitrator put in place, they then can take the entire
package of both wages and benefits….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
[1425]
Hon. G.
Bruce: The reduction required in respect to the dollars and cents would be
greatly mitigated. In fact, if a person had eight weeks or seven weeks and
decided through the contract and the negotiation — the arbitration process —
that they wished to reduce that by a week, then the amount that would actually
have to be reduced in real dollars to income would be much smaller. So it's
very, very important that the person you were speaking about understands that
their union has to make a decision here. My concern is that during the last
go-round with the tentative framework agreement, the union didn't understand the
full component, and they've put themselves in a difficult position. I do not
want to see that happen again.
ARBITRATION OPTION IN LEGISLATION
ON HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS
Hawes: I've already had a couple of phone calls, and I want to ask the
Minister of Skills Development and Labour about Bill 37. My question is on that
topic as well, and it covers some of what I think he was just trying to answer.
But I couldn't hear the answer, so I don't think the constituents who are asking
me questions could hear it either. If the members of the opposition could try to
be a little bit polite…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hawes: …and understand the world isn't revolving around them…. There are
workers in this province who want to hear these answers. My question, then, to
the Minister of Skills Development and Labour would be…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order.
Hawes: …around the arbitration option. The workers that have called me
want to know: exactly what is their option here with respect to the arbitrator,
and what does that mean to their paycheques? Depending on which way they choose
to go, what is the impact here? If my constituents could be allowed to hear the
answer. If you could ask them to just….
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order. Order, please.
[ Page 10685 ]
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.
Hon. G.
Bruce: That's very important — that under the legislation, it is written
that at this point the reduction of wages is 11 percent off direct wages. If the
union asks me to appoint an arbitrator within the next 14 days, that arbitrator
then can, with the parties, work through whether some of that reduction comes
out of benefits such as vacation time and things like that. Perhaps if they had
five or six weeks' holidays, they might decide they want to give up a week's
holiday, and then that reduction against wages would be substantially less.
Also,
there's a difference in the total sum. Instead of an 11 percent reduction, which
is as the bill is written right now, it would be a 10 percent reduction, and it
would have the ability to be over both salaries and benefits. It's very
important that union members of the HEU understand that component, because it
represents to them a very substantive amount of money.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR
POST-SECONDARY STUDENTS
S. Orr:
My question is actually to the Minister of Advanced Education. In a riding like
Victoria-Hillside, I have many young people with financial challenges, so
getting a post-secondary education is often dependent on the availability of
government scholarship or bursary money. I have received a lot of phone calls
and letters from students who are worried about the elimination of the B.C.
student grant program. Will the minister please explain how my constituents on
low incomes are going to be able to access post-secondary education without this
source of funding?
Hon. S.
Bond: On budget day this year we did announce that we were converting the
grant program in the province. What we did was create a loan program instead so
that….
Interjection.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Madam Minister, we'll continue when we have order in
the chamber. Please continue.
Hon. S.
Bond: We converted the grant program to a loan program. Students,
particularly those most in need, will continue to have access to the number of
dollars; they simply will be in the form of a loan rather than a grant. At the
same time, we announced the fact that we are working to redesign the program and
will be working on a program that will look at a number of options, including
remission and course completion grants.
We're doing
consultation at the moment, and we'll hopefully be able to announce that in the
near future.
[1430]
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Hon. members, if the members of the opposition will conform to the
rules of the House…. They know very well that they will be able to ask a
question in this House. If not, then I assume they don't wish to.
HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS
IN KOOTENAYS
McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Management Services. High-speed
broadband digital Internet access will be delivered to 11 regional Kootenay
centres through a province-facilitated agreement between the Columbia Mountain
Open Network and Telus. We have a huge need and a desire for this service. A
number of communities will now be able to access high-speed Internet for the
first time, thanks to this partnership.
To the
minister: what impact will this have economically and educationally for my
constituents, and when can we expect high-speed broadband access to be delivered
to those 11 regional centres?
Hon. J.
Murray: This was a huge announcement for 11 communities in the East
Kootenays. Revelstoke, Invermere and Golden are three that are in the member's
riding. They will have the high-speed Internet access by either the end of
October or the end of November of this year. All 11 will receive those
connections this year.
This is one
of the biggest things I've heard in terms of good news in those communities, and
why is that? It's because parents who would like to stay at home with their
young children and continue to work from home will be able to. It's because we
will be able to have a level playing field where people in remote communities
will have the same opportunities that I enjoy in New Westminster and others
enjoy in urban centres to access high-speed Internet and be able…
Interjections.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition please try to get
herself under control. Please continue.
Hon. J.
Murray: …to take courses, to be able to use teleconferencing opportunities
to be able to manage their own health care by accessing high-speed Internet. So
all of those kinds of opportunities that we are beginning to take for granted
but we actually really need for our quality of life will be available in those
communities too.
IMPACT OF LEGISLATION ON
HEALTH SUPPORT WORKERS
J. Kwan:
You know, Mr. Speaker, what is important for this government to understand
is that the Premier
[ Page 10686 ]
made a commitment to not rip up collective agreements, and then the Premier
ripped up collective agreements.
Marianna
Juras works as a housekeeper in a Victoria hospital. She's an immigrant from
Croatia and has been working as a health care worker since she came to British
Columbia. She has a mortgage and a son in grade 12 who wants to become a
respiratory therapist. Her last day of work is on September 17. She doesn't know
how she will pay her bills as a result of Bill 37.
Again to
the minister: why did the Premier tell Ms. Juras that he valued her work? Why
did the Premier tell her that she had nothing to worry about when he knew that
isn't true?
Hon. C.
Hansen: I think when the members want to see the root cause of the
challenges that we're facing, they should actually go look in the mirror. During
the 1990s when the NDP were in office, we saw the sweetheart deals that were
signed between the Premier's office and the Hospital Employees Union, which took
money out of patient care and diverted it instead into making the support staff
in this province so much higher paid — 20 to 40 percent higher than any other
province.
What we are
doing is bringing those costs into line, because we have to put patients first.
We have to make sure that we get costs in line with what other jurisdictions are
facing, and that is exactly what we are accomplishing through this legislation.
[End
of question period.]
[1435]
Tabling Documents
Hon. G.
Bruce: I have the honour to present the 2003 annual report and the 2005-06
service plan for the Workers Compensation Board.
Orders of the Day
Hon. G.
Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the consideration of
the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. In this
chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, it will be
the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.
Committee of Supply
The House
in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.
The
committee met at 2:38 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 9:
ministry operations, $1,898,849,000 (continued) .
J. Kwan:
Tuesday morning, when we last discussed the ministry's estimates, we were on the
issues around the cancellation of the student grant programs by this provincial
government. The minister says that there is a remission program, loan
remissions, and post-degree grant programs being looked into by the government.
Notwithstanding,
a student reporter tried to access the minister after the information was out
through the budget. The minister didn't return phone calls in spite of repeated
attempts by the student reporter to get hold of the minister. Of course, the
government's communications person said that there is no plan for the existing
grant program to be replaced.
[1440]
Now, the
government says they are going through a process of consultation, and through
the estimates, the minister admitted that the consultation took place after the
article of March 11 — the Martlet
article where the issues were raised
with respect to the plans for the loan remission and completion grant programs.
The
minister says they are in the process of compiling the information. I'm asking
the minister whether or not she would release the information that she's
received through the consultation on the cancellation of the grant program for
students.
I seek
leave to make some introductions.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
J. Kwan:
There are three guests sitting in the gallery today. I would like to introduce
to the House Beni Lopez. Beni is originally from the Philippines but came to
Canada 23 years ago, where he has since raised five children. Beni has been a
building service attendant at the Victoria General Hospital for 17 of those 23
years, and like so many of his co-workers in the HEU, Beni has received a pink
slip. Beni is a father of five, struggling to make ends meet, and someone very
concerned over his future.
Also here
today is Laura Ferguson….
The
Chair: Member, there's a time limitation on the amount you can say about
people in introductions. I just ask you to limit that, please.
J. Kwan:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will certainly follow the traditions of the House
with respect to introductions.
Also here
today is Laura Ferguson. Laura has been an HEU pre-admission clerk for 17 years.
She's also a single mom with two children at home, one of whom has ADHD. Laura
came down to the Legislature last night to watch the debate but was not allowed
into the building. I'm glad to see that she's made it here today.
My third
guest is Valerie Flowers. Valerie is a housekeeper at the VGH, where she has
worked for the last 14 years. Valerie is first nations, a mom of three children.
She, too, is facing difficult changes in the days ahead.
[ Page 10687 ]
Beni, Laura
and Valerie came down to the House to watch today's proceedings. I would like
the House to welcome these three special guests.
Debate Continued
Hon. S.
Bond: Firstly, I want to go back and correct the record. I think the
impression's been left that I did not contact the student reporter. I did. I
certainly take responsibility for the fact that there was a series of
communications between staff and e-mail before that interview took place.
However, I
did do the interview on April 1, and in the
article that was subsequently
printed by the Martlet , which was not quoted by the member opposite, I
said very clearly that we are consulting our stakeholders, including students,
to make sure we create a program that works for them. So, in fact, I did speak
to the student reporter.
To further
clarify, after the first
article in the Martlet appeared, my
communications director contacted the student reporter immediately to point out
that the comments in the
article were not direct quotes of hers and did not
reflect the complete discussion that took place. For the record and to clarify
that, it's important to me that that does take place, and I do take
responsibility for the gap in terms of the time that the calls were made to me.
It was followed up, and a report was done. It's interesting. It was a lengthy
interview, and I think I'm quoted in about three sentences of that interview.
More
important to me than that, let's go back to the budget and fiscal plan
announcement that was made, because there seems to be some skepticism on the
part of the member opposite that we're actually doing the work to create the
program. That's unfair to students in this province. The Finance minister said:
"The Ministry of Advanced Education will be working to adjust its programs
to assist those students most in need and determine how best to harmonize its
student aid programs, and they will also be considering options, including
completion grants and loan remissions."
Budget day
was in February of this year. That commitment was made publicly. We continue to
work on that, and we will soon be receiving the information.
J. Kwan:
I'll tell you what is unfair. It's what this government is doing to workers in
British Columbia. What is unfair is what this government is doing to students in
British Columbia. The government is cancelling student grant programs, and then
they claim that there is better access.
[1445]
You know,
the minister claims that she did return the call to the student on April 1, and
yes, she did. Subsequently, on April 8 the
article was printed. But you know
what? The first contact for the article, when the student tried to get hold of
this minister, was on March 11. "After 17 phone calls, 12 e-mails, four
faxes, three assistants and two offices, the minister still had not gotten back
to me to comment on the promised student loan remission and post-degree grant
programs." That's a direct quote from the
article itself.
Gee, I
wonder: if Keith Baldrey is trying to get a hold of the minister, would he
actually have to go through 17 phone calls, 12 e-mails, four faxes, three
assistants and two offices to get access to the minister? No. This government in
fact actually brings forward legislation just so they can make it on the 6
o'clock news, like they did yesterday with Bill 37. Talk about access and
fairness.
Then, you
know what? The minister says the communications director was not quoted
properly. Well, the
article writes this, and it's not a direct quote from the
communications director. The point is this. I actually trust the reporting of
the student rather than the word of this government, because the student has
actually put this information forward, and I trust this information to be
factual.
It reads,
from the article: "I was referred to" — it actually names the
minister's name — "the minister's communications director, Karen
McDonald, the same assistant who told me she could not officially comment two
weeks earlier, when I sent her a list of questions about the promised programs,
and who refused to return numerous calls and e-mails." A list of questions
were sent to the minister. Good grief. Even then, after 17 phone calls, 12
e-mails, four faxes, three assistants and two offices, the reporter was not able
to make contact until April 1.
The
article
goes on to say that what McDonald did know, however, was that no solid plans for
the student loan remission and post-degree grant programs were in the works.
According to McDonald, B.C. student loan remission and post-degree grant
programs will not be in place this year, and no details on who will be consulted
in the making of the programs have been set.
I trust the
information that has been put forward by the student any day, compared to
members' — and particularly government members' — information.
Hon. R.
Thorpe: Honour. Remember honour.
J. Kwan:
Exactly. Maybe the government members should remember the word
"honour" to see what it means. Maybe they should put it on their
foreheads so that every morning when they wake up and look at themselves in the
mirror, they may actually reflect on what they did the day before — like
yesterday — and see whether or not the word still shines on their foreheads.
The
Chair: Let's confine…. Member, take your seat, please.
I just want
to remind the member that we are dealing with the Ministry of Advanced
Education. I'd like to keep her remarks and her questions confined to that
ministry, please.
J. Kwan:
The April 8 Martlet
article reads: "Students shouldn't hold their
breath awaiting the grant replacement program promised by the B.C. Liberals in
their
[ Page 10688 ]
February 17 budget announcement, according to the Advanced Education
minister." Again, it names the minister. "The minister assures
students a grant replacement program is in the works, but implementation is
still far off. 'My staff is looking at the other grant programs across the
country to see what works. I can't say for sure when the program will be in
place.'" That's a direct quote from the minister. Then the minister goes on
to say: "'We're consulting our stakeholders, including students, to make
sure we create a program that works for them.'"
How's it
going? The government knew in February that they were going to cancel a
critically needed program for students, and then they cancelled the program.
Then it was almost as if they had forgotten they promised a degree completion
program or a grant remission program. It's almost as though they had forgotten
until people got on to the minister's case and this government's case. Then all
of a sudden they remembered they had better go and do some consultation.
[1450]
To date:
February, the announcement came out — program gone; April, the end of April
— April 29 today — no information on when the program will be out. The
minister claims that they're working on consulting across the country with
respect to this new loan remission program and completion grant program. When
exactly will this program be in place?
Hon. S.
Bond: I've answered that question several times, but I'm happy to do it
again.
I just want
to make one comment about how disappointing it is that when we're working hard
to put a program in place that I am absolutely certain the member opposite would
be supportive of when we're trying to assist students, we're casting doubts
about a process….
In fact, I
should also clarify the record. I said yesterday that I didn't have the dates in
terms of the beginning of the consultation. The letter to stakeholders to be
consulted went out…. We believe the date was March 16. So those meetings have
been underway since just a month after the budget was delivered in this
province. Since that time we've met with a significant number of groups, which
we think is a great idea. Before we design the new program, we thought we should
actually talk to people about that.
My goal is
to have my staff…. I have said to them: "I want you to be inclusive and
thorough." I also believe that…. You know what? Other people in other
parts of this country do things well as well. So I've asked them to look at
models across the country. I've asked them to talk to people within this
province, and that work is underway.
I've said
more than once that my goal is to have a program in place by the end of the
school year, the academic year 2004-05, so there is no gap in the provision of
service.
J. Kwan:
You just don't know what version of the minister's story to take, because in
the Hansard of Tuesday, April 27, the minister says: "We are working
hard, and to clarify the member's concerns, the consultation did take place in
April. From that perspective, the point is that the Finance minister made that
commitment on budget day." So they cancelled the program in February. They
did the consultation, as the minister said she did, in April. That was as of
Tuesday morning. So now the story changes.
It's sort
of like many of the stories of this government. They keep on changing. You kind
of have to have an Energizer Bunny to follow the minister to see where things
are going, because at every turn on issues it changes. And here we are — yet
another change. But you know what? We'll just leave that for a moment.
What's
really important is this. The minister claims that she cares about students. She
is so caring about students that she thought: "Okay, here's a bright idea
— budget day. Oh, let's go and announce that we're going to cancel a grant
program for students. Then let's do that cancellation without any consultation
with the students who will be impacted by the cancellation of the program. But
because we care so much, we're going to consult with them to see what program
should be in place afterwards."
Well, if
you really did care, one might have actually put the consultation in place
before this government cancelled the program. If there are genuine intentions
from the government to put a better program in place, well then, do the
consultation before you cancel the program and have a replacement ready to go
before you cancel the program.
No, not so.
Not this government. Why? Because their intentions, in my belief, are not in the
best interests of students. That is a laugh. What this government cares about
and what this minister cares about is the bottom line. What they care about is
their own ideology. They don't care about access to education for students. They
don't care about low-income people who are trying to get better access to
programs. That's why they cancelled the student grant program.
The
minister says: "Okay, we're consulting now." I suppose it's better
late than never. If they had done it right, they wouldn't have cancelled the
grant program to begin with. They would have done consultations to see if there
was a way to enhance the program with students and others impacted by it and
those who have knowledge in the field — would have done that and then had a
program ready to go. But no, not so.
[1455]
Now, what
is the minister's rationale for creating a new loan remissions and completion
grant program? What caused the minister to think that is better, by cancelling
the grant program that existed prior to budget day?
Hon. S.
Bond: Just in terms of the comments about my changing stories, I went back
yesterday to clarify the information for the member opposite so I could be as
accurate as possible in the House today. It has nothing to do with changing a
story. In fact, consultation has continued throughout the month of April. The
let-
[ Page 10689 ]
ters of invitation — the actual date I was given — were sent to the
stakeholders on March 16. I didn't have that at my fingertips yesterday, so I
was happy to provide that information to you. Consultation did continue
throughout the month of April. As a matter of fact, it hasn't finished yet.
We're still working on that.
In terms of
the rationale, first of all, virtually no other province in the country has an
upfront grant program any longer. One of the things we looked at was the
practice across the country. Second, the other issue was that we wanted to be
able to send as many dollars as possible to the institutions to help benefit the
300,000 students across the system. So what it enabled us to do is while we make
the shift to the remissions and completion grant program, we were able to
restore funding and, in fact, add additional dollars to institutions across the
province.
What we've
seen as a result of that is exactly what we knew would happen. We wanted to make
sure we could mitigate some of the tuition increases that impact every student
in this province. That's precisely what happened. We have, as a matter of fact,
Vancouver Community College — an institution the member opposite is well aware
of — having a zero percent tuition increase. So all of the students benefited
from those additional dollars.
There was a
series of reasons for doing it. It's always a balancing issue. It was not an
easy decision to make, and I made that clear yesterday in my comments. But the
good news is that this is a government that is actually adding 25,000 seats to
the post-secondary education system by the year 2009-10, probably the most
significant addition in terms of access for students in decades in this
province. So to suggest that we don't care…. We made a difficult decision.
We're trying to balance very difficult circumstances, but we intend to put
together a loan completion or a remission program that will meet the needs of
those students most in need.
J. Kwan:
It's unbelievable when you hear the minister's answer. She says: "Oh, we
looked across the country, and virtually no other province is providing a grant
program." Well, then let's just adopt the practice of racing to the bottom
and taking away grant programs for students, why don't we? That's what this
government has done.
If you
apply that logic to another area, like retroactive wage rollbacks, maybe the
government will find that virtually no other province is doing that. Why are
they doing that now — leading the charge? Where things are good for students
and good for communities, you'd think that this government would lead the charge
to support communities. Absolutely not. Where it is damaging for communities and
students, the government wants to lead the charge on that to make sure they're
on the bottom of the list. They are leading the charge exactly. That's what this
government is doing.
[1500]
To hear the
minister's answer is just baffling when she claims that she supports and wants
to be there for students, that she cares very much about students. I tell you.
Then the minister says: "Well, you know, we made these tough decisions, and
we had to make these tough decisions, and we didn't like them, but we had to
make them anyway." The minister knew full well what the government was
doing when they lifted the tuition fee freeze. When the government lifted that,
they knew exactly what was going to happen, and, yes, tuition fees skyrocketed.
For
example, B.C. university tuition increased by some 70 percent. College tuition
increased by some 150 percent. In fact, increases are still taking place in some
of the universities and colleges in British Columbia this fiscal year. As I
said, I will get into the tuition fee issue in full detail in these estimates.
The claim
and suggestion that the government took this $80 million grant program away from
students who are in need so they could mitigate tuition fee increases…. The
government could have mitigated tuition fee increases by funding post-secondary
education adequately. The government also took this $80 million grant program
away to give to academic institutions for the spaces the government announced in
the throne speech. The Finance minister actually said that a large portion of
the $80-million-a-year grant program will be given to academic institutions to
increase capacity and mitigate tuition fees. So we know from the minister's own
words that students are carrying additional burdens for these new spaces.
Government,
as we established earlier in the estimates debate, is not funding the increase
in spaces adequately, so institutions will have to look elsewhere. Part of that
would be from the grant programs this government took away. I would like to
canvass the minister if she has some specific numbers about how much this
government would put into these remission and completion grant programs.
Hon. S.
Bond: First of all, I just want to…. Again, the member opposite heard
something I didn't say. The member opposite implied we were cancelling grants
because nobody else had grants. The key words are "upfront grants."
We're moving the program to the back end of a student's career, just as every
other province in the country does. So to imply they don't have grant programs
is incredibly…. Well, that's just inaccurate, and it's not what I said.
Having said
that, we don't have a number. That's because I've asked the staff to find as
much money as possible to be able to put back into the loan remission or grant
program, and it will depend on the model. We're looking at a variety of models.
We might look at incentive grants. We may look at those grants for students most
in need. It also depends on our interest rates. We also have to look at our
bad-debt experience in terms of how we balance all of those things.
[1505]
[K.
Stewart in the chair.]
frustrating as it might seem to the member opposite, we're actually trying to do
a thorough job of
[ Page 10690 ]
figuring out a model that works well for students, finding the maximum number
of dollars we can come up with. The good news is a program will be in place. It
will reflect the needs of students, and it will also look at what's best in
terms of what's happening in Canada right now. That's actually prudent
management, as we sort out how to do this as best we possibly can.
Mayencourt: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave
granted.
Introductions by Members
Mayencourt: There are 132 young people that have just come into the gallery.
They are in grades 2 through 7. They're from Bayview Community School in
Vancouver–Point Grey. They've come here with a big song in their hearts. They
were in the rotunda just a little while ago, and they performed magnificently.
Everybody that walked by was just thrilled by their appearance here. They're
accompanied by 26 of their parents, too numerous to name. But I do want to
recognize in particular their choir director, Gail Hause, and the school
coordinator, Brenda Devine. Would the House make these children very welcome.
Debate Continued
J. Kwan:
Prudent management — that this government, this minister, cares about
students…. Well, there's the caring, and there's prudent management. The
government cancelled a loan program that works for students before they did any
consultation with students, before they have a replacement program in place for
students and before they even figured out how much money they would set aside
for this program. There is caring. There is prudent management. It's almost as
though the caring is overflowing off the side of the minister's desk — that it
fell off into the wastebasket — until someone said: "Wait a minute. We
did say that we were going to look into a remissions program and a completion
grant program. Better pick that up off the side of the desk and carve a little
space for it."
If the
minister was genuine in her assertion that she cares about students and this was
a priority within government, then a minimum budget would have been set aside
for the grant program. In fact, I would venture to go as far as to say more than
that. The government would have had a replacement program in place and would
have done the consultation before the grant program was eliminated, if the
intent really was to look for a way to improve the program and ensure it
provides maximum support for students. No. That isn't what the government did,
so one would have to observe that the government's priority in helping students
in greatest need is on the bottom of the list of things to do.
The
minister says she has told her staff to find as much money as possible. I have
been a minister before. With budgets in ministries, usually on budget day you
are given X amount of money. It goes into whichever program. Generally speaking,
you know how much money you have got and what programs it goes to. There aren't
a lot of slush dollars lying around. One can only assume, given that there's no
line item for this remission program, that there's nothing dedicated towards it
in terms of dollars set aside for the program. One has to wonder about the
government's assertion that they actually care about students.
[1510]
If the
minister says they'll try and find as much money as possible, can one assume
that it will be at least $80 million — at least the same amount of money that
the government took away — for the grant program?
Hon. S.
Bond: If I might digress for a moment, I have the pleasure of having an
office very close — actually, on the second floor of the rotunda — and I
want to say to you that my assistant deputy minister and I were out there and
that you did an absolutely wonderful job. We all came out and listened, and you
made part of our lunch hour much happier today. On behalf of my staff and I, who
were getting ready, we just want to say thank you. You did an absolutely
tremendous job, and it was a delight to have you here in the precinct today.
Thank you for that.
terms of the amount, as I said earlier, I don't have the amount of money that we
would be using, but we did make a conscious decision to redistribute some of
those funds to institutions to try to bring benefit to the 300,000-plus students
that are in the system. Currently, 5 percent of students benefit from the pool
of dollars that were allocated to that program. We're trying to balance very
difficult needs here. We're trying to create a loan program or a remission
program that will meet the needs of students. We're trying to find as much money
as possible to do that, and we're also sending more money to institutions to try
to help students across the sector.
J. Kwan:
I, too, want to pause for a moment to welcome the students. You know, with them
bringing a song to the Legislature from their hearts, all I can think about is
Raffi's notion of a song that he wrote for the UN. To quote just a couple of
phrases from the song, it's: "All you really need is a song in your heart,
food in your belly and love in your family."
When I look
at children, I believe that really is the essence of children — the essence of
what we need to provide to children so that they have opportunities to flourish
and grow. Of course, educators in our community do that day in and day out, and
I want to thank them, as well, for the good work they do every day. To the
students: welcome to the Legislature.
For
the student grant program, the minister says they don't have a figure set down.
The minister wouldn't commit that it would be at least $80 million, and I think
that tells you something. The minister claims they are trying to redistribute.
She calls it redistribution of the
[ Page 10691 ]
funds, and they use all kinds of fancy terms. At the end of the day, it comes
down to this. The grant program is now gone, and there's no replacement program
to date. We don't know when a replacement program would be available, and we
don't even know how much money would be set aside for this replacement program.
Prudent
management? No. Caring for students and access to post-secondary education,
particularly for students who are low-income? No. I would say not, given the
actions of the government. The minister says she is going around checking with
other provinces to see what programs they have in place. What sorts of remission
programs is the government looking at? What jurisdictions have they looked into,
and what have they found?
[1515]
Hon. S.
Bond: Well, not only have we looked at provinces, but we've actually looked
at countries. We've looked at Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand,
Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Republic of
Ireland. We found there are some very radical programs, actually, and some that
probably won't work for us. Also, we have looked at programs in Alberta, the
Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We actually even looked at Nunavut to see
what kinds of programs were in place.
We mean
business. We want to do a good job at looking at how we take these dollars and
best apply them. The staff is doing an incredible job of the research work that
they're doing, in combination with consultation with as many stakeholder groups
as we can fit. We're still doing meetings, as a matter of fact, so we're trying
to be as comprehensive as possible as we look at other models in existence.
J. Kwan:
Oh, I have no doubt that the staff and the minister are very competent and doing
an excellent job. They only do what the political masters tell them they have to
do — absolutely. But you know what? They might have actually begun that
excellent, competent work prior to the programs being cut if that was the wish
of the political masters. But no, that is not the wish of the political masters.
They wanted to cancel the program. Afterwards, they say: "Okay, go and look
out there and see what's available. We don't actually have a budget yet or a
time line, but hey, go ahead and do that work."
I have
never doubted the public service in the good work they do provide to
politicians, no matter what stripe. I don't challenge that at all. What I am
challenging is this government's intentions and this minister's intentions from
the start, when she claims that she actually had something in place and in mind
and that they are working very hard and are very caring about students. Then
what they do is actually go and cancel the program that is critical to students.
They don't have a replacement ready to go and haven't even begun the
consultation prior to cancelling the program. There are some what I call
credibility gaps going on here, Mr. Chair, with the minister's words.
So the
minister says she has gone out there, and ministry staff has looked at all kinds
of jurisdictions in terms of what exists. What exactly did they find?
Hon. S.
Bond: As I indicated yesterday, incredible amounts of work are being done.
You saw my assistant deputy minister haul out just two of the books. We have
lots of information. I have not received the report back yet. But we did learn
one thing, in terms of the principle that we're looking at. Upfront grants,
which is the program we are moving away from, are not used in most jurisdictions
anymore. The reason is that there is little or no budget certainty when you deal
with a grant program in that way, because it is dependent on things like how….
We have debt costs, we have interest rates, and there are a number of factors.
The answer
is that I have not received the report on my desk; my staff continues to do the
research. As the member opposite and I would agree, we have an incredible staff
in my ministry and in many of the other ones. They're continuing to do their
job, and I anticipate receiving their report in the near future.
J. Kwan:
Well, isn't that interesting? The minister says that they are eliminating….
They've made a decision to eliminate upfront grants for students in the
post-secondary education sector because she says that virtually no other
jurisdiction is doing that.
[1520]
I wonder if
the minister consulted with students to see what they think about grants. Would
upfront grants be better than remission grants, as an example, or completion
grants, as an example — and what students had to say before the minister cut
the upfront grants, $80 million worth of grants to students?
Hon. S.
Bond: As I've said a number of times, making a decision like this is based
on a complex set of circumstances that we're trying to balance. The biggest
issue I hear about is access. Students want to get a seat in post-secondary
education. Another significant concern is the grade point average. Actually, we
believe that if you work hard in British Columbia and get a B, you should get a
seat in a post-secondary institution. That's the goal we're working towards.
Yes, it
took a complex balancing of looking at those circumstances and looking at the
issues related to the grant program. I think the most important part from our
perspective is that we continue to meet the needs of those students most in
need.
I want to
say that institutions also are partners with us in this. There are institutions
in this province — and I have statements from three of them — that have
policies where students, if they qualify to get into the institution
academically — the University of British Columbia is a perfect example —
will not be turned away because of financial need.
We're
balancing a complex set of demands, but the biggest concern we have is getting
students into seats and making sure that by the year 2009-10, we add 25,000 more
seats to the system to make sure that
[ Page 10692 ]
young people like the ones sitting in the gallery today get a chance to get
into an institution. That's important.
J. Kwan:
Yes, I don't deny that making seats available for students — like today, who
are visiting the gallery — so they have access to them would be important.
Absolutely. Spaces are absolutely critical.
What this
government is doing is off-loading another form of access in order to gain
capacity access by way of spaces. Yes, capacity is important, but the government
is jeopardizing access for low-income students by taking grants away. There are
students who would not be able to access post-secondary education. Why? Because
tuition fees simply are out of reach for them. They're simply out of reach and
not a consideration for them to even contemplate going into post-secondary
education, because they cannot afford it. Access needs to be looked at from
different perspectives. It is about providing access in a variety of senses. One
is about availability of space. The second is about affordability. Both of those
aspects are equally important.
You do not,
as this government has done, choose one over the other. What this government has
done with this budget is off-load affordability access — forgone affordability
access — because the government took money away from grants to put into the
creation of spaces. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.
It kind of
reminds me, as I look at the young children around the Legislature today, of
what this government has done in the education sector. They took $3 million away
from students in Vancouver for the Community LINK program — which supports hot
lunch programs and counselling, the involvement of parents and support staff in
the school system — to give to other students in other communities. The
government says there's a need in these other communities. I don't dispute that
there's a need in other communities, but you do not take from one needy
community to give to another. If they really valued education and equal access
and quality education for all, what the government would have tried to do is
provide and support those programs where there is a need.
[1525]
Here we
have, in the advanced education sector, the government taking exactly the same
approach as they have done in the education K-to-12 sector — rob Peter to pay
Paul. Then they say that they needed to do it because we needed to create space,
and in the process, to heck with students who actually need grants and who
actually need to address the issue of affordability.
The
minister says she has a variety of programs that they're looking into. She has
not yet received a report on this. The minister says across the province….
They've looked at Alberta and even Nunavut, she said. Has she looked at Ontario?
Hon. S.
Bond: In a word, yes. I haven't; my staff has. I want to go back to a
fundamental disagreement we're going to — I'm assuming — continue to have
over the next number of months. You simply can't choose one or the other.
Putting students and allowing them the opportunity to get into a post-secondary
institution is a complex issue. Access is incredibly important, and making sure
that low-income students that come from low-income families find spaces is
absolutely critical.
You have to
put together a strategy. We have a strategy in place to add 25,000 seats to the
post-secondary education system. How did we do that? We looked around the
province and said: "Where are the areas where the need is growing the
fastest? Let's put seats there." You know what? If we can allow students a
seat closer to where they live, something happens as a result of that. They save
money. As a matter of fact, studies would show us that on average, you can save
$6,000 a year as a student if you are able to get a seat closer to where you
live. So it is not as simple as choosing one over the other.
I'm not
prepared to go and say to students: "We choose this path." No, we're
going to look at a strategy; we're going to consider all of the options that we
can find. We have put together a strategic investment plan to add seats that are
unprecedented in this province in more than decades. So, in fact, we're working
on exactly the concerns the member opposite has, but it is not as simple as
choosing one or the other.
J. Kwan:
That's precisely my point. It shouldn't be chosen one over the other, and
that's exactly what the government has done. The government chose to forgo
grants for students. Therefore, in this budget year they eliminated the grants
program for students. Then they took that money and put it elsewhere in the
post-secondary education system. Most notably, the minister claims that they put
it into decreasing tuition fee increases and to space capacity building.
The
government made a choice when they tabled the budget to eliminate the grants
program. My point is that the government shouldn't choose one form of access
over another, for affordability access is equally important as access in spaces
for students. That's exactly my point, and that's exactly what the minister
doesn't get. If the minister does understand that you shouldn't choose one form
of access over the other, then the government would not have cancelled the
grants program for students before they had a replacement program in place.
The
government made a decision. Just like when the government came to office, they
made a decision before they even looked at the books that they would give tax
cuts. In fact, the largest tax cuts were to big corporations and the
highest-income earners of British Columbia — some $2 billion worth of tax
cuts.
[1530]
The
government made a decision. Yes, being government is about priorities, and it is
about making choices. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you didn't
make a choice when in fact you made a choice. You can't say that you value
students in terms of access on the issue around affordability when you actually
just cut programs and grant programs to support students.
[ Page 10693 ]
The
minister says she has looked at the Ontario model. Now, there are differences.
Based on the information that the minister has received to date on these
different models, there are different kinds of remission programs. For example,
the federal loan remission model, the federal program, is based on a primary
income table which is set, in my view, at absurd levels. For example, if you
have a $30,000 loan and you make, let's say, about $35,000 a year…. On that
basis, under the federal government program, you don't qualify for loan
remission. You maybe qualify for some interest relief and the like, but you
don't qualify for the loan remission program. You pretty well have to be
destitute to qualify.
The federal
program really is in name only. It doesn't really work for students. When the
federal government announced their program, they promised to help some 12,000
students. It turns out only about 1,000 students were able to access that
program. So the program is not effective.
Now, the
reason why I want to bring this up is that I want the minister to know that some
remission programs don't work. Would the minister agree, in that instance, that
the federal loan remission program is one that actually doesn't work for
students? It certainly doesn't work very well for students.
Hon. S.
Bond: First of all, I want to just make the point that — and I'm going to
continue to clarify the language — we are not forgoing a grant program. We are
redesigning the grant program. The member opposite can continue to call it
forgoing; that's not accurate. We are re-creating and redesigning, and part of
the design….
The member
opposite has also been a minister, and you don't snap your fingers and overnight
have a new loan program. We're actually doing due diligence.
appreciate the member opposite's comment about that particular loan program. I
don't know the details of it. My staff is working, and they have a stack of
models about that high. We are going to look through them. I'm sure there are
some that are successful, some that would better meet the culture that we have
in British Columbia. But in fact, it takes time. We want to get it right. That
work is being done as we speak.
Also, I
want to just remind the member opposite that this ministry's budget has been
protected for the entire term of this government. In fact, we have received $105
million that will be added over the next three years, and we actually increased
funding $15 million to institutional operating grants in 2004 and 2005.
[J.
Weisbeck in the chair.]
J. Kwan:
In the 2002 and 2003 budget years, the government actually froze the
post-secondary education budget. In fact, in the midst of all of that, with
increased pressures once again, institutions…. That's why the institutions
have to increase tuition fees at a rate that is unbelievable — unmatched by
any other province in terms of increased tuition fee rates.
The
minister says that they're doing their due diligence and that they're only
converting this program. Well, maybe it is a different approach from different
governments and a different approach for different ministers.
[1535]
In my
instance as a former minister, if I valued a program, I wanted to see the
benefits of a particular program continue. If I thought there might be another
way of delivering the program that would actually yield better benefits for, in
this instance, students — let's just use that as an example — I would have
gone to do the work to see how you could bring forward a program that would have
benefited students more than the existing one and would have had that ready to
go before the old program was converted away — conversion, as the minister
calls it.
In reality,
the grant program is gone. It doesn't exist in this budget year. Students can't
get access to grant programs because there is no such program. The minister
says: "Well, maybe at the end of the school year they might have
something." Well, that's not going to help the students. It's not going to
help the students who need that program now. How is that helpful?
Notwithstanding
that, the government doesn't know how much money they have set aside for the
grant program, and they don't know when they will necessarily bring this program
in place. The minister says she doesn't know about the federal program, doesn't
have very much information on it. Well, according to students who I've been in
contact with, they tell me the federal program doesn't work because the
threshold for access to the loan program is simply impossible, generally, or
very difficult to meet. You pretty well have to be destitute in order to access
that program. Therefore, even though the federal government goes around claiming
that it wants to target 12,000 students, only about 1,000 students actually
qualified for the program.
How many
students is this minister trying to target with this new loan remission or
completion grant program?
Hon. S.
Bond: Again, there will be no gap. Students this year got the grant. We are
continuing to pay grants this year. We will have another grant program in place
by the next school year. So that means we didn't discontinue. We are
redesigning, and that will continue.
In terms of
the number of students, we don't have a specific number because as we look at
the model, we have one principle: to support those students most in need. I
haven't targeted a number of students.
Depending
upon whether you do completion grants, whether you…. There is a variety of
models, as I have explained. The model will change in terms of the number of
students, but the most important principle is that we will support those
students most in need.
J. Kwan:
How many people now have access to the grant program that is being converted
away?
Hon. S.
Bond: Last year 23,378 students qualified for the B.C. grant program. Of
those, 15,989 were at-
[ Page 10694 ]
tending a public post-secondary institution. But according to our head count
numbers, both full- and part-time, you should know that there were 300,000
students in the public post-secondary system last year. Of those, 117,000 would
have been full-time students, so in effect, discontinuing the student grant
program will affect 5 percent of the total student population attending public
institutions.
[1540]
J. Kwan:
Yes, it impacted 23,378 students who access the grant program. That's how many
people would be impacted.
The grant
program that was in place — how much was the average grant?
Hon. S.
Bond: We will get that number for the member opposite as quickly as we can.
It's here in this large stack of papers, so we're working to find the exact
number. I don't want to have to come back and clarify once again.
J. Kwan:
Okay. While the minister looks for the answer, maybe she can also find the
information — aside from the average — on what the maximum is and what the
minimum is. Maybe she has that information already.
Hon. S.
Bond: The average grant was $3,200. We will continue to work to find the
minimum and maximum, but that will hopefully move us forward — $3,200.
J. Kwan:
Is it anticipated that this new program that would replace the old program
— or the old program that's been converted away — will, in the minimum,
provide the same kind of support to the students that qualified for the old
program?
Hon. S.
Bond: Not necessarily. It depends, again, on the model. It also looks at the
package of benefits we're providing to students, which includes institutions
closer to home, more seat availability. We're looking at a total plan as we look
at how to provide opportunities for students, so no, it's not necessarily the
same average.
J. Kwan:
Does the minister expect that the average will be higher or lower?
Hon. S.
Bond: It could be either.
J. Kwan:
Does the minister expect there will be more students who could access this
grant, or fewer?
Hon. S.
Bond: Once again, we haven't determined that. As we look at models, we can
look at completion grants. We can look at a number of models that address
student needs. As I said earlier, the main principle we will apply is looking at
those students most in need.
[1545]
J. Kwan:
Just by way of comparison, the Okanagan University College's tuition jumped
from $1,170 to $1,650 in the year 2003 — a 65 percent increase in 2002. If we
just use that as an example in terms of tuition fees that students are faced
with, a $3,200 grant provides for less than three years of tuition for a
student. If you actually look at programming — degree-granting, as one example
— you're usually looking at a four-year program, so the $3,200 is anything but
excessive. Other tuition fees are actually higher, depending on what university
or what institution you take it from, and there's a bit of a range.
Anyway,
just using that as a benchmark, if you will, as a base for measurement, if the
government says it will somehow enhance the programs for students in terms of a
grant program with a loan remission program or a completion-grant program, then
let's use the numbers of the existing program as a benchmark to see whether or
not whatever this new program is that the minister comes out with really is
better at the end of the day.
We'll use
that as a base for measurement. We'll use that as a base to measure the targets
in terms of how many students and how much support students would be able to
access. I would say that the stats that the minister had provided should be used
as a minimum baseline for measurement.
I was
hoping, of course, that the minister would confirm that the federal program,
which really has not been very helpful for students, is one that the government
would not adopt as a model. Now, the minister says she doesn't know very much
about the federal program. But is it safe to say that for such programs, with a
history where with a target of 12,000 students, only 1,000 students,
approximately, reached and were able to access the program…? Is it safe to say
that such a program has not been successful in supporting students?
Hon. S.
Bond: I have said countless times that I'm going to look at the models that
are available. I'm going to look at what's best for students in the province.
Most particularly, in the grant program that we redesign, we will look at those
students most in need.
I also need
to go back, and perhaps the member opposite would like to adjust her chart in
terms of Okanagan University College. As of a few months ago we made an
incredible announcement about UBC, the Okanagan and Okanagan College. We're
creating two institutions there so we can increase access for students. Because
we did that, in fact, Okanagan College, which will look at university transfer
programs and maintain and enhance regional programming, is actually reducing its
college-level tuition fees by $1,000 for every full-time student. That's what
I'm talking about when you balance needs and put together a strategic plan.
We're not
simply going to rely on a grant program to help students. We're going to do a
good job of that too, but by adding new seats and creating two institu-
[ Page 10695 ]
tions, students in the interior of the province, in college-level courses,
will receive a reduction in their tuition fees of $1,000.
J. Kwan:
I'll get into the tuition fee issue, as I said in the estimates. The minister
need not worry about it. I'll actually get into the Okanagan University College
university issue as well, so the minister need not worry about it.
[1550]
It is
interesting to note the minister's answers so far, though, on the federal
government program. Even though the minister may not have all of the details
around it, based on the information she has received to date, the minister can
double-check this to make sure the information is correct. If a target of 12,000
students is to be targeted in terms of providing grant programs, remission
programs, to students under the federal program and only approximately 1,000
access them, I think it's safe to say that the program is not successful. And
the government won't even commit to that.
I actually
start to worry about what the government is planning in terms of this new
program. Maybe they're going to pull a federal Liberal approach to remission
programs — put forward a program and then set the threshold in such a way that
pretty well nobody can qualify for it, so it is underutilized and the government
can say: "Great. We have a program in place, but there is no need for
it." Maybe that will be the line. I will reserve my judgment until I see
the provincial government's new program and see what that looks like, although
so far the answers I have canvassed from the minister have not been comforting,
to say the very least.
I have a
last question for the minister in this area. The provincial grant program that
the minister is in the process of converting and phasing out — were there any
unspent dollars within that grant program? And if so, how much?
Hon. S.
Bond: It is a demand-driven program. The dollars were not left on the table.
As a matter of fact, at the end of the fiscal year we had $1.6 million left in
the entire ministry after we did the work we did.
I want to
just answer one of the questions so we can take this one off the list. The
minimum grant is $100, and the maximum grant is $5,720.
J. Kwan:
Sorry, did the minister say there were no dollars left in the provincial grant
budget at the end of the fiscal year?
Hon. S.
Bond: It is demand-driven. We spent what we forecast, and dollars that are
available after that are redistributed to the institutions. It is forecast, it
is demand-driven, and the rest is sent to institutions or other purposes.
J. Kwan:
Demand-driven and forecasted in terms of the amount. What was the forecast?
Hon. S.
Bond: The forecast was $75 million.
J. Kwan:
So $75 million in grants was provided to support students. Was the full
forecasted amount spent?
Hon. S.
Bond: There was $75 million spent on B.C. grants, and the member needs to be
aware that those are unaudited numbers.
[1555]
J. Kwan:
How many applications were turned away, if any?
Hon. S.
Bond: No one actually applies for a grant. They apply for student financial
assistance, and typically they get a combination of grant and loan.
J. Kwan:
How many of them were turned away?
Hon. S.
Bond: No one who met the criteria was turned down. In fact, we had 95,000
applications, and we had 77,000 students that actually were served in the
province. I'm sorry. I want to make sure we get the terminology correct —
77,163 applications that met the criteria.
J. Kwan:
That's for the last fiscal year. Earlier the minister gave a figure of 23,378
people that actually got the grant. Now it's 77,163? I'm sorry. I'm confused
about those numbers.
Hon. S.
Bond: Students don't apply for grants; they apply for student financial
assistance. They typically get a combination of loan and grant. The number of
students that met the criteria for a grant was 23,000. The total package of
students who got assistance was the larger number.
J. Kwan:
For the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about the grants. The number
of people who actually got the grants is 23,378. The 77,163 included students
who actually got a loan. That's a different kettle of fish in terms of loans
versus grants. The minister says that nobody who qualified for the provincial
grant was turned away. What is the qualification?
Hon. S.
Bond: In terms of the criteria…. First of all, I just want to go back over
this territory one more time, because the member opposite sounded puzzled. Maybe
it was my explanation. No one applies for a grant. They don't say: "I need
a grant." What they say is: "I need some help with student financial
assistance."
The good
news is that the ministry has done a fantastic job of modernizing how students
apply. I do want to mention this, because I want to give my staff a plug.
They've done a fabulous job. You can actually apply on line now. It's got an
incredibly quick turnaround period, so students aren't waiting. They actually
just do all of their information on line.
In terms of
criteria, they're based on the assessed need of students. That includes a number
of things. The easiest way to check that is to go to the website
[ Page 10696 ]
and have a look at that. It includes income; it includes assets. There is a
basic principle in student financial assistance, not just in British Columbia
but globally, that student financial assistance does not replace family support.
That is part of the assumption that is made when an assessment is done, so
family income is also part of the consideration.
[1600]
Student
applications look at a number of factors, but again they apply for student
financial assistance as a package.
I think we
also have to add the context that this isn't the only way students get
assistance. Institutions around this province do an extraordinary job of
providing dollars from institutions to supplement student incomes through
bursaries in a number of areas. Government assistance is one piece of the
package.
J. Kwan:
Yes, bursaries are also available, but usually they're very small in amount.
They are a few hundred dollars — $500 and such. The dollar amount is very
little, although it does help — make no mistake about that — in terms of a
continuum of support. Student financial assistance, for all intents and
purposes, is grant programs for students. I should also say that it is true….
In fact, all the students I know who got the grant program also got a loan
program. The grant program in and of itself is not sufficient to pay for all the
expenses associated with the education costs and living costs as well.
So yes, it
has therefore always been a combination, and that certainly was the case when I
was going to university. Things haven't changed that much, with the exception
that tuition fees are a lot higher than what they used to be when I was in
school.
I don't
know whether or not the grant program, in terms of the criteria for
qualification, has changed since my time. Fair enough. I will grab that
information from the website. Then we'll use that by way of a benchmark to
measure against this new program to see what the government is doing and whether
or not the government is actually enhancing the program or going in the other
direction.
Am I right
to assume that of the $75,000 the minister said is available for grant
programs…? Does that include the loan portion as well, or is it just the grant
portion or student assistance portion?
Hon. S.
Bond: I'm assuming the member opposite means $75 million. If that's the
number, then that number is grant dollars.
J. Kwan:
Yes, my apologies. I mean $75 million. I think it is the lack of sleep I've
suffered. It's a good thing I haven't seen stars yet — not just yet. I do mean
$75 million. So that's the grant portion.
Now, could
the minister explain to me…? In the reference in the throne speech, the
Minister of Finance actually talked about an $80-million-a-year grant program,
not $75 million. Where does the discrepancy come from? Maybe there's another $5
million somewhere else in some other program.
Hon. S.
Bond: We're still waiting for audited numbers. The fact of the matter is
that that was a February number. We are more accurate now than we were at that
point in time in terms of that number. The number is $75 million.
[1605]
J. Kwan:
The Minister of Finance's number is wrong then — the $80 million. Okay. How
much is the loan portion of the program?
Hon. S.
Bond: I want to make sure we clarify. We have said all along that we
forecast numbers in student financial assistance, both grant and loan side. It
is demand-driven. There are interest issues. So the Minister of Finance number
was a conservative forecast. We are months past that now. We are able to look at
fiscal year-end and give you the $75 million number. I want to make sure that
we're aware of this. The forecast that we have for 2003-04 numbers in terms of
lending is $139 million.
J. Kwan:
Then the $139 million for the loan program…. With 75,000 students
accessing a combination of loan and financial assistance and 23,000 accessing
financial assistance, is it fair to say that about 52,000 students qualify for
the loan program?
I think I
put that wrong. I think I heard the minister say that 75,000 students qualify
for both the loan and financial assistance programs, approximately 23,000
qualify for the financial assistance program, and all of them also qualify for
the loan program at the same time. So then about 53,000 only qualified for the
loan program. In addition to that, 23,000 qualified for the loan and financial
assistance. Therefore, those who access the loan program — one could say it's
a total of 75,000. Am I following the numbers correctly? I think that's the gist
of what the minister said.
[1610]
Hon. S.
Bond: The simple way to do this…. It is complicated; the member opposite
has that right. Okay. Nobody who got a grant didn't also get a loan. You're
absolutely correct. The 23,000-plus, whatever they are, got a grant and a loan.
The balance, however, would have gotten loans, but there are also other….
Because it's integrated with the Canada Millennium Scholarship and other pots of
money, it's not as simple as saying: take that number, subtract the 23,000 and
make a set of assumptions. We don't have the complicated data pieces here that
can say this many just got a loan, and this many….
The one
thing that we can give you definitively is that no one who got a grant also did
not get a loan. The balance of them got loans and no grants, but there are some
other pots of opportunities for them. It's very complicated. We don't have that
data with us.
J. Kwan:
The $139 million loan — are those the provincial loan dollars? Does that
include federal loan dollars?
[ Page 10697 ]
Hon. S.
Bond: It is. It's B.C. student dollars.
J. Kwan:
The millennium grant from the federal government side, which I do believe
the minister, the provincial government administers…. Could the minister give
me the details on that millennium grant program funded by the federal
government? How much is it? How many dollars are going into it? How many
students got access to it — qualification for students for the program — and
how much, in terms of low and maximum dollars and the average, was granted to
students?
Hon. S.
Bond: The dollars attached to the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation
are $37 million. It's a non-repayable bursary. They are offered independently of
B.C. grants. One of the key things, when we talk about one of the things we're
doing in redesigning the grant program, is that we're working very closely with
the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. We want to make sure that the
program we put in place is complementary to the program that exists. It's $37
million. It is a non-repayable bursary called the Canada Millennium Scholarship
Foundation.
J. Kwan:
How many students accessed that money?
[1615]
Hon. S.
Bond: Again, I want to be careful that we note this. It is a projection. The
number is 12,333 that we're projecting. We need to remember that the complexity
of it is this. Some students will get B.C. student grant plus the Canada
Millennium Scholarship. Some will get just this. Some will get a combination of
both. Again, it's based on needs assessment. You can't simply say it's 23,000
plus 12,000, because some students may actually get both grants.
J. Kwan:
The 75,000 student number, though — does that include all three categories
then, or is it just the two categories?
Hon. S.
Bond: The 23,000 are the ones that we can say get a B.C. grant. Some of
those will, in addition to that, get the Canada Millennium Scholarship, but the
base number….
Interjection.
The
Chair: Member, through the Chair, please.
J. Kwan:
Sorry, Mr. Chair. The minister said the 23,000 got the provincial grant
financial assistance for sure. I don't know if I heard the minister say that
some of those 23,000 also got the millennium grant. Did I hear the minister say
that?
Then, with
the rest of the 75,000 who got the loan programs…. I shouldn't say 75,000;
53,000 or so got the loan programs. Did any of the students who got the loan
programs also get the millennium grant?
Hon. S.
Bond: Yes, and that's the complexity when you start trying to figure how out
many of them just got loans because, actually, some of them can get a loan plus
a Canada Millennium Scholarship. Or they can get a loan plus a B.C. student….
Or they can get a loan plus both, or they can just get both grants.
It's very
complex. From my perspective, it's a good thing no matter how complex it is,
because it's just additional dollars to provide help to students in the
province.
J. Kwan:
The grand total number of 75,000 — that includes all three programs.
Hon. S.
Bond: Again, as students apply for student financial assistance, the total
number of successful applications — and we want to make sure we get the
terminology correct — was the 77,000 that we gave you.
J. Kwan:
The Millennium Scholarship — what was the maximum/minimum?
Hon. S.
Bond: The minimum is $1,500; $4,500 is the maximum.
J. Kwan:
Thank you very much. I should have finished my sentence, but the minister knew
what I meant when I said: what is the minimum/maximum? I meant dollars that
students got.
The
qualification for the Millennium Scholarship grant — could the minister please
provide me with that information? There were some issues I received in my
constituency from people who weren't qualified. I'm sorry; I actually don't have
that information with me. If the minister provides me with the information about
the qualification, I'd like to ask the minister some questions around that.
Hon. S.
Bond: Canadian Millennium Scholarship funding is based on the need of
students enrolled in undergraduate programs who have assessed financial needs of
more than $125 per week of study. The first thing is that per week, they have
more than that need. They have successfully completed 60 percent or more of a
course load in the previous semester or over an eight-month period in the past
ten years and have completed at least eight months or 34 weeks of post-secondary
study. That's hard to write down, so we'll be happy to send that over to you so
you have…. Sorry — to the member.
[1620]
J. Kwan:
Who set the criteria for this grant program?
Hon. S.
Bond: It's determined in cooperation between the B.C. government and the
Canada Millennium Foundation. They actually work to tailor the programs to have
the two be as complementary as possi-
[ Page 10698 ]
ble. They work together to try to design a program that helps our two
programs be integrated.
J. Kwan:
The millennium scholarship program — is the minister expecting that it will
continue next year?
Hon. S.
Bond: The answer to that question is yes. In fact, as part of the work that
we're doing in the due diligence in re-creating our grant program, we've met
with Norman Riddell, who is the executive director of the Canada Millennium
Foundation. We are hopeful, actually. We think this would be great progress, to
look at the possibility of a jointly funded single program. That would be much
less complicated for students and certainly would be, I think, an important
advancement.
We're
working hard, but the program will continue to exist. We'd like to see our
programs potentially integrated. But again, until we decide on the model and how
things are going to work…. This is a key fund of dollars for students in this
province.
J. Kwan:
Is there any anticipation that the qualification or the requirements for the
millennium scholarship program would change?
Hon. S.
Bond: Interestingly enough, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is
also consulting across the country, in fact. The timing is actually good from
our perspective, because the criteria may change. It is key to us that we
continue to work with these partners to serve our students better. They're in
the middle of working on their consultation. Obviously, there's work to be done
there, but we will continue and staff will continue to dialogue and work closely
with this organization.
J. Kwan:
I can't be 100 percent certain, but I have received some correspondence from
constituents on this issue. I know that I wrote to the minister about them. I
think the issue was about access and eligibility for postgraduate students. That
was one of the issues.
Anyway, I
will double-check at my constituency office to see what other information I have
about that. I'm glad there is a review so that there is an opportunity for
people to provide their input relating to that.
I'm going
to shift away from the grant programs and the loan programs. As I said, I wanted
to get this information on record, because I wanted to see what the baseline is
so we can measure that against whatever this new program is going to be and see
how it would assist students in the future.
[1625]
Now, one of
the ministry's strategic shifts is to ensure that the costs of post-secondary
education are shared equitably. Could the minister advise this House: how is the
minister trying to achieve this goal of equitability in terms of costs for
students?
Hon. S.
Bond: I think it goes back to our belief that one of the key principles is
that if you can study closer to home, that makes education not only more
affordable but certainly more accessible. One of the most significant issues we
have in this province is obviously the number of seats, so it's important to
note that we have to add seats to the system. We're doing that aggressively. I
think it's a belief that one size fits all simply doesn't work, and we need to
look at expanding on-line opportunities for students. We're doing that, and
we're looking at distance education.
So it is
around cost by providing those services in different ways and most certainly
closer to where you live. It's also important to note, just as a side note, that
it also helps those of us who live in rural communities deal with issues such as
recruitment and retention of professionals if we actually train them closer to
where we live.
In fact, we
believe that students contribute 10 to 20 percent of the cost of their
education, and taxpayers in this province believe it's important, so we as the
taxpaying public of British Columbia pay approximately 70 to 80 percent of a
student's education. I think the great news for people who invest in
post-secondary education is that according to Stats Canada, they actually earn
almost half a million dollars more over their lifetime than people who simply
have a high school education.
We are
working hard to add seats. We're looking at a variety of learning options. We
also believe that it is an investment in education and that students do need to
participate as partners in that process.
J. Kwan:
In fact, other jurisdictions have also looked at the issue around access and
looked at post-secondary education as an investment for their communities —
not just a social investment but also an economic investment. As we know and as
the minister has identified, with higher education, increased opportunities for
education, it is shown through studies that there are better opportunities in
terms of career successes in the future for individuals.
On that
basis, some jurisdictions have even gone as far as recognizing the need for that
investment to eliminate tuition, to make post-secondary education free of
barriers from an affordability point of view. Jurisdictions have actually really
invested in that regard, and they benefited from that with the students
graduating and filling the needs of the labour force.
That really
is, I think, a goal we need to strive toward, instead of the language the
minister uses. That is to say, students need to be partners in all of this.
Absolutely, they are partners in all of this, but we also need to recognize that
the question of affordability is a barrier for a lot of students. Some students
may not be able to partner into this process, because they haven't got the
financial support. It doesn't mean they don't have the ability to succeed but
that they face other barriers that prevent them from getting there.
[1630]
In terms of
equitable costs, there's a question in terms of one needing to look at
individuals' socioeconomic backgrounds and the historical and traditional
[ Page 10699 ]
barriers for students and what those are, then eliminating those kinds of
barriers and looking at the cost equitability in that context as well.
Has the
minister looked into other jurisdictions in terms of where tuitions have been
eliminated altogether and the results in those jurisdictions for academic
success and also economic success for the individual as well as for the
jurisdiction?
Hon. S.
Bond: There are classic examples that are quoted by people, including,
obviously, Ireland and other countries. But to be candid, when the member
opposite was in government, they chose not to make education tuition-free
either. In fact, as a government we have said very clearly — and I laid this
out from the beginning of the direction that we took in post-secondary education
— that we do believe students are partners in this process and that they do
need to invest in a post-secondary education.
The debate
and discussion always becomes: what's the appropriate amount of a student's
contribution to their post-secondary education? Again, it's absolutely critical
to recognize that the return on investment for a post-secondary education is
extraordinary. Actually, a Royal Bank study, I think it was, recently said that
the return on investment — looking at it economically — is actually 12
percent. If you invest in your post-secondary education, the return is
fantastic, and over the course of your lifetime you will actually earn about
half a million dollars more than people who simply have a high school education.
The
question becomes: how do we make sure that people, as the member opposite points
out, have an opportunity to participate when they come from lower-income
families? One of the ways we do that has taken up the last two hours of debate
in this House, and that's by providing student financial assistance — not us
as a government alone but in partnership with institutions as well.
It is, from
our perspective, an important investment for students to make. We believe that.
We believe that our role is to provide a balance. The taxpayers of British
Columbia currently fund a student's post-secondary education to almost 80
percent. That's significant. It's important, and we will continue to believe
that we as the people of British Columbia should be a partner in a student's
education.
J. Kwan:
I can't miss the opportunity to counter the minister's comments. The minister
said: "To be fair, the previous administration didn't put in free education
in advanced education for students." True. We didn't fully implement that
goal, and that is a plan, a policy of the NDP to move towards that direction —
to actually see that tuition would be eliminated in post-secondary education.
Fair enough. It's going to be an expensive plan to get there, and it will take
some time. You have to phase it in over time, and you can't just get there
overnight. I want to put that on record.
I would
want to remind the minister, as well, that when the government was in
opposition, they actually supported the previous administration with respect to
their tuition fee freeze. This government supported it, and the Premier went out
when he was in opposition and said to students that he would continue the
tuition fee freeze. What did the Premier do when he got elected to office? He
lifted the freeze. That's what this government has done, exactly like what the
government has done with workers in the health care sector — said that they
wouldn't rip up collective agreements, and then they got in office and ripped up
collective agreements. Another broken promise. For the minister now to say that
they believe in students actually having to partner in this process is
interesting, to say the least.
[1635]
The other
thing I want to point out, of course, is this. We actually have a situation
where tuition fees skyrocketed under this administration, and the assistance to
low-income students, students who have faced barriers…. They actually did not
receive more relief from government. The question around equitability for
low-income students, I would say, has been skewed negatively towards low-income
students on the basis that tuitions have gone up and that support for students
has not actually increased.
Of course,
as I mentioned, this budget year the government is in the process of phasing out
grants for students. It remains to be seen what replacement program this
government would come up with and whether or not the replacement program would
actually meet the minimum standards that were established under the old program.
There are a
few gaps here that the minister has not filled in with respect to that. These
are real issues in terms of equitability. So far I have not seen equitability
being achieved with the government's strategic shifts that they have put in
place. Previous budgets measured the ratio of median debt to median income of
grads as part of its strategy to ensure that education costs are shared
equitably. Has the ministry eliminated this measure from its current budget?
Hon. S.
Bond: In a moment I'll ask the member opposite to clarify where exactly she
got that measure, because we don't recognize it as one from our service plan.
Actually, my assistant deputy has just found it. We'll deal with that shortly.
I have to
go back and simply, absolutely have to respond to the comments about whether or
not tuition should be free in British Columbia. While I recognize that it's
certainly something the member opposite and others have been talking about, I'm
wondering if anyone's actually sat down and done the math on what that would
cost the taxpayers of British Columbia.
First of
all, I agree absolutely that post-secondary education is an economic driver. In
my own community recently, articles have been done to demonstrate that it is an
incredible job creator and it has economic spinoffs in terms of hundreds of
millions of dollars for communities in this province. The cost right now, at a
conservative number, in terms of offering free tuition to the students
[ Page 10700 ]
of British Columbia — and let's remember the taxpayers of British Columbia
already fund 80 percent of a student's post-secondary education — would be
actually in excess of half a billion dollars a year.
I can
honestly tell you that I believe in post-secondary education. We're adding
25,000 seats in this province. It is a difficult balancing act. Students are
partners in that investment, and the taxpayers of British Columbia would need to
find a way — we would need to find a way — to generate half a billion
dollars a year in order to look at a tuition-free province. We have a lot of
issues we need to be working on in this province. I think we need to think very
seriously about talking so generously about tuition being free.
[1640]
Is it
important that we have a taxpayer-supported post-secondary education system?
Absolutely. The taxpayers currently carry 80 percent of that in British
Columbia, and that kind of commitment will continue with this government.
I want to
point out that the member opposite continues to use the words "skyrocketing
tuition." If we look back historically and take the time to look at tuition
patterns across the country, not simply plucking British Columbia out of that,
we'll see that British Columbia today is at the Canadian average, at the
national average. I'm the first to acknowledge that there were increases in
tuition over the last number of years that some people might consider fairly
significant. Let's ask ourselves why.
The member
opposite's government previously chose to freeze tuition for a six-year period.
While the rest of the country was raising tuition in incremental amounts across
those six-plus years, we in British Columbia had frozen tuition. At the end of
the day, institutions and this province…. There was an adjustment to be made.
We still find ourselves at the Canadian average, so there are consequences for
decisions that are made about tuition.
Having said
that, we are committed to looking at the best-quality programs we can have in
this province. We are going to continue to work on our access agenda and add
25,000 seats by the year 2009-10. We are re-creating the grant program, and
despite the attempt to make sure that language has been appropriately reflected,
we are in the redesign phase. At the end of the day, it is a complex balancing
act. We want students to have opportunities, but the taxpayers of British
Columbia currently fund approximately 80 percent of a student's education.
J. Kwan:
I want to be very clear. The goal of moving toward eliminating tuition fees for
students is a long-term goal, and I don't deny that it would be expensive, that
it would be costly to try to achieve this goal. At the same time, if you look at
the issue from an investment point of view for economic investments into the
province and then look at other jurisdictions' experiences, where they've
invested such large sums into their students, what did they find with those
kinds of policies?
I think it
is worthwhile for us to examine that, instead of what this minister does, which
is simply to write it off as an undoable goal or one that one won't consider
because it's not a priority for this government to move in that direction. I
don't agree with that tactic. The government froze tuition fees. Previous
administrations froze tuition fees to address an issue of affordability for
students. You know, just because British Columbia — because of that freeze in
tuition fees — had been able to keep tuition fee rates at a lower rate
relative to other provinces does not mean, necessarily, that it's a bad thing.
There we go
again with this government and this minister, as though somehow racing to the
bottom is the be-all and end-all. Therefore, having tuition fees that go up
higher…. It's as though the goal is to have British Columbia tuition fees
exceed that of other provinces, as though that is somehow a laudable goal for
students in British Columbia. In my view, having tuition fees go up higher than
that of other provinces is not a laudable goal.
[1645]
I wouldn't
be celebrating that. I wouldn't be going out there saying: "Hey, look at us
— British Columbia. Our tuition fees are catching up with other provinces. In
fact, we're working toward moving them to exceed other provinces." That's
just bizarre, if you want to look at the affordability question for students. I
would have thought that one would want to move in the other direction — to
create this notion of costs shared equitably for students and recognize students
who are in lower socioeconomic spectrums. But it appears that's not the way in
which this government looks at things.
I want to
put on record, without naming the student, one particular student's point of
view and her experiences in the education system.
"Throughout
my degree, I have been a low-income student. I have worked full-time and
received numerous scholarships and grants, still barely scraping by because of
tuition increases. I have an A-minus average and practical training in my
field. However, an unmanageable debt may force me, like many others, to work
in a job I don't like, not make enough money I deserve and be stuck in the rut
of not being able to access professional development opportunities — all
because I have payments and interest.
"Also,
huge debt decreases credit rating, the ability to buy a home and property and
the ability to invest in my or my family's future. The consequences of
increasing poor students' debts are far more reaching than I believe the
provincial government has researched or considered. Why should I be punished
for being poor when I'm smart, ambitious and hard-working? The province only
loses out by hindering students like myself."
Of course,
this example is not a stand-alone example. There are many examples with many
students who are faced with those kinds of situations. What I'm really worried
about, of course, is that as tuition fees become out of reach for a lot of
students, they would not pursue that avenue. As a result, we lose the talent,
and we lose the future contributions of these students into our communities
through the taxation system, their earning power and therefore their purchase
[ Page 10701 ]
power, and so on. There are ramifications with government policies with
respect to this.
One needs
to remember that access to post-secondary education needs to be measured in a
number of ways. Affordability cannot be forgotten in that process.
The
question I put to the minister about their policy shift, I don't believe I've
received an answer to — that is, that previous budgets measured the ratio of
median debt to median income of grads as part of a strategy to ensure that
education costs are shared equitably and whether or not the ministry has
eliminated this measurement from its current budget.
Hon. S.
Bond: The measure was deleted, and I will give you the rationale that we
used for doing that. Fewer than 50 percent of students have debt when they
graduate, so in fact the measure was not an appropriate scope for us. Programs
that lead to higher employment income have higher tuition costs, and thus it may
make them less accessible to low-income students.
The real
measure is balancing the costs and benefits of post-secondary education. The
measure looks only at the student side of the equation, so we are considering or
looking at other measures that are appropriate. But the member opposite is
correct. That measure was deleted.
I do want
to go back, though, as you can imagine, and just respond to a couple of other
issues and questions that were raised in terms of the investment in
post-secondary education. I do hear the concerns of the student that wrote to
the member opposite. I receive those letters as well as letters from students
who support and can demonstrate benefits as a result of the changes that we have
made, not only in terms of direction but also in the lifting of the tuition
freeze.
[1650]
It is
important to point out that in addition to taxpayers supporting 80 percent of a
student's education, 50 percent of our students — and I am always on the
record as saying students work very hard…. Some of them work two jobs.
Families provide support. But 50 percent of the students in British Columbia
graduate with no debt when they finish their post-secondary education. That's a
tribute to them and a credit to them. Our job is to always provide support to
those most in need, and we will continue to do that.
I also want
to begin to make sure that when we have a discussion about the participation
rates of low-income families, we put it in the context of some of the recent
information that we've been looking at. It doesn't mitigate our responsibility
to provide support to low-income families, but a recent report by the Education
Policy Institute — and that is a U.S.–Canadian group that put together this
report — found in fact that participation rates of students from lower income
ranges have actually increased, and students with higher ranges have decreased.
Let me give
you an example of that. The proportion of university students who come from the
lowest 25 percent of the income range actually rose from 11 percent in 1965 to
17 percent in 1998. The only quartile that showed a decrease in students was the
top one, which fell to 35 percent. In fact, lower-income students are being
represented at increasingly more significant percentage rates, and part of that
is obvious. As governments and as society, we choose to support those students
most in need. In fact, their participation rates are increasing in institutions
not simply in British Columbia but in the rest of North America, according to
the study.
Secondly,
when we talk about affordability, which is the shift in our ministry that the
member opposite is talking about, affordability is a combination of things. It's
not simply financial. It is about access, and I've said repeatedly over the
three days we've been engaged that closer-to-home opportunities make an enormous
difference for students. We believe — and studies would actually show — that
you can save up to $6,000 a year if you can study closer to where you live. Our
strategic plan, including the allocation of 25,000 seats across the province,
looks at that regionally and geographically, because we want to save students
dollars, and we also want to provide support to communities by training people
closer to where they live so they're going to stay there.
addition, tuition. Certainly, in the past we saw that there were issues with
students in terms of getting into classes, completing degrees on time, and one
of the things we said to institutions…. If we lift the tuition freeze, we have
to see demonstrated improvement in learning opportunities for students, and it
must enhance quality. Let me give you some examples of what institutions did
with those dollars from tuition.
We found
that there was additional student financial assistance, both merit- and
need-based, including scholarships, bursaries and other awards. There were more
classes. Additional class sections were added so that more students could get
the courses they wanted and complete them more quickly. New equipment and
information technology — making sure that British Columbia's students have
up-to-date technology, whether it's lab equipment or newer computers.
Library
acquisitions — an important component that the member opposite referred to
several days ago. We have found that institutions have been able to add new
library resources as they have invested those dollars in student services. Also,
most importantly, program improvements — looking at ways we can provide better
and more quality opportunities for students.
While there
are challenges — and I am the first to recognize that students face
challenges…. Many of them do. But many of them — 50 percent of them —
graduate without debt in this province, and the return on investment for that
investment is absolutely extraordinary — a 12 percent return on investment and
almost half a million dollars more in earnings over a lifetime.
J. Kwan:
There was a report that just came out to talk about the student debt load
actually increasing
[ Page 10702 ]
significantly, at a much higher rate than that of previous years in British
Columbia. In fact, students who graduated in the year 2000 — their debt load
is way more than what it was in the 1990s. You can bet that for students who
graduate post-2000, their debt load is going to skyrocket under this
government's administration, as we have seen with the tuition fee increases.
[1655]
The
minister likes to talk about, "Oh yes, we're going to build spaces,"
and so on and so forth. Well, those spaces aren't going to materialize until the
year 2010, many of them. The 25,000 target is for 2010. By then, many students
would actually be out of the market to try to access post-secondary education,
because tuition fees would have been out of reach for them. That's a recent
study that was just done. It was reported out a couple of days ago in the
newspaper.
In fact, in
March of 2004 the federal Millennium Scholarship Foundation released a report on
student financial pressure. The report analyzes data in the survey of 1,543
students. These students were followed through an academic year to track their
income and expenditures. The report then compared the trends with government
expectations about student expenses and parental contributions when devising
student loan limits. It turns out B.C. places the highest financial pressures on
students. The largest unmet financial need for single students is in British
Columbia, where the gap between living costs and government student loans
exceeds $5,000. Four out of ten university students are unable to graduate on
time because they have to drop courses in favour of paid work to make ends meet.
Here's the
kicker, Mr. Chair. Instead of increasing the amount that students can receive
through financial assistance programs, the provincial government is actually
decreasing it by $29 million by the '04-05