Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 31, 1992

Volume 1, Number 14

[ Page 289 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, members will notice that it seems like a cast of thousands in the House today, and I'm happy to report that they are from my constituency. We're being visited today by 100 students from Woodlands Secondary School in Nanaimo, with their teacher Mr. Bush and others. I would ask my colleagues to please give them a very warm welcome. 

Point of Privilege

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, yesterday I gave notice that I would be rising at this time on a matter of privilege. In keeping with standing order 26 and practice recommendation 7, I have provided you with written confirmation of my intention to proceed with this matter, and I would therefore like to table the supporting documentation at this time.

Hon. Speaker, it is my unpleasant task to bring to your attention comments made by the Premier which, in my view, were clearly intended to mislead this assembly in regard to the government's so-called fair wage policy. Of course, at the close of my remarks I am also prepared to tender a motion addressing this alleged breach of privilege, should you find that a prima facie case exists.

When any member makes a commitment to this House, he or she is expected to honour that commitment. When the Premier of British Columbia gives his word, he places not only his personal honour on the line but also the honour of his government. Hon. Speaker, consider the Premier's comments when asked, on March 17 in this building, about the proposed so-called fair wage policy that his government had announced in the throne speech. The question asked was this: "What's a fair wage policy, Premier? What's your definition?" The Premier responded without equivocation with these words: "Well, that is legislation to be brought forward by the Minister of Labour in this session of the Legislature." When asked about details of the policy, the Premier said: "Well, I don't want to belabour this, because I don't want to get into future legislation that right now is being formulated after substantial consultation." Please note that by that statement, the Premier reiterated his earlier comment that the fair wage policy in question was to be legislation. In one instance he clearly committed to bringing this legislation before the House; in the other he implicitly acknowledged this fact by virtue of the comment that this supposedly future legislation was now being formulated. Ergo, it had not been finalized, and it had yet to be introduced for debate by this House, which would ultimately be required for it to pass as legislation at some undetermined point in the future.

In the course of at least 12 questions and supplementaries in this House on the subject of the so-called fair wage policy, members of the government carefully couched their answers in the defence of future policy. A common theme among the answers given was a cautious assurance that the policy in question would be brought before this assembly for full debate.

Nevertheless, on March 26, budget day, the member for Okanagan-Vernon sought confirmation from the Premier about his earlier commitment to introduce fair wage legislation that would necessarily be subjected to the normal three readings in this assembly. Both opposition parties wanted further assurance from the Premier that we'd see a bill that could be debated both in principle and clause by clause. Only the Premier had alluded to fair wage legislation that ipso facto would be debated, possibly amended and ultimately voted upon before being foisted on the people of the province by the NDP.

In this chamber, on March 26, the member for Okanagan-Vernon asked the following question of the Premier: "Can the Premier tell us now, yes or no, whether he will bring the fair wage policy to this House in the form of legislation prior to its implementation?" The Premier responded point-blank with these words: "I will give the same answer I gave the last time. The answer is yes."

The same answer as last time is precisely what the Premier gave. He refused to repeat this answer in two successive supplementaries on March 26, but he knew very well at that moment that his answer to the question put was yes, because that is the impression he wanted to give his invited guests in the gallery. He knew that he was planning to ram through a motion supporting a policy that was already a fait accompli -- not legislation at all. The Premier knew that he had deliberately left the clear impression with his earlier comments that the policy he had committed to in the throne speech would be brought before the House as legislation.

The Premier reinforced that impression in answer to the member for Okanagan-Vernon. He said yes, not no, to the specific question: "Can the Premier tell us now, yes or no, whether he will bring the fair wage policy to this House in the form of legislation prior to its implementation?" The reason the Premier was asked this question was the apparent unwillingness of his cabinet to answer similar questions on the subject. In contrast, they had not given members the same emphatic commitment to fair wage legislation as the Premier himself had on March 17 in this building.

Therefore, hon. Speaker, I ask you to carefully consider the words of the Premier on the two occasions noted. I ask you to carefully weigh the difference between simple bafflegab and outright prevarication. I trust that if you find the Premier's comments more accurately accommodated by the latter description, you will find a prima facie case exists that the Premier deliberately and cynically misled this assembly and abused his position of honour in this House. Should you find a prima facie case exists, I have prepared a suitable motion which I will table at this time.

The Speaker: Would the hon. member also make available to me the copy of the statement?

[ Page 290 ]

J. Weisgerber: I've tabled the supporting documents, but I'll certainly table these comments as well.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm sure that upon review the Speaker will conclude there's been absolutely no attempt to mislead the House by the Premier and will dismiss the motion as groundless. I'd like to draw the facts to your attention, hon. Speaker.

On March 18, in response to questions from the member for Peace River South, the Premier said: "I can assure the House that there is going to be a lot of time for debate in this sitting of the Legislature, and I'm sure the hon. member, with his interest in seeing that working people in this province are treated fairly, will be debating that issue during this sitting of the Legislature."

[10:15]

On March 23 the Minister of Labour responded to a question on the same subject -- page 88 of Hansard -- and said: "The House will have ample opportunity to discuss the matter of fair wages when it's brought before the House." Furthermore, he said: "If the member is anxious for a debate, he can raise it during members' statements. Otherwise, this government will have a debate in this House about fair wages; that's our commitment." That was the Minister of Labour.

On March 26 the Premier was asked the same questions and he gave the same answers. The answers will show that while the member for Okanagan-Vernon combined policy and legislation in one of his questions, the Premier answered consistently that the fair wage policy would be before this House for debate. In response to the member for Okanagan-Vernon's first question with respect to fair wage policy and legislation, the Premier responded: "I will give the same answer I gave the last time. The answer is yes."

I submit the hon. member for Okanagan-Vernon was not misled by this answer; he was uncertain, and as a result of his uncertainty he asked a supplementary question to clarify. In particular, I draw the Speaker's attention to the Premier's answer to the supplementary question. The member for Okanagan-Vernon asked: "Supplementary to confirm. The Premier has just assured all British Columbians that no fair wage policy will be implemented in the province until it is passed in this House in the form of legislation. Clearly, is that correct, Mr. Premier?" The Premier said in response: "I said, in answer to your question, that the fair wage policy will be before this Legislature for debate, yes." The member for Okanagan-Vernon asked for clarification on the issue of legislation and he got it. The Premier said we would be debating policy.

In answer to the further supplementary -- another supplementary to confirm and to clarify the Premier's remarks -- the Premier reiterated this point by answering: "It is a policy that will be before this House for debate."

So the first question the member asked mixed legislation and policy, and the Premier answered yes, it would be before the House for debate. Thinking that meant legislation, or not quite sure, the member asked two further supplementaries to clarify, and the Premier responded, obviously, that it was policy. What's disturbing is that when the policy was brought before this chamber for debate the opposition said no.

So I repeat, the record is clear. When the Speaker examines the entire set of questions and answers regarding our commitment to debate the fair wage policy in the Legislature, it will be perfectly clear that there has been no deliberate attempt to mislead the House; and the motion, with respect, must be dismissed.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would like to speak to the point of privilege that was brought forward today with regard to the Premier. If the Premier intended this House to have a debate on this issue, there was certainly ample opportunity to bring it forward at a previous convenient time, as opposed to at the last minute yesterday when we had other important business to take forward.

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's very relevant to the motion, because it deals with the intent of the Premier and whether or not he intended to mislead this House. If the Premier had wanted to debate this issue, as he said he did, in the House -- if he truly did intend to -- then there was plenty of opportunity to do so.

The issue was brought to this House in the form of a motion by the government, not legislation as was stated by the Premier. It was done so with no notice. We know the rules of this House require 48 hours' notice, and the Premier certainly knew that months ago. In light of that, I put a motion on the order paper yesterday, which will come up on Wednesday morning, that will allow the Premier to honour his commitment to the House and to show that he did not intend to mislead this House -- that on Wednesday morning the Premier will commit to this House that we will have a full debate on fair wages and that he will take it to public hearings.

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. members, for your submissions. The Chair will take this under advisement and come back with a ruling later.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: Committee on Bill 16, hon. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1992
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 16; E. Barnes in the chair.

The Chair: I would like to thank the members for the conscientious debate on our first experience in committee.

We now entertain debate on Bill 16. As you know, we are on the schedule now. We will be adhering strictly to standing order 61(2), which requires that we be relevant in debate.

[ Page 291 ]

Hon. T. Perry: The debate was so enlightening last evening that I feel positive fluffy this morning.

For the benefit of members who gave up the ghost earlier this morning at 12:30 or 1 o'clock or whatever time we began the debate, I'd like to reintroduce the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, Mr. Gary Mullins, and Mr. Jim Crone, who's the executive director of administration in the ministry.

Since I haven't been able to find the Hansard Blues for last night, I want to ask the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi to rephrase his last question, where we left off last night.

D. Mitchell: Perhaps in commencing I could welcome the minister and his officials to the committee again and perhaps apologize one more time for what occurred last night. It certainly didn't reflect well on the committee in their first attempt to get you here late at night, only to adjourn debate before we could get any business done. So on behalf of all members of the committee, I would extend apologies to you and hope that today we can conduct the business of this committee in a much more orderly fashion.

Mr. Minister, just to pick up where we left off last night, we were discussing the budget for your ministry that you inherited when you became minister on November 5, 1991. I believe I had asked you: up until that point when you assumed the office of the Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, how much of the budget that you inherited had been expended? And my recollection from last night is that you said approximately $730 million had been spent until that point. Could just confirm that number for me if you have it more specifically? In addition, if we could take that one step further, could you tell me -- since that point, up until now, and we're now in the last day of the fiscal year for 1991-92 -- what have been the remaining expenditures for the approximate total for the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology covered by this period of special warrants that we're reviewing in this committee today?

Hon. T. Perry: The staff overnight had the opportunity to review the figures in more detail and can correct the figure I presented last night. The amount committed as of October 31, 1991, would have been $731 million. The amount expended at that point was $665 million. The flow of funds had been somewhat slower than expected at that point in the year. The forecast for total expenditure for the fiscal year ending today is $1.240 billion.

I might just refer to the question the member asked last evening -- or earlier this morning -- about what steps were taken upon my assuming office to control expenditures further. As hon. members are probably aware, the majority of expenditures within the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology relate to program expenditures in the universities and colleges, skills development training, some in the science and technology fund. The control over expenditure occurs at the time of the Treasury Board decisions on budget allocation for the upcoming year. We entrust to the institutions themselves -- the universities, colleges, etc. -- the responsibility to control expenditure and obtain value for money thereafter in accordance with general guidelines. For example, we have contractual obligations upon the post-secondary institutions to deliver a certain number of student spaces. Therefore, the discretion midway through the year for the minister is modest, to say the least. Nonetheless, I did take some measures which were intended to be significant at the level that I could control and were intended to have symbolic importance for the whole system.

For example, we curtailed some expenditures on social events normally hosted by the ministry -- not that these were undesirable events. To give one example, I cancelled a dinner in recognition of retiring board members, although naturally we would have liked to have formally shown the appreciation to members who serve voluntarily on the boards of post-secondary institutions. It was a brief tradition within the ministry. Given the seriousness of the budgetary deficit, we regarded this as an expenditure that could be forgone, and we sent out a letter instead. If any of the board members are listening now, I take the chance to publicly thank them for their voluntary work, which often amounts to hundreds of hours per year.

We curtailed our Christmas card list -- another very modest expenditure, but one we felt was reasonable to control under the circumstances.

We shifted the Premier's excellence awards -- given to the most outstanding high-school student in each college district in the province -- from a hotel where a luncheon for the students, their parents and the presidents of their relevant institutions might have cost us a substantial amount, a hotel where it had been held before, to Vancouver City College campus, so that the students in the college's culinary course could prepare the meal. I might say we did splendidly through that. We not only saved money but had an exceptionally fine meal courtesy of the students at Vancouver City College.

I see the member for Comox looking on and nodding appreciatively. I believe North Island College has arranged for members of the community and me to indulge in a similar occasion at the opening of the college this Friday.

That saved us some money. We transferred a meeting of the Strand Task Force on Employment and Training, whose report I'll be releasing next week. It gives me a chance to reinvite members to the briefing session next Thursday on that report. When they held their formal report of the task force to me as minister, we were able to hold it in Vancouver at the lowest possible cost, rather than in a conventional hotel setting or by flying people to Victoria.

[10:30]

We were able to hold a very modest luncheon in the Picasso Café, another restaurant in which the ministry participates by funding programs designed to train street kids -- many of whom have previously been involved in illegal substance use -- as cooks and to prepare them for employment. We boosted a program that our ministry was sponsoring anyway by holding a 

[ Page 292 ]

function there, and we saved the taxpayer a lot of money by getting a very good deal on that.

We were able to take some measures to control travel. For example, in the period immediately after I assumed office as minister, there were a number of obviously important issues for briefing. Normal ministry protocol called for some of the ministry staff to travel to Vancouver to brief me when I was there on ministerial business. I was able to curtail that and substitute conference telephone calls. With some of them, the communication at times was a little difficult; the telephones didn't work quite as well as they're supposed to in the modern era. But we managed to save hundreds of dollars in transportation fares by that initiative.

All of these, I must say, only sent a minor tremor through the ministry before the veritable earthquake precipitated by the letter from the Minister of Finance. He wrote to all ministries early in his term of office encouraging ministers and deputy ministers to pare all possible savings off the present fiscal year's expenditures, given the size of the budget deficit, as it became increasingly obvious during the early analysis of Ministry of Finance information and the Price Waterhouse review. Our concern about the size of the budget deficit obviously deepened, and the Minister of Finance took his own measures to further reinforce what we were doing within our ministry.

D. Mitchell: I thank the Minister for those comments. I have a couple of questions that have come out of what he just said. I take it that when he assumed his position as minister, the ministry had committed some $730 million but had not really spent that money yet, because spending was, as he said, somewhat slower up to that point.

I would ask him to explain why that was the case. Were there any particular or unusual reasons that the ministry was, up to that point, not spending up to its commitment level? Further to that, I commend the minister for taking the actions that he did when he assumed this portfolio -- by taking a look at costs and at possible restraint on spending, because, of course, there were some concerns.

He referred to Price Waterhouse. I wonder if he meant Peat Marwick. Peat Marwick -- okay.

He referred to the fact that the Peat Marwick study and other studies had started to indicate that the fiscal situation of the government and, perhaps, within his own ministry were very difficult, and he referred to a letter received from the Minister of Finance. I wonder if you could give us the date of that letter, the date that you may have received that letter from the Minister of Finance and, in particular, what the letter indicated. Did it suggest, perhaps, that spending was indeed out of control at that point? It sounds quite serious.

The Chair: Hon. member, just for the assistance of the Chair, please remember to address your remarks through the Chair.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm afraid that I don't recall, off the top of my head, the date of the letter from the Minister of Finance, nor do the officials with me. You might well pose that question to the Minister of Finance during scrutiny of the relevant portion of the schedule later today. We think it was early December or sometime after November. In terms of the import of the letter, yes, obviously.... It's no secret.

Let me first correct, as you did, my erroneous reference to Price Waterhouse; I was referring to the Peat Marwick report. And while I'm at it, I referred earlier to Vancouver City College; I meant Vancouver Community College, City Centre campus. My apologies to all concerned.

The government obviously was concerned, even with the initial briefings obtained by the now Minister of Finance during the interregnum between October 17 and November 5.... At the time of the ascension to power of the new government, all of us were concerned, as were the public, about the magnitude by which the real deficit exceeded what we had been led to believe from the presentation of the budget last May. So there was nothing new about our concern. All of us, as ministers, applied that concern within our own ministries in the ways that we could. The Minister of Finance, as is his duty and his responsibility, showed, in my view, exemplary leadership in reminding us to be constantly sharpening our pencils even finer. And that's exactly what we've been doing.

D. Mitchell: A further question, then, to the minister. If it were possible for you to indicate roughly when this letter came.... The reason I was asking that was simply to get some kind of chronology of the events during the period covered by these special warrants we're reviewing today. I'm wondering if at some point your ministry changed direction in a significant way. Or was this simply part of an ongoing process?

I wonder if the minister could indicate whether, during the period from November 5 when he assumed office, there have been any major program changes or responsibility changes in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology -- during this fiscal year, which ends today. Then we can better understand what it is you are now in control of, and whether there are any appreciable differences between what you are now in control of and the estimates that were presented to this House by the previous administration prior to your assuming control. This is just so that we can understand and compare more accurately. Is it apples and apples we're talking about? Are we still really looking at the estimates for 1991-92 that were presented to this House prior to the last election, or has your ministry gone through some substantial reorganization or responsibility changes, starting right with the minister's office?

Hon. T. Perry: There were a number of questions there. First, did the ministry change course between the time I assumed office and the time we received the letter from the Minister of Finance? I think I said earlier that we believe it was early December, but I don't recall the precise date. The Minister of Finance could doubtless clear that up, if members wish. No, we did not change course. We had already set our course.

[ Page 293 ]

I have to say that this ministry has for some years enjoyed a reputation of being extremely well administered. That's a widespread reputation enjoyed under the previous three or four ministers, and enjoyed by the staff, who can claim not only the responsibility but the credit for having done that. I would not want hon. members to misunderstand me. I had no particular concerns about any misadministration in the ministry -- quite the contrary. I came to my job expecting the ministry to be well run, and I was not surprised to find it that way. Nonetheless, my job as minister was to sharpen my pencil and encourage an ethic within the ministry to be even more fiscally prudent with the public's resources. That's exactly what I did, and I found the staff welcomed that approach.

Further questions -- I'm just trying to refresh myself. I wanted to point out that in fact our operating budget for the fiscal year that ends today will come in at $4.6 million below budget. That's not an enormous amount in our total expenditure, but it is a significant saving which we've achieved through careful cost control measures.

In response to the earlier question -- why did we at October 31 project expenditures of $730 million and realize only $665 million at that particular date? -- that's a normal phenomenon of cash flow when the money is not required immediately by an institution -- or in the case of the science and technology fund, through a grant. We retain those moneys, and the government earns interest on the money. We dispense it only when it becomes necessary and when we're satisfied that the money will be spent in the intended way.

There was another question: the comparability between estimates this year and real programs. In fact, the ministry has not undergone any substantial reorganization during the present fiscal year. Our expenditure has been based, as I indicated last night, exactly upon the main estimates for 1991-92, plus $7.8 million in extra funds approved by special warrant last summer in order to purchase 1,076 extra spaces in the colleges and universities to meet the crunch of enrolment in September 1991.

H. De Jong: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to ask a few questions of the minister this morning. I'm rather pleased that the minister has taken some cost-cutting measures in terms of cutting away some of the frills, because what we're really looking for is education. I know that the previous administration was very conscientious in providing as good an education at the higher levels as possible and in accommodating as many students as possible.

However, with the fast growth in the lower mainland and with an attempt to establish a university in the Fraser Valley, I understand there was some sort of a task force or access committee formed about a year ago under the previous administration. I've been informed that this task force or committee -- I'm not sure of the exact title -- was in fact put in limbo for the time being. They haven't had a definite answer as to what their status is, but they have, I believe, been asked to delay their activities, whatever that may have included. I would like to have an answer from the minister on that. Then I will have some questions on the financial aspects.

Hon. T. Perry: I thank the hon. member for Abbotsford for the question. The present government is as well aware as the former government was of the expanding needs for post-secondary education in the Fraser Valley, particularly in the south Fraser Valley region where most of the population growth has occurred, but also on the north side in cities like Mission and Maple Ridge.

Two committees were struck by the former government, if memory serves me, on the day before the election call on September 16. They laboured briefly for a couple of months during the election campaign and shortly thereafter. I received, I believe, on January 29 or thereabouts an interim report from those two committees. I'm still studying them and thinking about the most appropriate approach to resolving this issue.

We have a complex problem to face. There is very clear evidence of a need for post-secondary education in the south Fraser region and the adjoining communities along the Fraser River. We do have a new university college, as the member knows -- Fraser Valley College -- which will be providing a very innovative four-year program in both Abbotsford and Chilliwack, and, I guess, in Mission as well. There are unquestionably further long-term needs in the whole Fraser Valley region which are not well met by the existing two lower mainland universities, and we will be addressing this issue very seriously.

I felt that, as minister, it was appropriate to take enough time to begin a rational, careful planning process so that we can deliver meaningful action. Although the committee members on the existing two committees clearly have the same goals, have worked hard and have done some useful preliminary work, the structure of those committees was not likely to be satisfactory to generate the kind of result that all of us want. We're looking at it, and I hope in the near future to have some results to report back to hon. members.

H. De Jong: I would guess, then, that these committees will get clearer terms of reference from the minister in due time so that they can continue on the work that they have started, but perhaps under some more specific guidelines.

[10:45]

I'm looking here at the consolidated revenue statement on expenditures for the first ten months ended January 31, 1992, and in the category of other authorizations, there was about $52 million spent. I would like to have a breakdown of that $52 million and when these expenditures were authorized -- whether it was before the new government took office or after.

Hon. T. Perry: I'm not sure we have that ten-month statement available to us. If the member might consider posing another question and pass that one across to us so we could look at the figure he's looking at, it would make it easier, or he can rephrase the intent of his question. I'm not clear that I understand what he's 

[ Page 294 ]

getting at. If we can borrow it for a second and look at it, perhaps we'll know better.

H. De Jong: I could rephrase my question to some degree, although "other authorizations" is very clear in my opinion. Those were things that were not included in the budget, and I can understand that at the beginning of the year not everything is known, particularly in a ministry as large and complex as this one. However, there must be something on the record that would indicate the $52 million of expenditures that were authorized, and as I asked, whether prior to or after this new government took office. However, if the minister hasn't got the answer to that at this point in time, I'm quite willing to give the staff the time to find this later on during the discussion of his estimates, if that's suitable to the Chair.

The Chair: The hon. minister can indicate his decision with regard to your request.

Hon. T. Perry: One of our staff has gone to look for the information. If there's another question.... If we could borrow the document for a moment from the member who has asked the question, I promise we won't hold it hostage. We might be able to answer the question simply. We're just not sure what that figure refers to. We have most of the other budget documents with us, but not that interim financial statement. If the member would be satisfied with deferring that until main estimates, that would be equally expeditious.

H. De Jong: Under the expenditures that have not yet occurred, you might say, the balance of last year's budget on January 31, in this statement, alludes to $234 million. One-sixth of the year is yet to be financed out of this budget. It would appear to me that either the figures in the other authorizations were totally unnecessary or something is missing here, something was moved out of this ministry -- I can't think what could have been -- so that there would be $234 million left on January 31. If I multiply that by six, I come up with a total of $1.4 billion. The new budget for the coming year is $1.3 billion -- a slight increase from last year's total. I have difficulty, and that's why I asked my first question as to why the $52 million special authorization was granted. Perhaps the minister has some answers at this point.

Hon. T. Perry: Staff advise me that we're searching for the answer to that question. But if I can venture a guess, the reason that the amount remaining at the end of January, when there were two months left in the fiscal year, somewhat exceeds one-sixth of the total year's expenditure is simply that there were some delays in the cash flow. I'll stand corrected if ministry staff disagree. But the simple explanation may be that some of the expenditures simply occur a little later on in the year. There's no great mystery.

I can satisfy one of the member's questions. There were no major programs shifted in or out of the ministry during the year. We are fulfilling our obligations as outlined in the budget estimates of the former government last May. There are no surprises there.

H. De Jong: As was agreed upon before, perhaps the minister could provide the answers to these questions later on in his estimates, either this morning or whenever.

D. Mitchell: Just to go back to a comment that the minister made a little earlier this morning, he referred to the Peat Marwick review and the impact that had in terms of cutting back on expenditures in the ministry. Did the Peat Marwick review of the government's finances involve significant consultation with you and officials in your ministry? I note that some of the recommendations from that review certainly did make reference to the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. In particular, there were some detailed comments on the B.C. Student Assistance Plan and a few other areas. I'm wondering if that was a consequence of direct consultation, direct review. Did the Peat Marwick review entail having officials from Peat Marwick come into the ministry, meet with you, audit the ministry in a detailed way and engage in significant discussion and consultation with your officials? Is that where these recommendations came from?

Hon. T. Perry: First of all, let me clarify again. The Peat Marwick review naturally re-emphasized the concerns of the Minister of Finance, all cabinet members and, undoubtedly, all citizens about the size of the provincial deficit, which, as members know, was much larger than laid down in the estimates last year, or even much larger than independent accounting firms and the opposition at that time considered the real deficit to be. In those days members thought the real deficit was $1.2 billion. As it turned out, it was much larger -- perhaps twice as much.

Peat Marwick did not uncover any striking management errors in the ministry or any overexpenditures which caused us particular new concerns. We responded to their audit and to the instructions of the Minister of Finance in the same way that any other ministry did. It reinforced the existing concerns we had to sharpen our pencils, to do the tightest possible job of scrutiny and to ask questions again. Must we expend this particular dollar? Is the reward to the taxpayer sufficiently high that it's worth spending this extra dollar? I think its effect was much more a kind of a reinforcement of that ethical or philosophical approach to be penny-wise.

In response to the question of what access Peat Marwick enjoyed to our records, they enjoyed full access. They did not consult with me; I've never personally met any of the Peat Marwick staff. I wouldn't recognize them on sight, other than the one or two chaps who have appeared on television. They did consult with the ministry staff, and they had full access to our records. However, the judgments they made were their own. We take no ministerial responsibility for their judgments. Their review was intended to be independent, and I suppose it might have been construed as less independent if they had spoken with me. 

[ Page 295 ]

In any event, they did not, and I didn't speak with them. But I was naturally very interested in the results of their review.

D. Mitchell: I won't belabour this point at all, but just one last question on this matter, with respect to the Peat Marwick review.

The minister has indicated that when he assumed office last November, he had some concerns. He wanted to ensure that the ministry was not overexpending, and he took some measures to ensure that spending was under control in the ministry. He also indicated that later on -- perhaps in early December, I think he said -- a letter was received from the Minister of Finance, indicating that perhaps the hatches really needed to be battened down, that the government generally was facing a tougher fiscal situation than had been anticipated, and that had some impact on the ministry itself. While this was ongoing, I believe that the Peat Marwick review was also ongoing simultaneously. The minister has indicated that there was some consultation with officials in his ministry -- not with himself particularly -- and that Peat Marwick did enjoy free access to the ministry in terms of coming up with their own recommendations as part of their review.

Can I ask: did the ministry or the minister receive at any point, in addition to the reports of the review that have been released to the public, any background papers or reports that Peat Marwick may have prepared in dealing specifically with the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology during the period covered by these special warrants?

Hon. T. Perry: I'm advised that Peat Marwick shared with the ministry some working drafts of documents, which were the property of Peat Marwick, for the normal courtesy exchange of comment and verification of figures.

D. Mitchell: Thank you for that answer, hon. minister.

I have another comment. I'll just change the line of questioning here. I'm referring to the 1991-92 estimates for your ministry, specifically vote 6 in those estimates, which deals with the minister's office. The minister's office has estimates in 1991-92 of some $301,000. I'm wondering if the minister can tell this committee how much of the minister's office budget was committed and spent at the point when he became minister last November. As of today, which is the end of the fiscal year we're referring to, will the minister come in on budget or under budget with respect to the $301,000 estimated for the fiscal year 1991-92?

Hon. T. Perry: We're just working out that answer. The figures appear to be $157,000 expended up to October 31, which is the closest date to my appointment, and $264,000 estimated to year-end. It appears that we will come in somewhat under budget for the year. We certainly tried.

Most of these expenditures are fixed salaries. They are relatively modest costs. I'm advised that the minister's office staff costs plummeted during the election, because while there was nominally a minister present, the volume of work decreased. The number of letters entering the office decreased, and the requirement for correspondence and telephone calls presumably decreased. Ministerial assistants also went off salary at the dropping of the election writ.

I can't claim credit for that in my present role. I could claim some credit in my former role as an opposition member for having helped precipitate the election.

D. Mitchell: I commend the minister for his frugality in coming under budget in his own office, and I hope that in the next fiscal year he can achieve the same approach by running his own office in a very responsible manner.

[11:00]

I wonder if I could ask a question going back to a comment he made. He said that ministry operations for the fiscal year '91-92 are actually going to come in below budget by, I think, some $4.6 million. Is he referring there to vote 11, ministry operations, which in the 1991-92 estimates is listed as $1,195,489,000? Is that where he's going to come in $4.6 million below budget? I'd just like to get some clarification on exactly where that is.

Hon. T. Perry: No, the estimated $4.6 million that we'll save over our estimated expenditure this year applies to the total sum of all ministry votes in the budget estimates, including $7.8 million expended under special warrant last summer for extra students.

D. Mitchell: Perhaps I could deal with the special warrant that the minister just referred to. There was a special warrant passed on January 8, 1992, of some $7,858,000. Is that the one that the minister is referring to?

Hon. T. Perry: Yes, that is the correct warrant. Approval was made for the expenditure in June of 1991. The actual formal warrant to fulfil the legal requirements to have the money to hand was passed on January 8 by the executive council. I guess the former minister, the member for Matsqui, could claim credit for having achieved the government commitment, and I and my colleagues could claim credit for having fulfilled it.

D. Mitchell: Thank you for the clarification on that. I understand this special warrant of $7,858,000, which was finally approved January 8, 1992, represents extra funding due to unanticipated increases in enrolments. Earlier in this committee, the minister stated there were some 1,076 additional FTE spaces created; I believe that's right. I'd just like to get clarification whether that's what we're referring to here. And if that is the case, then how many of these 1,076 FTEs were created in the system on an institution-by-institution basis? Can you give just a rough indication of that? Were they in the universities? Were they in the colleges? Can you give us a breakdown of where those additional 

[ Page 296 ]

FTEs actually ended up in our post-secondary educational system?

Hon. T. Perry: Thank you for the question. The breakdown was generally as follows: to the universities, 521; to the university colleges -- at that time Cariboo, Malaspina and Okanagan -- 200; and to the other colleges, 355. That broke down, for example, to 371 undergraduate students at the University of B.C., 100 undergraduates at Simon Fraser, 50 at the University of Victoria in the school of business. At the university colleges: 60 at Cariboo College, 60 at Malaspina, 80 at Okanagan College. If the member would like, I can continue through the list of colleges, or I'd be happy to table it. I will hold on to this copy in case we need it later, and we'll make a copy and pass it across to you.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that commitment to provide that information.

I'd like to pursue this line of questioning just a bit further with respect to this extra funding. This special warrant for $7,858,000 passed on January 8, 1992. Given the FTE breakdown you're providing to me, I'm wondering if you can provide an idea of an average cost per FTE in our post-secondary educational system, whether or not there is a standard figure per FTE created that the ministry uses for planning purposes. What is the cost of creating an extra space at a university or a college or a training institute in British Columbia? That would be one question.

Another question on this relates to the fact that I believe there was funding for 3,500 additional spaces allowed for in the 1991-92 budget. These FTEs were funded through the Access program, I believe, and I'm wondering if those FTEs were actually created. Were FTEs actually increased through the Access program by 3,500 FTEs during 1991-92, or were there more spaces created during that period of time? I want to know basically how we did. How did you do in 1991-92 under the Access program? Did you meet your target of 3,500 additional spaces?

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I just want to caution the committee that we will be having estimates, at which time we will be getting into the specifics of spending in the various ministries. I appreciate, however, that with these warrants having been passed, these questions are relevant. But I hope that members will keep in mind that we will have an opportunity to canvass in more detail the spending estimates of each ministry.

Hon. T. Perry: With respect, Mr. Chair, this question related to the fiscal year that ends today, so I have no problem; it's a perfectly appropriate question. The average grant for a "full-time-equivalent" student -- which, fortunately, really does translate into an actual live human being studying in the post-secondary system; it's not just jargon -- to the institution from the provincial government is $7,300. That would be highly variable by the type. For example, a university, by it's nature, is somewhat more expensive; community colleges are somewhat less so. An institution like the B.C. Institute of Technology is somewhat different from the Pacific Marine Training Institute. There are some economies of scale in the larger institutions compared to others, regional costs vary, etc.

Last year the Access initiative, as planned, contributed 2,400 additional student spaces or their full-time-equivalents, as shown in the budget estimates. To that was added a special initiative for the University of Victoria business school of 190 students for the second-year increment, to accommodate students who had graduated from the first year at the UVic business school. To that was added, by special warrant.... I regret that the member for Matsqui isn't here to hear this. As the then minister, he argued persuasively that further spaces were needed because of rising demand and achieved an additional 1,076, which were funded through the special warrant passed by cabinet on January 8 of this year. That totals 3,666, and at least that number of students materialized. In some cases the institutions have been able to exceed the quota for which they were funded. We say more power to them, if they can do that.

D. Mitchell: Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that answer. Just to get clarification on this so that I don't misunderstand what you've just told me, I was asking about the Access for All program and the commitment to create 3,500 FTEs under that program. I'm asking this question in the context of the special warrant that was approved for $7.858 million, which was described as providing extra funding for an unanticipated increase in enrolments. My question is: was Access increased by this special warrant, the spending of $7.858 million, to levels above those of the 3,500 FTEs that were intended to be created for the Access for All program, or was this simply a way of achieving the goal that was already set in the previous estimates tabled in this House for 1991-92?

Hon. T. Perry: No. The former government's target for last year, as presented in the estimates and debated at the time, was 2,400 full-time-equivalent student positions, as the Access initiative. That was 2,400 more than there had been in the previous year.

Hon. G. Clark: In addition....

Hon. T. Perry: In addition, midway through the year, when it became apparent that the demand would exceed that level...

Hon. G. Clark: And with an election.

Hon. T. Perry: ...and with an election upcoming, as the Minister of Finance points out, there were certain other pressures on the government of the day, and an additional 1,076 were added. In addition to that, there was the special initiative for a new program at the University of Victoria, the school of business.

D. Mitchell: Thank goodness we're not facing the prospect of another election year quickly, so that this administration can now enjoy the possibility of some 

[ Page 297 ]

rational planning in terms of creating full-time-equivalent positions in our universities. We certainly are relieved that we have a few years when we can enjoy some good, solid planning by the ministry.

Perhaps I could move on to ministry operations. I asked a question about that earlier. What I'm referring to is the 1991-92 estimates, vote 7, ministry operations, which is the main part of the budget of this ministry. Over $1 billion was expended on ministry operations. The question that I would like to ask is: how much of the total operating funds of institutions in the post-secondary system -- universities, colleges and training institutes -- do the operating grants from this ministry represent? In other words, how much of the total operating grants do tuition fees represent as a proportion? Could you give me a breakdown on that? How much of what you provide to each individual institution represents their complete budget, and how much do they have to rely upon other sources of funding -- for instance, tuition fees? I'm looking specifically at universities, colleges and training institutes. Can there be some kind of a rough breakdown on that, especially during this period covered by the special warrants that we're reviewing? If the ministry could provide an institution-by-institution analysis, that would be useful; but I'm looking for how much of the operating budgets of the institutions you fund is covered by your operating grant.

Hon. T. Perry: Before I answer, the Minister of Agriculture is seeking leave to make an introduction. I'd be happy to yield.

Leave granted.

Hon. B. Barlee: I'm not sure that students in the gallery were introduced or were here when an introduction was made. This is another group of students from Woodlands Secondary School in Nanaimo, I believe. Welcome to the floor of the House. I should say to the females looking on that members have been elected to various Houses in Canada as young as 19 years old; so in a few years some of you may be here joining the 19 women who are in the House from all parties.

Hon. T. Perry: I'll give a general answer in view of the fact that many members may be eager to ask questions on other ministry expenditures in this debate, which is limited today. Other ministers are probably eager to get their hour in the limelight. Perhaps the specifics could be deferred to estimates debate, and I would undertake to compile that information for the hon. member and get it to him in writing on an institution-by-institution basis.

The general answer is that the percentage of expenditures provided by the provincial grant varies from institution to institution. One extreme would be the University of British Columbia -- the oldest provincial university -- which, by virtue of its age and development, has the largest quantity of research grants, revenues from student housing, some interest income perhaps and fund-raising income from its alumni. In that case, of the total budget of the university, the provincial grant may be in the range -- I emphasize "in the range" -- of 50 percent. Of the operating expenditures for teaching, the provincial grant is a much higher fraction, perhaps closer to 80 percent.

In the case of some of the smaller colleges with very limited sources of revenue, the provincial grant might be as high as 90 percent, and tuition might make up as little as 10 percent -- something in that range.

I'd be happy to compile the information institution by institution and have it available before estimates debate begins.

[11:15]

D. Mitchell: I appreciate that undertaking.

I have a bit of a technical question I'd like to ask here relating to some confusion I have about the special warrants we're being asked to review in the schedule to this interim supply bill. There appears to be a small black hole where something has been lost. The special warrants that were approved over the past year itemize a certain amount of funds going towards your ministry over this fiscal year 1991-92, which ends today. In the ones that I have in front of me -- there are only a few of them -- we have one approved on April 1, 1991, for approximately $185 million, and that's to maintain service. That was covered by Supply Act (No. 1), 1991, in the previous parliament. There was another special warrant September 20, 1991, of some $150 million to maintain service. Then on October 29, there was yet another special warrant approved for some $72,483,000 -- again, to maintain service. On November 13 there was another special warrant for $152,203,000 to maintain service. Then on January 8 there were two special warrants approved: one for $265 million to maintain service, and the additional one that we've been discussing, for some $7,858,000 for extra funding due to unanticipated increase in enrolments.

This is difficult to track, because I'm trying to figure out where this extra $7,858,000 fits in. The total budgeted spending that I calculate under all of these special warrants is some $825,617,000. The non-budgeted spending, I guess, would be that final special warrant of some $7 million. So we have total spending of $833,475,000 under all of these special warrants.

There was additional money authorized to be applied to the Ministry of Advanced Education in the second supply bill of 1991, and I think this requires a bit of explanation. I ask this in the form of a question, Mr. Minister. There was supply bill No. 1 and supply bill No. 2 passed by the previous parliament.

To refresh the memories of members of the committee, we had the estimates of three ministries approved in the previous parliament. They did not include Advanced Education. We had the Ministries of Health, Education and Social Services approved. But through reference to the schedule in the first supply bill in 1991, it is possible to trace the allocation of some $993 million. The $185 million passed in special warrants of April 1, 1991, makes up part of that $993 million. If you subtract that $993 million -- almost a billion dollars -- from the $2.7 billion, that leaves one with $1.7 billion, which doesn't seem to have been itemized anywhere.

[ Page 298 ]

We don't know where that $1.7 billion went -- to which ministries and offices, and at what time. One would assume that part of this money would have come to your Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. It is a bit technical, but my question is: how much of this $1.7 billion that I've identified -- part of a black hole that I can't seem to figure out -- went to Advanced Education? Without these figures, it's difficult for me to track expenditures in your ministry during the last fiscal year. I wonder if you could just clarify that for me. It's a bit technical, but if you can, I'd sure appreciate it.

Hon. T. Perry: That was a sufficiently complicated question that it might be better referred to the Minister of Finance when his turn comes in the debate. By that time, it may be after lunch, and we'll have a morning record of Hansard perhaps to which he could refer. The executive director for administration in our ministry is presently trying to calculate an answer, but I'm not sure that any human could have reliably understood all of the question, because it was rather complicated.

I'll just content myself with saying that I would not want the public to conclude that there is some black hole into which ministry or other government expenditures have been poured. All of the funds, either voted in the supply bills last spring or approved temporarily by special warrant, and for which approval will be voted later today, have been spent wisely, in my opinion. I have no hesitation or embarrassment in standing here as minister and assuring hon. members that the money has been well spent and has been used to provide education for young British Columbians, older British Columbians increasingly, middle-aged British Columbians, and British Columbians all around the province -- and training, inducements and enhancements to science and technology ventures, innovation in industry and skill development for people with disabilities. There are many good things about which all hon. members could be proud. So I don't think there's any mystery, but perhaps the calculations are complete and I can attempt to answer the specific question.

The special warrant at the beginning of the year, April 1, 1991, covered $180.4 million. The interim supply bills 1 and 2 added $415.6 million. Special warrants 4 through 7 added $648.4 million -- in the absence of a voted appropriation, I emphasize, since the estimates were not voted before dissolution of the Legislature. The total of those approvals is approximately $1,244,440,000. I told members earlier that we believe the year-end expenditures will be in the range of $1.24 billion, and the year-end savings will be in the range of $4.6 million -- something in that order.

D. Mitchell: Thank you for the reassurance, Mr. Minister, with respect to spending in your ministry. I would like to move on at this point. It's probably an appropriate point to talk a bit about student financial assistance during the period covered by these special warrants that we're being asked to review today.

The Peat Marwick report, interestingly, expended some considerable effort on a review of the student financial assistance program, and on page 17 of the Peat Marwick issue paper entitled, "The Issue of Loans, Investments, Accounts Receivable, and Loan Guarantees," Peat Marwick says that loan guarantees in the student financial assistance program will reach $144 million by March 31, 1992, which is today. Can the minister confirm that this level has been reached, and has the ministry completed any analysis on a decrease in demand for student financial assistance that would result from the freeze on tuition fees? Of course, this doesn't take place until the fiscal year that starts tomorrow, but the analysis presumably would have been done during the period covered by the special warrants.

Hon. T. Perry: Our present estimate of the outstanding loan guarantees as of today is in the range of $160 million, slightly more than Peat Marwick has estimated. Again I would like to emphasize that the student loan program is designed to encourage British Columbians to be able to take advantage of post-secondary education. It's designed to overcome some of the financial barriers faced by aspiring students and, in general, is something to be proud of. So the number is more an indication of the number of students taking advantage of our public institutions -- and of some private institutions as well -- than anything else. In general, it would be disturbing if the number were not gradually rising, because that would mean fewer students were being educated. All of us would prefer that they didn't have to borrow, but....

Interjection.

Hon. T. Perry: The impact of the fee freeze. Yes, of course, we're looking at it, but what you're referring to are measures that will take effect in the upcoming fiscal year beginning tomorrow, so I would prefer that we defer that, as is appropriate, to the estimates debate.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Minister, I appreciate that the tuition fee freeze relates to the fiscal year that starts tomorrow, but I am wondering: under this period that we're dealing with that's covered by these special warrants, surely the ministry would have done some analysis on the impact of a tuition fee freeze on institutions operating within our post-secondary educational system in British Columbia. I am wondering, in the context of these comments made by Peat Marwick on the students financial assistance program, whether an analysis of that kind was done. If there was one done, could you just share with us what kind of consideration was given to that during this period under review? Of course, we will discuss it later on, and I appreciate that we will discuss it during estimates review in the new fiscal year, but I'm wondering about it specifically in the context of student financial assistance, the impact of the tuition fee freeze and the analysis that your ministry has done during the period covered by these special warrants, which ends today.

Hon. T. Perry: I really think it would be imposing on members and their opportunity to debate expenditures made under special warrants today, given that we 

[ Page 299 ]

are the second of 18 or 19 ministries to be debated. We will have ample opportunity to address the issue of the financial impact of the freeze on student tuition fees -- how that affects the loan program and the institutions -- during the estimates debate, which will be coming up very soon. I will certainly take the question as notice to be prepared to provide detailed answers at that time.

I think it is worth saying at this point, in respect to the fiscal year that's about to end, that in our view the Peat Marwick report has engendered some misapprehensions about the nature of student loans and the default on student loans. Peat Marwick has taken a very conservative accounting approach, which is to write off all of those loans in default. What that means is that if a student misses even a single payment and goes into default on a loan, Peat Marwick recommends that the government assume that the loan will never be repaid. For accounting purposes, that may be a reasonable presumption, and that's the presumption the government has chosen to accept. However, I emphasize that it's the most conservative assumption. Just because we make it, the government does not give up on collecting on defaulted student loans. Those loans are turned over to the loan administration branch of the Ministry of Finance, and efforts are made to ensure that students capable of repaying a loan do so, as is their obligation. So members should be clear in their understanding that this is a very conservative accounting policy, which we were happy to adopt, and it presents somewhat of a doom-and-gloom approach to that issue.

The additional amounts shown in the new blue book of estimates for the write-off of provision for leave is a similar case, where Peat Marwick has recommended conformity to the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants accounting standards. It represents a slight change in government accounting policies, and we can explore that further in the estimates debate, which would be the appropriate time to do that.

D. Mitchell: Mr. Minister, I don't want to belabour this point. I'm not going to, but I'll tell you why I believe it is appropriate to raise this under the schedules in this bill and the discussion on special warrants relating to this fiscal year. Of course, we will discuss it in the future, and we'll have a good talk about the impact of a tuition freeze and how that's going to be administered and where the review of student financial assistance that has been promised is going to be taking us. We look forward to that and discussing it further.

[11:30]

But during this period covered by these special warrants, there was some controversy generated -- some of it by yourself -- about whether there was in fact going to be a tuition fee freeze. There were some comments by you earlier this year -- I think it was in January -- when you publicly speculated as to whether the government would be able to keep its commitment to freeze tuition fees for one year. According to media reports, there was some further comment by both your colleague the Minister of Finance and the Premier, rebuking you for ruminating publicly. There was some controversy. I don't want to belabour that, but obviously there was some consideration being given by your ministry during this period to the whole question of student financial assistance and whether or not that election promise of your party could be lived up to.

The tuition freeze is now included in the provincial budget for the next fiscal year, but there surely must have been some ongoing analysis and discussion during this period covered by these special warrants. I know you can't discuss what happened in Treasury Board -- and I'm sure there were discussions there as well -- but I'm talking about within your ministry. In terms of an analysis of the tuition freeze and the impact that would have on student financial assistance generally for all of the institutions in our post-secondary system, is it not possible for you to give some comment to the committee today as to what kinds of analysis was undertaken and what impact that would have on student financial assistance among institutions within our system during this period under review by these special warrants?

Hon. T. Perry: It would be fair to say that we recognize that limiting increases in tuition fees would somewhat reduce the individual requirements of each student. Obviously, for example, if a tuition fee does not go up $200 or $180 at the University of British Columbia, the student nominally would require $180 less in that year to survive. But, of course, there are other factors that affect needs for student financial assistance: the state of the economy; ability to find jobs; cost of living; rent; book prices; GST on books; whether the federal government rips 3 percent right off the top of the student loan as they did last year.

There are a variety of other factors that also have a very significant impact on the student's costs, and naturally we considered all of those. But I don't think it would be really appropriate to go beyond that today. I'd be more than delighted to explore some of the complex issues we faced when we get into the estimates debate on next year's spending and on the estimates for student financial assistance for the forthcoming year, which is the appropriate time to deal with these questions in as much depth as the hon. member and other members wish.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

D. Mitchell: Mr. Minister, I'll have to accept that, and I look forward to having that discussion with you at another date in Committee of Supply.

Perhaps I could move on to the question of established program funding -- federal transfer payments -- and the impact that that has had on your ministry during this period under review -- this period covered by the special warrants. I wonder if the minister could tell me how much of his ministry's budget during 1991-92 was made up of transfers from the federal government. And could the minister also indicate what sort of impact the capping of those transfer payments by the federal government has had on the operations and planning of your ministry -- in terms of future commitments that you're able to make and especially in terms of the cash operating grants to the institutions which you service?

[ Page 300 ]

Hon. T. Perry: All provincial accounts operate under something called the consolidated revenue fund. The funds for all ministries are derived from that fund, and EPF transfers enter that fund just like taxation revenue coming directly from British Columbia taxpayers, or fees or licences or any other source of revenue to the provincial government. And our ministry funds come out of that general pool, so it's impossible for me to break down. Hon. members can make their own calculations, if they wish, based on the proportion of provincial budget.... But in reality, a dollar or a penny look the same whether they come from a fee collected in a motor vehicle licence office or payments funnelled through Ottawa as provincial income tax rerouted back here, or as EPF transfers or any other manna showered from heaven. If we should ever be so lucky as to receive that, hopefully it would be in the same currency or any acceptable currency. It's about as simple as that.

I guess the possible import of the question is: are we disturbed at reductions in federal transfers for established program financing and the capping? Of course we are. I think I would be asking too much indulgence of the members to go over those arguments again, when the Minister of Finance and the Premier have made them so eloquently in federal-provincial meetings and in the press. Members of other parties have made them as well. But naturally, all British Columbians and all Canadians who value our established national social priorities -- health, education, social assistance, post-secondary education -- are disturbed at that federal trend. But the remedy for that trend, I suppose, lies not so much in this Legislature, but in the federal Parliament.

G. Wilson: Supplementary on that same question. Is the minister saying then that in terms of last year's expenditure, there is no way to itemize or to detail out the amount of EPF funds coming into his ministry? Could there not have been an argument made to the federal government with respect to the diminishment of federal transfer dollars into post-secondary education, as a result of the lack of specific knowledge about the actual amount of money that's required? Is the minister also saying then, in terms of the accounting process here, that there is no way of identifying -- should there be any kind of claim made -- that the province is not receiving its fair share, and that money cannot be identified by line in his budget?

Hon. T. Perry: These questions relate to the responsibilities of the Minister of Finance. I think hon. members opposite are perhaps labouring under the illusion that the ministry is some kind of a solid structure, like a piggy-bank with different slots in it, into which Michael Wilson or Don Mazankowski put certain pennies or dollars, and that the Minister of Finance puts certain dollars from the consolidated revenue fund and other sources of revenue -- the few that we have within our ministry -- and directly puts $15,000 or $30,000 in through this slot. The ministry is an administrative structure which handles money on paper. The funding from the federal government comes through the Ministry of Finance, which controls the consolidated revenue fund. If I leave some ambiguity in my answers, perhaps the questions ought to be addressed to the Minister of Finance. But I don't think there's any ambiguity there.

G. Wilson: Further to the minister on that question. I'm labouring, I guess, under the assumption that a ministry -- regardless of the fact that they're administering programs and that the dollars are on paper -- has to have some idea on paper of what the dollar value is of EPF funds coming into the province that are actually being spent on education. We have heard, for not only the last year but many years previous, that in fact there has been a substantial reduction in funds. The minister has alluded to that himself -- that there has been a reduction in funds coming from Ottawa.

My question is: within his ministry, recognizing the demand within the post-secondary institutions in British Columbia, is there no way to identify clearly what the dollar value is from this year, the year previous and the year previous to that in terms of trends on expenditure? How can you account for it in your own ministerial expenditures if, in fact, you don't have a handle on what kind of dollars we're looking at here?

Hon. T. Perry: I guess the answer is that we don't do it that way. We get all of our money from the consolidated revenue fund.

D. Mitchell: It's an awkward fact that we can't pursue questioning on established program funding with the specific ministers. We have to deal with the Minister of Finance. It would be our hope that the minister responsible for a portfolio would be in charge of his portfolio, that a ministry would be in charge of that portfolio and would be on top of the impact of federal transfer payments and caps on those payments, and vitally interested in how much of those transfer payments make up what proportion of his total operating budget for his ministry. But we will move on, and we will be discussing this further not only with other ministers, but in particular with the Minister of Finance.

I wonder if I could just move on to a new topic -- and I know other members want to get involved in this discussion in this committee today. I would like to talk about the University of Northern British Columbia just for a moment. I would like to ask the hon. minister a question about that. The University of Northern British Columbia has recently announced a further delay in its start-up date. It's now scheduled to start in the fall of 1994 instead of a previous scheduled commitment to commence classes in the fall of 1993. This is extremely unfortunate. I think that we will agree it's extremely unfortunate, because what it means is that the first graduates from the University of Northern British Columbia won't be really coming out of the system until almost the end of the century. It's a further delay. Could the minister confirm the delay was not caused because of any lack of funding commitment by his ministry?

Hon. T. Perry: Well, I'm delighted to hear the official opposition critic is interested in the University 

[ Page 301 ]

of Northern B.C. I'm sure members of the third party, who come largely from northern British Columbia, will be as pleased as I am to hear that. The delay announced by the interim governing council of the University of Northern B.C. is not a further delay. This is a delay of one year in their full-scale opening from their original target date. Establishing a university de novo in northern British Columbia in the relatively small community of Prince George with an extremely diffuse population base stretching all the way from Prince George to even Queen Charlotte City in the west to T�te Jaune Cache, Valemount in the east, Fort Nelson in the northeast, Dease Lake in the northwest, isolated constituencies like Fort Ware, Mackenzie, Lower Post even, the challenge of starting a university de novo in that environment is enormous and should not be minimized. I think all hon. members will give full credit for the imagination, the spirit, the courage, even, of imagination of the founders of the movement to get the university started in northern British Columbia. I certainly respect them for that.

I think, in this case, they have made a sound, wise decision to do the job properly rather than attempting to rush it through to a date that might have been difficult if not impossible to meet. They will continue to accept the first students this fall. In September of 1992 they're aiming for approximately 100 students and an additional 100 students or so in the fall of 1993. They expect to graduate, according to that schedule, their first students in the spring of 1996. They will begin gearing up to full steam in the fall of 1994 with their first major enrolment. But they faced so many complex issues -- for example, the difficulty of addressing the real educational needs in the post-secondary field of people as disparate as the miners losing employment in Cassiar; native populations of towns like Fort Ware, where literacy is a major challenge; people in such a remote constituencies as Fort Nelson; and fishermen with marine science educational requirements in Prince Rupert. I think it's intelligent and wise for them to have decided as an interim governing council that they would do it right.

[11:45]

I have full confidence that they will do so, and since we're really referring to expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year when we get into the estimates debate, I welcome the most detailed questions members can possibly summon on that. I feel that what they're planning to do is a very exciting prospect.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to explore this a little bit further, and we're dealing with the University of Northern British Columbia. It is an important project. It's an important project for Prince George, but it's an important project for all of northern British Columbia. The concept underlying the UNBC is that the institution would serve all of northern British Columbia -- a region of the province that has the lowest participation rate in post-secondary education anywhere in this province; in fact, it has been described as being as low as some Third World countries. So we need this University of the North in Prince George, but we need it to service all of the other communities.

I'm aware, Mr. Minister, that you had some officials from your ministry looking into the whole question of the relationship between this new university and the other colleges throughout the northern part of British Columbia. You in effect had a task force within the ministry looking at this question. Subsequent to that, there was a task force of MLAs -- and I was very interested to learn about this after the fact, through press reports -- taking a look at this question as well, and taking a look at the university's commitment to servicing all of northern British Columbia. The difficulty that I have with that is that when I noticed the list of the MLAs, they were all members of one party.

I'd like to just ask you a question about the process here and about chronology as well. Last fall there was a commitment that the university would start up in the fall of 1993. That was an election commitment made by your party, and an election promise made by our party as well. We had received assurances that everything was on track, on schedule, on budget, on time. Those comments were repeated throughout the fall and indeed into the new year. When I visited what is going to be the campus a month ago, I was given assurances by members of the interim board of governors as well as by the president that everything seemed to be fine. Therefore it was not only with surprise but it was with real disappointment that I learned of the decision that the university's official start-up was going to be delayed by one year.

But I wonder how that decision was made, Mr. Minister. How was that decision actually made? What was the role in the process of this internal task force that you have within your ministry -- and in particular this task force of MLAs? You know we have a commitment in this Legislature to use legislative committees, and we all support that. Of course, legislative committees are made up of members of all parties. But here we have a task force of MLAs, all of whom are members of one party, and they're being assigned by your ministry, I believe. I believe they're reporting directly to you as the Minister of Advanced Education, and I'd like some clarification on that. Can you tell me what role this task force of MLAs has played to date? Have they travelled? Have they held hearings? How have their expenses been covered? Have they been covered by your ministry? Could you enlighten us as to why a member of the official opposition was not asked to serve as a member of this task force? We certainly would have been interested to participate, because we're all interested, as members of this assembly, to participate in this process. The university is an important initiative. We're disappointed it's not proceeding. We're disappointed with the process. We're disappointed with a task force of MLAs representing only one party in this House. It flies in the face of the commitment that has been made to use legislative committees in creative ways, in new ways, in non-partisan ways, that can re-establish the credibility of this institution that we're all serving. So Mr. Minister, if you answer those questions in the context of these concerns about the University of Northern British Columbia, I would certainly appreciate that.

[ Page 302 ]

Hon. T. Perry: I'd be happy to. I know that other ministers are eager to get their turn. I keep getting signals to curtail the debate, but of course the opposition and all members have the right to ask questions and have answers to them.

First of all, let's be very clear: the university is going full steam ahead. The groundbreaking sod-turning will be held this Thursday. The Premier will be there, as will I. The cabinet minister representing that region, the hon. member for Prince George-Mount Robson, will be in attendance as well. This signals -- in case it's not already sufficiently well-signalled -- the government's commitment that this is a major initiative in the social and economic development of northern British Columbia, and one with which we're very proud to be associated.

I point out, in reference to the earlier question, that transfer students from the three northern colleges -- Northwest, College of New Caledonia and Northern Lights -- will be accepted and will be graduating in June 1996. So there will be substantial numbers of graduates at that point.

In terms of questions about the task force, I point out first of all that the ministry is always monitoring programs and expenditures under our authority, as we rightly should. Ministerial officials spend a lot of time in the field; I encourage them to do that. I try to get into the field myself as much as possible. Those officials who have been following the situation at the University of Northern British Columbia and the three northern colleges have been doing so for years, will continue to do so, and no one would want them to do otherwise.

I appointed a minister's task force on northern post-secondary education to give me some quick feedback by those people who had recently been elected in that region in response to very clearly expressed regional concerns about how well the University of Northern British Columbia was going to be able to meet its regional mandate. The hon. opposition House Leader and official opposition critic for post-secondary education asked why the official opposition was not represented on that task force.

The answer is quite simple. This was not a formal committee of the Legislature; it was a quick, rough task force to give me some initial feedback in response to concerns expressed by residents of northern British Columbia, particularly in northwestern B.C. along Highway 16 and in its communities. The official opposition party has no representatives in that region. I did, as minister, invite the hon. leader of the third party to participate, on the basis that he represented one of the ridings within the drawing region for the University of Northern B.C. I particularly encouraged him to participate because of his long experience in the Legislature and his previous experience as minister.

He regretfully declined the invitation. He had a lot of other pressing business, and he was not perhaps as concerned as I was about the university's ability to meet the needs of people in his region of northeastern British Columbia. I know that he discussed this with his colleagues, and had he recommended another member of the Legislature from that region, I would have been pleased to accept that nomination. The leader of the third party, the member for Peace River South, knows that we welcomed his participation and that he was welcome at the regional hearings.

The task force was very ably chaired by the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine. Its initial composition was to include the member for Skeena, as a representative of the concerned regional communities, and the member for Cariboo North, as a region of concerned communities. We excluded deliberately those members of the Legislature representing Prince George ridings, not because we don't like them, not because they're not good members, but because they represented the community which has the home campus of the university. Not to discriminate against the member for Prince George-Omineca, but in a sense they could not be credible spokespeople for the outlying regional communities that were expressing so much concern to me.

The task force traveled on a very tight schedule in the week just before the opening of the Legislature. It held hearings in 12 communities, all the way from Prince Rupert to Fort St. John-Dawson Creek. Its report is available to me imminently and will be presented to the interim governing council of the university on Thursday. I expect that very shortly thereafter I will table it in the Legislature and make it available to members.

I think that answers the questions.

D. Mitchell: Just one final question on this matter of UNBC and the task force that's been set. We've talked in this House about legislative committees. I'd just appreciate a final comment on this. I won't belabour the point any further. Mr. Minister, by appointing a task force made up of MLAs from only one party, the risk I foresee is that you might politicize something this important to all British Columbians. There are members in northern British Columbia from other parties, as you've mentioned. There are members who aren't necessarily from northern British Columbia but who are vitally interested in the whole issue of post-secondary education. I would invite you in the future to consider those options. Consider using a legislative committee if you want to strike a task force into post-secondary education. We now have a select standing committee of this Legislature that deals with these matters. There is danger there.

There's one element of the question that you did not answer, and I would appreciate your comment on this. When the task force that you set -- with three members of your caucus to serve on it -- travelled and held hearings, who paid for their travel costs? Who paid for any costs associated with those hearings? You've committed that their report will be tabled in the House, and I appreciate that, but I'm concerned about this. I'm concerned about the relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government and how that would have been handled. Can you please inform this committee who would have covered those travel costs, any accommodation costs, meals or other expenses that were associated with this task force that you established?

[ Page 303 ]

Hon. T. Perry: The individual members picked up their own living costs, meals, etc., through their members' travel allowances. They were generous enough to use their allowances in order to serve the public that way.

The University of Northern British Columbia chartered a small aircraft to make it efficient to get all the way from Prince Rupert to Fort St. John and to visit 12 communities, which otherwise would have been virtually impossible, within the space of six days. In the report tabled.... I'd be happy to supply the member with the itinerary. The hon. member and others would see that they were working very hard at the time. The university sent along its vice-president for regional affairs and some other staff. The ministry was able to send one of our key people as an observer to report to me on the task force and to report to ministry staff so we could get the maximum benefit out of the task force.

G. Wilson: I would like to congratulate the minister, however, for having the wisdom to appoint a fine Liberal to head up UNBC -- Iona Campagnolo, a very wise and sensible choice; a good B.C. woman Liberal who was elected to the Commons some years ago and somebody who has done a great deal of service for the province.

We, on the official opposition, are quite anxious to review in some detail the current commitment to formula funding for community colleges and whether or not the formula-funding system that's used is a cost-effective way of actually committing dollars for program delivery, particularly in the lower mainland where there are a number of competing community colleges that are providing duplicate service to a relatively concentrated clientele. My question comes to the $1.2 billion that's committed into these programs in general. How does your ministry actually break out an analysis of the dollar commitment to programs provided and to what extent do you actually do an assessment of the FTE efficiency of the formula-funding process in terms of the commitment of those dollars to each of those community colleges?

Hon. A. Edwards: I would like to move that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. A. Edwards moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada