Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 47 — Friday, September 14, 2007 (HTML)

2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
MINUTES AND HANSARD

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES


CONTENTS

		Page

Presentation by Minister of Finance		1097
	Hon. C. Taylor

Committee Meeting Schedule		1102

Chair:	* Bill Bennett (East Kootenay L)
Deputy Chair:	* Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley NDP)
Members:	* Iain Black (Port Moody–Westwood L) * Harry Bloy (Burquitlam L) * Randy Hawes (Maple Ridge–Mission L) * Dave S. Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead L) Richard T. Lee (Burnaby North L) * John Horgan (Malahat–Juan de Fuca NDP) * Jenny Wai Ching Kwan (Vancouver–Mount Pleasant NDP) * Bob Simpson (Cariboo North NDP) * denotes member present

B. Bennett (Chair): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for coming. We actually don't have a quorum yet.

B. Bennett (Chair): Oh, we do have six, including two people on the telephone, so we do have a quorum.

J. Horgan: I brought many personalities, Bill, so maybe that should be enough.

B. Bennett (Chair): Let the record show that John Horgan brought several different personalities to this meeting, so it should be interesting.

We've got less than an hour now for this meeting, so we're going to have to get through it as quickly as we can. I'd like to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves first.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Bruce Ralston. I'm the MLA for Surrey-Whalley and the Deputy Chair of the committee.

D. Hayer: Good morning. I'm Dave Hayer, MLA for Surrey-Tynehead. Tynehead will be celebrating the 100-year anniversary of Tynehead Hall, starting today till Sunday, so everybody is welcome to come join us.

B. Bennett (Chair): Let's have the folks on the telephone introduce themselves as well, starting with Jenny Kwan.

B. Bennett (Chair): I expect we'll have Randy Hawes coming on line here shortly. Again, thank you very much for coming today.

I just wanted to make mention that there are four researchers with the Clerk of Committees office who are going to help us do our work. In fact, they're going to be doing a lot of the work over the next couple of months: Naomi Adams, Erin Bett, Lindsay Gardner and Jeremy Wood. Thanks for your assistance. We look forward to working with you.

The Minister of Finance for British Columbia is required to release a budget consultation paper by September 15 of each year. The consultation paper provides a description of fiscal and economic conditions and identifies the key issues that need to be addressed by the public in preparation for the next budget.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, this committee, is charged with carrying out public consultations on the minister's behalf. This all-party committee is required to report back to the Legislative Assembly not later than November 15 of this year.

The public can go to our committee website, which is www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations, and they will find there some alternative methods for them to make input into this committee. In addition to making oral submissions to this committee, they can make written submissions, or they can make on-line submissions to the committee. They all will be given the same consideration as an oral presentation made to this committee. The deadline for all written and on-line submissions is Friday, October 19.

Today the Hon. Carole Taylor, Minister of Finance, will present the government's budget consultation paper, which will form the basis of this fall's discussion with the people of this province.

Hon. C. Taylor: I appreciate the invitation to be here with you today. I must start off by once again acknowledging the hard work that the committee does. I was just talking to one of your members. The number of cities in the very short time you've managed to fit into the schedule…. It will be very hard work on your part, but very much appreciated around the province. I know — because I sometimes get to some of these centres before you, and sometimes after — there is always great appreciation that the people of B.C. have this opportunity to speak directly to government through this committee.

We have presented the budget consultation paper for this year. For last year congratulations are in order for the committee. Many of the members are the same as last year. Last year over 8,000 responses came through as a result of the consultation. That was a record for any legislative committee. Perhaps we will do even better this year.

What we are asking, as a real key note on this particular paper to the people of B.C., is for their suggestions, opinions, advice, warnings on what we might do as a government when we look at climate change

initiatives. The climate change agenda will certainly be a part of this coming budget. We're really looking to the people of B.C. to see what their ideas are.

I have found, sitting in the ministry, that we receive a lot of letters from individuals who sometimes have ideas about what we're doing wrong with taxation, sometimes ideas that we haven't looked at before, ways that we can incent change of behaviour. So we're broadly asking the community to come forward with any ideas, and we'll look at all of them as we go forward and put the budget together.

Beyond climate change, of course, what are the priorities of the people of B.C.? It would be my assumption — but we will see, through the process — that health care would certainly be part of it. We are looking to see if there are some other areas that people feel we haven't addressed adequately and that we may have a chance to because the economy is strong.

This, for me, is a great listening exercise and a chance to have input as we go through the task of not only doing a balanced budget, but trying to reflect the priorities of the people of B.C.

I thank you for your work and your effort, and I hope that the people of British Columbia will feel comfortable putting in written comments, or they can fill out the consultation paper. They can certainly write letters to the committee. But all in all, I know that your report will reflect the themes that you hear, and we'll hear that by November 15.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Minister Taylor. Do members of the committee have questions for the minister?

J. Horgan: Thank you, Minister, for your brief presentation. I've just been at the Luxton Fall Fair, if I can follow my friend from Surrey and give a plug for my community. We were given one minute to speak or a sandbag would drop upon our heads. You would have made the grade today with your presentation.

I'm pleased that you acknowledged the 8,000 respondents that we had last year, mostly through electronic means. In every community we visited, we did have students who came to the committee with a costed plan to reduce, over time, tuition fees.

We had people from the arts community in every town we went to — came out in very large numbers. I know my colleagues will remember. Being artists, there was flourish and panache in their presentations. They also made very reasoned arguments as to why there should be an increase in arts funding — not just focused on Vancouver but across the province.

Based on those presentations, which were thoughtful, articulate and comprehensive…. They were ignored. So why this year, on my second tour of duty travelling the province, would I want to encourage people to come and give their views, if they're going to be ignored?

Hon. C. Taylor: Not for one moment would I be able to suggest that all of the suggestions and opinions that come forward can be followed through by government. We do listen to the committee and search its report for the ideas that we believe are possible financially or meet the priorities that we're hearing from other areas as well. It would be misleading to suggest that every idea that comes forward makes its way into the budget.

We do try to follow the major themes that we hear. Last year and the year before are the two that I've looked at quite closely. As you know, we made the decision not to move on tuition fees. I'd be happy to discuss that policy with you. But what we do promise the people is that we look at this report, we consider the ideas, and then it's one of the inputs we have as we go forward to budget-making.

J. Horgan: Just a brief follow-up. We just recently had an announcement that the electoral boundaries process has been circumvented. Again, there was an appeal to the public to participate. I would give the government, by and large, credit for initiating these processes where the public can interact with decision-makers. But in the case of that first round of consultation on that subject — which is not your area, and I understand that — the public was told: "Well, we didn't really like what we heard, so we're going to do it again."

In this instance, with respect to the budget-making process, the arts community in particular…. Members who travelled with the committee last year will know that they put a lot of effort and a lot of work into their presentation. I rather doubt they'll be coming back again this year. In our final report, which there was some division on, there wasn't even reference to that, and it wasn't followed up on in the budget document.

Again, Minister, you have a tough job, I think, and we all the more tough, to go out to those communities and say: "Please come and give us your ideas so that we can pass them on to government." We've already had one community cancel from lack of interest. I would suspect that's a result of the lack of interest they see in the work that they did last year.

Hon. C. Taylor: Just to say, Chair, that of course the report is written by your committee, and it is that report that I use as guidance.

B. Bennett (Chair): Just for the benefit of the members, in relation to MLA Horgan's comment about the delay of our committee going to Dawson Creek: we will be going to Dawson Creek. Dawson Creek didn't have enough time, I think, to prepare for a meeting.

In fact, when we said that we were not going to be going to Dawson Creek on Monday, I personally received many, many calls from people who want us to go there. So we definitely will be going to the northeast, to Dawson Creek.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Minister. I've been on this committee for many years. I can tell you that we heard a lot of things last time and a lot of requests, probably a lot more requests than the budget was available for. I just wanted to say thank you very much for the input you've taken from the committee.

When I was going through your budget I saw many things that you listened to and acted on. Many of the people I talked to after your budget were really happy to see, actually, that you've taken a lot of input, which is probably a lot more than was done ten years ago.

I want to say that I look forward to going around and getting input from people. Every time I have gone, we have made difficult choices. People also understand that there is only so much money available. Different requests are there.

I always tell the people: "If you don't get it the first time, you should go back again next time." Priorities always sort of change. If they keep asking for it, the committee looks at it, and we will provide our report to the Minister of Finance, asking for those requests.

From my point of view, this paper is very good — the one that you have presented. I hope it will go out to British Columbians' homes again so they can provide input to it. Many British Columbians that come to the committee are the ones who actually provide for this part.

I'm also looking in here…. You have some sections in Punjabi and in Chinese in there, trying to get our multicultural communities involved. My question is: on the website where you have this, is there some section that can include Koreans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, maybe Italians and some of the other communities too? Maybe we can take a look at the top ten, 20 or something.

On the website it might be easier to do. When they hit it, they can see some of their own language, so they can all feel they have a chance to provide some input in their own language if they want to. Even though the last time we had translating services in Chinese and Punjabi available, many of the people decided to make their presentations in English.

Hon. C. Taylor: That's a very good suggestion that I'll follow up on. I appreciate that idea of using the web in that way.

B. Simpson: I'd just like to echo some of the concerns that John raised. It was my first experience last year. I'm curious. My question to the minister is…. The juxtaposition of the work that we do, going around and asking people what they would like in the budget, versus the Treasury Board submissions and the timing of those submissions…. It strikes me that the weight of what happens in the budget is the government's agenda coupled with what the ministries are asking for with their strategic planning process. I don't see a direct correlation between what this prebudget hearing process does.

Isn't it correct that we are not really in the prebudget phase with respect to the work that the Finance Ministry is doing to put a budget together? Surely the bulk of the budget is starting to be formed before we even get a document to you to influence whatever it should be. So that's the first question.

The second is our own decision-making process, as MLA Horgan pointed out. In every community we had a submission on tuition. In most of the communities we had submissions on women's shelters, and yet they did not even make it into our report. So our own decision-making and filtering process seems to have a fairly strong ideological component to it as well.

How does the minister's office look at the submissions that come in, independent of whatever our report is? Do you look at the fact that there are things that don't make their way into the report as well?

Hon. C. Taylor: On the second question first. If I receive personal mail, for instance — and I get a lot, especially on tax issues — I refer that not only to the committee but also to our tax people for assessment and analysis. But in terms of the work that the committee does, I use your report that gets tabled as my reference as I go forward.

For the member's point on timing, I as Finance Minister have done nothing to change the timing of the consultation process. I've continued it in that way. It is true that there are concurrent lines of consultation going on.

Treasury Board. Certainly that process does go on for several months. Decisions are not made during that process. Just as you are doing listening, we are doing listening and assessment and analysis and are looking at changes in economic indicators through the process. But we don't start to put together our final recommendations to Treasury Board until after we've heard from your report, as well as other sources.

J. Kwan: The minister had offered to give us an explanation regarding the tuition request and the lack of action from government with respect to that. I'd be interested, first of all, to hear the minister's comments on that, and then I would have other questions to ask her.

Hon. C. Taylor: Recognizing that I'm not the Minister of Advanced Education, I will say to you that it has been government's policy to let tuition increase by 2 percent a year. In part that was based on the fact that many universities came to government and said that with a freeze, the difficulties were that they were not able to provide the service that they wished to students. They were cutting classes or not able to hire in the way they wanted to hire. Two percent, equalling approximately the cost-of-living increase, seemed a reasonable thing to do.

As a government what we've tried to do, instead of focusing on tuition fees as the way to help individuals who have lower income get access to our advanced education system…. We believe it's a better approach to provide forgivable loans and to look at the support side for those students who are most in need.

I would say that if you drastically reduce tuitions, it helps all students, certainly, but even students who are perhaps wealthy and don't need that assistance. We believe it's better to focus on the students who really need help.

J. Kwan: Just to follow up on that, if I may. From the presentations that we've heard — and I've been on this committee for many years now — over and over again, from the place where the tuition had begun to increase, impacting students significantly, only recently was the increase limited to 2 percent.

Having said that, if you look over the years in terms of the increase for tuition fees, it has in some cases gone up more than double — for some programming, even some 200 or 300 percent. Therefore, it's impacting students in a significant way.

We've heard that from students. Even in accounting for the grant or bursary programs that were in place, particularly for students in need, they were actually voicing their concerns related to that.

I guess my question to the Minister of Finance, who actually holds the purse strings with respect to the provincial treasury, is: what is her response to the students who are struggling — even, on the point, with grants and bursaries?

Issues were raised by the students in the last set of budget consultations, whereby they were saying that the program that the government now has in place in fact does not assist students who are faced with financial pressures with respect to access to post-secondary education.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'll leave any discussion about future changes or non-changes in policy on advanced education to the minister responsible. Today is to talk to you and this committee about going forward with budget consultations in terms of the dollars and, certainly, in terms of the infrastructure spending — to make sure that when we say we're putting our record infrastructure dollars towards hospitals and schools and roads, those are the priorities of British Columbians.

J. Kwan: If I may follow up, I appreciate that the minister doesn't want to answer the question. Having said that, of course this question is being put to the minister in the context of my colleague John Horgan, who began the question around the work that we're doing.

If in fact the work that we're doing often falls on deaf ears, it certainly does raise the question in some committee members' minds, but I think in the minds of the public as well: what is the point of this work when so much of it actually just falls on deaf ears?

Education — the tuition fees — is not the only area that fell on deaf ears. As mentioned, I would not hesitate to raise the arts program.

The women's community. On women's centres, I've been hearing about the cuts and the impacts on the women's centres ever since the cuts began, and I've been on the Finance Committee ever since then, as well, and hearing the communities' advocacy for the government to fund the women's centres. That continues to fall on deaf ears.

As we frame next year, as we frame the upcoming budget consultation process, I expect that there will be people who will come back and say, "You know, we presented to you last year, the year before and the year before that," and so on, but it appears that none of their points of view have been incorporated into the actual budget, come February. Anyway, I flag that for the minister for her consideration.

Having said that, looking at this year's budget consultation paper, much of it focuses on the environment and on the budgeting around some of those questions. I raise this question again in the broader context. I recall when we had the first round of a budget consultation process with such a consultation paper. This certainly was raised with the previous Chair, around the style of the budget consultation paper itself and whether or not that's the best mechanism in generating the kind of dialogue that is required, and also the way in which it is put out — whether or not it's actually leading British Columbians to a certain direction.

We talked about the need to actually engage in a different process, a different kind of paper to elicit response. But today we haven't seen that. We continue to see the same practice come forward as has been first established.

I raise that again as an issue, in terms of the challenges associated with it. I appreciate that many people do participate, but that relative to the overall population is a really small percentage still, in terms of the actual input and whether or not the process is actually the correct one. I'd like to invite the minister's comment on that.

Hon. C. Taylor: We believe that the process is a good one. I think the evidence is that over 8,000 people did respond in one way or another last year. We do believe that it is appropriate to ask questions that are fairly specific this time about climate change, since government has said it will be part of this upcoming budget.

I genuinely would like to know the extent to which the people of B.C. believe that this is a good direction. If they have any suggestions for how we might approach it, if there are areas they feel that we must be wary of, I'd like to know that as well.

D. Hayer: I just want to say that I've been sitting on this committee since Joy MacPhail used to be one of the

members. We have always had a unanimous committee report, until last time, when we had difficulties getting unanimous support. But I can tell you that when I talk to British Columbians in small towns up north and in the interior, in the eastern part of it, in the lower mainland and on Vancouver Island, they're really happy to see the MLAs from both parties coming there and listening to their concerns.

Their concerns are very diverse. It goes from health care to homelessness, to seniors, to transportation parts. I think many parts of their concerns have been dealt with. From my experiences, every time we go and we're available, they are more than happy to come and provide input. Government gets a chance to take a look at it. Hopefully, whatever concerns come this time, you will try to take all of them, most of them or some of them into your consideration.

If we had a chance to provide our report to you before the budget is done, which lists concerns of very diverse British Columbians…. We always have people who present a different political point of view. I mean, that's the reality of it. One is on one side; the other one is on another side. Anybody can sit in and give input.

Many of them over time have said: "Thank you very much." After your last budget, I heard from many, many British Columbians who were really happy with what you had done with your budget — provided input. Other ones were hoping that maybe later on we could get some different things done.

That's what I'm hoping for. I hope that you'll keep open-minded when we present a report and that you'll take a look at it, in which we'll talk about the environment. Also in these questions — you have six questions here — I'm happy to say that question 6 is a very open question. Anything that is not listed in there can be presented.

So I just want to say from my experience of being on the committee since Joy MacPhail — who did a very good job on the committee, listening to her — that the Ministers of Finance in the past have done a good job, and you have done an excellent job, so keep up the good work.

B. Bennett (Chair): Okay, Iain. We'll just get you to wait for Bruce Ralston, who had his hand up here. We're starting to get a little bit close with time, but we're okay with those two questions.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The Premier, through a series of announcements, has made a public commitment through the western states' Governors and some Premiers of British Columbia to the nucleus of a cap-and-trade emissions-trading program.

This morning in the news conference, Madam Minister, you mentioned that you considered that a carbon tax was one of the alternatives the ministry was prepared to consider. Is that offer sincere, given that the two schemes would appear to be, according to most opinion, contradictory?

Hon. C. Taylor: I was making the point this morning, and am happy to make it again, that we are looking at all of the options that are out there — options that we see in other jurisdictions, options that our own researchers or presentations from either environmentalists or business groups or academics have come forward with. So nothing is off the table. We are looking at all of this.

We are going through a rigorous period of analysis, and we will make decisions. Any that involve tax will certainly be released and made public by the time of the budget.

Personally, I still have not seen all of the data on carbon tax, so I have no position at this point other than to try and keep an open mind until I see the research.

I. Black: My question has to do with some assistance that you or your staff might be able to give us when discussing the surplus. I would guess that a very high percentage of the presentations that we heard last year included the phrase: "Given that government has this huge surplus, it would be nothing to throw a few million dollars here or tens of millions of dollars there."

It would be useful for us, because we don't have the benefit of the expertise of some of your senior staff and yourself as the lead policy individual for government in this area, to be able to properly frame an answer — when somebody says something to us like, "Well, you've got a $4 billion or $2 billion or $10 billion surplus" — that is meaningful to people who are not experts in finance and to help them understand what a surplus represents and what it does or does not obligate government to do when one exists.

Hon. C. Taylor: I appreciate those comments and suggestions, and we will be happy to provide any information or briefing for any member of the committee who would like it. Of course, the essential point is that the surplus, which some people make sound as if it's wasted dollars that could have been spent…. We have chosen to put it into infrastructure and paying down the debt.

When we released Public Accounts just a couple of months ago, we showed the very large, record surplus of $4.1 billion, and within that we managed to do a record spend on infrastructure of $3.4 billion — which was hospitals, schools, roads, social housing — and, as well, put $1 billion towards paying down the debt.

I will say to you that all of those issues came out of the public consultation process that you went through last year. We heard people who were concerned about the debt. We heard people talking about the need for hospitals. We heard people talk about schools. We also heard people talk about roads and social housing. What a surplus gives us when times are good is the opportunity to either do priority spending or else continue to keep the debt affordable by paying down the debt.

Those are questions that, legitimately, I would like out there in the community. People know — we've shown them in this consultation paper — what we did with the surplus last year. I would like to hear from people whether they think that's the right direction or if they think there are big priorities that we're missing.

J. Horgan: Certainly, Minister, I'd be delighted to take you up on your offer of a full and comprehensive briefing from your ministry staff at the earliest opportunity. I think that Member Black raises a great question, and I have a whole host of other questions I'd be delighted to put to your staff whenever you can set that up.

B. Bennett (Chair): Before Minister Taylor leaves us, let me just say as Chair that I'm very much looking forward to the opportunity to go out into British Columbia to the small, medium-sized and large communities and listen to British Columbians and allow them the opportunity to tell us in government what they like and what they don't like, what they want and what they don't want. It's a very important part of the democratic process, which we are all participating in.

I appreciate everyone's involvement here today — both physically here, in the Douglas Fir Room, but also over the telephone. I know there were some important meetings that people had to get out of to attend the meeting here today, so I appreciate that.

With that, Minister Taylor and Deputy Minister Trumpy, if you'd like to take your leave, we have one other item on our agenda. I think you're finished here. Thank you very much for coming.

Hon. C. Taylor: Thank you for the opportunity, and also thank you for the hard work. I know it's hard doing that kind of travelling.

B. Bennett (Chair): Members, we have only "Other Business" on our agenda, and I would ask all members whether they have any other business for us to consider. Or is there a motion for adjournment?

J. Kwan: Can we get a quick update in terms of the schedule here? We've been receiving a series of e-mails from the Clerk's office around changes to the calendar. In the latest one…. There was a calendar that was sent out from the Clerk's office. Is that the latest, finalized calendar, then, or is that still subject to change? We get on the road next week.

B. Bennett (Chair): I think the answer is yes to that, Jenny, but let me just double-check the timing of that latest e-mail from Craig James. Jonathan, was that today?

J. Fershau (Acting Committee Clerk): There's another travel itinerary that went out last Wednesday, I believe it was. That would be the most accurate. I'm just looking at the dates. The last update was September 13. The basic change to the itinerary is that we've postponed the Dawson Creek meeting that was scheduled for Monday. We'll be setting up another date for that hearing, I understand from the committee.

The only other minor changes to the itinerary are with respect to members' individual travel plans. So if there were any concerns that a member couldn't attend a meeting in one of the communities, we'll be able to get them back to Vancouver.

B. Bennett (Chair): So Jenny, just the temporary delay, I guess, of the Dawson Creek meeting. We'll have to schedule that later in October, and I've got a couple of dates that we're looking at. I'll run those past Bruce.

But also, on the day that we're scheduled to be in Terrace, I had hoped to get in to see the Nisga'a. It looked very promising right up until this morning. I received a phone call, and they would prefer to meet us informally — not as a formal committee meeting but informally — in Terrace after our morning hearing there. So I believe that we're going to meet with the Nisga'a in Terrace, and then we'll have a few hours in the afternoon at our personal disposal.

D. Hayer: Yes. My only suggestion was that when we are visiting a northern community — the Kootenays or the interior — if we can find some time in some of the towns to have a chance to see some of the local sights at local places, we can get the town's input. I know it's tight from our scheduling point of view. If there's any possibility at all, it would be nice, since we're there, if we had a chance to meet with some of the local representatives outside the committee time too.

B. Bennett (Chair): For all members, if there's anything specific that you would like to do as a committee in any of these communities, please let me know, and I'll do my best to set that up. I notice that we are in Kelowna overnight, I think. If anyone thought it would be a good idea for us to do something as a committee that evening, we could.

B. Bennett (Chair): John Horgan suggests a hockey game. We'll look into that and any other suggestions that committee members have.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


Witnesses:	Hon. Carole Taylor (Minister of Finance)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES