Finance and Government Services - Issue No. 19

2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
MINUTES AND HANSARD

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Chair:	* Blair Lekstrom (Peace River South L)
Deputy Chair:	* Tony Bhullar (Surrey-Newton L)
Members:	* Harry Bloy (Burquitlam L) Jeff Bray (Victoria–Beacon Hill L) * Ida Chong (Oak Bay–Gordon Head L) Brian Kerr (Malahat–Juan de Fuca L) * Kevin Krueger (Kamloops–North Thompson L) * Lorne Mayencourt (Vancouver-Burrard L) * Barry Penner (Chilliwack-Kent L) * Ralph Sultan (West Vancouver–Capilano L) * Joy MacPhail (Vancouver-Hastings NDP) * denotes member present

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We do have an agenda in front of us, and it has been put together. We are here today to discuss a number of topics surrounding the report that is due by November 15. We have concluded our 16 public hearings. At midnight this evening the cutoff for written submissions will apply.

We do have some numbers, and so on, as to how many presenters we've heard through the oral submissions as well as the written. Josie is working on some documents now that will be handed out here as soon as possible this afternoon. I believe it's safe to say that we were a very busy committee, probably receiving and listening to in excess of 600 submissions, which is quite amazing, to deal with the issues we had before us.

What I would like to do is deal with a number of items on the agenda. First, I thought we would touch on the issue of process. Where do we go from here as a committee with what we have taken in to date through written and oral presentations? With that, at this time I would turn it over to Craig for an update on the process portion of this.

C. James: Just for the information of members — and I'll be very brief — this is the process for committees preparing their reports to the Legislative Assembly. All committees of the Legislative Assembly reporting to the House have followed this process.

The committee gets together and meets shortly after it has concluded its review of whatever subject matter has been referred to it. They have a discussion about what they've heard, the general direction they'd like to see the committee go in terms of a report, and provide the Chair, at a minimum, with some guidance in preparing a draft report for the committee to consider.

Generally speaking, the committee strikes a subcommittee consisting of the Chair, Deputy Chair and one or two other members to expedite the process of preparing a draft report for the committee to consider. Our office is involved, naturally, in terms of crafting the report to the extent possible and assisting the committee where we think it would be helpful in writing the report to the House.

Ordinarily, at some point during this exercise, though, my advice to all committees is that they consider their report and certainly the recommendations in camera. Members need to remember that it's the Legislative Assembly, the members of the House, that should receive prior notice of the recommendations before they are generally made public.

In this case, of course, the committee has a time constraint of about two weeks from tomorrow, by which time it needs to have its report made public. This being a period of adjournment, the committee is empowered to deposit a copy of its report with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, thereby enabling the report to at least be made public, and also to transmit a copy of the report to the Minister of Finance for his consideration. All of this is arranged through our office. In a nutshell, that's the process that's generally followed.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thanks very much, Craig. Are there any questions surrounding the issue of process that we've touched on?

B. Penner: Just an academic question, I think. Craig, if I hear you correctly, you're saying it's a matter of a member's privilege of the Legislature to receive a copy of this report prior to it being made public.

C. James: Not necessarily a Member of the Legislative Assembly itself. Every member of this committee, of course, is entitled to receive a copy of the report simply because they're involved in considering and approving the report that subsequently is made public.

In this case, upon delivery of this report to the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, the report will be deemed to be made public since the House is obviously not in session. On the same day the report will then go out to all Members of the Legislative Assembly, our giant mailing list, and will be posted on the Internet and transmitted forthwith to the Minister of Finance for his consideration.

B. Penner: I think it's important that all MLAs get a copy of it immediately upon it being made public.

R. Sultan: Perhaps I'm remiss by not reviewing previous reports before asking this question, but could you help me understand just a little bit better the typical format? I appreciate that we could probably write whatever report we want to. But typically, in the past, how long are these reports? Do they have lots of tables? Are we sort of recasting a proposed budget? What sort of quantitative detail do we get into? Could you just help me a bit in that regard?

C. James: That's entirely up to the committee itself. Typically, what happens is that a committee's report contains a number of standard features. Those are a letter of transmittal; a table of contents; the process the committee followed in terms of conducting its inquiry, such as whether it contained public hearings or some other vehicle to gain the information; some of the observations the committee feels are necessary to elucidate in the report, along with any recommendations that it feels would be appropriate for the Legislative Assembly and, subsequently, for the government to consider. As well, in this case we always include a list of the witnesses who appeared before the committee along with a list of written submissions that the committee has received, just identifying all of the evidence. That's sort of the basic framework a committee report takes. The detail is generally left up to the committee, though.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there any further questions regarding process as to where we go from here as a committee?

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Blair, for being late. I know that under the Aboriginal Affairs committee the House Leader offered them minority report status, but are you saying there isn't one for this committee? Or did you address that question?

C. James: No. There is no provision with this committee or current committees of the Legislative Assembly for a minority report. In the past the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, which considered the Nisga'a treaty, had in its terms of reference the ability of a member to file a minority report, but in this case there isn't one.

J. MacPhail: For the Aboriginal Affairs committee going around the province now there is provision for a minority report. Well, certainly Mr. Collins offered that to me, and that was part of the terms of reference.

C. James: If a minority report is in the terms of reference, then there is that ability.

J. MacPhail: I mean, we're not participating, but there is that. You're saying not so here.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay, so that speaks to the process. Sorry, Ralph. Go ahead.

R. Sultan: Just refresh my memory again, if you may. One of the officials is actually going to draft the first draft for us. Is that correct?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Yes. Josie, who has been working with us all along, will certainly take the information through the hearings that we've had, through the written submissions we have received, through the discussion as a committee. We will put together a draft report on which there will be input and feedback by all members of this committee to finalize our final document to be completed by November 15.

We will move on to our next item on the agenda, dealing with content. There are a couple of issues there. Rather than touching on the emerging themes from what we have heard through the public consultations, I would like to move to the update regarding oral presentations and written submissions to date. We will hand out some documents at this time, which Josie has put together surrounding the numbers that we heard from — who the people were and which areas — as well as how many written submissions we have received to date as of 12:30 today.

We'll just take a brief moment while that's handed out. With this information I will ask Josie to make some comments.

J. Schofield: I'd just like to let the members know a couple of things. There are still currently 78 oral presentations to be processed from the last four hearings, so the grand total of 323 oral presentations is the total rather than those that have been totally processed, if you understand. Also, our deadline for written submissions is not until midnight tonight, as the Chair mentioned earlier. The 282 figure doesn't actually include those submissions handed in at public hearings by people who did not want to make a presentation, so it's actually going to be higher than that. You will note that the processing of the written submissions is lagging behind that of the oral presentations.

What I have included is actually lists of witnesses for each hearing according to their organizational affiliation, their occupation or just general background information. Blair thought that it would be useful for the members — just, perhaps, to jog your memories — so for every hearing, all 16, you do have a list of witnesses with this background information.

Are there any questions regarding the information that was handed out in this document? I felt it was a good summary of what was presented to us, the number of presenters in each location and so on. Again, looking at the numbers, there is huge interest by the people of British Columbia surrounding this committee and the work it was asked to do by the Legislative Assembly.

Moving on, what I would like to do at this point is have an open discussion with members of the committee as our first step regarding the preparation of our upcoming draft report. I think that in order to get there and in order to work with Josie, who will be drafting the report, we should go around the room with each member maybe pointing out the key issues that they've heard through the consultations and what they have received and what they have digested from the presentations from around this province to get some key themes from each of your minds. This, I think, will go a long way in helping draft our report.

With that, I would ask you to put a little thought into that, and we will begin the process. I would look to Barry, if he would like to start, and I'll just work my way around the room. Really, it's a synopsis of your views of what you heard and the feeling as to what you believe would be key issues to be encompassed in this report.

B. Penner: Obviously, we heard a variety of different views about how the government can move forward in terms of the next provincial budget and budgets that follow in future years. You could probably group those submissions under two or three different

headings primarily. Specifically, maintain the status quo or keep things as close to how they currently are as possible, and don't make any reductions in the size of government or in how government delivers services.

There are those people who said that in fact dramatic change is needed in British Columbia. "Not just years from now but right now," and "Let's get started," would be the tone of those remarks. Then there's a third group of people that you could put under the heading of "If change is necessary, go slow." Some form of change is necessary or is required and may even be beneficial, but do it in a slow and thoughtful way.

That would be how I would summarize the three main thrusts that were presented to the committee in all of the communities we went to.

K. Krueger: Similar themes, I think, to what Barry just enunciated. We definitely have the two solitudes of one group of people saying, "Please don't do anything; the last thing we want you to do is rock the boat, given the major international events of the recent past," versus a group that says: "Stay the course. Keep on with what you are doing. We like what we see." Then there's also the divergence between the group that very much urges us to end the uncertainty and get on with what we're going to do versus a number of people who urge us to exercise extreme caution and go very slowly as a government in making any changes.

There are the people who don't want anything to change. Essentially, some of their advice could be boiled down to, "Act as if there wasn't an election on May 16 and continue with all things as they were in the past," versus a group that says: "You have a mandate. We finally have a government that's doing what it said it would do, and we urge you to press on as quickly as possible."

We did get a number of specifics from people throughout the hearings. An example is the presenter in Dawson Creek who said that we have a really tangible problem with people purchasing their high-end recreational equipment — ATVs, snowmobiles, motorcycles and so on — in Alberta and just bringing them home without paying any PST. It puts our retailers at a tremendous disadvantage. Clearly, they expect and deserve some assistance from government to make sure that if we're going to collect PST from their customers, we collect it from customers who purchase in Alberta as well.

I'm confident the reporting process and the ministries themselves who are surely monitoring the Hansard for all of our hearings will winnow out that very specific, concrete advice and apply it within their ministries. I don't know whether we have to specifically detail those things in our report or can rely on individual ministries, but I suspect that in an abundance of caution, we should probably make sure those specifics are included in our report and channelled to the appropriate ministries. Those were the emerging themes as I saw them — the things I talked about first.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Kevin. I will now move on to Lorne.

L. Mayencourt: I think that some of the key things I heard over and over again were great concern expressed by virtually everyone over the events of September 11 and what impact that was going to have on us economically but also how confident people felt about our economy. Over and over I heard people speak about the recognition of the need for our government to go through a core review and a consultation process about reducing overall government expenditures. Certainly at the beginning of the process, the comment that came back was that perhaps we needed to be more conscious about being inclusive, getting more people involved in both the core review process and the budgetary process. They wanted to feel more included in that.

As we went through the third and fourth weeks, I began to see, from people who presented to us, that somewhere along the line inclusiveness had begun to occur. More presenters were saying that they were actually now preparing briefs for the core review process, preparing stuff for the Finance minister and so on. I think this started to happen as a result of us hearing that from the community and what have you.

What I also heard over and over was that we should stay the course. People felt we had come into government with a clear mandate, that we had a plan that was recognized as being good and that we should carry forward with it — in other words, to not blink, just move forward with it. There are always going to be external circumstances that will affect our ability to control everything, but overall our plan was good and we should stick with it.

In the midst of that — both the core review and the financial review — I also heard that it was important for our government to remain compassionate, to understand that there are unique needs in our very many communities. We need to understand that one size does not fit all. This is an observation I made, and I'm sure it was made by other members as well: the very different views we got from rural and remote communities versus the more urban settings. What I heard in the urban centres, it seemed to me, was that health care wasn't working well enough, transportation infrastructure wasn't working well enough and job strategies weren't working well enough. What I heard in rural and remote communities was that they didn't have roads, they didn't have health care, they didn't have jobs, and they were concerned about education. In that sense, I think it's important for all British Columbians to understand that in some communities, we don't have the very basic things that we need to make good, safe, healthy, prosperous communities. We need to recognize that and pay special attention to the rural and remote areas.

One of the themes that also came through very strongly was that tax cuts and proposed changes to the reduction of the regulatory burden on businesses are great ways to restore economic activity to the province.

That was another area I felt was constantly being reinforced. We need to stay the course and move forward with the plan as we put it forward in the election campaign.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thanks very much, Lorne. I will now ask our Deputy Chair, Mr. Tony Bhullar.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Blair, what I observed was that all the presenters were saying the same thing but just in a different way. To encapsulate it, I think they were all saying to us: "Get the economy rolling." Whether it was in Vancouver or Revelstoke or Dawson Creek, they were saying the same thing, which was: "Get the economy moving."

Of course, there are those two solitudes which Kevin referred to. There were those who said: "Hold the course, go with the government's plan for tax cuts, and do away with many of the regulations that are in place." Then there was that other voice, which was: "Given the events of September 11, this might not be the most appropriate time to make cuts in government."

As an observation, one concern I have is that those who might support the government's course currently may have just said, "Well, that's the way they're going to pursue it, so go ahead," and may not have presented to us.

J. MacPhail: Thanks. I've actually done an analysis of the submissions — not the written ones, so I'll be very interested to see those written ones. I'm talking about the written submissions that came in that weren't during a committee hearing. Mr. James, you said we could have access to the written submissions, didn't you?

J. MacPhail: So I've done an analysis of them. I realize that my analysis of their point of view may be different than what the committee heard, but there were certainly not two solitudes. There were at least five different points of view, five different themes.

Over 60 percent of the presenters wanted change from the course that's occurring now. That change divided along two lines. One — not as my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson would say, that they didn't recognize that there was an election — said change according to what you promised during the election and are not delivering on now. Then the other tack of change was to go faster than what you promised during the election. Those were the two points of view dealing with the determination of a new government.

The other presenters made no account for a change in government but just what was best for their local economy. Yes, as my colleague from Vancouver-Burrard says, there is a difference in the voices we heard from the rural areas and the urban areas. The voices I heard from the rural areas were a deep concern about factors affecting the economy. There was an acknowledgment, I think, by most people that the factors were largely external, whether that be September 11 or the softwood lumber agreement or commodity prices, but that the economic forecasting for their particular community was not on the positive side. They wanted the committee to take into account negative economic factors affecting their particular community. They wanted the government's budget to address those concerns specifically.

In the urban areas the message was, certainly on the economic side, much more hopeful. There was hope for the new economy. But that led, as I recall — my analysis actually was done on the basis of urban versus rural, but I don't have it with me; I'm sorry — to a call for an examination of the public services in light of the view of the economy. It was in the large urban areas that we heard from business groups saying: "Yes, this government is on the right track economically, but there are challenges unforeseen or unaccounted for in the original direction. Please take into account those challenges now, and slow down." There were also business groups in the urban area who said: "Give us more. Give us even more than what you have already given us." That came from business groups alone. There was not one single individual — not one, because I looked for it — who said, "Give us more," in the way of tax cuts. There may be in the written presentations. Again, Chair, I haven't looked at all of those.

Then we have a strong theme emerging about the uncertain nature of what they're facing. Some of my colleagues have already referred to this. The uncertainty was about the intent of change. People came forward and talked about how, because they didn't know what the changes were going to mean for them personally or for their community, they were taking the most conservative approach to their own personal finances that one could imagine. They wanted an end to that uncertainty, so they could plan for their own personal situations.

Lastly, I would say the fifth theme we heard was a user group concern for public services. I use that term because I don't know how else to…. Maybe "consumer group" is a better term. Mixed in with the consumer group concern was also the professional group concern. We had doctors and nurses come before us, speaking as professionals. Between those two groups there was a concern about the nature of change that was taking place in the delivery of our public services. There were strongly held views in both directions, but the majority view was to protect and enhance public services. There was also a strongly held view, again not brought forward by individuals but by business groups — but, fair enough, their voices were presented — that cuts had to be made and made quickly and deeply.

R. Sultan: I think it would be a mistake in assessing the data we've received — although I haven't looked at the written submissions, but certainly the oral presentations — to view these as a statistical sample, in any sense, of the viewpoints of British Columbians, broadly defined. I certainly got the impression that we had a parade of representatives from many interest groups — all points of the political spectrum — coming to make their particular views known to us with vigour and usually with great clarity.

While I don't denigrate the process, I'd admit that there was an element of refighting, the recent election campaign being played out before us again. There's nothing wrong with that because, of course, this campaign recently concluded, and the general election was in fact a representation of perhaps two rather contrasting visions of the economy of British Columbia and how it should operate. It was therefore not surprising that we'd hear those themes replayed again. These visions are very fresh in our minds, and the positions taken are strongly held by all points of the compass, including myself.

In assessing the data input, we have to keep in mind and maybe make certain allowances for the passion with which certain points of view are portrayed.

Having said that, I found the whole exercise very illuminating, quite surprising and not quite what I expected. I suppose I had the arrogance of feeling I had lived and worked in all parts of British Columbia for many, many years, and I understood this province very well. It was a tonic for me to listen to these people from all walks of life express points of view, which I think most of us learned a great deal from and which I personally found, in some cases, rather troubling.

I put the people in front of us into three categories. We had the business and professional representatives, who generally applaud vigorously the direction we're taking. I personally am of that point of view myself, so I found much to agree with in what they said.

Then we had a large group of people who are less enfranchised economically and socially, and we heard some pretty severe hard-luck stories. It was a useful reminder that there are a lot of people in our society who haven't enjoyed the fruits of success and who depend very heavily, perhaps in some cases excessively, on the government for their sustenance. Naturally, they are deeply troubled by the prospect that they're going to have that sustenance reduced in some measure. I think we have to be sensitive to those views and to that segment of the population, because they're very vulnerable.

The third large group of people who came before us, of course, are the people who are essentially government employees worried about their jobs. I guess if I were a government employee with a job at risk, I'd be as concerned as they were. Of course, they portrayed their concern in the cloak of grand government policy, but at the end of the day, I think the message was: "Please don't fire me." I can understand that as well. I don't know if that is a very unbiased reporting source, shall we say, in terms of our government's policy. Again, clearly the message to repeat that some sensitivity and awareness of the fact that we're playing with human lives here — payrolls and families and budgets and food on the table — is certainly warranted.

The three other elements that I recall, and I'm repeating what others have already said to some degree…. First of all, I was in fact struck by the border issues with Alberta — the reminder of how foolhardy it is to assume we can run an economic policy and structure and tax regime in British Columbia which is insulated from the world. I suppose Dawson Creek illustrated it most severely. They just go down the road, and they take their payroll down the road. This is not globalization; this is the just the workings of our federal nation of Canada. That's a useful reminder of how limited it is to have a rather radically different economic structure in the system of incentives in British Columbia, which some people, I think, are quite naïve about.

The people who came to us from educational institutions I found fascinating. It seemed to me we had more vigour, creativity and entrepreneurship here than I expected, and to my surprise, many of them — I would say the majority of them — were urging this government to give them more flexibility on things like tuition. They seemed to be conceding, if not vigorously advocating, freedom to set their own course to a greater degree on their sources of revenue. The idea that we should keep this freeze in force, that it increased accessibility and so on….That argument seemed, to my ears, to be rather thin at the end of the day.

The other main consideration, I suppose, is the fact that we have several British Columbias. We have — as others have said, and as the member from Hastings East just pointed out — the rural and urban divide. I think it's useful for a person such as myself from an urban riding to get out and see the conditions that a still largely resource-based rural economy is facing in today's world. I was a bit surprised and indeed upset at some of the apparent lack of economic vigour in places like Prince George, which the last time I was there — which was quite a few years ago — was a bustling community. It didn't seem to have quite the hum that I expected.

As we try to put together our advice to the government, I think we've been exposed to some very helpful points of view. But to return to my initial point, I think to take a statistical approach to the various positions that have been advocated would perhaps be flying in the face of common sense.

I. Chong: I think that most of the views on emerging issues that other members have spoken of are shared by myself. We were all there at those hearings or at most of them, and we heard from the same people. How we perceive those, of course, will be taken individually. I was impressed, first of all, by the fact

that we had such a diverse segment of our population coming out — those with disabilities who are dependent on social services, those who were in the business community and labour leaders, those who were elected to local government, educators, administrators. All these people were voicing their concerns to us. I do believe that as a committee, we did hear from a good representation of our population.

I'm mindful of our duty, though. Whether we agree or disagree on those views, we were tasked to go out, to hear those views and to present them in our report and our findings and subsequent to that, of course, to offer recommendations, if that is where we will end up. I do want to feel that this committee will present those findings and not necessarily weight them in any manner. As some of us can appreciate, those which came from individuals might have had a greater impact on us as we were listening, but other people who represented groups and associations were there representing a larger population as well. I want to be careful that we don't, as I say, weight them unfairly.

I agree with some of the comments made earlier — that we heard from business leaders who had a view, and we also heard from labour leaders who had a view. You would expect that those in the business community who want our economy to grow and to create jobs for young people, which is what we all want, would be able to work with those who supply the labour that we need — I think, therein identified a problem. That isn't working as well as we would hope.

In listening to business people who came out, though, I think we do have to identify those who came out as individual business people versus those who represented groups. In my view, a lawyer or an accountant who came out as a lawyer or an accountant was able to share with us their concerns in dealing with their client base of regular, ordinary people, as we say — those that would come out and speak — as opposed to someone who represented a large organization. I want to be clear that when we deal with those emerging issues, there is some distinction given there.

I also recognize that we heard from many government employees. I think that their views should be included in the findings, but at the same time, when asked about solutions, some of the government employees who came to speak to us were not very often in a position to provide those. This again leads me to believe, as Mr. Sultan indicated, that they were there speaking on behalf of themselves to save their jobs. Of course, they have a personal vested interest, and I don't discount that, but I think we have to be mindful of that.

I reiterate my colleague's comments all around about the rural and urban differences. I think our report has to include that as an emerging issue — that those in the rural ridings certainly have and will feel impacts differently than in the urban areas.

The core review process has already been mentioned, and I don't think I need to repeat that except that I think what was indicated to us, in looking at the core review, as areas that were of most concern to people were that vital services that need to be provided to society's most vulnerable should be considered in our report. I think that was an emerging issue that came out as well.

As mentioned, we heard from our post-secondary institutions and from students. Again, I think that while we can acknowledge that…. With the consultation process that's ongoing right now through the Ministry of Advanced Education, they were perhaps providing some input for us to provide through the minister in that sense. I'm not sure if I would feel as compelled to consider that as an emerging issue that we need to place as much focus on in our report.

All in all, I acknowledge that people did come out, and while they might not necessarily agree with or support our government in total, there was an acknowledgment that people felt that the previous administration had also not heeded some of their concerns. On balance, I think we have to be prepared to accept that while they were not wanting substantial change, neither were they wanting the status quo to continue. I think that's a valid statement that was made by a number of people and can be included in our report if we make that conclusion.

I think many other issues have already been mentioned. I don't want to repeat them. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

H. Bloy: I must say that I was honoured to travel with this group around the province, and I'm going to ditto just about everything that was said.

There are a couple of things I would like to mention. Of the people who presented, there was the business community that said: "Great. Keep up the work. Keep doing what you're doing. Hold the course." There was one fine line, and it comes back to September 11. I don't believe that we as a country or as a continent will know the full effect of it for another year or two. They said: "Maybe you need a backup plan, but don't stop right now. Keep doing what you're doing."

Then there were people that provided government services and consumers of government services. A lot of them were there, as has been repeated, to save their jobs. But afterward, talking in the hallways, a lot of the people said: "You know, I don't envy you. You have a tough job ahead of you. You have to make decisions." They're aware that the status quo can't be maintained and we have to move on.

I never got the feeling that our government today is being blamed for anything. Our government inherited something, and it was up to us to bring a new vision and light to this province. I believe that we've started that process. We listened to the people, and we're going to go on and make recommendations from here.

I guess another feeling I got was that when you get around the province, there's the lower mainland and everybody else. One size doesn't fit all. We do have to look at the rural and northern communities.

K. Krueger: I'd just like to add a couple of things that in formulating my thoughts I left out. We did hear a concern in many presentations that the front-line workers and their very practical input might not be being heard in the current processes — for example, the core review. We offered the waste-buster website as one way for front-line workers to make sure that their voices are heard. I've checked since returning from the hearings, and the government is going to make sure that the input through the waste-buster website is brought through the core review process, so that loop is closed.

I think our report should reflect that there is a concern that high-level people, people placed in the senior positions, might advocate for their status quo. What the people want to see are nurses nursing, teachers teaching, game wardens protecting the wildlife populations, and so on, and if cuts are coming, people hope that the front-line people who do those jobs of immediate service to the public are the last whose positions are considered. I wanted to have that on record.

Then there was an overarching theme in pretty well all the hearings of concern for children and the very vulnerable people in our society — that we must not make changes that imperil their already fragile position. I wanted to get that on record as well.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Following upon Kevin, a thought just occurred to me. There was concern conveyed to the committee about the waste-buster website not being confidential for those who wanted to utilize that service and that something be done, perhaps, to rectify it.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Speaking on that one, I recall an individual speaking on that ? being able to put a submission forward. I believe he was going to follow through on that himself and put a submission in. Was that not correct? We could all possibly follow through.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay. If we've got that on record, then I think we can follow through. If we made a commitment, I think it's very appropriate that we get the information and respond to that individual.

B. Penner: Just after that, we heard comments about the waste-buster website several times from front-line workers in probably five or six different communities saying either that they were already utilizing it and forwarding suggestions about how waste or unnecessary expenditures could be reduced or that they would like to use it but are concerned that it might not be confidential. That is something we're looking into.

I. Chong: I wasn't going to address the waste-buster website. But just on that issue, if privacy issues are a concern, I do believe that in setting up the website, that had been considered. For those who are wishing to put a submission through, I understand there is an opportunity to say so anonymously. If that hasn't been made clear, then certainly the minister should be made aware of that — to indicate that on the click-ons when people enter the website.

My other item that I wish to ensure is included in the report is that the basic questions that were asked in the prebudget consultation document…. People who came to give us their opinions had very seldom looked at those questions with a view to answering them, which can make our job a little more problematic. We were tasked with this prebudget consultation document asking questions in six specific areas. I think it's fair to say that it was not as well used as it could have been by those who gave us input.

Maybe that will help the Minister of Finance, in future prebudget consultation documents, to provide questions which he feels people would be able to address or else not to provide questions. That was just a comment. I wanted to make sure that we address the prebudget consultation document in our findings.

R. Sultan: I just wanted to add another voice to the point made by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson on the fact that we did hear over and over again from front-line workers, public servants — who, incidentally, invariably impressed me with their dedication and the intelligence of their commentary — the impression that if there were going to be some serious cutbacks, they would be the first to go and that the supervisory people up the line were not bearing any proportionate burden of adjustment. I guess this point is confirmed in my mind by other budget processes that I happen to have been privy to, where this seems to be in fact a rather universal, understandable but I think rather poor phenomenon.

I think the report should stress that if we are in this serious belt-tightening phase, it should be all the way up the line and should not fall on the people delivering the programs and on the front line, as Mr. Krueger emphasized.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): As we're going through this, everything's kind of coming back after four weeks of rushing through 16 different communities. One thing I recall some individuals making reference to is if the government is going to do something, they should do it quickly and not have them in this state of limbo, not knowing where their future lies. I think the report should reflect that whatever the government is going to do, it should move quickly. Some people are worried about mortgages and what not in their future. I just wanted to get that on the record.

Now I'm just going to add my view of what I took in through the hearings. Certainly, I would suspect that most of it has been covered, but I feel it's still very important to say what I heard. I'll probably reflect what most people have said. I heard a number of different

issues brought forward, right from, "Stay the course, because you're doing the right thing," to people saying, going back: "Don't change a thing, because the services we enjoyed over the past number of years are just what we want, and we believe they're sustainable."

I think there were a good number of people that fit the middle-of-the-road issues that came out. They realized some change was necessary but cautioned us to make sure we exercised compassion and used our hearts in the decisions we had to make.

The other side was, certainly, that labour came out in their presentations — a very professional group, just as any business group, that put their views forward.

Many, many government workers came out. I think human instinct indicates that that would probably be something I would do, as well, if I had an opportunity to go speak to a government that was looking at changing the way they do business. They all came out, and they all spoke from their hearts. They didn't come out just to take a shot at the committee, by any stretch of the imagination.

I thought the forums were very well attended. The people and the presentations when they came to speak to us, even if they were completely opposing views as to where a number of us stand, were presented very well, I thought. They were speaking from their hearts. We are dealing with people's livelihoods. We're dealing with future family directions, and people count on their jobs to make a living, to make their mortgage payments, to put food on their tables.

The issues were very diverse, ranging from "Don't change a thing," to "Stay the course," or "Go harder." The middle-of-the-road people came out, in particular, on the issues surrounding social services, children and family, women's shelters. The stories that were put forward to our committee were very true and near and dear to the people that presented those.

Many times I think some people felt they were dealing with a committee that sits there and that as members of government, members of the Legislature, we don't have a heart and don't have compassion. The facts are completely the opposite. We do care, and we're trying to put things back into perspective as we see them with something that's sustainable.

I want to echo what Ida said. I think the prebudget consultation paper that was put forward, with the five categories for response as to what we were to hear, was used very little, and I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. I think there were some things that changed in our world from the beginning of our process and our committee being mandated by the Legislature, with September 11 sticking out in everybody's mind.

It became an opportunity for people to come out and give their views on all aspects of government, not just on the budget but on the social issues that we face and so on. Although we try and focus on the finance, I was encouraged to hear what we heard. We grew up in this province, and many of us have been here all our lives. I've lived in the north all of my life, and it doesn't matter where you are; there isn't a day goes by that we don't learn something new.

Take the northwest, for instance, and the significant challenges they face versus the challenges of the lower mainland or the Kootenays or the interior or the northeast. "One size fits all" is a saying that's been utilized for years and years, and I think there is recognition coming that the one-size issue is not going to work, whether you're in British Columbia or any other part of our country. We have to look at that.

On the core services review that we are presently in the process of going through, I will echo what some of the colleagues on the committee have said. It hasn't got to the front-line worker. I think it's very important that we do get to that front-line worker. Having the history in local government, if things weren't going well in the operation of grading streets, for instance, my first stop was to go talk to the grader operator. That's the person who does the job. That's who knows the route and knows what has to be done. You can learn a great deal. That doesn't mean it's a slight against his manager; it just means that you're taking the time and the effort to go talk to the people on the ground delivering the service. I heard that loud and clear from a number of presenters: "Give us a chance. We've got some good ideas. We can help save money, and we can help do what's necessary to turn our budget problems around." I agree with what was said there.

Again, I can't stress enough the issue and the concern when you take out the two spectrums: continue down the road you're going, or don't change a thing; everything was great. The people who came with their concerns were clearly focused on the issue of children and family and women's shelters. I think it is key that we try and reflect that in our report. It's not an easy job. Had everybody taken the prebudget consultation paper and dealt with the five issues as presented, we could probably draft the report quite simply.

Today, listening to everybody, it's quite interesting hearing the different perceptions and views of what people took in from the presentations. I will at the end of this, but right now I'd like to thank all the committee members. It has been a huge undertaking dealing with this. There are a lot a people out there that are scared and worried. That's human nature. We are in changing times. Change is always a time when there's uncertainty. We will do our job to put together a report that is put into the Clerk's office and utilized by our Minister of Finance, the Hon. Gary Collins, to reflect what we heard. It will be a good report, I'm sure.

With that, those are my comments as to what I listened to around this province. Certainly, my heartfelt thanks goes out to all the people that presented to us. Those are the people we represent, each and every one of us in the Legislative Assembly.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Perhaps this is a question for the Clerk. Is there a procedure by way of letter to thank the individuals who presented to us?

C. James: What we ordinarily do is acknowledge the written submissions and oral presentations by witnesses at various committee meetings. We send them a

copy of the committee's report. In so doing, we could attach a short note conveying the committee's appreciation.

Having gone through that and gaining everybody's views — Josie, I know that you've been taking copious amounts of notes, and it will certainly help in the development — I would like to now move on to a discussion surrounding format of the report and what we see. I certainly have some ideas. Josie, I will ask you to possibly comment on it first. Then we can have a discussion as far as the format the report would take — content from beginning to end.

J. Schofield: Well, I can perhaps talk about the format at the beginning just to add to what Craig described. It seems to me that the members would probably like to have a short background section at the beginning, putting the committee's role into some kind of context — that it is part of the budget-making process and so on, just a sort of descriptive section. Then the next section would basically be an overall summary of the consultation process: how many hearings, where the hearings were held, how many submissions were received in total, and so on. I don't see that being very long at all.

The core of the report, though, is the committee's findings. I have some sense today of the themes that you would like emphasized. I have a sense, too, that individual members have particular issues or were struck, I should say, by particular presentations and so on. That would be very helpful to me in the drafting. If members think after the meeting that they would like something incorporated into the first draft, then they can contact me.

There's no reason at all, Mr. Sultan, why tables can't be included. If you think it would be helpful to have some kind of summary table outlining the financial position of the province or whatever, that can be done. I think I'm just going to have to produce a draft for your perusal.

I. Chong: I reiterate that I think our job as a committee was to go and come back with the public's views, input and suggestions and to report those findings. I would be reluctant to produce tables other than tables that substantiate the findings. If we wanted to say, you know, that 30 percent of the people spoke on this and 60 percent spoke on that, that's one thing. But if we started to incorporate other pieces of material, I think that goes beyond what the mandate of the committee is. I just would caution on that basis — unless it had to support something. Then we would be expressing a view, and I think I would be reluctant to go there.

J. Schofield: If I could just comment on that. I have come across rather an interesting table that shows the proportion of public servants employed in resource-dependent communities, for example, so that the impact of cuts proportionately would have a bigger effect. Now, that is a theme that seems to have been emerging all the way around today. It's just to make it less dense for the reader. Sometimes you can say in a table a thousand words, or whatever.

Again, it's entirely up to you, and if you don't like the table or you don't like the quotes I select, then you can give me feedback on these things.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Again, that will be why we deal with a draft first. I think I can speak for all committee members that we've taken the last month out of our schedules to tour the province to hear from British Columbians. It's time away from our families; it's time away from our constituents. I can assure you that the report will reflect what was said to us in those hearings. That is the job we were commissioned to do by the Legislative Assembly, and nothing else would be acceptable. That's a commitment, as the Chair of this committee. The draft report and our final document will reflect what was said to this committee.

With that, are there any other questions or comments surrounding the format of the report? Then what I would like to do is comment. We have such a short time frame from today until we deposit this report on November 15 that it would be my recommendation in the working of this draft report being put together that we form a subcommittee of our overall committee, with four members who work to the conclusion of the draft report to get that into the hands of all members. Then we call an additional meeting possibly on the 13th — a time frame somewhere in there; we will conclude those dates — to formalize and finalize the report that we will deposit with the Clerk. I would look for comments on that. Is that acceptable?

I do have a committee of four that I felt would be appropriate. I felt that the Deputy Chair and myself along with Joy…. Kevin is the other name that I'd picked. As the Chair of the committee I took the option, I guess, of trying to put some people together that would be here. I would look for comments from members of this committee. Is that acceptable?

I. Chong: I have no problem with that. It would be great if the four of you would be able to move forward and help get the report drafted in its first form. I'm just curious, though. After you have that completed, would we receive it as committee members prior to the 13th, which would therefore make it the 9th at the very latest — that Friday before the long weekend — to have a good look at it so that when we convene on the 13th, we could offer any final suggestions for it? A workable time line is what I'm looking at, because there is a holiday in there and we lose an extra day.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I believe if it's at all possible…. But I am going to look to Josie at this time, again, with our time frames. That would hopefully be our intent, so people had a chance to review it versus sitting down here and having a 20- or 30-page document

— or 200-page, for all we know — and trying to say: "Gee, I think it's great. Let's finalize it."

Josie, on the possibility of something like that, on the time frame, is something like that achievable for us? Or should we stretch it out to the 14th to bring our concluding meeting to the table, which may then give us the ability to get the document on Monday?

I. Chong: Well, before she answers, Mr. Chair, Monday the 12th is the holiday, because the 11th is a Sunday. My recollection on this committee last year was that we were all faxed a copy on a Friday afternoon — or on a Thursday afternoon, as it turned out. I think on the following Monday or Tuesday we couldn't get together, because it was in December last year. We all called in and teleconferenced. We had a good look at it over the weekend and called in and offered any ideas or changes to the final report. I'm just offering that as a suggestion.

If the four of you were able to have the draft report ready, and we somehow had it in our hands by fax on Friday the 9th, that would give us as committee members just that weekend to look at it. If we came together or teleconferenced on the 13th, it would hopefully be just a very short meeting to add a few additional comments. I just wanted to make sure you had those options, as we worked around them last year.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I think the commitment I'll make is that we'll strive to do that. There are a couple of time-line issues that I've yet to touch on. As you note, we do have three of the four weeks' summaries here. The fourth-week summary is being worked on and will be concluded very shortly. The other issue is a summary of the written submissions. I do not want to begin drafting a report prior to having a good summary of all of the written submissions. I have, as all the committee members have, given the assurance to anybody who puts in a written submission that it will be given full and equal consideration to an oral presentation. I'm very cautious and cognizant of the fact that we have to follow a process. I believe that summary, both of week 4 and of our written submissions, will be concluded early next week. Josie, I know I'm putting some time frames on you here that are challenging. Following that, the draft would then be able to be put together.

With that, I would ask for the indulgence of the committee, if it is at all possible, and I can work with Josie over the next day or two to find out if the time frame can be met to have our draft report in the hands of committee members by next Friday. If that is not achievable, then I think we will have to hold our following meeting off until the 14th possibly — the day before it's due — and get the report out on the Tuesday following the long weekend.

L. Mayencourt: Actually, I just wanted to comment on your selection of the subcommittee and just say that those were excellent choices. Since Mr. James is here, while we're in the process of thanking people, I wanted to say to Mr. James that the staff of the Clerk of Committees has just been excellent to work with and a great pleasure to work with, Josie in particular.

Also, Mr. Chair, it's been a great pleasure to work with you on this committee. You've done an excellent job, and it's been a lot of fun. I know it's been a bit rocky at moments, but you've handled yourself very, very well. Congratulations to you, and thank you for the opportunity to say that.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, thank you, and hopefully your views are still the same when we're finished writing this report.

With the time lines having been dealt with, I will now move down to any other business on the agenda and look to members of the committee.

J. Schofield: On the time lines, could I just add that it seems to me that if the draft report isn't produced until November 13, it will actually be a draft that the subcommittee has worked on. It won't be a draft suddenly produced by Josie. So it's not quite as extreme, perhaps, as suddenly getting a report from the researcher, because I presume that next week I will be meeting with a subcommittee.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Sorry. I could have done that too, Josie. That's certainly the point of the subcommittee: to work very closely with you to put this together — okay?

Just prior to concluding, I will look to members again. Is there any other business to be brought before the committee this afternoon?



CONTENTS

		Page

Draft Report		657

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES