2000 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes
only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 2000
Afternoon Sitting
Volume 20, Number 5
[ Page 16251 ]
The House met at 2:08 p.m.
Hon. D. Lovick: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to make an introduction on behalf of my colleague the government Whip, the member for Alberni. Visiting with us in the chamber today is a group of 23 or 24 students from Alberni District Secondary School, along with their teacher, Mr. Contant. I'm looking up and saying: "These are supposed to be grade 11 students, and the ones up here look much too young." So I suspect the group is somewhere else in the chamber, Mr. Speaker.
I also discern that they would like their presentation to be enti�rement en fran�ais, which is not a bad idea either. I'd just ask my colleagues, then, to please join me in extending a warm welcome to all of these students from Alberni District Secondary School.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce a guest from our Canadian neighbour to the north, who is in the chamber with us. Please join me in welcoming Hon. Stephen Kakfwi, Premier of the Northwest Territories and the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs and many other things. During his time here, the Premier and I will be meeting to sign an MOU for cooperation and development between our two jurisdictions on issues of common concern such as economic development.
Accompanying the Premier we have in the gallery Doug Doan, assistant deputy minister of resources, wildlife and economic development, and Lynda Sorensen, the chief of staff for Premier Kakfwi. Could the House please make them all welcome.
[1410]
Hon. C. Evans: Joining us today from the B.C. Wine Institute is Ian Tostenson, the chair, and Megan Moyle, the marketing coordinator. I met with the board earlier. All members are invited to the Laurel Point Inn tonight at 6 o'clock to enjoy our most pleasant evening with any group that ever comes to visit us. Will the House please make them welcome.
J. Reid: I have a few guests in the gallery today. One is Ruth Salmon from Duncan, and the other is my husband. I ask that the House please make them very welcome.
R. Thorpe: On behalf of the official opposition, we would also like to welcome the officials of the British Columbia Wine Institute, the growers, the vintners, the producers of world-class wines, my good friend Ian Tostenson and all of the people associated with the British Columbia grape and wine industry. Welcome to Victoria. We hope all of their meetings today produce fruit that will produce a great vintage in the year 2001.
B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to welcome 50 grades 6 and 7 students and five adults and their teacher, Mr. Martin, from John A. Hutton Elementary School in my riding. Would the House please make them welcome.
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, having introduced a guest from a jurisdiction to our north, I'm pleased to introduce a guest from a jurisdiction farther south. Would the House please help us in welcoming Guadalupe Albert, the newly appointed consul-general of Mexico in Vancouver. She is making her first official calls to Victoria, and I very much look forward to meeting with her this afternoon. Could the House please join us in making her welcome.
Hon. I. Waddell: I'd like to add my welcome to Premier Kakfwi. We worked together in Yellowknife in 1975 on the Berger inquiry. He was 23 then. Guess how old I was.
An Hon. Member: Forty-seven.
Hon. I. Waddell: No, I was 42. Anyway, we were against the pipeline; now we're for it. [Laughter.]
Hon. Speaker, also visiting the House today is Mr. Parmesh Bhatt from Tokyo. Mr. Bhatt, the House will remember, organized that wonderful wrestling tour last year, the Sumo Basho, when the Sumo wrestlers -- a few of them were a little bigger than me -- came here. Accompanying Mr. Bhatt is his associate Terry Wakasa. Also with them is Mr. Barry Rempel of Canadian Airlines International. Mr. Rempel is based in Calgary. Would the House please make them very welcome.
J. van Dongen: Visiting today from Abbotsford is a constituent, Ellen Silbernagel. I ask the House to please make her welcome.
T. Stevenson: In the House today are 35 grade 6 students from the Fernwood Elementary School in Bothell, Washington. They're accompanied by Ms. Cortez, their teacher. I hope all members will make them welcome.
L. Boone: It's a pleasure today -- and I think this is something that all members here will join me in doing -- to welcome back our member for Skeena, who has been long away. We're anxious to have you back with us, friend. And I'm sure that the member for Alberni is watching diligently. We certainly would like to welcome him back and wish him well and get him back here. I think this is a really desperate way for the member for Alberni to get leave, but we want him back here amidst us. And we're certainly glad to have our member for Skeena here with us.
[1415]
Hon. J. Doyle: Thank you for that wonderful round of applause.
In the gallery today I have two visitors, Jack and Vera Lappin. They live in Mill Bay in the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca's riding. But more importantly, they were born in the same little land that I was -- back in Ireland -- some years ago. Actually, Jack is 86, and Vera, his wife, is about 39 or thereabouts. Jack is well known as an advocate of many issues -- a bit of a rebel -- and I had lunch with him today. I'd like you to make them welcome.
M. Sihota: In the gallery today is a newly elected member of the Colwood council, an individual known to both myself and the member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca. Would all members please welcome Gordie Logan to the chamber today.
K. Krueger: I'd like to welcome to the House a friend of mine from Bowser, Keith Reid. His wife is an MLA.
[ Page 16252 ]
Introduction of Bills
FINANCE AND CORPORATE RELATIONS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2000
Hon. P. Ramsey presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Finance and Corporate Relations Statutes Amendment Act, 2000.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
Motion approved.
[1420]
Hon. P. Ramsey: Bill 18 enacts tax cuts contained in Budget 2000. It also enacts the recommendations of the Deloitte Consulting report entitled "Capital Management Process Review for the Government of British Columbia," which contained a number of recommendations on improving the management of capital projects in the province. Budget 2000 brought tax relief both for individuals and for British Columbia business.
The major tax reduction in this bill is the British Columbia manufacturing and processing tax credit. This new 3 percent tax credit will reduce the cost of new machinery, equipment and buildings to be used in manufacturing and processing in British Columbia. The credit will encourage investment and help B.C. businesses meet the demands of a changing economy.
The Corporation Capital Tax Act is amended to provide new rules for foreign bank branches, in recognition of the 1999 federal Bank Act amendments that will now allow foreign banks to operate in Canada through branches.
The Horse Racing Tax Act is amended to improve the future economic viability of the horse racing industry of British Columbia. It requires the payment to the British Columbia Horse Racing Commission of the net revenue received by government from tax collected under this act.
The Financial Administration Act is amended as the first step in government implementing the recommendations contained in Deloitte Consulting's independent review of capital management practices in B.C. The amendments are the legislative foundation to enable the government to build upon our existing initiatives and implement a best-practices management framework.
The Financial Information Act is amended to clarify that capital expenditure-related information can be requested from Crown corporations and that the Minister of Finance has the authority to appoint an auditor if the information requested is not forthcoming.
Hon. Speaker, I will elaborate more fully on these measures during second reading. I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Oral Questions
DRAAYERS FOSTER CARE CASE
G. Campbell: Everyone in this House is committed to the well-being of children in the province's care; everyone in this House believes we should put the interests of children first. Yesterday the Premier said that if it was in the best interests of the Draayer children to return home, then that's what should happen. The answer to the Premier's question has already been given by the Children's Commission tribunal: it is in the best interests of those children to be returned to their home right away. My question to the Premier is simply this: how can he justify any further delay in allowing those girls to go home?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: I've been watching the questions and answers in this House on this issue with a great deal of pain, and that is not because of the politics. It is because people must understand and the opposition must understand that these are decisions made by social workers, by people on the front lines, without any political interference whatsoever. They have legislation to follow. So let me make the first point. The first point is: these are not political decisions made by ministers.
Secondly, the minister has no legal authority whatsoever to interfere in the due process at this time. Thirdly, I said yesterday, and I repeat: if, at the end of the day, the determination appropriately made by the appropriate authorities is that it is in the best interests of the children to be returned to the Draayers, so they should be at the earliest possible.
The Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition with a supplementary question.
G. Campbell: Well, hon. Speaker, it's been half a year since those little girls were taken from their home. The Children's Commission tribunal is in no way political. They have been very clear: it is in the best interests of those children to be home. Will the Premier not today say that it is important for those kids to be home and let the girls go home now?
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I think it's appropriate for members of the opposition and members of the government side to realize that part of the due process now is that those recommendations from the panel are to be reviewed by the superintendent, Ross Dawson, who will then decide this issue. That decision would be made within seven days, I have been told. Now, if I were to follow the wishes of the hon. opposition leader, I would be acting absolutely inappropriately.
L. Reid: According to the Ministry for Children and Families' own practice standards: "If the director believes that the children are unable to express their views, the director is obligated to consult with persons who know the children well -- friends, school officials, physicians."
Not only were these children not consulted, but you didn't follow your own guidelines and consult the people closest to the girls. Will the Minister for Children and Families tell us why her officials apparently breached their own guidelines and why people closest to the girls were not consulted?
[ Page 16253 ]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I will at this stage not get into any of the particular details of the events that have led up to the tribunal's response and the tribunal's recommendations of last week. What I will say, as has been said before, is that the director of child protection is working on making that response now, as it is his authority so to do. He will be, I know, working quickly and cooperatively with the Children's Commission and will be making a decision in the best interests of the children. And we know the date of that: June 12 -- less than a week.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond East has a supplemental question.
L. Reid: The Children's Commission tribunal spent months on this review -- absolutely months. This has been the single most exhaustive, comprehensive review and investigation ever conducted. The Minister for Children and Families is essentially ignoring the tribunal's findings, because the girls are not at home. Will the minister tell us why we even have these exhaustive, extensive reviews if indeed the recommendations are not going to be acted upon immediately?
[1425]
Hon. G. Mann Brewin: I want to, in response, say first of all:
congratulations and my compliments to the tribunal. They have indeed done
excellent work; they have produced an exhaustive report, which is a very
thoughtful report and of great interest. I am very concerned about the way in
which occasionally, it seems, the responses to this have been somewhat
overstated. I want to say that the legislation on which the tribunal was based
was one of significant support in this House, and the tribunal process is part
of that legislation -- a very important part of it. It is there as progressive
BUDGET 2000
ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN
G. Farrell-Collins: If the ministry had followed its guidelines and its practices six months ago, none of this would have happened.
Speaker, on a different matter, I have a question for the Premier. Today the
Premier gave a speech in debate on the Budget Transparency and Accountability
Act, and he said: "Only by living up to the letter of this new law can we
restore British Columbians' confidence in the budget numbers
Well, while he was making that speech, I was reading a memo from John Heaney to the Ministry of Finance, which shows that the government is doing just the opposite. Last January in a press release, Treasury Board announced fiscal constraint directives that banned new discretionary contracts. However, in an effort to get around this provision, Mr. Heaney, the Premier's communications guru, dreamed up a way for the Ministry of Finance to circumvent this rule and grant an untendered contract for communications work on this transparent budget. I quote from the memo for the Premier's information:
"Fiscal measures currently in place constrain the ministry's ability to enter into such a contract in time to prepare materials for the budget. It's our recommendation that your communications director work with the Ministries of Health and Education to develop an integrated communications plan. If this is acceptable to you, payment for the strategic finance component of the plan will be billed through the Ministry of Education and journal-vouchered back to the ministry."
Can the Premier tell us
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I thank the member for his question. The Budget 2000
document contains a great deal of information that's important both to
individuals and to businesses in British Columbia. We are looking at -- and have
done this year, and we've done it in the past -- a modest advertising campaign
to inform British Columbians of what's going on. Far from wasting money, this
initiative enabled us
Interjection.
The Speaker: Members, order, please.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations does not have an agency of record for advertising measures. Rather than going out and tendering a new contract, incurring the expense of that, doing all those steps, it was thought to be both efficient and effective to use an agency that has a proven record of doing communications for the government. And I believe it was also cost-effective to the people of British Columbia.
The total advertising budget for Budget 2000 was $190,000 -- the lowest in many years. I'm very pleased with the work that has been done by the agency. I'm very pleased that the people of British Columbia received this information.
G. Farrell-Collins: I remind the Premier that Mr. Heaney reports to
him. Mr. Heaney was the one structuring and planning the communications strategy
for this government around their new, open, transparent budget. This memo says:
"Early in February, B.C. communications division discussed the possibility
of Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations communications tendering a
contract for the creative and production work on Budget 2000. As you are aware,
[Finance] does not have an agency of record, and fiscal measures currently in
place constrain the ministry's ability to enter into such a contract
[1430]
So instead of following the fiscal constraints, instead of doing this properly, they go around behind the scenes, bill the Ministry of Education and journal-voucher it back. That's not transparent. That's not open, and the Premier should stand up and be accountable for that.
Hon. P. Ramsey: I think what the opposition is really objecting to is the fact that we spent a small amount of money and informed British Columbians about the facts that were contained in Budget 2000. Now, I must say, maybe the opposi-
[ Page 16254 ]
tion doesn't want the people of the province to understand that we increased Health spending in this budget by 7 percent. Maybe they don't want the people of the province to know that Education spending went up by over 4.5 percent in this budget. Maybe they don't want the people of the province to know where their tax dollars came from and where they were spent. The advertising that we did, at a minimum cost to the taxpayer, revealed in detail -- and, frankly, in a very factual and, I would say, transparent way -- where the money came from, where it went and what benefit they got from the taxes they paid to this province.
M. de Jong: Well, here it is -- the February 1 press announcement where the government announced the details of its restraint package, including this declaration: "New discretionary contracts are prohibited." So how do you explain the fact that only a few weeks later, the NDP were taking steps to skirt their own new regulations? Why would they risk the accusations of hypocrisy and deception that would surely follow if, three weeks into his term as Premier, the NDP were again caught breaking their own rules? Maybe it had something to do with who got the contract.
Can the Finance minister confirm that the reason the government concocted this accounting shell game was because the NDP didn't want anybody to know that they were again skirting their own rules in favour of their old friends at Now Communications? That's who got the contract.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member has read accurately from the memo from Treasury Board on restraint measures. Deputy ministers across government were instructed to restrain discretionary expenditures. With respect to budget advertising, the ministry determined it was essential to communicate our priorities around revenue, around taxation, around expenditures, and we sought to do that.
Hon. Speaker, I know they don't want the people of the province to know what's in Budget 2000. I understand that when they look at this document -- just the facts about the taxation, the facts about expenditure -- they don't want these to be revealed.
Maybe they don't want the people of the province to know that if you're a family of four in British Columbia earning $55,000, if you add up all the taxes -- whether it's land or income -- you pay the second-lowest taxes of any province in Canada. And I'm sure they don't want their supporters to know that contrary to their rhetoric, if you're a single individual earning $80,000, you pay -- wait for it -- the second-lowest taxes in Canada as well.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Matsqui has a supplemental question.
M. de Jong: What British Columbians want to know is why this NDP government can't live within their own rules for even two weeks. I don't know. Maybe it's just a coincidence that Now Communications was heavily involved in the Premier's leadership campaign. Maybe it's just a coincidence. In fact, I think it was Now Communications that registered the Premier's leadership web site even before he entered the race. Maybe that's just a coincidence.
[1435]
The question for the Premier -- the question that only the Premier can answer -- is: why was his office lobbying the Finance ministry on behalf of his friends at Now Communications so that those guys could get a contract that skirted the rules that the NDP had just announced two or three weeks earlier?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Interjection.
The Speaker: The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain will come to order, please.
Members, the question period time is over. I will ask the Minister of Finance to give a very short answer.
Hon. P. Ramsey: As I said earlier, we do not have an agency of record; Education and Health do. It was felt very appropriate to ask them to lead on getting this work done. As far as communications in Budget 2000, I would point out to the members opposite that this was felt to be entirely satisfactory. The Deputy Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations, in another document that I know the members got FOI'd, says exactly this. This is nothing out of the ordinary, in spite of what they wish to make of it.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Reports from Committees
R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts for the fourth session of the thirty-sixth parliament, entitled "Protecting Drinking-Water Sources."
Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.
Motion approved.
R. Thorpe: Hon. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.
Leave granted.
R. Thorpe: I move that the report be adopted.
This report describes the work conducted by the Public Accounts Committee with respect to the protection of drinking water sources in our province and the high priority that British Columbians place on this issue.
Accordingly, the committee supports the 26 recommendations made by the auditor general in his March 1999 report on this topic. The recommendations of the auditor general will be reviewed and reported on every six months to the Public Accounts.
In light of recent events in our province and other parts of Canada, there can be no doubt as to the importance of this issue. Water is our most precious natural resource, and safe
[ Page 16255 ]
drinking water is crucial to the health of our society. It is imperative that we all remain focused and disciplined in working on the recommendations in this report.
With this report, the committee endeavours to advance the efforts of protecting drinking water sources in our province. I trust that all members will read this very important report.
I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and as always, I would like to thank all the members of the committee for their contribution and commitment to this report.
E. Gillespie: I'm pleased to rise this afternoon in support of the motion to adopt the committee's report on the protection of drinking water sources. This report endorses the earlier work of the auditor general in examining the safety of provincial drinking water, particularly in smaller communities around our province.
In many regions, water sources are threatened by activities related to human settlement, including logging, mining, outdoor recreation, agriculture and transportation. The report also acknowledges progress made by the many agencies of government which have had a part to play in the protection of drinking water sources.
The committee's report also makes an important recommendation encouraging the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and the Ministry of Health to examine the need for MTBE testing in groundwater sources.
Hon. Speaker, safe drinking water sources are essential to the well-being of all British Columbians. As legislators, we have a responsibility to take a leadership role on this vital issue. I encourage all members of this House and British Columbians throughout the province to read the committee's report and to read the auditor general's report and to support the recommendations aimed at protecting and improving our drinking water sources.
[1440]
J. Weisgerber: I just want to add to the report how pleased I am with the decision of the Public Accounts Committee to ask for testing for MTBE in drinking water around this province. It's an issue that's emerging. It's an issue that's being addressed in California; it's being addressed by the Clinton administration at the federal level in the United States.
The recent spill at the Chevron refinery in Burnaby of about 800 barrels of primarily MTBE, along with the discovery of a massive underground storage tank leakage in Salmo, which contaminated soil and groundwater in that community, I think point to how relevant this issue is today and how important the protection of drinking water from fuel-additive contaminants is in our province.
Motion approved.
Orders of the Day
Hon. D. Lovick: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we shall continue to debate the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. In this chamber, I call continued debate on Bill 2, second reading.
BUDGET TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, it's certainly a pleasure for me to rise and debate this piece of legislation. I find myself reflecting on the comments of the members opposite about this legislation and, of course, the opportunity that they've taken during the course of this debate to consistently and regularly criticize this administration for its handling of fiscal resources. I thought it might be appropriate to rise in debate and talk a little bit about the steps that we've been taking as a government to achieve better public awareness of the expenditure of dollars by our government, and also talk a little bit about the application of those dollars by this government and to talk about the differences between how we would approach those matters and how the members opposite approach those matters.
Let me say this: throughout the course of the debate, the members opposite have been making the argument that somehow this government has been less than truthful in the allocation of the fiscal resources that are provided to government through the revenues, be it from the taxpayer or from our resources in the province. Simply put, that's just not true whatsoever. In fact, I take some issue with the portrayal by members opposite, often in shrill tones, that somehow this government has been lying to people of the province about the state of its finances.
First of all, the opposition conveniently ignores the checks that are in place, be it the auditor general, be it the Committee on Public Accounts, which is chaired by a member of the opposition, or be it the work of the comptroller general, who also plays a role in examining the expenditures of government dollars. Certainly on that basis there have been plenty of checks in place, let alone, of course, the role that the opposition has to play in terms of scrutinizing expenditures.
The Speaker: The member for Richmond Centre is rising on a point of order.
D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, you may not have been paying attention, but the member opposite referred to the opposition as lying, and that is totally incorrect. I wish him to withdraw that remark.
The Speaker: Member, the Chair has been listening very carefully, and I heard nothing disorderly. The member for Esquimalt-Metchosin continues.
[1445]
M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I'm sure that the member over there trembles a bit, hon. Speaker, because maybe once in a while it's appropriate to put them on the defensive about some of the accusations that they hurl to this side of the House in terms of our management of the fiscal resources. The member has had his opportunity to talk, and if he can just listen to me for a moment, he might learn something for a change. I say, of course, kindly, to the member for Kamloops-North Thompson that the member for Kamloops-North Thompson and the members opposite want to have it just their way. They want to believe that they are correct in the accusations that they hurl opposite towards this administration.
[ Page 16256 ]
Perhaps we deal up front with the way in which this administration has
handled the application of fiscal resources, be it from resource revenue or
straight from the taxpayer in its accounting. As I was saying
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members! Members will have an opportunity to join in the debate.
M. Sihota: I know, hon. Speaker, that the members have difficulty
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for Shuswap
M. Sihota: I know that the members opposite have great difficulty containing themselves when they're put on the defensive. So I will allow them to exhale some of their bile right now and then add that onto my time as I speak.
An Hon. Member: Take all the time you want, Moe.
M. Sihota: Well, the member opposite should know he's going to be
spending a long time on that side of the chamber, because come the next
election, he'll come to find just how ineffective the articulation of their
argument has been and, really, the degree to which they in their own shrillness
have
An Hon. Member: It's going to be impossible to talk to you guys; it'll be impossible, Moe. We can't talk to you.
The Speaker: Member, would you take your seat for a moment.
M. Sihota: Thank you, hon. Speaker.
The Speaker: Members, I'm not going to allow debate to continue in this way. I will caution members individually and name the members if necessary. I would ask that all members take their opportunity for debate when it comes up and allow the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin to continue with the debate.
M. Sihota: It amazes me how the members opposite wish to engage in that kind of behaviour and don't show appropriate respect to the decorum in this chamber.
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Oh, there they go again.
Through public accounts there has been a process to evaluate the expenditures of government. Through the estimates process there have been opportunities to evaluate the expenditures of government. Through the process in here, after a budget is brought forward and we have to deal with issues relating to warrants and expenditures, there is an opportunity for the opposition to stand up and questions for government to be held accountable. Through the opportunities afforded them through question period, there are opportunities then for them to ask us about accountability in terms of expenditures of dollars. Through the offices of the comptroller general, there are processes in place to examine the expenditures of taxpayers' dollars by this government.
Time and time again, when there have been fiscal transactions made by this
government that the members opposite have challenged, we have consistently
stepped forward and provided the evidence and the data so the public can make
their own evaluations about what we've
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, for a change, I want the members opposite to listen not to their own rhetoric but to the history of what's transpired in this chamber in terms of checks and balances that are in place. I know that they want to pretend that there isn't the kind of watchful eye that there is on this side of the House towards those dollars.
In furtherance of our desire to ensure that there is full public knowledge
and clarity about the expenditure of dollars by government, we have brought
forward this transparency legislation. Unlike anywhere else in the country,
unlike previous right-wing governments -- which I've seen, in my time in this
House -- who have been unwilling to bring forward that kind of legislation
Interjections.
M. Sihota: You know, for all of their heckling, for all of their criticism, I know this: they will vote for this bill because they know it's the right thing for government to do, and we've done it. They don't like it, but that's what's happening.
[1450]
As I listen to the debate, it's amazing how they take the opportunity to
criticize the government from time to time, to criticize us
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, I'll give the members
You know, it hurts. I tell you that what this bill will expose is not just
the approach that we're taking towards transparency, but also the decisions that
we've made as a government to support certain expenditures which they opposite
will oppose. Take, for example
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Oh, yeah. They're quick to talk about fast ferries, but I never hear them standing up in this chamber and saying: "Well, what about the expenditures on advanced education?" I never hear them standing up in this chamber and congratulating the government for freezing tuition fees. I never hear them standing up on that side of the House and saying: "It is remarkable that this administration has taken this province from the second-worst participation rate in post-secondary education to the second-highest participation rate." Is that not a measure of what government should be doing?
[ Page 16257 ]
I don't hear them ever standing in this chamber and talking about social outcomes -- measuring government, of course, in terms of their fiscal bottom lines. But what about the social bottom lines? I never hear them applauding government for the steps that we've taken to ensure that more young people in British Columbia have access to post-secondary training and skills training that equips them to meet the needs of the economy tomorrow. I never hear them standing up and saying: "Good on this government for achieving that social outcome of equipping our young people with more spaces, better educators and a higher level of participation in the post-secondary education system." I never hear those opposite saying: "Good on this government for the expenditures that they're making, historic as they are, in health care."
You know, just recently, Maclean's magazine issued a report on the
state of health care in this country. I know they don't want to hear this, but Maclean's
Interjections.
M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker. I know they don't want to hear this, but Maclean's
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Members
Interjections.
The Speaker: The member for Peace River North and the member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi will come to order.
M. Sihota: I know they get excited when I speak, and I can't
Number one was the communities of North Vancouver and West Vancouver, here in British Columbia. Number three was the city of Victoria, right where we live. For cities of their own size, Nanaimo was rated as one of the highest -- I think the third-highest in their category. We have the lowest rate of breast cancer anywhere in the world right here in British Columbia. We have more expenditures per capita in research and development on the biotech side here in British Columbia than anywhere else in this country.
The point I'm making is that we as a government have been making investments in people, and the outcomes and the benefits of those investments are now coming home and becoming evident to British Columbians. In the case of health care, the best health care system in this country, bar none, is right here in British Columbia. The best health care system in the world, bar none, is right here in Canada. Therefore, hon. Speaker, I say to you that the best health care system anywhere in the world is found right here in British Columbia.
Those members opposite would take umbrage with this government for making the kinds of commitments that we've made on health care. You now see in the transparency legislation the depth of our commitment to health care -- a commitment that they don't have, a commitment that they don't want to talk about and a commitment which will cause them to lose the next election campaign. If you listen to the members opposite, Neanderthal as they are in some of their economic thinking, they take the view that when this province was hit by the Asian flu, we ought not to have made the kind of tax expenditures we made to reshape the economy here in British Columbia.
[1455]
We as a government made changes in terms of the high-tech taxes to ensure that we had a thriving high-tech industry here in British Columbia. Just read yesterday's newspaper, let alone the galaxy of reports that have come out over the course of the last year, talking about the high-tech sector here in British Columbia, the fastest-growing of any part of Canada.
If they had their way, we would have never brought forward the knowledge development fund, the $100 million in expenditures which will clearly be evident in the budget transparency bill. They have never supported us making those kinds of investments in high-tech to attract those industries here to British Columbia. It is not without passing for us on this side to be able to note that we have growth in high-tech -- on the computer side, biotech and environmental industries -- that is second to none anywhere else in North America.
We're making those kinds of expenditures. What this bill will demonstrate through this debate is that we support those expenditures. They don't. They know now, which is evidenced by their silence on the other side of the House, that we're right in terms of recrafting the economy in this province, and they're dead wrong.
Take a look at what we've been able to do in the area of film. Again, as the budget transparency legislation will demonstrate, we brought forward a series of tax credits to ensure that we were competitive with Ontario and with California so that we continue to get our share of the film industry. They know and we know that that sector is flourishing here in British Columbia because of the tax credit regime that we brought forward.
I never hear them, through the course of this debate, stand up and criticize this government for all those initiatives. In fact, I would challenge any one of them opposite -- particularly the House Leader opposite -- to stand up in this Legislature and congratulate this government once and for all for the work that we've done in the high-tech, film and tourism sectors.
T. Nebbeling: Taking credit for somebody else's work.
M. Sihota: Taking credit. The members opposite are quick to criticize government when things don't work. The member opposite, from Whistler, heckles from that far distant corner. But it's audible -- right?
Interjections.
M. Sihota: I know that gives them an opportunity, but I would suggest that they take advantage of it later on, when they get a chance to speak.
He heckles from that far corner, but look: he was the first to stand up in this chamber, as Forests critic, for his party and
[ Page 16258 ]
criticize us for not making the forest industry more competitive here in British Columbia. We made $600 million in cuts -- provided stumpage-rate reductions to that industry. And look now. That industry has returned to a level of prosperity and profitability in this province. The members opposite don't want to acknowledge what I've had to say. All I ask them to do is take a look at the annual reports filed by the leading forest industries in this province. They will see for themselves that there's a turnaround. There's a turnaround at every major company in this province, be it Interfor, be it Doman's. Heck, it's even occurring at Skeena Cellulose. I never hear them talking about that anymore, now that pulp prices have returned to record levels.
And the member opposite used to criticize us for not doing enough for mining in this province. Look, hon. Speaker, we've brought forward a royalty structure that brought about a new regime in this province in terms of changing the tax structures so that we were more competitive with the province of Alberta. What happened? Exploration went down in the province of Alberta; it went up 40 percent in British Columbia. The beneficiaries particularly were the members from the northeast corner of the province, where we are seeing unemployment levels of 3 to 4 percent because of the kind of work on exploration and drilling that's occurring in this province.
[1500]
What the members opposite don't want to talk about is all of the good that's happening in British Columbia: an economy that's recovering; a health care sector that is better than any other level of service provided anywhere else in the province; an education sector that is attracting the best and the brightest from our province and providing them with opportunities to meet the challenges of tomorrow; a government committed to social values, providing things that the members opposite loathe -- for example, the provision of social housing for people that need it.
I know the members opposite
All told there is a tremendous amount of good happening in this province. There is a tremendous legacy that all of us on this side of the House are enormously proud of, one which has been added to by this legislation, one which we're quite happy to take forward in the upcoming election campaign, and one which will ensure that those members now silent opposite will remain silent and opposite and members on this side of the chamber will remain once again in power, taking this province to a new and higher level of prosperity. Enjoy the ride, members opposite.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Metchosin continues.
M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. Speaker. I would like to take this opportunity to seek leave for an introduction.
Leave granted.
Interjection.
M. Sihota: Actually, that's not a bad point.
If I may, we are very privileged in this chamber -- I've just been passed a note saying that this delegation has arrived -- to have with us a truly remarkable individual who has demonstrated that you can be a passionate environmentalist and also a prosperous entrepreneur. He is a very successful individual by the name of Rakesh Backishi from India, who is involved in the environmental industry sector in that jurisdiction in providing wind power and solar power and is the leader, as such, in terms of providing that.
His accomplishments have been recognized, as such, by the government of India. He is the youngest person, because of these kinds of accomplishments, ever to be knighted in that country, recognizing the work that he has done.
He's here to take a look at other opportunities in terms of the generation of non-conventional energy power. I know he's meeting with a number of our ministers and some of our Crown corporations. He is joined here today by his three children and his wife Seema, together with a friend, my good colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds, Merrill Gordon, who I believe is here, and Mr. and Mrs. Avtar Bains.
We are very fortunate to have established the kinds of linkages that we have with Mr. Backishi, who as a member of the Indo-Canadian Chamber of Commerce in India, was the first to greet former Premier Harcourt when he made his first and only trade mission trip to India.
So would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to Mr. Backishi and his delegation.
E. Gillespie: It gives me great pleasure to follow the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin and the kind of remarks that he has made about the desire of this government to be able to tell the story of the initiatives taken by government to improve both life and living conditions for all British Columbians. Some of the changes that have been put forward in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act will enable us to do just that.
Last night I sat and listened to the beginning of the debate on this bill and was interested by the question posed by the member for Richmond-Steveston, speculating about what problem this legislation addresses. If there is legislation, it must be addressing a particular problem or seek to make a particular kind of change. Why is there a need to create new rules around our budget processes? And my reading of this bill is that the major change is the public nature of budget preparation process, ensuring that members of the public have the opportunity to be well informed and to participate in the pre-budget preparation.
[1505]
British Columbians are not well served by the over-the-top rhetoric about the state of the economy in British Columbia. That kind of rhetoric is with us consistently in this House. British Columbians are not well served by
[ Page 16259 ]
the over-the-top rhetoric about financial assumptions built into budget processes, about projected revenues and expenditures.
British Columbians are well served by clear and understandable, verifiable information about the state of our provincial economy and a budget process which includes long-term goals and performance plans. This legislation will assist in the process of renewing confidence in our economy, in our budget processes and in the ability of government to meet the expectations of the public.
As Deputy Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I welcome this legislation. This legislation follows recommendations over the years from the auditor general and specifically the recommendations of the Enns committee. This legislation -- Bill 2, Budget Transparency and Accountability Act -- is directly addressing the root causes of the budgeting, financial reporting and project planning weaknesses of the past.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, this act was introduced along with this year's budget. At that time, the Minister of Finance noted that it's a sweeping change in the way government and the Legislature deals with public finances -- not only this government and this Legislature, but indeed all governments and Legislatures in Canada. It reflects and implements virtually all of the recommendations of the independent budget process review panel -- that is, the Enns panel -- to which I referred earlier.
I'd like to comment on just a few of those measures. The government will be required by law to move from a one-year planning cycle to a three- to five-year planning and budgeting horizon. This requires us to consider not only our longer-term goals but also a longer-term view of the economy in developing multi-year budget targets.
The new law also opens the book on all major capital projects, fully disclosing their objectives, business case performance targets and, each and every year, the current and anticipated cost to the taxpayer. This legislation also provides for a budget consultation process, which includes a new legislative committee of this House.
I believe that everyone will appreciate the act's requirement of more disclosure around special warrants. Our government has committed to using supplementary estimates rather than special warrants wherever possible. Although that commitment is not a part of the act, it's one which we are making to ensure fair and open debate should our government require additional funding before the fiscal year-end.
The act sets a firm schedule for the budget process and for financial reporting throughout the year. Under this act we intend to be not only forthright but timely in telling British Columbians what we are doing and how it relates to our estimates and to our strategic progress.
This legislation takes us on a summary accounts basis, one which both our comptroller general and auditor general appreciate and one which we discuss at length in the Public Accounts Committee -- one bottom line for all ministries and Crowns.
Finally, I'd like to say that the aim of the act is to give British Columbians the facts in a format that is clear and understandable to the lay reader.
We are not simply waiting for this act to become law, as those in this House will recognize. We began the implementation of the recommendations of the Enns committee in the process of preparing for this year's budget and will continue to implement along the way as we prepare for next year's budget. Hon. Speaker, that concludes my remarks on this bill.
[1510]
S. Hawkins: It's a pleasure to stand up and enter the debate on the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. I've listened with interest over the last couple of days to speakers who have gotten up on both sides of the House. It's interesting how history can be rewritten. I mean, all of a sudden what I'm hearing is that the NDP government is the government of accountability and transparency. Gosh, after nine years, they're bringing in an act that's going to make it legal, by law, that the government has to be accountable and has to be transparent in their financial reporting.
Well, gee, you know, I thought, by a matter of rule, that was what government was supposed to do with people's money, with the taxpayers' money. In fact, that's what my constituents thought they were supposed to get when they elect a responsible, accountable and transparent government. Obviously that's not what we've been getting for the last nine years, hon. Speaker.
Accountability -- and I looked it up, just so I knew what the government was hoping to do in this act -- is the state of being responsible or answerable. And you know, I just listened to the comments of the member from Esquimalt. He went over a whole bunch of different measures that the opposition, that the public, that members in the House -- all members in the House and members of the public -- have in trying to get answers from the government. He said we had the estimates process. He said we had public accounts. We have question period. We have the office of the auditor general. All of these different places are places where we have the opportunity to question the government's expenditure.
But you know what? We have the opportunity to question it, but they don't
have the obligation to answer it. And they certainly don't have the obligation
to answer it truthfully. We know that there was some
So we do have the opportunity to stand here and question the government in various different forms, but unfortunately, we don't always get the answers.
I think one of the most evident case studies is that of fast ferries. The
fast ferries program was supposed to come in on budget at around $210 million.
It's $460 million and counting in cost overruns, and that is absolutely
incredible. In spite of the critics, in spite of the public, in spite of the
opposition critic standing in this House year after year trying to question the
government on the expenditures, on the cost overruns
[ Page 16260 ]
Now, this year they've had to stand up and admit that they didn't have a clue what was going on, that the ferries were built at a cost that was double -- and more -- what was expected at the time they were going forward. Was there a business plan? I don't know. The critic tried to get a business plan, and we still don't have that plan. Now we're finding that the government is having to sell them off at a loss to British Columbians. It's just an incredible shame. We did have the opportunity -- we took that opportunity -- to question the government, but we didn't get the answers.
Another one is the convention centre. We the taxpayers have spent $73 million on plans for a convention centre in Vancouver, and we just saw the government again in this budget write off $73 million of taxpayer money on a centre that had absolutely no business plan. And there's nothing to show for it -- nothing to show for it.
Interjection.
S. Hawkins: Except for debt, as the member says. There's only debt to
show for it. So again, was the government being accountable? We asked for the
business plans the last couple of years in those estimates. They were asked for
in question period; they were asked for in the various forums that the member
for Esquimalt-Metchosin mentioned. But if the government doesn't give you the
answers, if they don't come clean
[1515]
You know, when I look at this bill, I have to wonder
Transparency. The definition of transparency is: evident, obvious, easily
seen through, free from affectation or disguise, easily seen through attempted
disguise. Well, you know, that brings to mind
We didn't see the workers, the forestry executives and the government coming together on this. What we saw again was a government making an announcement with absolutely no plan, with very little cooperation or consultation with the industry on whether this was actually doable. Again, it was just a total sham. What we've seen in the last few years is forest communities, these resource-dependent communities, hit hard year after year. Instead of 21,000 new jobs in the forest, I think we've seen about 15,000 jobs gone from the forest. That really hurts families.
So again, I wonder about the transparency of the announcements, the transparency of the programs and the transparency of the government coming clean on some of the announcements that they make.
Getting back to the budget
You know, when I was looking back at the '96-97 budgets -- and just looking
back at some of the debates
I believe they were told at the time that the economy was in the tank, that the budget couldn't be balanced and that the revenues were a lot lower than were expected, than what was being estimated by the minister. I believe the auditor general, in his review, said that there was a whole heaping lot of optimism added to revenues in that budget.
But during the past few years we found out -- and we certainly debated that
in this House -- that part of the way the government, at that time, was going to
balance the budget was to raid the FRBC account. I remember heated debates in
this chamber about how that was absolutely impossible. They weren't going to do
[1520]
Going back to debates
Then the Minister of Transportation and Highways, back in 1994 when FRBC was
being set up and debated, said: "
Well, you know what, hon. Speaker? Oh, gosh. They were planning to dip into that pot. We actually have testimony from court documents in May that had the -minister of the day, Minister Elizabeth Cull, on the stand. She was asked about FRBC and about raiding that account. She says: "A decision was made in terms of political options that Forest Renewal B.C. would be one of the sources of revenue that was open to me, should it be required."
Wow! The questioner said: "And who made that decision?" And she said: "That decision was made by the Premier." And they said: "So [the Premier] made the decision that Forest Renewal would be open to you if the forecast didn't pan out?" And Cull says: "I sought assurances from [the Premier] on a number of contingency options, and that was
[ Page 16261 ]
one of the options that he assured me would be available." She goes on to say: "I also knew that at the end of the day, because I was committed to my fiscal target, that there was access to Forest Renewal B.C. money."
That's her testimony in court under oath, hon. Speaker. In the House here they told us they weren't going to raid that account. In court the minister -- under oath -- has a different statement.
Well, then the Premier of the day, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, gets on
the stand, and he's questioned. Here's what he says in reference to what
Minister Cull said in court. "Didn't you tell her," the questioner
says, "that she could go to forest revenue?" He says: "No."
He's asked, "Forest Renewal?" and replies, "No. Absolutely not,
actually." And again he denies it. "Did you not tell her that
Well, who do you believe over there, hon. Speaker? Even under oath, they've
got different stories. It makes me wonder -- they put an act like this into
place -- whether they actually
It is a step in the right direction. We're not saying it isn't. In fact, it's very close to some of the principles that we have put forward in this House year after year. The Leader of the Opposition has stood in this House and tabled legislation, truth-in-budgeting legislation, year after year. Had they followed the principles in that legislation, we might not be in the trouble we are today. Nine years of deficit financing, nine years where they've doubled the provincial debt, nine years where they've been hit with scandal after scandal after scandal. I could go on.
Look, we just had the school crisis a few weeks ago -- just, I believe, about
a month ago -- where we had kids out of school for a week. And during that week,
wouldn't you know it, what surfaces? A secret accord with CUPE. A $500,000 --
half-a-million-dollar -- secret accord with CUPE to offset the cost of
negotiations. Well, how transparent is that? You know, secret accords here,
there and every
It gives us no confidence that what they say and what they do in this House is actually what's going to happen. Here's the government, on the first day of session with the budget bills, tabling the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, and on the other hand, in some dark back room somewhere, they're signing secret deals with the unions -- for half a million dollars. They don't admit it until the documents surface, and then they try and write it off in some other way -- spin it another way. That isn't what accountability and transparency are all about. So again, it's troubling that in one sense, they are moving in the right direction as far as tabling a bill like this in the House. But unfortunately, the people don't believe that they're actually going to be able to do what they say they're going to do.
[1525]
There are a number of problems in this bill. The opposition will be tabling a number of amendments and putting forward suggestions to address the deficiencies in the bill and to plug some of the very obvious loopholes. There are regulatory powers that are granted to the minister in this bill that create significant loopholes for the government with respect to whole ministries and Crown corporations and capital projects. The opposition will attempt to stem that power of the minister and make sure that the minister is following generally accepted accounting principles and make sure that Crown corporations and other ministries actually have some controls on them as far as their spending responsibilities and powers.
I believe that in the throne speech, if I recall correctly -- and it's been a couple of months -- the Premier spoke about setting a budget date. When we look in this bill, the bill doesn't set a budget date. So again, there's some room to make sure that the government keeps that promise, because what the bill does is give the government quite a bit of leeway in deciding when that day will actually be. Some of the amendments that we put forward will, hopefully, try and stick in a date that is reasonable for the budget, so that British Columbians know in advance when a budget day will actually be, and there will be time for planning and time for debate around that.
I think what's really troubling in this bill is that it doesn't ban the use of special warrants. Special warrants are documents that give the cabinet basically free rein to spend money outside of session and outside of debate in this Legislature.
Over the last number of years, when the members on the government side of the House sat on the opposition side, they criticized special warrants. They were absolutely opposed to special warrants. They have had greater spending on special warrants than any of the governments prior to their being elected. Every year we see the special warrant spending going up and up under the NDP. Again, I think we had a debate on this. I thought there was an understanding from the members opposite that special warrants would only be used in extenuating circumstances, where costs were unforeseen. And if the Legislature could be convened to debate that public expenditure, that would happen first before special warrant use. But that is not addressed in this bill. It does not ban special warrants. That means we could leave this House, and the government would have free rein to do as much spending as possible. That isn't acceptable either.
There were promises made and promises broken when we talked about
accountability. It brings to mind
[1530]
There has been so much waste in the last few years with this government and their spending. I've heard many, many examples mentioned on this side of the House: the convention centre, the fast ferries, the fixed-wage policy, the billion-dollar subsidies to businesses, including Skeena Cellulose. I mean, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin mentions it. It's a mill
[ Page 16262 ]
that, unfortunately, when it's not making money we can't sell, and now that it is making money, it's difficult to sell. The taxpayers are still stuck with an investment that's looming there.
Lawsuits. The government has been going through one lawsuit after another. I think the one that was significant in the last few months was Carrier Lumber. Again, there were allegations of cover-up, mismanagement, the government not being forthright with Carrier Lumber, and this resulted in a lawsuit. The government lost. Now the taxpayers are on the hook for $100 million and counting. There was a problem with accountability and transparency around that.
Nine years of mismanagement; sloppy bookkeeping; poor planning; missed
targets; missed goals; missed opportunities; mistakes; boondoggles; megaprojects;
reckless spending; lack of leadership; crumbling economy, I guess; lack of
vision, lack of planning
I think the public has had it. The government knew that they had to move toward making it look like they were going to do something about it, and I think this is the best they could come up with. The opposition is going to table amendments, and hopefully, the government will give them the consideration that they're due. Hopefully, we will be able to improve the bill.
I don't think that it will fix the problem, because I think the problem is inherent on that side of the House in the way that those members think and the way that they do business. I always believe that past performance indicates future behaviour, and it gives me no confidence, as a matter of fact, that the behaviour towards accountability and believability and transparency is going to improve over there. The past events, some of which I have mentioned, don't convince me that the government is going to change. But this is a step in the right direction, and hopefully, some of the amendments will help the government get on track. Those are my comments.
C. Clark: Well, you know, this Bill 2 is the attempt by the government
You know, all those things that happened in the past -- they're sorry about that. But you know what they'll say. They'll say, oh, they're not just sorry, but it wasn't them that did it. It was the old government that did it. It was the other guys that did it. What other guys? There are no other guys. It's all the same people.
Twenty-seven of the current MLAs that sit on the government side of the House were present for the briefings when the Finance ministry informed the NDP caucus that there was going to be a budget deficit. And those same 27 people still went out to the public, went out on the hustings -- despite the knowledge that they had, despite knowing from a Treasury Board briefing that the truth was different from that -- and they stood on the hustings, and they told people that indeed the budget was balanced.
Twenty-seven members on that side of the House today were there at that briefing, when they knew that a budget deficit was looming. Do you think that any one of them thought that it might be important to communicate that to the people they were seeking to represent? Not one. And 15 of those members that were there at that briefing have now been promoted to cabinet. It's disgraceful, hon. Speaker.
[1535]
And where was the Premier who brought forward this bold new policy for a bold new government? Well, he was on Treasury Board. He was sitting there at the Treasury Board table okaying the decisions. Not only was he there at the Treasury Board okaying the decisions, but he was privy to every memo that came forward from the Finance department warning that there was going to be a budget deficit. Nonetheless, this very same Premier, who today is so committed to openness, transparency and accountability, went out on the hustings like all the rest of his colleagues and said: "Oh, guess what. There is no problem. The budgets of British Columbia are balanced. We're in fine fiscal shape."
Never once did this Premier -- who today claims to be so committed to balanced budget legislation, who today claims to be so committed to openness and transparency -- think to go the voters that he was seeking to represent and tell them the information that he was privy to, to let them know that maybe the warnings he'd had, all the memos he'd seen, all the evidence that was there before him, pointed to an entirely different conclusion than the conclusion that his leader at the time was drawing for the public. Never once did he decide that he wanted to make things transparent then -- oh, no -- because it didn't serve his electoral purposes then.
If the public had known that this government hadn't really balanced its budget, they would never, ever have returned them back into office. The only reason that this government did get re-elected was because they told the public the budget was balanced. So this current Premier never saw it in his interests to tell the public what he knew or to make sure that they were also privy to the warnings that he'd heard so that they were also privy to the information the Finance ministry had. It didn't serve his electoral purposes to do so. He knew he might not get elected in a tight riding if that had happened.
So in those days, it didn't serve his interests to be in support of transparency and openness in government. But today the Premier's suddenly seen the light. And he's decided that it's important that the public have transparency and accountability and that there be openness in the government's budgets. Well, guess what. We're on the eve of another election. Guess what. Maybe the voters have a right to be cynical when they look at this Premier and say that perhaps this legislation is only intended as a cynical attempt to try and convince the public that they've changed, as opposed to actually doing something that would mean real change. This Premier is again, just like he did last time, trotting out another cynical ploy from a government that's absolutely desperate to try and redeem itself in some way with the voters of British Columbia.
[ Page 16263 ]
But you know what, hon. Speaker? I don't think the voters are going to go for it again. I don't think for a second that this Premier is capable of pulling the wool over the voters' eyes and convincing them that somehow he is different, that this government is new, that none of these people knew what was going on, that all the baggage can be packed up in a little box with the name Glen Clark written on it and delivered to someone's door.
The Speaker: Order, member. I just caution the member on the use of her words.
C. Clark: I recognize the Speaker's caution. As opposed to mentioning the member's name, I should have said "the member for Vancouver-Kingsway," because that's where this government intends to try and deliver all that garbage from the past -- pack it up and leave it at the doorstep of the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, like no one on that side of the House was ever there, like no one on that side of the House knew what was going on. No one was privy to the information that was coming forward, to the memos, to the phone calls, to all the discussions that were happening, to all the dire warnings that were happening, that were coming forward from our very hard-working and conscientious bureaucrats.
They want voters to believe that they're entirely different. Well, hon. Speaker, I have a little more respect for the voters of British Columbia than that. I don't think for a second that the voters are going to believe that this government is new, that they're changed or, most of all, that they're sorry -- that they're sorry after nine years of doing this, that suddenly they've changed their behaviour and deserve another chance. I don't think so. There isn't a voter in British Columbia who'd believe that, coming from these guys.
[1540]
Look what they've put us through. First it was the fudge-it budget. And then it was the convention centre fiasco. We've had the Skeena Cellulose fiasco. We've had the Carrier Lumber decision, where a court found that the government deliberately conspired to break a contract with a private sector company, and when the Premier testified, the judge said that he didn't prefer the Premier's testimony. That's a pretty nice way for a judge to put things. You know, judges put things perhaps a little bit more politely that some other members might -- than certainly I might.
This government has a long, long history of deceiving the public -- telling the public one thing when, indeed, it's doing another. Let's look at what happened today, for example. Look at what was exposed about this government today. On the very same day that the Premier got up and made his speech about how it was important that we have transparency and openness in government, we find out that the one of the deputy ministers in the government is conspiring to make sure that the government is able to avoid meeting its very own guidelines on government contracting. And not only is it conspiring to violate its own guidelines on government contracting -- it's doing it in such a way that they can make sure that the contract is awarded untendered -- on the very same day that this Premier stood up and made his speech about transparency.
What a cynical bunch. It is unbelievable that they can continue to stand up in this House and ask for the voters to believe them after what they've done -- year after year, day after day. You know, it wasn't long ago that this legislation was brought in. And even today -- even today -- we discover that the Premier isn't meeting his commitments. The Premier can't even live up to the commitments he made a month ago.
Why would the voters for one second believe that this government is serious about fixing the problems? Why would they believe that this government is serious about fixing the problems when they look at this bill? Put the government's entire history aside. Put aside all the scandals, put aside all the hypocrisy and put aside all the cynical manipulations. Let's just look at the bill for what it is. What's in it? Does it ban special warrants?
This is a government that, when it stood on this side of the House, raged on and on about how they wouldn't allow a dime without debate, how it was wrong for the government to use special warrants. They were adamant. They were determined that there would be no responsible government that would use special warrants in British Columbia again. Then the minute they're elected to office, they start using special warrants. Not did they just start using them, but they started using them more than any previous government in history.
[T. Stevenson in the chair.]
Not only did they do what they said they weren't going to do, but they do it more than anybody else did. Not only do they change their view the minute after the election about what should be happening, not only do they go from saying, "We don't want special warrants," to wanting special warrants, but they start using them all the time.
Then when they have the opportunity to finally change it, to really live up to their word, do they do it? No. Do they ban special warrants? No. Here's the opportunity. It could have been right here in this bill, the opportunity for this government to live up to its word for once -- just for once, for this government to do what it said it was going to do. You know the member from Powell River fits in perfectly on that side of the House, because he did exactly the same thing. The day he changed sides, he changed every principle he'd ever said he had. Guess what. He fits in perfectly in this cabinet.
[1545]
So what else is in the bill? Does it force the government to live up to generally accepted accounting principles like everyone else in British Columbia has to do? The kind of principles that Revenue Canada expects its taxpayers to live up to, that everyone who is running a small business or a large business or a medium-sized business has to live up to? The kind of principles that are put in place so that anybody can open up your books and see what it means, so that anybody can have a look in and compare it to what was going on the year before or what's going on the business next to you, or to find out whether you're living up to your obligations? That's what those principles are there for.
Does this bill require the government to live up to those generally accepted accounting principles? No, it doesn't. It certainly could. How hard could that be? How hard could it be for government to ask itself to live up to the same standards that it requires of its citizens? What's the matter with that? What's the matter with government setting the same rules for itself that everybody else has to live by? What's the matter with government that sets an example and does things right for a change?
[ Page 16264 ]
A government that's prepared to live by rules that are set down in advance, that doesn't always change the goal posts whenever they don't fit its needs -- what's the matter with that? Well, we can surmise from the fact that it's not included in this bill that this government certainly does think there's something wrong with that. They certainly do think there might be a problem with the fact that they might have to live up to a set of accounting principles that would be the same year after year, because it might limit the government's ability to fiddle with the books.
It might limit the government's ability to be able to pull one over on the public in another election. It might limit their ability to be able to make things look better than they are or to tell the public that their money is going somewhere when it's really going somewhere else. What other reason could there possibly be that they wouldn't include generally accepted accounting principles in this bill? This was their opportunity, and they failed miserably.
But you know, the worst thing about this bill is the fact that if the government did again what they did last time, you couldn't even take it to court. The Offence Act doesn't even apply to this bill. The government is making it impossible for anyone to go after them if they don't keep their word. Now, how accountable is that?
Real accountability starts with some incentives and some disincentives. When you take the disincentives out of the system, what limits are there on government's desire to try to live within the rules? You know, until this government builds some real accountability into these kinds of bills, it's not going to be very meaningful to the public. The Offence Act should apply in this bill. There should be generally accepted accounting principles that apply in this bill, and special warrants should be banned in this bill.
That's what the official opposition has been saying year after year after year. Yet every time that the Leader of the Official Opposition has presented his balanced-budget and truth-in-budgeting legislation to this House, never once has the government acted on that. And now when they finally introduce their own pale, pathetic imitation of the opposition's bill, it doesn't even include the teeth that it needs to hold the government to account.
So I can predict this, hon. Speaker. This government can stand here, and they can try to convince the public that they're sorry. They can try to convince the public that they fixed the problem. They can try to convince the public that they'll never do it again. But you know what? They're not going to get very far. The fact is: they're not sorry, they haven't fixed the problem, and they will do it again.
And better than allowing this House to vote on this bill, the better thing
that could happen
[1550]
J. Cashore: It's a great honour to be able to stand up and support this very significant and historic legislation. It's unfortunate that we hear a certain amount of rhetoric with regard to the voices that are coming out of the opposition on this legislation. If you listen to the sound and the fury, you get the impression that they're opposed to it. If you listen to the words they're saying, you find out that they're in favour of it and that they think it's a significant and important step.
I would point out that the member who spoke just previous to the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain had stated that the bill should have banned the use of special warrants. I would just point out that perhaps there's some confusion there, when you consider that the Leader of the Opposition's balanced-budget act, M201, allows for the use of special warrants. There's an example there, again, of the sound and the fury and of the rhetoric and the poor research that goes into much of the critique that's coming forward from the official opposition.
Taking the words that were actually said by the opposition, which are words that basically support the concept, I just want to add my voice to say that this is a very timely introduction. It strengthens commitment to making sure that in carrying out our financial responsibility, we're open, honest and transparent. That certainly is something that is expected by and deserved by the public -- the people who pay the taxes.
This act calls for transparency in financial reporting. It calls for prudence in budgeting, and it directly addresses the root causes of budgeting, financial reporting and project planning weaknesses. It is comprehensive. It is proactive, effective and accountable. And it is all of those in addressing the priorities of our citizens.
The Minister of Finance has said, at the time of introduction, that it is a sweeping change in the way government and the Legislature deal with public finances. In doing so, it reflects and implements the recommendations of the independent budget process review panel. In carrying out those recommendations, it requires, by law, to move to a three- to five-year planning and budgeting horizon from the current one-year framework. Therefore, government must consider not only long-term goals but also the long-term view of the economy in establishing multi-year budget targets.
This legislation opens the books on all major capital projects. Their objectives must be clearly stated. There must be a well-documented business case. There must be very clear performance objectives. And it must indicate what the project will cost the taxpayer. No longer will Crown corporations decide, apart from government, the direction of governance of major capital projects. They will have to clearly define their business case prior to the project proceeding. Ministries and Crowns must prepare performance plans and clearly define strategic priorities and performance measures.
There must be more disclosure around special warrants. There will be a firm
schedule regarding budget process for financial reporting throughout the year.
And looking at this year's budget, I think it is
[1555]
The fact is that this is good legislation. In essence, apart from some indication that there may be amendments, the opposition supports the thrust of this legislation and sees it as
[ Page 16265 ]
appropriate. I believe that this is one of those occasions when all members of the Legislature should stand together in bringing forward an initiative that results in good government -- so that we can all be proud to say we served in this Legislature during the time that it was brought forward.
Hon. J. MacPhail: I am delighted to join with my colleagues in the chamber to rise and speak in favour of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. I was really wanting to speak to this issue and then saw that my name was on the list. So I am very pleased to be here and well-prepared for this debate as well.
It is groundbreaking legislation. There are many of us that have been waiting for years for this Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This legislation contains so many nuggets of essential ingredients for bringing about the accountability that taxpayers want and deserve.
And it's a non-partisan issue. I would suggest, as my colleagues have, that this isn't a non-partisan issue; this is a bi-partisan issue. I guess, actually, that we only have bi-partisans now that we have the member for Peace River North declaring in favour of the Liberals. So bi-partisan is the way that we should go. It's too bad that there isn't another party which he could actually join before he retires; that would set the maximum number of parties that any member has belonged to. Anyway, congratulations to him, and we'll be able to be joining together in a bi-partisan way in favour of this Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
Yes, it was introduced this year in order to bring about a new, modern budgeting and financial reporting process for a new government in British Columbia. The act does reflect the recommendations of the independent budget review panel. I actually, when I was Minister of Finance, appointed the Enns panel, headed up by the eminent Douglas Enns.
This legislation is now going to make B.C. a leader amongst all Canadian
provinces in providing the public with open and transparent financial reporting.
People from across Canada will now turn to British Columbia and say
What does the act do? Let's talk in a very factual, calm way about what the
legislation actually achieves here. It requires more disclosure around special
warrants, something that the opposition
Our government has actually committed to using supplementary estimates rather than special warrants. That means that there's going to be open debate. I'm hoping that the level of debate in this chamber will rise to that challenge, that now that we're going to have supplementary estimates, the debate will be well informed, let's say -- that's the kindest way -- and that the opposition could be prepared in those.
The fact that we have given our commitment to basing the supplementary
estimates on mid-year forecasts
Now, the act doesn't specify the consequences for not achieving performance
goals
Interjections.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Just a second; this is a very important point. Performance-based goals are extremely important, as we all know. The release of performance measures will likely create a public expectation of performance that will make the government and all of our ministries and Crown corporations more accountable. The fact that those performance measures are out there, that the public knows them and understands them, will put that critical pressure on government to deliver on goals that are achievable and transparent.
[1600]
The financial results of Crown corporations are now included in the bottom line, something that the Liberal opposition has been calling for -- that the summary accounts actually become the one set of books by which it's determined whether there be a surplus or deficit in the government. I know that this will make many public commentators -- pundits -- very happy that we've done that, and I think that's good news. That means that Crowns will actually be subject to more public scrutiny, and they'll be more involved in government planning, budgeting and reporting processes.
Of course, those who have studied the history of Crown corporations know that that was the intent of the setting up of Crown corporations -- to make all of that, to make the whole nature, the wide spectrum, of government, work well for the citizens of British Columbia.
In the area of planning, our government will move to a three- to five-year planning and budgeting horizon, from the current one-year framework. Again, it's good news -- a five-year plan. It's excellent news for the taxpayers. It's a unique concept, I would say -- a five-year plan.
The government's strategic plan, which includes a medium-term fiscal plan, will be key to this change, absolutely key. The government's strategic plan and performance plans of individual ministries and Crown corporations will require clearly defined strategic priorities and performance measures.
I noted that when the Minister of Finance tabled the strategic plans for the ministries and for the Crown corporations, the Liberal opposition was not celebrating. They should have been celebrating this breakthrough. The member for Richmond Centre has been calling for this in a very concerted way, a very enthusiastic way -- that these performance plans should be tabled. I know that the Liberal opposition, because of their natural affinity to the business community, wanted to call them "business plans," but they're much more than business plans. They include the business operations; they include the outcome goals of the ministries; they include the social goals of the various ministries and Crown corporations -- much more fulsome than business plans. But I congratulate the member for Richmond Centre for bringing this to the attention of us year after year.
We truly should celebrate that this year, the year of 2000 under the new government, the performance plans of all government entities were tabled in this Legislature. I think the process of estimates is much better informed by these plans.
There will be three-year performance plans that will logically lead to three-year budget targets and will logically lead
[ Page 16266 ]
to balanced-budget legislation. It's a well-thought-out plan that the public can seek comfort in. In setting those longer-term targets, the government will have to decide whether it's managing the economic cycle by reacting to annual revenue swings or to economic trends by riding out revenue swings. All of these we will be exploring thoroughly, not only in this legislation but in the coming balanced-budget legislation as well.
Proponents of major Crown and government capital projects -- and we define major as being greater than $50 million -- will have to clearly define their objectives, their costs, their benefits and the risks before their project is announced.
I'd like to say that this breakthrough legislation is truly a tribute to the executive council of the government of British Columbia.
Let me just address, if I may
For instance, "Why introduce
[1605]
We do recognize that there have been problems and challenges that we had to overcome with regard to the process. This legislation is a commitment to meet those challenges and ensure that the government's finances are open, honest and transparent. This legislation ensures that we incorporate greater transparency into our financial reporting and greater prudence in our budgeting. But I must say that the budgets of '99-2000 and 2000-01 were extremely prudent budgets and have proven to be thus, as well, in the analysis by the commentators, by the economists, by the financial analysts.
Anyway, this act actually allows government to directly address the root causes of the budgeting, financial reporting and project planning weaknesses of the past. It builds a budget model that is one of the most accountable and transparent in Canada.
Then the opposition, I think, tried to say that the legislation was flawed. I was listening to their commentary, and I got a sense that some of them may have anxieties that the legislation may be flawed. They hinted that the legislation fails to ban the use of special warrants, that the legislation fails to set a specific date by which a budget must be presented and that the legislation doesn't require government to be bound by generally accepted accounting principles. If I may answer those questions -- I don't want to take away from the Minister of Finance in the summary -- why don't we try to give comfort to the opposition regarding these -- what may be seen as -- red herrings. But I think, actually, they were sincere in raising these concerns.
So first of all, special warrants. Well, government has accepted the general intent of the Enns recommendations -- in fact has met the intent of the Enns recommendations around special warrants. The Enns team didn't preclude the use of warrants, and unfortunately, warrants were unavoidable given the current circumstances that occurred in the year 2000. But what Enns did recommend was increased disclosure of the circumstances leading up to warrants, and we've complied with that recommendation. Well, to implement this principle, rather than using the specific deadline proposed by the Enns report, our government has decided to link the deadline to the six days required under British Columbia standing orders -- time required for the budget debate -- during which the budget will be given considerable scrutiny. So we actually built upon the Enns recommendation and combined it with the rules that operate this Legislature and have come up with a very good solution. I would say one in openness and transparency around the budget date; it's easily figured out but meets the needs of the flexibility of the rules of the Legislature as well.
Now, what about generally accepted accounting principles? Well, we do accept this recommendation in principle, hon. Speaker. The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act requires that the estimates and public accounts be prepared in accordance with the government's accounting policies, and that we include a summary of those policies and disclose any material variance from the generally accepted accounting principles for senior governments. What more could we do, hon. Speaker?
I know that the Minister of Finance and his officials work on a regular basis with the auditor general to resolve issues around what reservations he may have around accounting practices. This is an ongoing process in any jurisdiction in Canada. But what this legislation does -- once again, groundbreaking legislation -- is incorporates that process into an act. It's unprecedented, hon. Speaker.
[1610]
So I must say, in the year 2000 -- having had a very personal interest in budgeting in this province, about changes that occur under different leaderships, seeing that we're in a new government with a new leader now -- that this act is a major breakthrough. Really, I expect -- after we get through the positioning of this session -- that all members of the Legislature will be taking this legislation out, talking to the working people of British Columbia, talking to the people who want to invest in British Columbia, talking to the business community, talking to our own constituencies and saying: "This is good news for British Columbia."
G. Farrell-Collins: It's hard to tell how to take that last presentation, whether it was designed to be humorous or whether it was designed to be a parody of herself -- I'm not sure. But given the position that that member has held over the last nine years, and given that she herself was Minister of Finance for two -- or more, I think, actually -- budgets where there was a significant deficit, it is hard to take and to try to comprehend the speech given by the minister. Either she was joking or she just really wasn't sincere with the comments that she made. When you see the record of the government, when you see the record of the minister, almost every single point that she made is just absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical, given the historical context.
The government, I've heard members stand up
[ Page 16267 ]
bunch of them that are clamouring to speak to this legislation. I find it enthusing and exciting to see the new-found support for this legislation. I must say I enjoyed the little three-and-a-half-minute ditty that the Premier gave us on this piece of legislation today. Given the context of it, I found it fascinating as well.
This is a bill that is designed, in principle, to force the government to tell the public the truth about how they keep the books. That's the concept behind it; that's the principle behind it. It's a little hard to take when members of the NDP stand up in this House and champion this legislation as being such a wonderful thing and say how proud they are to be part of it. I heard the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville stand up and say how proud he is to have this as part of his legacy.
I doubt that when this government is finally ushered out the door by the public, whenever that may be, the legacy that they will leave in the minds of the voters of British Columbia is this legislation. The legacy they will leave in the minds of British Columbia is a $36 billion debt that they've accumulated over half of in the last nine years -- the term of this government. What they'll leave for a legacy to the people of British Columbia are the budgets that were tabled in 1995 and 1996, which the government knew were not accurate. They knew they weren't balanced, and they tabled them anyway in this House, not once but twice -- once before the election, and once after the election -- and then tried to cover that up.
It's a little hard to take some of the comments made by members of the New Democratic Party in this House when they stand up and talk about what a wonderful thing this is and how proud they are to be part of it, when one realizes that since 1996, when the fudge-it budget became known to the rest of the public -- it was known by the members of the New Democratic caucus -- this government has fought every step of the way, has fought the findings that the public became aware of with those budgets in 1996.
The FOI documents that were released because we had asked for them -- about a
foot and a half high
[1615]
They deliberately covered it up. They deliberately violated the Freedom of Information Act to try and hide the truth from the people of British Columbia again. And the only reason the public knew about it is because somebody in the bureaucracy felt that that just wasn't on.
Mr. Speaker, we've had a court case, a hearing process, that's been going on now for over four years, almost five years -- no, sorry, it'll be four years this summer -- where this government has been fighting every step of the way. They've put so many dilatory motions and roadblocks in front of that court case, you couldn't believe it. They've refused to testify; they've declined to testify. They've put every sort of obstacle in front of the court case to make sure that they wouldn't have to be held accountable for what they did -- the budget lie that they perpetrated on the people of British Columbia in 1995-1996.
They have done everything to avoid being accountable. They have done everything to avoid getting caught. They have done everything to avoid being responsible. They've stood up in this House in righteous indignation and railed against the opposition for accusing them of misleading the public. They've stood up in public at events and talked about how they're being railroaded by the media; how unfair the media's being; how unfair the auditor general's being -- "He's wrong"; how unfair the bureaucrats were who testified against the government, or put their testimony out there which reflected contrary information to what the minister and the Premier and other people had to say about this.
At every step of the way this government has failed to be responsible, has
failed to accept and has failed to be accountable for the budget lie they
perpetrated on the people of this province in 1995 and 1996 -- every single step
of the way. So when I see a Minister of Finance -- a current one or a former
Minister of Finance -- or the multitude of members of this caucus who were there
in 1995 and 1996 and knew the facts stand up in this House and play some
righteous game about this wonderful thing they're bringing to the people of
British Columbia
Let's just look at this. I mean, let's say we gave the government the credit. Let's say we gave them the benefit of the doubt that they really meant this, that they really had converted on the road to Damascus. The bright light had shone, and they had decided that this really was the right thing to do, and they were going to introduce legislation.
Let's look at their record; let's look at their record of other things that they've promised to do -- some in legislation even. The Deputy Premier, who used to be the Minister of Finance, and, I think, the Minister of Finance himself also talked about this new policy of three- and five-year plans, longer planning cycles, so people can understand what's coming. This government has had five-year plans every year that it's been in government. Every year they come up with a three-year plan or a five-year plan for something, whether it's the debt management plan, the modified debt management plan, the financial management plan, the modified financial management plan, the five-year fiscal framework, now the modified five-year fiscal framework. They've had more plans than you can imagine. Every year it's a new plan.
When they don't hit the targets in the plan, the performance plan or the agenda, they just move the dartboard. You know, if you're throwing darts and you're not getting bull's-eyes, the solution normally is to practise and to work harder. With this government the solution is to just move the dartboard down and to the left a little bit, so you start hitting some bull's-eyes; and then when they don't hit that one, they move it again. This target has been moved around so many times it's hard to tell what they're aiming for anymore. So I've got to tell you, I don't take a lot of encouragement from the government when I hear that they're going to have a three-
[ Page 16268 ]
year planning framework, they're going to have a five-year plan, and they're going to plan for the future to create more certainty.
The plans don't do anything if you don't have a plan to meet the plans, if
you don't intend to actually hit them. You can talk about plans. All the
rhetoric -- put it out there in documents
[1620]
Let's look at some other examples, though, where the government has actually put stuff in legislation. We hear the members opposite stand up and tell us that this is in legislation now; it's the law. They're going to be forced to comply with it. The public can rest at ease and drift off to sleep again. Let's look at some other examples.
I think the biggest one that we all know of is Forest Renewal B.C., FRBC. It's integrally linked with balanced budgets, because we know what happened to FRBC in the planning of the 1996 budget. It was set up as a little pot of cash that the government could raid. There was about $500 million in there, which had built up over a number of years, that was supposed to be used to be put back into the forest sector in programs that were in addition to the programs the Ministry of Forests was already providing.
And we know that in 1996 the Minister of Finance, Elizabeth Cull, went to the Premier of the day, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, and told him that she didn't think she was going to be able to hit targets that were in the budget. We know that; she told him that. And he said: "Don't worry about it. There are some contingencies out there; there are some other ways we can get the money. FRBC is one them." We know that, because that's what was testified to in court. And we can only assume they were telling the truth when they were in the courts.
We know that, despite the fact that this government had brought in
legislation that said
The idea of budget accountability, the idea of truth in budgeting and transparency, is something everybody supports here in principle. The real question is: does this bill achieve it, at the end of the day, with putting amendments forward to try and close the major loopholes that still exist in the bill? At the end of the day, we'll hear whether the government accepts them. We'll see whether those loopholes are closed, and if they are, we'll continue to support the bill. If they're not, we won't, because while people support the principle of transparency, I don't think there's anybody in this province who believes this government will do that.
The Premier said the other day that there isn't anybody -- there's no one in this province, not a soul -- who believes that this government is fiscally accountable. Those are the words of the Premier, and he was right. There is also no person in the province of British Columbia who believes that this government has been honest over the last nine years about telling the truth about the budget, nor that they'll do that in the future. It's a long uphill battle. You don't get to undo nine years of deception with a one- or two-day debate in the Legislature. It's going to take a decade or two before anyone ever trusts this New Democrat government again with the finances of this province.
There was another example. Here's the Election Act, another fundamental piece of legislation. The Election Act was something like the boundaries reform commission, something this government was part of and developed. It came through the Legislature. Part of that provision said, and I believe it was in the second sitting of the new parliament, that the government was required to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission.
The House met at that time on the first day, the opening day. It was supposed to be introduced by legislation, the legislation the government agreed with. We started steamrollering through the first day. I raised the matter with the Speaker of the day -- the member who is now the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, who was the Speaker at the time -- that unless he appointed this commission, he was about to violate the act. It didn't matter. We went right through it, steamrollered through it. Then we had to come back a year later and change the legislation to make it legal for the government to appoint it the next year.
So it doesn't matter what's in the legislation if the government doesn't believe it. It doesn't matter what's in the legislation if the government isn't going to follow it, because we know what this government will do. They'll break the law. They'll break their own laws, and then they'll come back after the fact and change them. So I don't have a lot of faith. Quite frankly, I have no faith whatsoever that the government is going obey the provisions that are in this legislation. I don't believe it for a second.
Here's another example of the government's commitment to fiscal accountability and reform. In 1995-96 the government promised, a solemn commitment, to create a Crown corporation standing committee of this Legislature that would be chaired by a member of the opposition to oversee the Crown corporations, to examine their business plans, to make sure that they were complying with the principles of good governance. That happened as a result of the Hydro scandal. That was the thing that triggered the minister or the Premier of the day to announce that. Year after year in his estimates, he'd stand up in the House and say: "Yes, I'm going to do that. It's really important. I'm going to do that." Year after year he wouldn't.
[1625]
Think of the things that have happened in the Crown corporations over the term of office of this government. Think what would have happened if we could have seen them earlier on, if we could have had answers to the questions that need to be raised. I know that year after year, time after time, the member for Richmond Centre stood in this House in question period, in estimates debate, in any venue that was made available to him not just in this House but outside the House, and told the government that the fast ferry project was off track, that it wasn't going work. It couldn't possibly be on
[ Page 16269 ]
budget. The members should ask themselves how many times they remember the member for Richmond Centre standing up and doing that. It must have been a hundred times.
I remember the minister responsible at the time, the member for North Coast, standing up in this House and ridiculing the member. I remember the Premier standing up this House, ridiculing the member and telling him: "Don't you worry. They're going to work. You're going to have to deal with this. You're going to have to swallow your words after these ships are out there and performing. They're the best thing that's ever happened to us. Yeah, they're two years behind schedule. But they're still on budget. We are sure they're still on budget." Never once did any single member of that side of the Legislature stand up and ask a question about them -- not one. Not one member stood up in this House and asked a question about that.
If the government had kept to its commitment on the Crown Corporations Committee, the fast ferry issue would have come to that committee. It would have been discussed, and the questions would have been asked. The minister responsible wasn't asking the proper questions. Not once did he ask the proper questions. Not once did the public get the full facts on what was going on at the fast ferries, and then all of a sudden they pretend they're surprised. It wasn't their fault; it was somebody's else's fault. We weren't being told the truth.
Well, you weren't being told the truth because you weren't asking the right questions. And they weren't providing the opportunity for those questions to be asked. Every time you were asked the questions, you deflected them. You ridiculed the questioner. So when the government tells you it's committed to transparency in budgeting because its better fiscal accountability is going to improve things, we should harken back to that and ask ourselves just how committed the people who sit on that side of the House are to fiscal accountability if, after nine years, they haven't done one thing to improve it -- not one, given the hundreds of opportunities that they've had.
It's interesting, too, to hear from the Premier over the last few days -- in
the last week or so -- where he's talked about
Mr. Adrian Dix wrote a wonderful op-ed piece in the Times Colonist just two days ago, actually, where he talks about how ridiculous it is for this government to be moving forward on balanced-budget legislation, because they don't believe it. They've never believed it; they still don't believe it, and that's what important. It's not like they've all of a sudden had a change of mind, and now they believe balanced-budget legislation is the way to go. They don't believe that for a second -- not for one second.
That's why there's so much discord and division within their caucus. None of them believe in it. But half of them believe it's a good political ploy, and the other half believe it's political suicide. That's where the division occurs. It doesn't occur in those that believe in balanced-budget legislation and those that don't. It's whether or not it's a good political move; that's all they're concerned about.
So now the Premier has managed to come through his latest caucus meeting and provincial council still alive, still in the Premier's chair. He's cobbled together some group of ministers and backbenchers that are going to draft balanced-budget legislation in the next couple of weeks and try and bring it before the Legislature. That's how committed they are -- nine years, and they're going to start drafting the legislation now and bring it into the House in two weeks. That's how enthusiastic they are about fiscal accountability. So the Premier has gathered together this ragtag group of cabinet ministers and backbenchers that couldn't agree on what to eat for lunch, and they're supposed to come together and bring in balanced-budget legislation that's actually going to work.
[1630]
Well, I'll be thrilled to see it, if we ever see it. If that group can ever get anything through their caucus and bring it to this Legislature, I can't wait for the debate around that. I can't wait to see all the members of the NDP stand up and speak in favour of balanced-budget legislation, when for nine years they've been introducing multibillion-dollar deficits and for nine years they've been criticizing balanced-budget legislation. For nine years they've been criticizing us for speaking in favour of it and making us out to be some draconian right-wing group of people, because we believe you should balance the budget -- something Tommy Douglas believed in.
I mean, the Premier was right in one respect: New Democrat governments outside British Columbia have always tried to balance their budgets and in many cases have been very successful at it. Allan Blakeney and Roy Romanow balanced budgets. Tommy Douglas balanced budgets. Gary Doer -- first term, he just got elected in Manitoba -- walked into the legislative chamber, and he introduced a balanced budget. Imagine that -- they have balanced-budget legislation in those jurisdictions. Those aren't right-wing, extreme political parties, but they can balance their budgets.
The problem is that this government doesn't believe it's the right thing to do. They don't believe in it for one second; they don't believe in being accountable. They certainly don't believe in being held accountable by law, because they won't do it; they don't believe it. It's not going to happen. I look at some of these things, and I have to ask myself whether I think the government's sincere.
Then I deal with the issue that came up in question period today. I see the deputy minister from the communications branch of government, which is really the Premier's communications strategist guy, Deputy Minister Mr. Heaney, writing a memo at the same time as the government is drafting their budget. At the same time the government is preparing to introduce the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, at the same time as all that's happening, he's going out, and he says to the Finance officials: "I know that Treasury Board has issued restrictions on new contracts."
Contrary to what the minister said outside the House today, they weren't guidelines. It wasn't that these things, these contracts, were only supposed to be let when they're essential. It says this, and I quote from his press release, "New discretionary contracts are prohibited" -- prohibited, not optional, not in extreme circumstances, no wriggle room.
[ Page 16270 ]
They're prohibited. So the government sets out these fiscal constraints. Every other ministry of government has to live with them; every other department, every other agency has to live with them.
But Mr. Heaney, working for the Premier as his chief communications guru, goes to the Finance department and says: "Yeah, I know we've got these guidelines, and I know that it was Treasury Board from the Ministry of Finance that actually issued them. But we've got to somehow go out there and advertise the budget, so let's try and get around those guidelines. Let's see if we can figure out a way to get around those guidelines."
"Well, let me see. How would we do that? Well, the budget is about health care and education isn't it? Let's pretend the budget is all about health care and education, and then we can get one of those ministries to do all the work for us. Then we don't have to have a contract. We can avoid the guidelines that are there. We can avoid the prohibition around new contracts. They'll do the work for us and just send us the bill in the form of a journal voucher, and then it will all be settled. That's how we can sneak around the guidelines. I get it." And of course that's what happened.
So when the Ministry of Finance, when the government is faced with its own regulations, its own guidelines -- much like the guidelines and regulations and legislation that are included in this bill and those that will flow from it -- they just find a way around them. They just find a way to break the law, find a way to work around the regulations, find a way to work around the directives. They'll do the same thing with this legislation. Don't believe for a second that the government isn't going to do everything in its power to avoid disclosing things that they know are embarrassing to them, because they will. They will avoid it; they will use every tactic possible. We know it; the public knows it. The public doesn't believe this government, and they have a record of nine years proving that to the people of British Columbia.
[1635]
Let me talk a little bit about what's in this bill itself and why this bill has so many major problems. A couple of them I think are quite simple to solve, but I doubt very much that the government is going to. First of all, it doesn't ban or even sufficiently restrict the use of special warrants. There are still huge holes there for the government. They just have to issue a press release or a statement telling why they need special warrants. It's not tight enough. They're going to figure out some way to do it; they'll manage. It will come out on a Friday afternoon at 5:30, when everybody is off for the weekend, to minimize the political damage that goes with it.
It still doesn't require the government to use any sort of generally accepted accounting principles -- generally accepted accounting principles for government bodies -- as set out by those bodies that determine this. The government still hasn't agreed to do that. Instead it's Treasury Board. The same people that made the guidelines around the prohibition on these new contracts are the ones that are going to put in place the new accounting guidelines, the way the government keeps its books -- the same guys who sat there and approved over and over again spending on fast ferries, the same people who approved a whole range of expenditures of this government that have been absolute disasters. They're going to decide how the government keeps its books. They're going to set the accounting principles in place.
Mr. Speaker, I think that's a major problem that needs to be fixed. It can be fixed very easily with the amendments that I and my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton have put forward, and I hope the minister accepts them. It will go a long way to closing some of the many loopholes that exist in this bill.
While it limits to some extent when budget day can be, it doesn't set it out
in clear terms the way Mr. Enns recommended. There should be a budget day. The
government
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister accused me of never reading the standing orders. Fine.
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sorry. I thought that's what I heard. If I didn't hear that, I stand corrected. If I heard it incorrectly, then I stand corrected. That's what I thought I heard.
The reality is that the government still has all sorts of opportunities. If there is a new Premier and a new government, they can delay the budget day. If there is an election, they can delay the budget day. Who knows what else they'll add to that? I mean, they leave the window so wide open that you can drive anything through it. Pick a time, set the date, and then do establish some discipline within government to hit that target and give people something they can count on.
You have to prove to the people by your actions that you believe what you say, because for nine years you've been proving to the people of British Columbia with your actions that you don't believe what you say. This government needs to prove with actions what it believes and show people, and leaving the loopholes that wide-open is not going to result in any sort of change in behaviour that the public's going to be able to measure.
There are a couple of issues here. Another one is section 22(2), which
prohibits the Offence Act from applying to this bill. Essentially what it means
is if the government just decides not to follow this
We know the government did it around the Elections Act; they did it around FRBC. They've done it around other pieces of legislation.
An Hon. Member: Gaming.
G. Farrell-Collins: Gaming. They'll just change it. They'll just ignore it. They just ignore the law. I don't remember how many millions of dollars this government has spent in court battles with municipalities and charities in this province over the regulations and legislation surrounding gaming. How many millions of dollars have been spent when this government goes out and knowingly breaks the law and doesn't care? And we think that somehow they're going to change, that somehow because this stuff is written down in legislation they're going to obey it. They won't. If they don't want to bring in the budget in March, they won't. If they don't want to
[ Page 16271 ]
disclose things the way they should in this act, they won't. If they don't want to follow any of the legislation that's put here, they won't.
Mr. Speaker, I see the time is up, but I am the designated speaker, so I will be going for a little while longer. I'll just let you know that.
The government isn't going to follow this law, not for a minute. Every opportunity they've had in the past to do the right thing and follow the laws that they've passed, when it's inconvenient they just ignore it. They just don't; it's as simple as that. And then, if they have to come back in after the fact and amend the law retroactively to fix their mess, they'll do that. And they've done that repeatedly too.
So what good is this legislation when you look at the government's record
over the last nine years? It's not worth the paper it's written on. I don't
believe the government; the public doesn't believe you. I don't know, short of
[1640]
The last one, because I think it highlights for the most part, in the best
way possible, just how insincere the government is about really implementing
this
To give you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of what the bill's really about
Section 24(1) says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations referred to in section 41 of the Interpretation Act." That's pretty standard wording in just about every piece of legislation. The Interpretation Act talks about very narrow restrictions on what sort of regulations you can put in with legislation. They have to be very narrow; they have to fit within the context of the legislation.
But then we have this next section -- this big section that goes over to the
other page -- which just tears the boundaries off that. It's basically whatever
you want. It says: "Without limiting subsection (1), the Lieutenant
Governor in Council may make regulations as follows: (a) defining a word or
expression used in this Act
So with the stroke of a pen, the Minister of Finance can gut the entire act, essentially, and just set up another and say: "Gee, we're having troubles at B.C. Hydro right now, so let's amend the regulations, and we'll exempt it so they don't have to disclose and issue a performance plan or issue any of the accountability measures or comply with the accountability measures that are here."
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: My colleague reminds me that without a doubt, one
of the provisions here would be the performance plans, the major capital project
plans, the annual reports in subsection (b). You can bet that the fast ferries
never would have made it into this legislation. I mean, the government would
have
My colleague from Richmond-Steveston had a fascinating point he made yesterday, when he pulled out of his pocket the annual report from the Ministry of Attorney General that was just tabled last week in this House -- from 1997, three years ago. Just so everybody remembers, the guy who was the Attorney General in 1997, who was supposed to issue that in 1997, is now the Premier of the province who stood up this morning and talked about accountability and performance plans. But when he was Attorney General, he didn't bother to introduce those for 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000. We still haven't seen it. I can't imagine he got it prepared in time, because he just finished the 1997 one.
There's the Premier. When he was Attorney General, he had four annual reports
that he didn't introduce to this House. He's supposed to do that under the law
in the Attorney General Act. That's his job under the law. So if anybody in this
House believes for a second that the government is actually going to introduce
these plans on a regular basis, forget it. They won't, because they haven't
been. It was in the law all along; they just ignore it. They know they can
ignore it and that nothing is going to happen to them. So to hear those hollow
words
I haven't done the checking yet, but I would hazard a guess that those ministries aren't all up to date on the annual reports that are required in their legislation. I would hazard a guess that they're not. It would be really interesting to see. I'll check with the Minister of Transportation and Highways and see whether or not all his annual reports are in. I'll check with the Minister of Finance -- well, the Ministry of Finance is usually pretty good. We know the Attorney General is four years behind. I'll check some of the other ministers and make sure they're all up to date. Maybe even some of the ministers who stood up in this House to speak in favour of this bill, like the Premier did today, still have annual reports that are two, three, four or five years behind.
So I don't believe for a second when the government puts it in here that for some reason they're going to comply with the legislation that's there.
Section 24(2)(c) allows the minister to make regulations prescribing the
information that must be included in a performance plan under section 13. So the
minister
[ Page 16272 ]
Interjections.
G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, he tells me
[1645]
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: Two months ago. Well, then, there we go.
The information that's going to be included in those performance plans is something that the minister can just decide on. If he decides that the capital project stuff isn't something we really want to talk about this year, just with a stroke of a pen he eliminates it from the performance plan. The government doesn't need to talk about it anymore.
This is the one I like. It's subsection (d) of the regulations. It allows the
minister on the recommendation of
I know the minister is saying: "We wouldn't do that. Come on, that's something that's ridiculous; we wouldn't do that." Let me give him an example of where the government has already done something very similar. The Freedom of Information Act requires that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council provide a list of those entities that are supposed to comply with it. When the bill was brought in, all the government entities and agencies were included on that; everything that was there was put in. B.C. Rail was the only one, I think, that didn't have to comply with it, because it's seen as a for-profit Crown, a self-supporting Crown.
But shortly after the FOI bill came in, when it became law, the government
created the West Coast Express. Now, the West Coast Express, if anybody
remembers, is the train that leaves Mission and goes into downtown Vancouver.
It's a commuter train. Everything else -- B.C. Transit, B.C. Ferries, B.C.
Hydro, ICBC -- all fall within the act. For some reason over all these years,
six or seven years now, the government has never seen fit to put it on there.
They've never done it. And if you send in an FOI request to the West Coast
Express -- because we've done this -- they say: "We're not on the list;
we're not part of FOI." Then if you phone them and talk to them about it,
they say: "Yeah, but we're living within
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: You're talking from one hand to the other hand,
Mr. Speaker, and you've been unable to get any information from the West Coast
Express for the last six years or so, or however long it's been around. The
minister says it's part of B.C. Transit. It hasn't been for the last number of
years
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: TransLink. It hasn't been part of that for the last number of years, and she should be aware of that. Certainly she would be aware of that. In fact, it may have been her responsibility as minister to tell the Attorney General to bring the order to cabinet so that we could sign it and make the FOI Act apply to the West Coast Express. But, no, they never did that.
So don't believe for a second that this government is going to comply with this legislation. Don't believe for a second that they won't take section 24, this regulatory section, and twist it and turn it and invert it and turn it inside out and flip it over and rewrite it and turn it upside down and put it under a black light and do everything they possibly can to find an interpretation that will let them do whatever they darn well please, because for the last nine years the government has done exactly that. At every opportunity they've had to cover up, to be secretive, to ignore, to turn a blind eye, to just blatantly ignore information, they've done that. They've done everything possible to make sure the public doesn't know the truth about every one of their little fiascos, every one of their little endeavours that's gone down the tubes.
[1650]
Let me just use the Freedom of Information Act as an example. I remember when
it was introduced in this House. Ministers and members stood up, right across on
that side, and talked about how it was the most progressive
freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation in the world. It
was the best. And for a while it actually worked okay. You could put in
information
Then very quickly after that, within a few months, it sort of evened itself out. When you sent in a freedom-of-information request, you knew that there was a 30-day time line. You would probably get some sort of an indication back, within 30 days, of the response from government. You could almost count on that. And then there's this little provision that in extreme cases, if they can't get the information right away, they can get an extension.
So you started getting a lot of extensions, and now you always get extensions. It is virtually impossible to get anything from any ministry through freedom of information without getting an extension of at least another 90 days and sometimes six months. Sometimes it can go on for seven or eight months. When they finally do say, "Okay, we've got this information, and here it is, if you want it," since they found this little provision in the bill that says that in cases where there are huge costs involved, they can bill you for the cost of providing that information to you.
Now, that wasn't intended to make it onerous for the public to receive public information. It was designed for the case where you've got a huge stack of documents, to provide for the staff time to collect and to photocopy them, to package them and to mail them. I think that's legitimate. I remember the debate that went on at this time, and that was a legitimate
[ Page 16273 ]
thing that was put forward. But what the government has done now is to use it as a form of chill effect. So you request a contract for any correspondence on this issue, and seven or eight months later, you get this letter back saying: "Sure, you can have it. We've identified 326 pieces of paper, and it's going to cost you $18,000 if you want it."
Interjection.
G. Farrell-Collins: The minister says: "Oh, come on." I'll give him some examples if he wants. I'll go get them -- some of the bills that we've been given for them.
I personally can understand how easy it's going to be for the government to
just change their intent. All this wonderful glossy comment we hear today, these
wonderful speeches from members who talk about what a wonderful day it is and
what a great legacy they're going to put forward for the people of British
Columbia, this transparency, this openness
I know that at the end of the day, the government will very likely not accept the amendments that are being put forward by the opposition to fix this bill, and if that's the case, we won't support it at the end of the day. We'll support it in principle, because we think it's a direction that we need to go in. But I certainly don't believe, with the legislation we have before us, that we've gone one step along the way to improving budget accountability in this province. I don't believe for a second that the government is sincere about it.
With that, I'll take my seat and hand off to my colleague the member for Okanagan-Penticton, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee and knows something about accountability.
[1655]
R. Thorpe: You know, it should be a day that we actually have something to celebrate -- the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. But we have the quote from the Premier: "No one believes that we are committed to sound financial management of our province." You cannot take exception to the Premier's very own words.
When this bill was tabled some weeks ago, I was talking to some people at home in Penticton, and they said: "What is this really about? Is the government now trying to tell British Columbians that they're going to start telling the truth?"
This government in nine years has created such a dismal record. It has destroyed the confidence of British Columbians in their government institutions. It has destroyed the financial credibility of the province. Now, in a last-minute effort to position themselves for the possibility of a fall election, they bring in the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
I remember the throne speech. In the Premier's throne speech it said that they wanted the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. Well, let's just look, if I could take a few moments, at some of the facts -- the facts that this government has been able to put upon hard-working British Columbians. If it wasn't so serious, I would laugh when the Deputy Premier talks about the concerns of working British Columbians and working families.
The record of this government is this: nine deficit budgets in a row. This is
after they told British Columbians on September 20, 1991, by the then Premier
and now private citizen Mr. Harcourt, who I understand is a senior adviser to
the Premier of the day
What we're talking about is British Columbians' integrity and confidence. So when this government did get elected, what did it do? It repealed a Taxpayer Protection Act. And the people that voted for that are the now Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister of Finance. They didn't care about the taxpayer back in 1991-92, and they don't care today.
We will not spend any money
But you know, they then went on in 1995 and '96 to tell British Columbians that they had balanced two budgets. Well, you know and I know they didn't quite tell the whole story. They didn't tell the whole story, and you've heard the rest of the story. You've heard the story that they knew. They all knew. Every one of them knew. They're in court.
The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act
[1700]
As my good friend from Vancouver-Little Mountain said, I happen to have the pleasure of chairing Public Accounts. We had the estimates report come before Public Accounts. And we started. We listened to the auditor general. We had some witnesses we wanted to talk to.
Now remember: the Premier was the Attorney General then; the Deputy Premier was the Finance minister. But the instructions were sent into the committee room: shut down the debate. This is the government that is now trying to tell British Columbians that they stand for budget transparency and accountability. It doesn't work. They fudged the budget then. They used their majority to change the rules, to shut it down, to stop discussion, and they'll do it again.
Interjections.
R. Thorpe: Very, very transparent, as my colleague from Kelowna says.
Here also is a government that spent over a billion dollars -- $1 billion -- from FRBC, without a business plan. That's
[ Page 16274 ]
fairly transparent. They put in the Forest Practices Code -- red tape taller
than myself. It cost over $1 billion. And the Minister of Forests said himself:
"No benefit to the economy, no benefit to the forestry." Then, of
course, transparency and accountability
They embarked upon a convention centre. The Premier sat on Treasury Board. The Deputy Premier sat on Treasury Board. They approved it: $73 million and no business plan. And now we're to believe that this government stands for accountability. It doesn't work. It just doesn't work.
So with their backs to the wall and at an all-time low in the polls, this government now says: "We're different. We're new. We've changed. We've seen the errors of our way. We're new and improved. Now we stand for transparency and accountability." But you know what? We heard all that nonsense in 1991, just before an election. So I guess one of the benefits that could come out of this bill is that British Columbians are hoping this is the precursor to an election being called.
You know, it is -- if we knew they were going to do it -- a step in the right
direction. Like some of my other colleagues, I will vote in favour of this in
second reading, with the proviso that the 20 amendments that my colleague from
Vancouver-Little Mountain and I have put together and put forward to this House
go forward. Then I can support it. But if those amendments do not go forward,
are not passed
Why wouldn't the government pass the amendments, if they truly were for transparency and accountability? All that these amendments are trying to do is make sure that British Columbians have some confidence and that there are some penalties for those who do not do what they say they're going to do -- the same thing that hard working British Columbians have to do every day.
[1705]
[The Speaker in the chair.]
The Premier keeps saying that he wants the facts, all the facts, nothing but the facts. We've talked about the deficits. We've talked about the huge debt run-up. Let's talk about the NDP's favourite: the three fast ferries -- the fast ferries that were going to cost $210 million, the fast ferries that don't work and that can't get you there on time. It's easier to put them up against the dock so we can save $5 million in operating costs. And they have cost us $500 million. We've now hired a professional accounting firm to try to sell the three fast ferries, but because we're a transparent government over there, we won't tell anybody what we're going to pay them. We won't tell them the deal. But we're transparent.
It's actually quite mind-boggling. And you know, what is so distressing is
that
I also want to know, from the Premier who is trying to tell British
Columbians that he hasn't been here for nine years and that he's new
People tend to believe that a leadership candidate -- now the Premier -- is going to live by his word. But what happened? Right after becoming the Premier, he said no. And who orchestrated the shutting down of Public Accounts? The now Deputy Premier orchestrated the shutting down of Public Accounts in the fast ferries. Yet we have to stand in this House and listen to another convert with respect to transparency and accountability.
Interjection.
R. Thorpe: You know, hon. Speaker, the Deputy Premier says she's sorry. It's not me she has to say sorry to; it's British Columbians she needs to say sorry to. So maybe when she gets up to speak later on, that's what she'll do. She'll finally apologize. But what she should be apologizing for is for shutting down Public Accounts, for stopping an independent inquiry in Public Accounts, not allowing a public inquiry in Public Accounts. That's what she should be sorry for. Stop the campaigning; it's time for action.
They just don't get it. British Columbians do not believe them. They said, when the Enns panel came out with its recommendations, that they agreed with all of the recommendations of the Enns report. I just want to take a moment to thank Mr. Enns and all the others that served on that board for giving their time to British Columbia and for giving a very thoughtful report to British Columbians. I know -- and I met with that committee and Mr. Enns, and those who worked for the committee -- that they truly want to restore accountability in British Columbia. They know how important it is to restore the confidence in our province, so that we can start to rebuild our economy that this irresponsible government, the NDP, has brought to its knees.
[1710]
But you know, hon. Speaker, this government couldn't even table its budget within the recommendation of the Enns panel. They missed that by six days. Yet we are to believe that they are going to stick with all of the intent of this bill and that their past practices no longer will take place. All the business plans were supposed to be in by April 30. They didn't achieve that. Annual reports. My colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain talked about annual reports. This government has a dismal record of submitting and tabling annual reports in this House when they're due, and quite frankly, ministers should lose their jobs when they can't simply table their reports in this House on time.
Now we move to capital expenditures in this bill. All of a sudden they're going to start sharing the details with British Columbians on projects over $50 million. Well, what happened when the outside consultants did the review -- Deloitte Consulting? What were their findings on this government and its capital management processes? I quote: "Project governance is weak. The result is inconsistent management of projects, unclear accountability for success or failure of a project and often slow decision-making." Another quote from this report: "Risk needs to be managed. We found only limited evidence on certain projects that such risks, particularly in the
[ Page 16275 ]
early stages of a project, are identified
My colleague and I have put forward a reasonable amendment to have more transparency, so that British Columbians know where their money is being spent. Lowering that amount to $25 million and requiring a tabling in this House of all capital expenditures with a budget of over $1 million -- a reasonable request. A request that I hope this government will honour, if it truly wants transparency and accountability.
It's not government's money; there's no such thing. It's the taxpayers of Chetwynd, Cranbrook, Kamloops, Penticton, Vancouver and Victoria, and all of the rest of the hard-working people in British Columbia. It's their money.
This legislation does not conform to what the opposition deems to be generally accepted accounting policies, and therefore we have made an amendment in that area. Surely all elected officials, no matter what party they are from, want to be part of a government, part of a province, that has leadership, that actually follows generally accepted accounting principles as put out by the public standards board and put out by CICA. Surely that should not become a partisan issue.
And of course, special warrants. We have called for the banning of special warrants. We believe that this government has put in here yet another loophole so that they can do whatever they want, whenever they want, as the former Forests minister told us they would do.
As my colleague from Vancouver-Little Mountain said, the NDP clause of all clauses, the clause that will allow them to continue on the slippery slope that they've been on for nine years and to do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it, to have no accountability, to exempt whatever they want to exempt whenever they want to exempt it is section 24. I call it highway 24. It's so wide and so gaping that there could be six lanes going both ways for this government to change and do whatever it wants to do. It can change the definitions. They can rejig the deck any way they want, and they will.
[1715]
Section 2(b) allows them to exempt a government organization from application of one of the sections -- and there are several sections of this bill -- whether it be performance plans or major capital plans or annual plans. The only thing that's really missing here is the retroactivity clause that they usually put in, and then we wouldn't have been able to find out about fast ferries. This makes me really wonder what they really know of another major foul-up, another disaster-in-the-making in British Columbia that they haven't shared with us. Why, if they want accountability and transparency, have they put a clause in here that they can exempt any part of government whenever they want -- if they truly wanted accountability?
It doesn't work. You can't say that you're for budget transparency and accountability and then give yourself the ability to exempt whatever part of their incompetent government they want.
Then, of course, with respect to the auditor general, they just have to talk to him, and if they don't like what they hear, I guess they'll continue doing what they've always done: just keep moving on. It's quite sad that a government would attempt to deceive the public of British Columbia once again with the title of a bill, yet they can do whatever they want whenever they want to do it in any fashion they want.
This government has a dismal record. This government has a dismal fiscal record that has driven the debt of this province to being no longer the silent killer of British Columbia but the third-largest ministry -- $2.8 billion in debt of interest payments a year.
What could we do in health care? What could we do in education? What could we do with children and families? What could we do for those truly in need if we had a competent, honest, accountable and transparent government? We could be the very, very best province in Canada, and one day we will be that province again.
The Premier said he wants the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. In my mind, the biggest proof of that is what they said about the debt management plans. I don't want to confuse members over there, so we'll start with the 1995 debt management plan. They promised to deliver surpluses in 1995-96 and '96-97 and pay down $10.2 million of debt over 20 years. But what has really happened? They haven't balanced the budget. Their newest projection is for the year 2004-2005.
In 1997 they came out with the financial management plan, and what did they
promise then? They promised to balance the budget in 1997-1998. They promised to
reduce taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to 15 percent by the year 2015. But
what has happened? Since the 1995 debt management plan, Moody's and Standard and
Poor's have downgraded B.C.'s credit rating to the second-highest in Canada, and
the Canadian Bond Rating Service has downgraded it to the third-highest. And
only last week
After they failed at their 1997 financial management plan, they went to their 1998 modified financial plan. That said they would balance the budget in 1999-2000 and limit the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to a target range of 19 to 22 percent over three years. But what's happened? Tax-supported debt has increased to a projected $27.9 billion in the year 2000-2001. But in 1999 they came out with a five-year fiscal framework that promised to balance the budget in the year 2003 and limit the taxpayer-supported debt-to-GDP ratio to a target range of 22 to 27 percent over five years. Of course, what has happened there? Our debt-to-GDP ratio has increased from 12.5 percent in 1991 to a projected 23.5 percent in the year 2000-2001.
[1720]
You know, hon. Speaker, it's about credibility; it's about integrity; it's about trustworthiness. After nine years of inaccurate budget forecasts, the famous fudge-it budget, the disaster on fast ferries, the shutting down of Public Accounts, British Columbians have very good reason to be skeptical of this NDP government. This government is not committed for one second to budget transparency and accountability. This is about making a mockery out of this House and trying to fool British Columbians when it comes time for an election.
You know, although the Premier only spoke for three and a half minutes today, he said some things that I took down,
[ Page 16276 ]
and I think I'm going to keep them for some time: "The buck stops
here." Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, he's been passing
the buck. He was passing the buck when he was in Treasury Board, and he
continues to pass the buck. Then he says: "Sweeping away
Then, of course, there were the Premier's comments on the booming economy of British Columbia. But you know what? If the economy is booming, why isn't the budget balanced? Why isn't the debt being paid down? Why aren't taxpayers getting a tax cut? If the economy is booming and the buck stops there and he wants to sweep things away, do British Columbians a favour and call an election.
G. Campbell: It is a very important piece of legislation that we have before us. Certainly the principles that are called out for in the title, "Budget Transparency and Accountability," are incredibly important to the people of this province. Unfortunately, we have to look back over the last decade to see why they have become so important to people. On this side of the House, we have been calling for truth in budgeting from this government for the last six years. And the government has consistently turned a deaf ear to that call.
Really, what this piece of legislation is saying is that for almost the last decade now, we have had a government that has not told the people of British Columbia the truth, a government that has become synonymous with manipulation of the books. We have had a government that believes it can do anything it wants, to whoever it wants, whenever it wants, without any accountability whatsoever. Drafting a bill does not solve that problem. Unfortunately, this government's record is a record of a government that often puts together a bill with the right title but no substance.
I can recall when the Premier of the time brought forward, as a committee recommendation, the legislation on referenda and recall. Referenda and recall were two specific ways that we were supposed to reach out to the people in this province and say to people: "You are welcome into the legislative process." We could say to people in this province: "Your MLA should be accountable to you." And the government of the day said, "We endorse that principle," and proceeded to put a title on a bill called referendum and recall.
[1725]
Unfortunately, the bill undermines every principle that referenda and recall require. Unfortunately, today we see that the government is not a new government, as the Premier would have us believe. It's the same old government with the same old draftspeople, with the same old tricks, trying to pull the wool over the people of British Columbia's eyes. It's not going to work.
On this side of the House we are firmly committed to budget transparency and accountability. It is an unfortunate testimony to this government's term of office that we now have to bring forth legislation to try and convince the people of British Columbia that they can trust New Democrats. I know that a lot of people on that side of the House would like to pretend that they had nothing to do with what's happened over the last decade. But I would like to remind everyone on that side of the House who claims to be for accountability, who claims to support an accountability act, that in fact, they are accountable for what has taken place in this House and with this government over the last decade.
This Premier -- this Premier today -- is accountable, because when he sat on Treasury Board in 1995-96, he knew that the public was not being given the truth. He knew about all of the decisions that were being made to try and hide the facts from the public. He knew, in fact, what the auditor general has said quite clearly in the auditor general's report: the books were fixed to fool the public about what was taking place.
That is not the way to create trust. This is a government that has gone out of its way to break contracts with private sector interests. Carrier Lumber enter in good faith into an agreement with this government, and the government goes out of its way to break that contract, to break that trust, so that the courts of British Columbia say that the government must be punished.
Now, the problem with that is that it isn't the government, at the end of the day, that gets punished. It's the taxpayer. The first and primary thing that no one on the government's side of the House, not one New Democrat, seems to understand is that there is no such thing as government money. There is only the taxpayers' money. And as this government misspends, wastes, deceives and manipulates, it is the taxpayers of British Columbia who have paid an enormous price.
Let's just talk about one group of taxpayers. You can probably remember -- again, another great title for a bill -- Forest Renewal B.C. I can remember the ministers telling us that there is no way that those dollars would ever be used for anything except taking care of forest families and forest communities. They broke their word. In fact, it was in the legislation, and they broke their word.
The Election Act was in place. The government had a responsibility to the people of this province to carry out the Election Act. They broke the law. They didn't like the fact that it was pointed out that they broke the law, so they changed the law. That was after it was brought up by the opposition.
So when you look at the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, you would think that the first thing we made sure happened was that if the government didn't live up to the requirements placed in the law, there would be some punishment, there would be some accountability, there would be some legitimacy in this piece of paper -- if in fact that was the case. It is not here.
[1730]
We want accountability, on this side of the House; we want transparency, on this side of the House. But again, the clever writing of this legislation suggests we will find neither. And so, hon. Speaker, while I would support the principle of a budget transparency and accountability act, our side of the House will offer the government a number of amendments to improve this act so it is truly accountable, so it is truly transparent, and so the taxpayers can hold the government to account.
There is no requirement in the world today for us to have special warrants, where the government misappropriates, misspends, mismanages, and still comes back and says: "Oh, we must do this now, and we won't go to the Legislature to ask for permission." Again, the auditor general has been very
[ Page 16277 ]
clear on this subject for a number of years. The primary role of the Legislature is the approval of expenditures, the approval of tax dollars on various programs of government. There is no need for special warrants. If this government was truly in favour of accountability, special warrants would be banned in the province of British Columbia. That does not happen in this act.
Secondly, as the Premier himself has said, there is not a person in British Columbia who has any confidence in this government's financial management ability. The Premier was right in that regard. I think it's important that when the Premier identifies that as a problem, he should recognize that each and every member on that side of the House shares responsibility for that. Each and every member on that side of the House, on the government side of the House, tried to hide the facts from the people of British Columbia.
In September of 1995 the NDP caucus was told there'd be a $1.5 billion deficit. They went around the province and said they balanced the budget. In 1996 they knew there was going to be a massive deficit. They each went around the province and said they balanced the budget. And then, surprise of surprises, an election is held, and suddenly they discovered that there was a massive deficit, which fit into what they called wriggle room. To be fair, the Minister of Finance of the day looked the public in the eye and said: "I don't expect you to believe me." Well, he was right. No one believes this government, and unfortunately, this bill will not take us any further down the road to true believability.
This government introduced the Freedom of Information Act. It was heralded in the first session of the parliament of 1992 as being a new opportunity for British Columbians to get at the truth. But as is so often the case with this government, freedom of information became extremely expensive information. It became a way to hold British Columbians back from real information. It became a way to stop the flow of information to the public. It became a way of closing down information to the public. We don't want the same thing to happen with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
So, hon. Speaker, let's go back. Should a Minister of Finance be able to change at will the definitions of how we keep our books, of the way we are managing our accounts? My answer is no.
Wouldn't you expect that any budget, any piece of legislation, that claimed to be a Budget Transparency and Accountability Act would actually apply generally accepted accounting principles to the way we keep our books? My answer is yes. This bill's answer is no.
For us to have a piece of legislation that British Columbians can have confidence in, particularly in view of the record of this government, there have to be compliance provisions. There have to be punishments if the government or the ministers do not perform. That's how you establish accountability. And you know, at the end of the day, I believe everyone who runs for public office should be willing to have a truly accountable, truly transparent, set of books. Then we can have a real public debate on where we would like to go and how we would like our resources to be spent.
Here's a government that wasted $463 million on three boats that don't work, going who knows where.
Interjection.
G. Campbell: Right now they're parked.
Hon. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there are kids in our schools who don't have textbooks. There are patients in our health care system who have been on waiting lists for far too long. There are seniors who are looking for intermediate and long term care facilities, who are told: "Sorry, there's none available." This government wasted 463 million bucks on boats that nobody wanted.
If we're going to be truly accountable, if we're going to be truly transparent, it is critical that the only change in definitions of how we keep the books is done by a truly independent source -- not the minister. I don't say that only the New Democrats have tried to play with definitions. I just say they've mastered it to a level so that, unfortunately, we now have to make sure that it never happens again in British Columbia.
Special warrants should be banned. True budget accountability, true budget transparency, would do that. Generally accepted accounting principles should be embodied and embraced. There should be accountability requirements for ministers and compliance requirements that put punishments as well as rewards into this legislation. It does not happen.
Regulatory definitions cannot be left to political will. They have to be defined by an independent source, an independent agency, to be sure that the public's interests are taken care of. At the end of the day, it is the public interest -- it is the public trust -- that must be restored. Unfortunately, with this government there is no longer any trust, and that is because of what this government has done.
To restore that trust, to restore people's confidence in our province's finances and to restore people's confidence in the fiscal integrity of British Columbia, there's one significant first step that must be taken. We must go to the people of British Columbia and allow them to hold each and every one of us in this House to account for our performance and have an election.
The Premier says he wants to turn a new leaf. The new leaf is to listen to those of us who have truly cared about truth in budgeting and open, honest budgeting in the province of British Columbia. We will offer constructive and positive amendments to this bill to try to embody the principles that are represented by the title -- to embody the principles of transparency and openness and accountability.
[1735]
I hope the government side of the House will support those amendments, because it is those amendments that will reinforce the spirit of openness, integrity and accountability that is essential to restore the integrity of British Columbia's financial position, so we can build a foundation upon which to build a brighter and better future for everybody that lives in this province.
Hon. P. Ramsey: It is a real honour to rise to close second reading debate on Bill 2, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act.
In opening my closing remarks, I want to again acknowledge the good work of Mr. Doug Enns and his panel of eminent British Columbians, thoroughly versed in financial matters, in advising government and the people of British Columbia on changes that needed to be made in government preparation of budgets, in reporting of budgets and in
[ Page 16278 ]
accountability of budgets. They have done, I submit, good work for the people of the province, and when I talked to them about the contents of Bill 2, I think they recognize that we have followed through on their recommendations. This meets the tests that have been set for us by the Enns committee and the members of it. It meets the tests of those who say we need more openness and transparency in government.
[1740]
If I am disturbed by anything about the tone of the debate so far -- and I
think we have had a good debate on all sides about this bill -- I am disturbed
by one thing. That is this: the Leader of the Opposition says that he supports
the principles of transparency and accountability contained in this act. I
accept in good faith that he does believe in the principles of this act. But
what I have not seen is that same measure of acceptance for the Premier of this
province as he brought forward this act and spoke in favour of it in this House.
We believe in these principles, and we are going to put them into legislation.
And I want to
Interjection.
Hon. P. Ramsey: The member opposite says: "Prove it." I'll be glad to get to that, because I happen to agree with the member opposite that part of what needs to be done is to demonstrate adherence to the principles that this act contains. We'll get to that, because we have and we will.
The Leader of the Opposition says that he wants truly open books, so the people of the province can understand fully where revenues come from and where they go, and that there are no government moneys; there is only money from the people of the province that is returned to them in programs. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, and I think this act sets that process in place very firmly.
I want to talk about some of the details of this act in closing, because I think it is worth recapitulating what is actually in here, for the sake of those watching this debate and for the formal record of it.
Here's one. This act says that you need to do consultation on what's in a budget in a different way. I haven't heard anybody speak against that. I think they support this principle. What this bill says is that in the fall of each year there will be a formal consultation on what the government of the day -- this government or another government -- puts into its budget. It says that unlike the past, under many political parties, under other governments right across this country, we are actually going to move to the forefront in British Columbia, leading other provinces in how consultation is done.
Only a small minority of provinces -- I think we'll be the second or third -- have a formal legislative committee that looks at how we do consultation on the budget. The act specifies that there must be a paper produced by the Ministry of Finance that outlines both economic projections, the forecasts of what the province's economy is going to be doing, and forecasts on government's needs and priorities. Then it turns this over to an all-party committee of the Legislature to go and consult with the people of the province on what they think, with the requirement to report back by the end of the year. This gives the people of the province an ability to have their say on budgets in a way that simply has not been there before.
A second and more radical change is this movement towards performance plans and measures of outcomes for programs that this bill incorporates. You would think, listening to some of the measures from the members of the opposition, that there were no measures in place at all. It's simply not true. This is an initiative that has been underway within government for some time, led by the deputy ministers. We have in place across government a wide variety of performance measures.
What this act does is move that forward in a major way. It says for all ministries, for all Crown corporations, that there must be a more formal process of setting out your objectives for the year, what your measures are of those objectives, then reporting on what you have achieved on the same measures. I believe that is the right way to go. We can measure government priorities by how many resources it puts into various objects of spending, what it taxes on. This act takes that concept a great step forward and looks at how you objectively measure performance on outcomes.
[1745]
A third area is capital projects. There is no capital project of significant size that is without its risks. That's a principle that I think anybody who looks objectively at what you need to do with capital projects, either privately or publicly, would agree on. What this bill requires is that for major commitments -- and it sets a threshold for that -- there must be formally tabled a plan which lays out for a particular capital project what the objects of it are, what its costs are, what its benefits are. In other words, what's the case for doing it? Finally, what are the risks? There are risks. To believe that you can do away with risks, I say, simply negates the entire debate.
I have been moderate in my closing remarks in trying to lay out what I think are the principles of this bill. Frankly, I don't think the members opposite really disagree, in spite of the heckling. There is a matter of debate, which I suspect we will deal with in committee stage, on how you measure actual government activities. This bill goes a great step forward and says that what we are going to measure for government activities is this entity called summary accounts -- all ministries, all Crown corporations, both commercial and non-commercial, in one bottom line.
As the members opposite well know, there are a variety of accounting entities right across this country. There is no consistency from province to province on what is reported as the budget and what is not. This movement and this bill in British Columbia take us to the forefront of provinces in Canada in how it reports its budget and what it includes -- yet another area in which we are moving to the front of the pack.
There has been a lot of talk back and forth across this chamber about forecasts, economic forecasts. Forecasts are difficult at the best of times. There is one thing that's sure. When you forecast a year in advance of what you think economic activity will be -- one thing is sure, and one only -- your forecast will probably be wrong, either too pessimistic or too optimistic. That has been the rule in forecasts, private and public sector, of every economist I know. If the members opposite know this mythical economist, this mythical seer that can somehow look out a year and know precisely what is going to happen in every sector of the economy and therefore estimate precisely what government revenues are going to be, I look forward to them actually bringing me the name of this magical person. It doesn't exist; he or she does not exist.
Forecasts are what their name says: forecasts. What we have done in this bill is two things. First, we have said, as we
[ Page 16279 ]
did last year, that there will be
The results of that forecasting council are required to be disclosed and published with the budget. That's what we did last year; that's what we did this year. That's what this law says will become the norm in British Columbia.
Further, what this bill does is say that any budget includes assumptions; it includes forecasts. What this bill says is that whatever your assumptions are, you should disclose them. Do you think that a barrel of oil is going to sell at $30 a barrel? Or is it going to sell at $18? What are you projecting? That projection obviously affects what revenues you're going to receive, what economic activity you're going to see. What are you expecting for activity in the tourism industry? What are you expecting for film production in the province? What are you expecting for the price of lumber or pulp or copper or any of the other commodity exports that this province depends on?
What this bill says is that first, all those assumptions must be disclosed in
the budget, and second, the completeness of them
[1750]
Next, reports. The bill talks about how you report on activities of government, and it makes several significant changes. It says that quarterly reports and public accounts must be produced by a set schedule -- no more flexibility. Let's see when they come out after the April 1 start of the fiscal year. And it expands what they must contain. If any of the members opposite have actually read the last two quarterly reports of the last fiscal year, they would see that they have expanded greatly. No longer do they simply report on revenues and expenditures for that period, but they are now required -- and with this act, they will be required by law -- to assume a forecast for the entire fiscal year on revenue and expenditure, given what has happened in the first three months, six months, nine months of the year.
The general public may think: "Well, of course, you get half your revenues in the first half or a quarter in the first quarter. You spend a quarter in the first quarter, half in the first half." It doesn't work that way. Both government expenditures and government revenues are not smooth over time. Doing forecasts without explicitly requiring those in the report is quite difficult.
So there are, I think, provisions in this bill that move us to the forefront. Now, the opposition has raised a number of concerns, and I look forward to debate on it in committee to actually hear what they propose that would change the act. As far as a date for a budget, what this act says is: "You've got to introduce a budget so it's debated, so we have agreement in principle on a budget before the start of a new fiscal year." I think the provisions are sound. I think it meets the test of having this chamber do its work before the next fiscal year begins. And we'll have that debate.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition speak passionately about special warrants. I would point out to the opposition that this is one of the areas where the Enns panel did not say what the Leader of the Opposition has said. They did not say that. They said very clearly that what you need to do is put restrictions on warrants, make sure that there's full and timely disclosure when it happens and use them only in rare instances. And that's what we intend to do. Finally, I've heard a lot of talk about generally accepted accounting principles. We accept them. We will have a good debate when we get there.
I wanted to come back to the point raised by the Finance critic and others about walking the talk. Well, here's the record so far. This bill is not law; these are proposals put forward for debate in this chamber. This is what this government has done so far.
No. 1. For both the second- and third-quarter reports last year, we moved to the standards set by this act -- even before introduction -- both of reporting and disclosing risks and assumptions for the rest of the year. We did it -- no act in place. We said: "This is the right thing to do; let's do it."
No. 2. Though they dislike special warrants, when you saw the special warrants this year, you saw a level of disclosure that hasn't happened in the past. Everybody was able to see precisely when the situation arose, what efforts we're making to deal with it and then why the warrant was required.
No. 3. You saw in this chamber this year the tabling by every ministry, by every Crown corporation, a performance plan, even though we're only debating the bill. They're here this year in advance of the act.
No. 4. This budget is the first in our province's history that has actually been presented on the basis of summary accounts, which says it doesn't matter whether the activities are of a Crown corporation or ministry. It's part of the bottom line, and it's there -- okay?
Finally, those who read the budget documents this year found full disclosure of all risks, all assumptions, and attestation to them by the secretary to Treasury Board.
[1755]
The opposition says: "Walk the talk." We have done it, and we intend to keep doing it. I give them credit for their belief, and I accept in good faith their belief in the principles of this bill. We have demonstrated our belief in it and will continue to do so in the future.
This is a bill that is widely praised by the people I've talked to, and I think it will be well accepted and will serve the people of British Columbia. It is with a great deal of pleasure that I now move second reading of Bill 2.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. I'll put the motion.
Second reading of Bill 2 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]
Bill 2, Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
[ Page 16280 ]
[1800]
Committee A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Lovick: Hon. Speaker, I would advise all members of the House that we are indeed sitting tomorrow. And with that, I would move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.
The House in committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.
The committee met at 2:53 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
(continued)
On vote 45: ministry operations, $2,026,375,000 (continued).
K. Whittred: I want to conclude the section that we've been dealing with, about the labour market attachment programs of the ministry, with just a little bit of a discussion about what I call the programs in the middle of the spectrum, if the minister will just bear with me a moment. When I talk about the spectrum I sort of have a vision in my mind that at one end of the spectrum, we have programs for persons with disabilities, while at the other end of the spectrum we have the job partnership programs that the ministry is piloting and programs that deal more with the job-ready people. The areas I want to talk about for just a moment are those that would fall into the area of work-based training, skills, etc. So if I could perhaps just ask the minister if she is with me on the area I'm talking about.
Interjection.
K. Whittred: Okay.
Now, one of the things that I hear in the community about that segment, if you like, of the programming from the ministry is in the industry, I think, called the swirl. This is an allusion, I think, to the idea that a person is sent from this program to this program to this program. Some of these may in fact have been sent by Human Resources initially. They've gone through the job clubs and the r�sum� writing, and so on, and now they're at the point where they're on to B.C. Benefits. They're into the same number of programs again.
[1455]
The criticism -- and I'm sure the minister is aware of this -- is that the
programs really, at the end of the day, unlike the job pilot programs and the
job partnership programs which, I understand, are quite successful
Hon. J. Pullinger: Clearly we've had some success, given that the income assistance participants rates are at an 18-year low. Something we've been doing must be right. But I do take the member's point. I know that is an issue, and among the many issues that we deal with, that is certainly one that we have identified and prioritized. Certainly prior to B.C. Benefits there was no ability to do any of that kind of tracking.
But in our performance plan this year you see on page 20 that it says at the
bottom: "Implement a new accountability approach for employment services
which reflects the auditor general's focus
K. Whittred: I alluded a moment ago to the performance measures on this, and actually, so did the minister. One of the factors that I have been told is a factor regarding this is the fact that the present performance measures that are in place give the same success rating for an agency that refers to another agency as it does for a client who actually gets a job. This, of course, is where the circular nature of this comes around. An agency can claim that they're being 50 percent or 60 percent successful or in fact 100 percent successful, because all of their clients are referred to other agencies. So is there a change in the wind for that kind of performance measure?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Clearly there are some things that still require further change. As the member knows, we've made some very significant changes, dramatic changes, that have been very effective in every way in this ministry. But there is still more work to be done. There's a range of work to be done. We have initiated the jobs partnership, which is helping people stay right off assistance. The workplace-based training is very effective also. And yes, we consider it a success, if somebody requires life skills training, if they require referral to another agency to help them get on with their lives or if they go into educational programs of one kind or another -- if they go to school. That's a success in my view. However, having said that, there's no question that we need to ever increase our ability to ensure that people are getting the skills training and services they need to deal with the issues in their lives, to get the skills they need to move on to become independent.
[1500]
That's the way we've been moving for several years. It's been profoundly effective in terms of this ministry's overall accountability and our superb management in this ministry. But it's also been incredibly effective in terms of the success stories that are starting to be documented finally and in terms of the outcome, which is a desired one, of large numbers of people moving off income assistance into independence -- into jobs that they like and that will support them or entry
[ Page 16281 ]
level jobs that they'll learn and then move on from. So we have had significant success in all ways, but indeed there's more work to be done.
K. Whittred: I do acknowledge the minister's remarks in this area, and I won't pursue it further. The minister is acknowledging that she understands the issue, and I will leave it at that.
There's one other little thing in this area, and that is a report. I'm just
referring here
I know that this perhaps is not totally within this ministry's jurisdiction -- the idea of training programs as they relate to private industry. But I wonder: now that this ministry has taken over the skills and training division, what is the relationship between the work that this ministry is doing and programs that would be married to industry, specifically apprenticeship programs and that sort of program?
Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the broad question is best asked of the ministry responsible for ITAC and the Ministry of Labour as well -- so the Ministry of Advanced Education is the first and the Ministry of Labour -- because they are still responsible for that part of skill development.
Our mandate and our goal is to prevent unemployment, using our skills branch to get people off income assistance and help them stay off and become independent. So we have a very focused mandate, and the programs that were transferred to this ministry are the programs most directly related to it.
In the broad picture, yes, of course one must stimulate the economy. That's
why we've done everything from using B.C. tax dollars to create B.C. jobs to
targeted tax cuts -- over $1 billion of targeted tax cuts since 1996, which have
put B.C. way ahead in terms of tourism, which has more than doubled. Film will
become number three in North America, number one in Canada. And things like the
Forest Action Plan
So yes, obviously there is always a lot of work to do, but I would offer that there is no government in Canada whose record outstrips this one on the education front.
K. Whittred: All right. That wasn't what I asked. I asked: what was
the
Hon. J. Pullinger: High-tech.
K. Whittred: No, I didn't ask about the high-tech. I was asking about the skills and training division. Perhaps I can go about it another way. Could the minister inform me precisely which programs from the Ministry of Advanced Education in skills and training have come to the Ministry of Social Development?
[1505]
Hon. J. Pullinger: Vocational rehab services, industry training and adjustment, Youth Works and Welfare to Work programs, and Job Start.
K. Whittred: Now, under the industry training component, I presume it would be -- that's likely; that would be commonsensical -- does your ministry communicate and have any dialogue with the ministry that looks after direct industry training programs? I used apprenticeship programs as an example.
Hon. J. Pullinger: We work with the two ministries that I referred the member to. We work with them quite closely.
K. Whittred: Can the minister give me any examples from the programs that exist in this ministry, the Ministry of Social Development, particularly in those areas where we're talking about skills? We're talking a lot about skills development. And if we're cognizant of the contemporary literature, we know that a lot of that skill development -- particularly in other countries such as Germany, for example -- is provided at the industry level. So I'm going to ask the minister: is there any plan or pilot where this ministry is anticipating perhaps that kind of a program?
The Chair: Hon. members, I always regret interjecting in the debate, but I would refer the committee to the estimates of Advanced Education, where the apprenticeship programs and those industry liaisons, particularly through apprenticeships, are lodged. We've had the debate on the estimates of that ministry in here. I just offer that as advice to the committee.
K. Whittred: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for that admonishment. However, I would just care to point out that skills development programs in this ministry amount to $88 million, and I think the question I had was a very valid one. Does the ministry have any plans in the future -- perhaps pilots? Have they thought about it? Have they got cooperative programs? I mean, there are many, many ways to do this. So I was simply going in that direction. But I will leave that, Mr. Chair.
One final question in this area, and that is
Hon. J. Pullinger: I've just confirmed that there is $88 million in my budget.
[1510]
K. Whittred: Has that amount been the amount that's been communicated to the people in the skills field -- the people who actually work in that skills development area?
[ Page 16282 ]
Hon. J. Pullinger: The regional budgets have been allocated. The member is correct: not all of the budget has been allocated yet. But that will occur as we see the need. It's simply fiscal prudence.
K. Whittred: I see. Can the minister tell me what the reason is for that holdback?
Hon. J. Pullinger: That's been stated: fiscal prudence.
K. Whittred: So the money is held back for fiscal prudence. That is correct? Thank you.
Okay, we will conclude our discussions today with just a little bit of a brief walk through the performance plan. As I did at the estimate briefing, I would like to congratulate the deputy minister and the staff for the preparation of this document. It's a well-prepared document, and I thank them for that.
Now, it's my intent to just look at a few of the strategies and anticipated outcomes. I'm certainly not going to try to do every one. What I've done is try to identify the ones that we perhaps have not addressed in our previous discussion. This is starting on page 16, for the benefit of staff.
The first strategic objective, under the first goal, that I wanted to ask about is the third one down. These are not numbered. It says: "In partnership with Canada and the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, implement innovative pilot projects to assist displaced or at-risk older workers to become re-employed." And then the anticipated outcome: "Implement a minimum of two innovative pilot projects to assist displaced or at-risk older workers to become re-employed."
I would like to ask the minister whether the pilot projects are in the planning stage. Do we have anything to share about those projects?
Hon. J. Pullinger: Not really. They're certainly in design, but they're not out the door yet.
K. Whittred: And then the next one after that is: "Develop and initiate partnership pilot projects aimed at linking long-term B.C. Benefits participants to the labour market." Again, the anticipated outcome is: "Identify pilot project partners, to attach long-term B.C. Benefits participants to the labour market." I wonder if the minister could explain in a little bit greater detail exactly how that anticipated outcome would work.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Once again, B.C. is leading the way. We're the first jurisdiction in Canada to do this. These are people that I have always said are invisible, or tend to be invisible, on the caseload. What we're doing is attempting to make them visible so that we can work with them to assist them with whatever they need to get on with their lives better. We'll certainly be working toward that as well -- and are.
[1515]
K. Whittred: I wonder
Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll be happy to let the member know when we have identified them. In this ministry we work with business, we work with labour, we work with voluntary organizations, and we work with co-ops. We work with other provinces, other ministries and the federal government. We'll work with anybody who comes along: municipalities -- I forgot municipalities -- first nations and virtually anybody. What we will do is determine what the need is first, and then we'll find the logical and willing partners to work with us to address that need. We have a huge number of partnerships in this ministry, and they've been very effective. So it's a good way to go, in my view.
K. Whittred: Moving over now to page 18, at the very top of the page, this is the objective: "Link people to alternative means of economic independence." This is the one that was announced some time ago, about implementing self-employment pilot projects across B.C. Then it goes on to say: "Anticipated outcome: 100 participants throughout the province."
I recall that when this one was announced, I had a little trouble getting my head around exactly what a project would look like. I wonder if perhaps the minister could share with me one or two examples of what might be a successful project in this area.
Hon. J. Pullinger: This is based on a pilot that I initiated with VanCity Development Corporation. I have a picture in my office of George Scott from VanCity presenting me with a poster from the first such program, the pilot that we did with him, which I'm very proud of.
Here's one of the success stories, with a lovely picture of this woman with her three absolutely gorgeous sons.
"Valerie is a single mother of three who went from illness and income assistance to successfully running her own business. She suffered serious leg fractures in 1994 that prevented her from working. Eager to be free from income assistance" -- like most are -- "she received guidance and support from the SDES staff in running her own small business. Valerie was anxious to be a positive role model for her children, and attributes her success to her own determination and the help of SDES staff."
K. Whittred: Along with the minister, I'm sure, I wish Valerie very well.
The next one I wanted to ask about is the one about the Stay in School initiatives. It was to develop a provincial Stay in School initiative. I guess my first query about that, coming from an educational background, would be to inquire about the role of school boards. I would believe that is probably a local issue.
Hon. J. Pullinger: It says here "in concert with the Ministry of
Education
[1520]
K. Whittred: I agree with the minister. I think that boards would probably welcome the initiative, particularly if there's money attached. I would perhaps suggest to the ministry, because this is something I do know a little bit about, that
[ Page 16283 ]
various districts have different policies -- some of them more successful than others. That might be a starting point to find out exactly what the situation is now. Perhaps the ministry is ahead of me on that one. I don't know.
On the next page, at the very top of the page: "Developing better links
between programs providing service to persons with disabilities." And on
the anticipated outcome, it says: "Consultation process leading to
recommendations which will be completed by October 2000." My query about
that was
Hon. J. Pullinger: What I said earlier, I believe, was that we could anticipate the report in the next six months.
K. Whittred: Thank you.
Over the page again, under "Strengthen our partnerships": "Reconfigure federal-ministry data exchange process to better protect privacy." This is to be implemented by fiscal next, I assume. I wonder if the minister could enlarge on that particular item.
Hon. J. Pullinger: This objective is not based on any particular
problem we have found. We work with the freedom-of-information and
protection-of-privacy office and legislation that our government put in place,
and we continue to improve our privacy provisions. What happens is that
K. Whittred: Yes. I just wanted to inquire of the minister
My question to the minister -- and this is a very genuine concern in light of
the recent problems in the federal ministry
[1525]
Hon. J. Pullinger: One of the reasons that we changed the form for application for benefits in this ministry -- which, as the Chair knows as well as I do, created the infamous "form storm" -- was based on the advice of the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner. That legislation was put in place by our government to prevent the kind of thing we've seen happen federally. The changes in the forms were driven by that legislation, that office and officer, etc.
In that form, what caused people concern was asking explicit consent. The process had never changed, but now we put it out front for people and said: "This is what you're consenting to." Either people missed it or didn't understand what it was. It was actually not worded as well as it should have been, and we undertook the work to change the form quite significantly, so people had a higher comfort level. But the point is that what we were doing was making it clearer to people what they were signing and explicitly and expressly asking their permission to do what needs to be done in terms of verifying information. So we do act with consent and are very concerned about privacy. I would suggest that we do a very good job.
For instance, the stories that I'm reading into the record have been put together with the written consent of the individuals to use their names and that information. They sign off on them. Otherwise, as the member knows, I will consistently, whether it's the opposition or the public or the media -- anybody -- refuse to talk about anybody's information. So we're very careful. We do have to balance the concerns of eligibility, accountability, privacy and evaluation. But privacy obviously supersedes those wherever possible, and we do get consent.
K. Whittred: I would add one more thing to the minister's list of
things that we have to be concerned about, and that is that with increasing
technology and our ability to use that technology, in many instances, to achieve
very good results in terms of research and information and so on, we have to be
very cognizant of what kind of information we're using and just
Having said that, on the second objective in that area, the strategy says: "Maximize the benefits of national child benefit dollars by ensuring funds are effectively directed to reducing child poverty and increasing labour market attachment."
And then the anticipated outcome is: "Prior to next fiscal year, provide
a comprehensive report on the data collection processes and evaluation measures
in place for all funded initiatives." I guess that is one of the few that
[1530]
Hon. J. Pullinger: In response to the first part of the member's comment, yes, I totally agree that technology can be a scary thing. That's one of the reasons why we brought in FOIPP, and that's why we have this objective in our strategic plan. That's to make sure we're always ahead of it. And as the member knows, I am sure, FOIPP says what can be collected, who can collect it, how it can be stored, how it can be used, who can use it, etc. So those are issues that are covered under FOIPP, and we strive to be on the leading edge of that all the time.
Secondly, the objective the member spoke to -- that is about the national child benefit. That's about the provinces across Canada trying to standardize and come up with accountability and data that make sense if you compare one province to another. This is the only province in the country that has the B.C. family bonus model; other provinces are doing different things. You'd be comparing apples and oranges if you collected the data differently. So we're trying to standardize the data and the reporting methods so that we can
[ Page 16284 ]
then, as a nation, sit down and say: "Well, this is what British Columbia did. We know that it closed the poverty gap by 19 and 25 percent for families and single parents overnight. It was highly effective. What did Alberta do, and was it as effective as what B.C. did?" So we can't either ask or answer those questions unless we're dealing with similar data and reporting methods within the accountability framework for the NCB across the country.
K. Whittred: Well, that is a really ambitious goal, I think. I was going to ask, just as a follow-up to that: what table can this be achieved at?
Hon. J. Pullinger: This is done through the
federal-provincial-territorial ministers' table. Our staff actually, British
Columbia
K. Whittred: Just one more question on this -- it's tweaked my
interest a bit: can I ask
Hon. J. Pullinger: The decisions about who goes to the table,
certainly in British Columbia
But it's up to the individual provinces to decide. Here we look at the agenda items and see who's the most appropriate minister to be there. It is very different, province to province. For example, most of the other provinces don't have any housing anymore. So a component is housing. It is so diverse amongst the provinces that the only reasonable way to deal with that is for provinces to decide themselves who goes to the table, and that's what happens.
[1535]
K. Whittred: Just two or three questions left -- we're getting there.
The last one in that area about strengthening partnerships is: "Work to
maximize provincial access to federal funds aimed at addressing
homelessness." Then it goes on to the outcome: "Reduce incidents of
homelessness through projects on stream
Hon. J. Pullinger: We have a range of programs that deal with
homelessness in British Columbia, again, probably along with Quebec, one of the
best, which is where
We have successfully negotiated some money with the federal government, as the member knows. We continue to build housing under the Homes B.C. program that is specifically for homeless, at-risk people. We have shelters and a cold-weather strategy. We have a range of programs to try to prevent homelessness. The causes are complex, and the solutions are just as complex. I'm happy to say that the federal government has made a small first step in terms of returning some of the money that was cut under the housing programs; it's come back as a small step forward in terms of dealing with the homelessness that has resulted from all of the cuts that we've seen, in large measure.
K. Whittred: On the next page under "Make more effective use of technology," I think that peripherally we have addressed a couple of these issues. I found the last one very interesting, and that was to develop a method to link participants through the public and post-secondary school systems, etc., and the linkage between participants and school data to develop protocols for ongoing analysis. Again, I will simply comment that I find that a very interesting and probably very useful goal. I think it will be a very sensitive one to actually achieve.
I will conclude our discussions with just a reference to the second strategy in that category, which says: "To enter into a systems integration, data-sharing initiative that will result in a substantial increase of our capacity to share information." I'm hoping that very soon the ministry will have the capacity to share with me the databases I was asking for without it being a great deal of work.
On that note, Mr. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report
resolution and
The Chair: There's a step we have to take prior. The Chair will call a vote.
Vote 45 approved.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Do we have to do
The Chair: No. Actually, I think the committee should get an explanation as to what the next steps would be, and that would be to recess this committee. Then the estimates of the Ministry of Education will be up for examination. At the close of the day the Minister of Education will report resolution on this vote, so we can have a continuance of a committee. We will report out at the end of the day.
So we are recessed, I would say -- and I don't know where the minister is -- until 4 o'clock.
Hon. J. Pullinger: Do you need a motion?
The Chair: No, we don't need a motion. Thank you, minister.
The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 4:04 p.m.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
(continued)
On vote 24: ministry operations, $4,536,431,000 (continued).
The Chair: Just before I recognize the member for Vancouver-Langara, I'd ask if the minister has opening comments.
[ Page 16285 ]
Hon. P. Priddy: I think most of the opening comments I had I made in Committee B when we began. My understanding is that we're going to move on today to some individual issues that the opposition members would like to raise.
[1605]
The Chair: Thank you, minister. The Chair is corrected. I thought we were beginning; I didn't know we were continuing. I'll pay more attention next time.
V. Anderson: I have six interrelated issues, in a way, that I'd like to raise briefly. They have to deal with the Vancouver area, of which I am a part. They are also very much areas that affect the minister's riding, as well, though, in the undertaking.
One of those is the reality of the multicultural mix that we have within our communities, particularly in our urban communities here in this part of British Columbia. Within that multicultural mix, as the minister is well aware, at least 50 percent of our students in many schools, and sometimes 80 percent, have English as a second language. In some of the schools in my particular riding -- as I talked to the principals -- a very high percentage of the students have English as a second language to the extent that they come into kindergarten with absolutely no English at all. Those children have been born here in Vancouver; they have grown up in Vancouver. Yet a very high percentage of these youngsters come to school without any English. There is the concern about the resources and the time frame for ESL when you have that quantity of students and that kind of concern that students have.
What I want to raise with the minister is that this is a concern that's been ongoing. Is there a concern within the ministry for these areas, which would include her area as well as the area of Vancouver, to readjusting the concern of the resources that are available for ESL in the classroom, because of the gravity and the quantity of the situation in which we find ourselves?
Hon. P. Priddy: I appreciate the member's question. Actually, I think my constituency experience is a little bit different. We do have children coming to school who have another language as their first language, but if they come from the Punjabi-speaking community, many of them have some English as well. I think probably in the member's riding that's more pronounced, even, than I might see.
Yes, we are concerned. So let me speak to some of the issues that we are doing to try and address the issues raised by people concerned about supporting students who have English as a second language, although their parents have English as an additional language, and it's probably third or fourth. We have increased the number of non-enrolling teachers who are available to support students with English as a second language. We do provide full-day kindergarten, recognizing the member's point that children come at kindergarten and that kindergarten, when you're five years old, is an extraordinarily wealthy time, if you will, to be able to learn. So we do provide full-day kindergarten for students. We have put additional resources, as well, into the classroom.
In terms of the time frame, and I know there's been the debate or discussion about it being five years and not seven years. Some of our experience was that some students who are being classified as English as a second language, the way the school district counts them, are students that are getting As and Bs in English and history grade 12, so they may not actually be students who still need that kind of English as a second language report.
Having told you what I know, I'll now tell you what the staff knows. I'm sure it'll be more. What we've looked at is what's happening around the country. While we provide funding for up to a maximum of five years -- and we do front-end loaded, as you know -- Ontario provides five years, Alberta three years, Saskatchewan three years, Manitoba three years. We certainly are at the top in terms of the length of time that ESL funding is provided for. Since '92, to '99, the amount of ESL funding has gone up about 83 percent, so there has been a significant increase. But I would say the front-loading is very important, particularly for very young students, and the increase in the number of non-enrolling teachers.
[1610]
V. Anderson: The thing I'd raise is that if you have one or two students, that is quite different than if you have a whole class or actually a whole school of students with a variety of languages and a variety of backgrounds. The increased quantity makes it much more difficult, both in the classroom and in the playground and in everything else, because there is always the struggle when you have a group of your own language as well as the other. If you're only one or two students in a class where you don't have other students who speak your language, then you learn much more quickly than when you have the mix. So I'd highlight that as one of the issues that's there in the Vancouver area.
Another part of that, which is not just a language issue, which comes out of the multicultural mix that we have, is that these people come from all of the different cultures of the world into our community. Britannia school, for instance, has youngsters from over 100 countries of the world in that one school. I know that my own wife, when she was teaching, had 25 or 26 different language groups and cultures that were there. So not only do you have a different language, but you have a different cultural system. You have a different family system, as the minister knows. You have a different holiday system, you have a different religious system, you have a different background and experience system. So working in a classroom of this mixture with all of these values and backgrounds, particularly where you have families who are quite different in their backgrounds, raises another issue.
One of the concerns that I have always had and have mentioned before in this regard is that I have found that what we do unconsciously in our educational system is that we separate the children from their parents. The children get a new aculturalization, a new awareness, a new Canadianization, if you like. But the parents are not part of that process. So the generations, the parents and the children, become far separated from each other, and a great deal of tension comes there.
At one point in the Vancouver school system we did have a number of multicultural workers -- far more than we have at the present time -- who worked with the parents as well as the students. Where there's a community school, parents come in, and there is some kind of coming together at the same opportunity. But if there's not a community school, and we do not have multicultural workers, and we don't have teachers
[ Page 16286 ]
that have multicultural training, then all of these items together compound the load that the teachers have in trying to understand the thought processes of the children.
In such a simple thing as where the teacher would say, "You look me in the eye when I talk to you," that's the last thing in the world a child would dare to do in many cultures, to look an adult in the eye. So there are simple things like that which are very much a part of the everyday life of our school system in the city.
Hon. P. Priddy: Well, I certainly take the points that the member has
raised; they're all legitimate ones. Just a couple of comments on my offer
There certainly still are multicultural workers. Could we use more? Probably. But there are multicultural workers in the school. There are also multicultural outreach workers through community organizations like SUCCESS, like the Surrey-Delta Immigrant Services Society and a number of others, who do outreach with parents whose children are in the school system. In part they try to be that cultural bridge, if you will, to help those parents be comfortable not only with going to the school but with what is happening in their children's school system.
We certainly do provide translation in meetings, and I think this is of some assistance to families, because this is very different. This may be an experience that a parent has never had, in terms of going to their child's school or being welcomed, and they obviously want very much to understand what is being said so they can help their son or daughter. So we do provide translation in meetings.
We provide translation in publications for families, not in any way that sort of array of languages, particularly when you raise Britannia, which is one I am familiar with, but there are a number of languages. We provide parent information in a number of languages, again, not expecting that they will necessarily have English as a comfortable language yet either.
There is a component of multicultural training in all teachers' training. A number of school districts like Vancouver and Surrey and those school districts that have not just one or two but large numbers of children who have English as a second language, provide some of that training within their own school district, their own school board as well.
I wanted to make two comments, going back to the last question for a moment if I might, with your permission. I'm sure the member knows this, but the research does tell us that students on average are successful in about three and a half years. So while it does go to five, a number of students -- the large majority -- are successful in a shorter time than that.
When the member talked about his spouse's teaching experience
[1615]
V. Anderson: I thank the minister, and I agree with her.
The other area that is there in our particular situation -- and this we've heard before, because of the medical facilities and the special educational facilities and the special professional facilities that we have -- is the larger number of students who come into our school systems because of special mental and physical needs, many of them with multi-needs as well. You begin to have the language mixture, you have the multicultural mixture, and you have the special needs mixture.
Under the pressures that we've had recently, we have lost the psychiatrists, we've lost the librarians, and we've lost the resource people in the schools to a very great extent. Over the last year I have had the opportunity to meet with the teachers at their discussion of their concerns. I have met with the school board over their concerns, and I have met with the parents' advisory committee. They all have the same concerns -- that the resource people are not there in the same quantity as they were -- because the needs of the number of students who come with more special needs are increasing, whereas the resources available for them are decreasing.
I remember one counsellor saying quite clearly that where it was their previous experience that most of the counselling they did with troubled youngsters was in grades 5, 6 and 7, most of the youngsters they were dealing with now were in kindergarten and grades 1 and 2. There's a major shift of need both in quantity and experience, yet the special needs persons' resources for physical and mental needs and multi-needs have been reduced.
Hon. P. Priddy: I'll try not to keep going back to the previous question as I discover new and wonderful things that the staff know. But I would like to go back just for a moment to the ESL funding for Vancouver. It has been brought to my attention that Vancouver spent $400,000 less than they were funded for last year in meeting the needs of students with English as a second language needs.
When we move on to talking about students with physical, intellectual or
behavioral challenges in the classroom, I both appreciate and am disturbed --
although I may know it to be true -- by the fact that there is a focus on
kindergarten, 1 and 2. It's good that the focus is there. But that children at
that age are requiring that kind of support
If there are many more children in Vancouver and in Surrey
V. Anderson: Take one, our concern -- another concern along the same line, to complete this particular part of it -- and that is because we also have, particularly in many schools in Vancouver in certain areas of the city, the large aboriginal population, which is another group altogether, because they're not part of the multicultural mix, by their own designs; they're a different concern. There are different needs, and they need to be dealt with differently because of the history in which we have been involved. There's that concern, which adds to the others which are also within our classrooms. In the
[ Page 16287 ]
past we haven't given the kind of focus in either curriculum or training to teachers who have to deal with these kinds of issues, along with the multiple other issues that are there for them.
My one comment to the minister's that we have not changed the formula: that is my concern -- that the formula has not changed, that we're doing it as it has been done. The circumstances have changed drastically, so that the formulas as they existed no longer are adequate to meet these combined situations that we've been discussing, the different populations and circumstances that are now in the school. They're totally different than they were 15 years ago.
[1620]
Even in my own particular area of Vancouver-Langara, in '91 probably 15 percent of the population was of Asian origin. That is now 40 percent; that has changed in that period of time. So that has changed drastically the whole orientation.
One of the changes that has been noted in the community centres which is
reflected also in the schools
I raise the two kinds of issues there. One is the aboriginal -- the concern
for them. And the other is the other changes that come around because of the new
mix that we have. I don't think
Hon. P. Priddy: I think I wrote down the points that the member was raising, so let me try to address them. Let me start at the end, I guess, in terms of the special ed dollars and whether there's enough resources to meet the need. I wouldn't for one minute stand here and say that the special education funding formula works the way we'd like it to work. So I wouldn't even have that debate with you. It doesn't, and that's one of the reasons that I think we've entertained looking at some changes.
Now, that doesn't automatically mean more money, but it may make a difference in terms of how boards spend their money. The example I think of is the Vancouver school board, which receives, I think, around $32,000 a year per student for dependent handicapped, which is kind of the most expensive student to support in the school district. They underspend in that area. They don't spend all of what they get in that particular area, but they struggle in other areas. I would certainly agree with the member that we need to look at how that formula can work better for people if you have districts underspending in those significant areas and then feeling real pressure in a different area.
Let me move on, if I might, then, to aboriginal education. I'm very pleased the member raised that question. There are a number of things we are doing, but boy, there's a lot we have to do better. I know the member knows that, and that's one of the reasons he raises it. Aboriginal students are not nearly as successful as we would want them to be, as they and as their parents would want them to be in order to be sort of successful people in the world and feel good about themselves and feel good about what they know.
Some of the things that we're doing to try and make a difference
There are some additional pieces beyond that, I think, that are important that we provide -- certainly, again, full-day kindergarten for aboriginal children, for some very good reasons about needing that additional support as early as we can get to them. If I could find a way of getting to them before they got to school, I'd do that too. But people tell me that's somebody else's portfolio -- but as early as we can, which of course is kindergarten.
[1625]
There is an additional funding, and I know the member knows this, but there is an additional $1,000 per student for aboriginal students -- $1,000 on top of what the school district gets on its per-student basis -- which is intended both to provide resources to allow the district to do in-service training, because there are in-service training days pertaining particularly to aboriginal culture and aboriginal learning styles, and so that you can involve aboriginal families in the schools. So there's an extra $1,000 per student.
We are doing improvement agreements. We're beginning to do that. We have one with Kamloops, and we have one with Campbell River, which we're about to sign on Friday. They are agreements that we do between the ministry, the school district and the local band, with a number of criteria for improving the success of aboriginal students. And we have very active aboriginal advisory people from the community that have provided us with some of the advice about how to go about this. We've got a long way to go.
Aboriginal education in the province is about $38 million on top of the regular amount. Part of this is about money, but part of it is about how we support students, I think, to help them to be more successful.
V. Anderson: I thank the minister. I agree with her that it's not about money necessarily. It's about understanding the process and recognizing, which is difficult for us to do, that the aboriginals are many nations. They're not one nation; they are many nations.
I know an illustration, for instance, of an aboriginal minister, as a student
minister, who was asked to go from British Columbia to northern Manitoba. And he
said: "No way. I can't go there; I would not be welcome." You as a
non-aboriginal could go there and make a mistake, and that would be forgivable.
But if I went there, with a different culture and a different background, and
made a mistake, it would be unforgivable. So I couldn't go there." So we
have to remember that there are many aboriginal nations, and it's not just an
aboriginal
[ Page 16288 ]
Also, one of the other things I learned in theological college from one of
the aboriginal men who came in as having been a counsellor and, at 42 years, had
gone back to university, commented when they tried to give him exams in the
theological college
So it's difficult for us to work in that kind of context. I highlight that because all of these things together are what we have in our school system today, and that's not the kind of school system that most people have experienced until the last 20 years. It's quite a different system, because they're all there together in the same place.
I'm quite convinced that we need to find new formulas -- not just new
formulas, but also new processes of thinking. Even to the point that I learned
very early, when I was a child and we stopped at the grocery store on the
highway where a Chinese gentleman was running the store
Moving away from the population questions, which are the ones I think are key
in trying to solve our issues, which are not primarily finances, although they
involve that
The one that is a budget question -- which is a real concern to the people in our area every day, as we listen to the news about the earthquakes that have taken place in many parts of the world even in the last day or two -- is earthquake upgrading of our schools in this city. We have many schools that are very old. We're very aware of that. Is there a program of increasing and bringing forward at a more rapid rate the upgrading of many of our schools which were built in 1910 or 1912?
[1630]
Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you, for waiting for the answer, member. I think, there are two parts.
You see, if I take my glasses off to see people, I can't read what's on the paper; this is a challenge. This is an age thing -- right?
Interjection.
Hon. P. Priddy: Yeah, I know. I have the new prescription. I haven't had time to go pick out frames.
Interjection
Hon. P. Priddy: That's what he told me -- progressive lens, eh?
There are two parts to this. In January we started a four-year pilot project, which this year for Vancouver school board is about half a million dollars, to look at some of the non-structural mitigation -- you know, things inside schools that could be at risk or could cause students or obviously staff or parents or others who are there to be at risk. So that's a four-year pilot project for some of that non-structural mitigation.
At the same time, we're also doing structural assessment. There's about $40
million over three years. One of the things we're trying to do
V. Anderson: Thank you very much to the minister for that response and the interest.
My last concern is one that I've already talked to the minister on, and I appreciate that the minister and the deputy have both been working on this. This is the Glen Eden School, which is in my riding. I'm very pleased to have them there, because Glen Eden is a very unique and very marvellous school which is doing some wonderful work. I'm glad that the minister and the deputy have both been willing to take an initiative in bringing people together to work on that.
If I might take the opportunity to say that I talked to Jack Altman today. He said that if you would be in touch with him, he will adjust his schedule immediately to whatever suits you. You don't have to wait till the end of the month. He has arranged for that and will be delighted to meet with you and would be anxious to do so. So if you can follow through, I thank you very much for the work you've done on that and appreciate your concern and your interest. Of course, I look for a good result.
V. Roddick: Mr. Chair, my colleague has just commented on the huge changes in the structure and the demands of education in the past 15 years or so, to such an extent that high achievers have now been relegated to the back burner. I'm bringing this letter to read, because this is actually what is happening.
[1635]
"Dear Val Roddick:
"I am a grade 5 gifted child from a private school called Choice Learning Centre. I am concerned about how B.C. schools are spending almost no money that is distributed by the provincial government on gifted-children programs. . . . I would like the B.C. government to create more facilities for gifted children. . . and that the government monitor schools more closely, so that the schools use at least some money for gifted programs. . . . I am very concerned about this issue, and I definitely wish someone could do something about it. Hopefully you will read and think about my letter.
"Sincerely,
Patrick Hay"
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm not sure if there's a question or
V. Roddick: Well, it was the comment on the fact that the high achievers -- or gifted children -- have now been relegated to the back burner. Is it possible to recognize those children and make sure that they are included in the process
[ Page 16289 ]
and that, as he says "the government monitor schools more closely, so that the schools use at least some money for gifted programs." Can the minister comment on this, please.
Hon. P. Priddy: A statement first and, if I could, an opinion. I have heard from a number of people that there should be more money spent on children who are seen as having the need for additional educational challenge. We spend currently about 2 percent of the budget in addition to what they get for the regular student. The provincial average is $6,219; I'm not sure what it is in your district. On top of that, we do spend another 2 percent on those children who need additional challenges.
I guess I would not agree, in what I've seen in the schools and school districts that I've been in, that they've been relegated to the back burner. Can we always use and need more resources for any group of children? Of course we can. We can all make the same argument for children who need additional challenges as well. But it's not as if there is no funding. I see challenge programs at the elementary school, and I see challenge programs at the secondary school level that school districts have initiated.
I guess just a personal comment is that I wish we'd find
What most of the research says, by the way, is that it's recognized that about 2 percent of the population are those folks who need additional support in terms of additional educational challenges.
V. Roddick: You say 2 percent. Well, that sounds good. But how does
that compare to what has happened over -- as my colleague was mentioning -- say,
the last ten to 15 years with the ESL and all the other demands on the special
assistants, etc.? How much of the budget, then, is
Hon. P. Priddy: I must admit, unless somebody can look for this
[1640]
And I need to make a correction; I think I misspoke. We do recognize, as does
the research, that about 2 percent of the population falls into that, if you
will, gifted category. That doesn't necessarily mean that 2 percent of
everybody's budget is targeted in that particular direction, so I need to be
clear that
I think there was a little bit of difference. I mean, has it grown in the
same way? Probably not. But I would suggest that the number of children who
qualify as gifted has stayed reasonably stable, whereas the number of children
who have ESL as a particular need -- or the number of children with physical
disabilities, fetal alcohol syndrome, intellectual handicaps -- has grown
enormously. I mean, just in the numbers of children that are living longer, the
kind of medical intervention
At some stage I think we always have to ask ourselves: how much can we expect -- and I think quite a bit, by the way -- the regular classroom teacher to be able to accommodate? In my own personal experiences with at least one of my children and in talking with teachers, children who have additional learning challenges can in many ways be supported in the regular classroom with perhaps some additional activities -- but not to the extent that the other children you mention might need it.
V. Roddick: I won't belabour the point, but I think what this is trying to get across is that we don't want to lose the fact that we want to keep as high levels as possible of education. We want to educate people, and I think this young lad has a point. There are so many demands being made on education at this particular time that we are tending to look after, and therefore we reduce the standard of education because we're trying to accommodate so many other things. Let's not forget that we're out there to teach and work with those that have the talent. So thank you, minister.
Hon. P. Priddy: I thank the member for her comments. We can always do more, no matter what grouping of children we're talking about, so you won't ever get an argument from me about that. I appreciate the point you're making.
When I looked at the academic results that just came out this week, both the Euclid math exams and the SAIP results, students in British Columbia in terms of being educated and learning did really, really well, and they did really well compared to the rest of the country. I do think that we're not reducing their learning and the amount of knowledge they're acquiring. In point of fact, we're focusing it so that we've seen pretty significant increases in the achievement of students in British Columbia.
B. Barisoff: My first question was going to be on the situation they had in school district No. 53, where they had some problems with the building site. I understand that the minister signed off on that yesterday. I'm sure, on behalf of the residents of school district No. 53 and particularly in Osoyoos for the Osoyoos Elementary School, that the process is actually starting to move again. It seemed almost impossible for me to believe that they owned all the land and that a Crown grant issue would create such a problem. But it is moving along, according to the district, and I thank the minister for moving that along. Let's hope that it's the building plans and that they get started on building sometime this fall.
We want to move on to school district No. 51, the Boundary country. I want to read one paragraph that school district No. 51, Boundary, sent. It says: "The board believes the unique educational, health and social needs of children and families living in rural B.C. are not recognized by government. The gap between equity of access to those vital programs is growing wider between rural and metro districts."
It seems like this is a growing problem with rural districts, where they seem to be getting less and less. One of the comments that the superintendent, I think, made to our critic was that all the schools he's got that are under 350 students
[ Page 16290 ]
are running deficits. If those schools are running deficits, he's got to take the money from elsewhere to make sure that they get a fair level of actual funding. Could the minister make a comment on what is planned for the rural districts of British Columbia and what can be done to help them out?
[1645]
Hon. P. Priddy: I have some general points about the additional ways in which we might support rural schools and then, if I might, a couple of comments, because you'd asked about Boundary in particular.
You ask if there are some things we can do differently for rural schools.
There are some things we do do differently for rural schools. As I say to all of
your colleagues, can we always do better? Sure we can. But some of the things
that are different in a rural school district from an urban school district,
which try and recognize that
There is additional funding for small secondary schools and additional funding for small elementary schools; that's small elementary schools, whether they're rural or urban. The amount of money is spread over a smaller number of students and therefore, I think, is an advantage for anybody who has a small school. There's an extra isolation allowance. I don't know if there are people in Boundary who would meet the criteria, but we have a number of teachers in rural and remote areas who are entitled to extra isolation allowance, given the school district that they may be working in. There are always ways in which things can be improved; I'm always happy to hear those recommendations.
We're also trying to look at some transportation things around safety for students, particularly in rural areas.
When I look at the history of the Boundary funding
B. Barisoff: Could the minister indicate how much small secondary schools get in dispersion funding?
Hon. P. Priddy: I have staff checking the amount of dispersion dollars that go to Boundary; they're just checking that for me now.
In terms of small secondary schools, any secondary school in the province
gets about $205,000, regardless of how big it is -- whether you've got ten
students or 1,000 students. They get $205,000. On top of that, a small secondary
school
B. Barisoff: One of the other items that I want to touch on is the
special ed funding. Also being a former school board chair, I am used to
attacking the funding formula on a regular basis. But my concern is that when
the special ed funding
[1650]
Now, for small districts like school district 51 -- and I know that the district that I was chair of was 14 and is now 53 -- when the amalgamation took place, there was a commitment made by government that special ed funding would not be reduced. When I read the letter from the minister to Roma Brown, the board chairperson for school district 51, special ed funding is being reduced. In small rural areas, again, they are taking the impact of what's taking place. They don't have the economy of scale of numbers of the big school districts in the metro areas like Vancouver or Surrey or Abbotsford or whatever.
So could the minister comment on the commitment that was made by the minister at the time that amalgamations would have little or no effect, particularly how it affected the special needs students of this province?
Hon. P. Priddy: Just let me go back for a moment to the dispersion money. It's $143,000 for that particular school district. Okay, so that's the amount.
B. Barisoff: That's the total amount?
Hon. P. Priddy: For dispersion money -- plus the $200,000 on top of $205,000 for secondary schools. But dispersion is a separate category which just recognizes driving extra mileage because of the size of the district.
Two things around special education funding. My understanding of the agreement at the time when the districts were amalgamated is that there would be three years of phased-in or phased-out funding, if you will, that affected only district-based special education staff. There has been no change to special education funding for students. The per-pupil amount that a school district gets is exactly the same as it was before; there's been no change in that. The agreement at the time, I don't believe -- or so staff who was there at the time tells me -- was not that there would be no change, but that the change would be phased in over three years. I would be quite sure that there would be documentation to that effect. So at the end of the three years then the funding is gone, because there's been a three-year wait to sort of help accommodate or cushion that. But it only affected district administration for special ed and not per student. Per student is the same.
B. Barisoff: The first thing with the dispersion funding -- the $143,000. Is that on a per-district basis or on a per-school basis? The minister might answer that after I sit down.
Going back to the three-year phase-in, I guess my argument is that when you
talk about a three-year phase-in and that there's no less money going to the
students
[ Page 16291 ]
you go to any of the small school districts that were amalgamated in the province and tell them that there's no less money going to students, they'll say that's wrong. There is less money going to students, because there was a pot of money that was taken away. Districts were able to use that pot of money to make sure that it was spread out through the entire school districts. Rightfully or wrongfully, a lot of small school districts probably had better than average funding for a special needs program -- which, in some cases, when you look at the economy of scale again, they don't have. Ultimately, it was a real plus for a lot of the districts. A lot of the small districts that can't bring in the kinds of skilled people they might need to look after some of these special needs students needed that extra funding.
Now, the minister is telling me that it was -- that she can find the documentation that said there was going to be a three-year phase-in and that that was going to be the effect. First of all, I'd like to ask the minister to make comment on the fact that it does have an effect on small school districts. And if she could get me a copy of where it said that with the three-year phase-in they would lose all this money and amalgamate the school districts.
[1655]
Hon. P. Priddy: We'd be happy to get you the documentation on the three-year phase-in. It was before my time, but there apparently is a lot. We'll get you however much you might think is useful and necessary for your purpose. We'll do that before estimates are over, unless we finish today. I don't want to take any questions on notice that we don't get back to you on before we actually finish estimates, but we will get you that.
Around how those dollars have been reduced, which is again about the school district-based administration, it was an initiative to try to create some equity between school districts. I think that with yours there were two school districts that amalgamated, if I'm correct.
B. Barisoff: Yup.
Hon. P. Priddy: That area was getting twice as much money as, for instance, the Stikine school district or district 27, the Cariboo, which is huge compared to Boundary. Your area was getting twice as much because of those two districts. It was an attempt to bring some equity to the availability of those dollars. As I say, the per-pupil funding hasn't changed. There was, I think, an understanding at the time that if you were going to put two school districts together, you didn't need to maintain a double administration for each school district. Yes, there has been some reduction of district special ed administration. I wouldn't expect to amalgamate and keep a dual set of administrators or a dual set of experts to support students in the field. But the per-pupil funding has not changed anywhere.
B. Barisoff: Not to belabour the point, but the administration that
was used in small school districts, and I speak from the experience of being
there as the school board chair
Now the minister mentions other districts throughout the province that got less, and this was to equalize it out and whatever else. In fairness, if you looked at taking the administrative category -- in our particular district, I know, we used that for assessing students -- and saying that, then they're not taking anything out. That was all part and parcel of what they needed to administer the program.
I'm sure you're going to get other colleagues of mine, and maybe some
colleagues from your own side, that are going to tell you that the amalgamated
school districts were not supposed to lose anything on this deal. In short
That has happened because of the three-year phase-in. I would gladly look at where it was going to be a three-year phase-in with no effect on the school district, because it has had a huge effect on both of my school districts. Like I said, I'm sure you're going to hear from others of my colleagues who will indicate the same thing.
I would just like to ask the minister one more time
[1700]
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm struggling a bit with how to respond to the member's comment in a way that's useful. We will get you the documentation, certainly.
The goal of amalgamation, which was stated by whichever minister it was at the time -- the member from Prince George, I think -- was to effect cost savings in governance and administration and to reallocate some of those savings to the classroom level. What I hear this member saying is that as a result of not continuing to maintain two separate groups of special ed administrators, those administrators were also doing assessment.
I think in a couple of the other districts
[ Page 16292 ]
If there indeed is an issue around assessment and being unable to be assessment in this particular school district, then I'm happy to have my staff have a conversation with you and to follow that up both with you and with Boundary.
B. Barisoff: Just one last comment. You keep referring to them as administrators. In our case, we call them special education co-ordinators. Yes, they were under the administrative umbrella. But with the title of special education co-ordinator, that was their job, and that's what they had to do. In small districts that's a fact.
We weren't taking any administration
Hon. P. Priddy: Let's talk about it -- okay?
B. Barisoff: Thank you.
G. Abbott: I appreciate the opportunity to actually to follow my colleague from Okanagan-Boundary, because I gather from his questions that many of the issues are similar to those that I want to bring forward to the minister on behalf of school district 83. School district 83 -- and I'm sure the minister already knows this but just for refreshment -- is another amalgamated school district. It is a combination of the former Shuswap district and the former Armstrong-Spallumcheen district.
My recollection in terms of commitments made around the impact of
amalgamation
Now school district 83 is trying to deal with a number of problems. I'll start with special ed, because I think it follows up better on the important questions that my colleague from Boundary has asked. The general crisis that I think faces school district 83 is this. They are suffering from declining enrolment. Some 545 students have been lost in the district over the past three years, according to their figures. The consequence of that is that the district has lost some $2.2 million in provincial funding as a consequence of declining enrolment.
[1705]
At the same time as they are faced with that declining base of funding, their flexibility, their opportunity to deal in imaginative ways with declining revenues has been further limited by the agreement-in-committee. I'm not sure what it's referred to now. I know that when we dealt with it in the Legislature as a bill, it was agreement-in-committee. Perhaps that's still the way it's referred to; I'm not sure.
The provincial collective agreement, as well, particularly on the special education side, has further taken away some of the flexibility which the district might use to address their budgetary crunch. Generally, they have to somehow deal with collective agreements that are developed at the provincial level, which obviously they have to honour. They have to somehow do it within the context of what appears to be an ever-declining funding base because of declining numbers in the school system.
Again -- and I don't want to offend the minister here; I'm trying to express this in as non-partisan a way as I can -- the nature of school district 83 is very much different than one would obviously find in urban British Columbia. There are a lot of communities in my constituency, and there are a lot of schools in my constituency. They're scattered all over. In some cases, there may be ten minutes between the schools, or there may be an hour between the schools. It becomes difficult to manage the budget crunch, because there is obviously a physical plant to maintain. There are basic levels of service that need to be maintained, even if there has been, overall, a decline in the school population. That's the general context for school district 83 and, I think, a very brief but hopefully accurate summary of the very considerable challenge that faces them.
I want to start on the special education side as well. The minister has committed to the member for Okanagan-Boundary to go back and look at what's on paper. I'd encourage the minister to go back and look, as well, at the comments which the former minister, the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, made in the context of legislative debates around amalgamation and some of the other issues. From the material that school district 83 has forwarded to me, they believe they are now receiving reduced funding, by about $280,000, in the area of special education funding -- much less than was the case before amalgamation. They feel that they've really lost in this area, particularly to the tune of about $280,000, as a consequence of the loss of this special education funding.
The minister can comment on that, for one thing, and I'll invite that, but in the interests of time here, I'll also note the loss of flexibility. The provincial collective agreement, as I understand it -- the minister can correct me if I'm wrong -- requires that special education teacher ratios be maintained at the level that they were pre-agreement. In the case of the North Okanagan-Shuswap school district, that's one special ed teacher for 324 students, compared to the provincial ratio of 1-to-504. They have an additional challenge there, and they have to do it in the context of $280,000 less. So they've got an enormous challenge there.
This has forced the school district to make a series of really unpopular, difficult, gut-wrenching decisions about special ed assistance, among others. They have decided to reduce, by 75 hours per day, the special education assistance time in the schools. That's going to have an impact, certainly, on the level of assistance which special needs kids can expect to have in the classrooms in school district 83. I think it's a very bad situation here.
[1710]
Frankly, the school district trustees that I talk to these days are really, really unhappy. They feel that they are being asked to do a job and are simply not being provided with the tools. I hope the minister can offer some hope or some light, because to trustees, to parents and to teachers there is just a lot of unhappiness right now in this particular area.
Hon. P. Priddy: I want to provide the member with a little bit of information. In the context of doing that, it's not my
[ Page 16293 ]
intent, or I certainly don't wish it to be seen as my intent, to stand up -- even though I do have some information that may be useful -- and say: "No, no, no, no, no. I have all the right information here, and your school district is wrong." That's not the case. When you live education on the ground, then you have a pretty good sense of what the issues are in your school district. I'm trying to provide some information that may inform our discussion about this. It's certainly not to say: "No, no, they have no concerns."
A couple of things. As well, as you mentioned, you do have a fairly scattered school district in terms of distance. Some are not very far, and some are quite a bit farther. We talked earlier, just before you came in with your other colleague, about dispersion money, which is sort of for distances. In your school district it's just over $400,000. That tries to at least support that acknowledgment of the fact that schools are far apart and that there is a fair bit of distance to be covered.
One of the other things that you've seen in your school district as well as
others is the whole issue or challenge of declining enrolment. I think you've
had an enrolment drop of about 6 percent over the last three years. That is a
challenge. And while it does make a difference in the number of students funded
over time, what we try and do is also not take dollars away that
In terms of the provincial collective agreement and the fact that some districts are saying that either it's not funded or it's not provided with the kind of flexibility they need, there are two things. One of them is this. You may already know this from your district; if so, forgive me for repeating it. There was another $863,000 provided for non-enrolling teachers as a result of the provincial collective agreement, and about $388,000 provided for K-to-3 teachers as a result of the agreement. It's not that the agreement got made and people didn't get any money to be able to meet the conditions of the agreement. This is slightly over -- well, a bit over -- $1 million to compensate for the provincial collective agreement.
The flexibility one is an interesting one, and I'll try and keep my comments
brief on this. One of the purposes of undertaking the special education review
-- which is currently, as we speak, at the printer's -- was to try and see not
if we could provide more money -- I don't think that was ever the original
intention -- but some more flexibility around the funding. I feel as if this has
come full circle. I was outside government when we were arguing for targeted
dollars, because people weren't spending the money that they were supposed to in
certain areas. By doing that, we
The Chair: It's been drawn to the Chair's attention that there appears to be a pressing need for a short recess. So we'll be back in five minutes.
The committee recessed from 5:15 p.m. to 5:20 p.m.
[S. Hawkins in the chair.]
G. Abbott: Just to pick up, then, on where we left off, which is around the issue of special education funding and some of the challenges -- notably, in this case, the challenges facing school district 83.
I won't dwell on this particular point any longer, but regardless of what funds may be going here or going there, I would like the minister to take a serious look at the issue of special education funding for amalgamated districts. I know it has been very tough on everyone concerned, with the quite gut-wrenching changes or reductions that the school district has had to put in place around special education assistance in North Okanagan-Shuswap. I do hope, if there were commitments made by former ministers, that those are followed through on.
The second area I wish to discuss in relation to school district 83 is the
impact of the agreement-in-committee on small and/or rural school districts. The
agreement, frankly, has not worked well in the North Okanagan-Shuswap,
particularly around the class sizes for kindergarten and in grades 1 and 2 -- in
part reflecting the dispersed nature of the constituency. I think there are --
and the minister can give me the exact number if she wishes -- in the
neighbourhood of 20 elementary schools in school district 83. Obviously, when
kids come to school, they don't always fall
I'll give you some examples of what happened last year with respect to this. If I was to stand up in a room in the Shuswap and say, "What do you think about the agreement-in-committee?" I would probably get a bunch of blank stares. But if I get up in a room in Shuswap and say, "What do you think about kindergarten kids being bused for up to an hour to go to school?" people get very, very upset. Indeed they are very upset in the Shuswap right now, because that's exactly what's happening in these small rural elementary schools. The numbers just aren't working out right. There's always a few more or a few less than the number contemplated or anticipated by the agreement-in-committee. As a consequence, it means busing.
I guess probably the most extreme example of that is kids in Anglemont getting on the bus in the morning. They ride the bus to Celista. Their older brothers and sisters get off the bus, and they continue on for another three-quarters of an hour to Sorrento to go to school. It's a bad situation.
I'll give you examples of busing issues this year. At Carlin Elementary near Salmon Arm five primary grade students, grades 1-to-3, and one kindergarten student, had to be bused in order to accommodate the agreement-in-committee. Three primary students from the north Shuswap, grades 1-to-3, were bused. Seven Parkview students in Sicamous were bused to Malakwa, because the class sizes didn't work out. At Ranchero two grade 1 students had to be bused to other schools. At Salmon Arm Elementary one grade 1 student and one kindergarten student had to be bused. At Silver Creek, one grade 1 student had to be bused away to another school, away from their community, in order to get an education. At Sorrento four primary students, grades 1-to-3, were bused, along with one kindergarten student. At South Broadview two primary students, grades 1-to-3, had to be bused away from their local school in order to get an education.
[1725]
It's something that really -- and this is particularly in the context of kindergarten students -- strikes an emotional chord
[ Page 16294 ]
with the parents when they have to see their kids hop on a bus for maybe ten minutes, maybe half an hour and, in some cases, an hour to go to school. When they understand that the agreement-in-committee has taken away the flexibility of the school district to manage those numbers, they rightly, I think, are disappointed and upset by that.
In the past the school district dealt with these kind of issues, because obviously it's not new. From year one we've had this issue of small rural schools not fitting neatly into precise numbers for class sizes. In the past the district dealt with this by providing additional preparation time to the teachers each week. They were given release time for preparation of report cards and for marking, and so on. It was through these kinds of measures that the school district was able to deal with it.
Now the districts are not only incurring the cost of additional busing, obviously, but there is, I think, the greater issue of the angst that is experienced by parents when their kids are being bused some distance to get an education.
I'll invite the minister to tell me whether the experience, as I've described it in school district 83, is something that she has heard of additionally from other districts, around the issue of class size and the busing issue.
Hon. P. Priddy: Let me just try to take your questions, hon. member, if I might. Is this the first time I've heard this? Or is this similar to what I've heard in other places? No, it's not the first time. I think what you describe is something that has been faced by other rural districts.
I think there's a couple of pieces to this. You know, in a larger way, reducing class sizes is probably one of the best things that you can do for very young children in terms of giving them a good support to start school. But there's no question that in rural districts this has been made much more difficult, and I acknowledge that.
One of the other things, I think, that some districts have tried to do -- and
some parents support this and some don't -- is trying to do split classes so
that you aren't actually taking children to more places or further than you
might want to. In some cases that works, and in some cases there are parents who
really don't support split classes. We might have
When the agreement was done, I think there was a letter that went from the deputy minister of the time, if you will, to the BCTF president at the time, suggesting that people really should both use good judgment and good will and look at what is reasonable accommodation, particularly around the area of busing. We haven't particularly seen grievances or arbitrations come forward on this issue, so I don't know if people have already made some of those accommodations.
But the concerns are legitimate. I don't think any of us want to see little people on buses any longer than we have to. It is a reality in many rural areas that you do have to be bused to school, but not for any longer than you'd like to see.
The only thing that some people have looked at
But yes, I've heard the concerns that the member has raised in other places. While it's a good education initiative, it has not worked as well in rural areas as one might have hoped.
[1730]
G. Abbott: Just to advise the minister on the discussions I've had with the district on this, they certainly have tried to work with the BCTF with respect to this issue of the rural schools and the difficulty of getting the class sizes to conform to the set numbers in the agreement-in-committee. Apparently it has been difficult. I haven't been privy, obviously, to the detail of it. But my understanding is that basically the response from the BCTF has been that the school district should either hire new teachers or bus the students out. Obviously the hiring of new teachers would be a nice, simple solution, were it not for the fact that the school district has fewer dollars to contend with more demands; so obviously that's not going to work.
The busing out is the way in which it is being dealt with after the school classes have been combined. I suspect that in every school in school district 83 now there are K-1 or 1-2 combinations. I understand from the district that there are even numerous examples of K-1-2 splits now in schools in the North Okanagan-Shuswap, as the school district desperately tries to wrestle with the fact that, again, because of the numbers, they're not going to fit readily into blocks of 20 or 21 or 22. Of course, as soon as you have even one kindergarten student in a K-1 or K-1-2 split, then the maximum class size immediately reverts to 20. So again, the solution poses additional difficulties to the school district in managing that situation.
That, I guess, is the core of the problem. And I think the school district
has tried to deal with it in the ways the minister suggested -- with the split
classes. They desperately want to avoid breaking up communities and moving kids
here and there. In fact, the numbers that I spoke of -- the experience last
year, the numbers of students being bused
[1735]
Hon. P. Priddy: I will go back and look at some of the points that the
member has raised. Other than the pieces I've already referred to, I don't have,
I don't think, any particular advice that I can offer. But I do acknowledge the
veracity of the points made, and I will go back and have a look at some of these
pieces to see if there's any other way. There are a couple of other ones that I
wouldn't mind
G. Abbott: I appreciate those comments from the minister. I do think it is very important that we find a way of
[ Page 16295 ]
dealing with this. The pending problem, the problem that's anticipated for September 2000, I'll just outline briefly. And then I want to use one example from that, because I really want to underline the importance of coming to grips with this.
[D. Streifel in the chair.]
In September of 2000 all kindergarten students from Ashton Creek, which is probably a 20- or 25-minute drive from Enderby, at best, will be taken to M.V. Beattie in Enderby. Two to four kindergarten students are expected to be going to Sorrento, because the class size is going to be that much over 20 in Carlin.
It's expected that nine kindergarten students from Grindrod will be bused to M.V. Beattie, as well -- again, about a 20-minute bus ride each way. I want to put on the record some of the very legitimate and real concerns that I'm hearing from the community of Grindrod around this.
Nine kindergarten kids from Salmon Arm Elementary are going to be bused to Hillcrest Elementary, again around Salmon Arm, because of this issue. In Silver Creek, four kindergarten students will be bused to Salmon Arm West. Any overflow of students from Sorrento will be going on to Carlin, and three to five kindergarten students from South Broadview, it's anticipated, will be moved to Hillcrest.
So there are all kinds of shifts that occur here. At one point last year,
Sorrento Elementary had kids moving one way and then coming back, because it
I want to advise the minister for a moment about the Grindrod Elementary situation. The folks in Grindrod are dealing with this, I think, in a major way for the first time, and they're very upset about it. I know the school district officials from school district 83 had one of the more unpleasant nights of their lives dealing with apparently some 60 citizens of Grindrod. Some of these people were parents, but many of them were just residents of the community concerned about the future of their community.
I want to read into a record a portion of a letter I got from constituents in Grindrod, who I think the minister may know from a previous life as well. They are Dr. Randal and Mrs. Suzanne Balcom, who now live in Grindrod and who rightly had some expectations about what was going to happen this fall when their oldest child, a five-year-old, was going to enter kindergarten in Grindrod. I'll quote briefly from a portion of their letter:
"We left Vancouver in 1996 to raise our children in a smaller, more intimate community. We commute to Vancouver to work in order to sustain ourselves and provide our children with what we believe to be a loving and nurturing community."Our son Samuel was one of the nine children registered for kindergarten this fall. Three weeks ago we received a phone call from the principal of the school informing us that due to low registration, these nine children would be sent on a school bus to the next town of Enderby. Although the size of the school has not declined, the kindergarten class does not meet the rules on class size and therefore is ineligible for funding.
"The idea of our small son sitting on a bus for longer than is necessary and actually going right past our community school seems outrageous. The dangers of the highway in the winter make the busing of our five-year-old son inconceivable. We will not put his life at risk, and we will make alternate arrangements for his kindergarten year such as home schooling. This is the sentiment of half of the parents. We believe that our children have a right to be educated in the community that they live in, especially since there is a vibrant school in our community that will have an empty kindergarten class this fall."
Again, I'm not reading the whole letter, just a portion of it.
[1740]
One of the issues that they raised there is one that I've heard frequently as well. If parents are going to see their kids bused some considerable distance in order to go to kindergarten, they're going to exercise their opportunity to home-school, or they will put them in a private or Christian school to deal with it. As the minister knows so well, that starts the cycle round again where the funding for that student won't go to the school district, and their situation will be that much more difficult as well.
I mentioned to the minister that it wasn't just the parents of the students that were concerned in Grindrod; it's others as well. This is true of Malakwa; it's true of north Shuswap; it's true of all these communities. I just wanted to give the minister this one example of what the agreement-in-committee has meant to communities.
Here's a letter from a letter from a lady named Myrna Lock, who is president of the Grindrod Area Planning Society. She's a grandmother. She's got grandchildren, I think, that would be in school in Grindrod. She's concerned, as a member of that community, about the impact the closure of the kindergarten would have on it. I'll quote briefly from her letter.
"The kindergarten is a vital part of our community. If we do not have a kindergarten in Grindrod, this will impact the children, their families and our community negatively in areas such as child bonding, family structure, school bonding, child and parents' morale, identity, child safety, five-year-old children busing with teenagers, splitting up siblings, economic development, societal structure, future boundaries, growth and development.
"We are a rural community and live here because we like the rural lifestyle and often have chosen to buy property here in order to raise our families in this environment. Our lifestyle is being eroded by the decisions being made regarding our schools."
That's just a short excerpt from that letter.
All of this, I suggest to the minister, reinforces the very real difficulties that are being created by entirely fixed, closed class sizes in small rural communities that just aren't built to accommodate that kind of a provision. I'll invite the minister to give me any further comment on that before I move on to the final area of questions for her.
Hon. P. Priddy: At least one of the descriptions that the member used,
certainly on the surface, I agree doesn't make much sense. None of us want young
children to go farther
[ Page 16296 ]
And I don't know if they've looked at a K-1 split or whatever to keep kids
from going quite that far. Two things I might offer
I don't know, with the nine children in kindergarten, whether you would find it useful for my deputy to talk to the district about their staffing plan or not. If you do, I'm happy to do that; if you don't, then I won't. You can let us know.
[1745]
G. Abbott: I think, at this point, the district trustees and the district staff would welcome any opportunity for intervention by the deputy or others to try to find ways in which they can deal with this. I don't doubt for a moment that everyone goes into this with the best of intentions. Obviously, if there's an accommodation that can be found, I'm sure that they would delight in finding it. The K-1, K-1-2 split is an option that they have been looking at in Grindrod, I understand. I can't recall how this works out, but I gather you can reorganize it one way and see the kindergarten kids bused, or you can reorganize them another way, disrupt the grades 3, 4 and 5 kids and bus them off. I know they've had some unpleasant alternatives to choose from, and I'm sure the district will follow up on the opportunity that the minister has presented to try to work through these problems as they're confronted with it.
I'll save my last request to the minister for last, because hopefully, this is in the realm of things that can be done -- perhaps one of the easier ones.
A Voice: Adjournment?
G. Abbott: Adjournment? No, I know my colleagues want to get in a question or two before we adjourn.
Bonnie Fisher is a resident of rural Salmon Arm. For a few years now she has
been pursuing her personal dream of creating a centre for the deaf and
hard-of-hearing persons, called Fisher Grove Ranch. She has been working with
the federal government, the provincial government ministries and so on to put
this all together. She has received an HRDC grant to do some work there. It is
her hope that she will be able to get five surplus portables from the Ministry
of Education. I gather there's a process for doing that. She has been advised of
that process. On January 26, 2000, she contacted the appropriate official -- the
planning officer and project analyst for the Ministry of Education. I guess in
the realm of difficult decisions
The Chair: Minister, minding the time.
Hon. P. Priddy: Thank you for reminding me of the time.
I'm not clear from the member's question if she was looking to have portables at no cost or not. I will certainly make sure that somebody in the ministry gets back to her. I would say, though, that -- at least in my experience -- while there are spare portables, there's no question that as a result of portable reduction, school districts are tending to keep the portables that are the newest and best equipped. The ones that become available tend to be the ones that need some more work before you would want to use them for those purposes. So I just need to alert you to that, because others have looked at the same kind of thing, and they don't always work without some additional work on them. I'll ensure that somebody gets back to her as soon as they can.
A Voice: Thank you.
The Chair: Now, the Chair would offer a bit of an explanation
Interjection.
The Chair: Okay. We're all in favour of what we're going to do, I hope?
A Voice: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Earlier in the day the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security were completed. So the motion would require a motion of resolution to those estimates so that we can report them out as resolved.
Hon. P. Priddy: I'm sorry. Do you want me to make the motion?
The Chair: The committee would rise, report resolution and seek leave to sit again. That's not the resolution of the Ministry of Education.
Hon. P. Priddy: I would move that Committee A rise, report resolution of the estimates of the Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security and ask leave to sit again.
[1750]
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:50 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 2000: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada