Hansard -- Volume 5, Number 2 -- Thursday, March 28, 2002

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Committee of Supply		2257
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) Hon. S. Bond J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members		2259

Committee of Supply		2259
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)

Introductions by Members		2263

Committee of Supply		2263
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) H. Bloy

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2271
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant R. Hawes

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General followed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to reintroduce the members of my staff who are with me here this morning as we continue the estimates debate. First of all, on my right, the Deputy Minister of Advanced Education, Gerry Armstrong; on my left, Tom Vincent, the assistant deputy minister, management services division of the Ministry of Education; behind us, in the chamber, Lyn Tait, assistant deputy minister for the post-secondary education division, and Rod MacDonald, who is the director of post-secondary finance.

If I might, I would like to provide the information requested by the member opposite at the last time that we met here in the chamber. For the fiscal year 2002-03 the estimated cost of negotiated and soon-to-be-settled union agreements for B.C. post-secondary institutions is $34.41 million.

J. MacPhail: Funding is frozen for Advanced Education. Sorry, what is the funding for '03-04 and '04-05 for the Ministry of Advanced Education? Could I also have the wage increases for '03-04 and '04-05, please?

Hon. S. Bond: The budget for Advanced Education has been protected over the next two years, as well as this operating year, so the budget remains at approximately $1.9 billion. It's actually $1.899 billion.

The cost for wage increases, as the member opposite requested…. Next year — and I want to make it very clear that it is a rough estimate at this point, because not all of the negotiations have been finished — it's approximately $20 million, and in the year 2004-05 it's zero because there have been no negotiations based on those years.

J. MacPhail: Is the increase for '03-04 additional? It's an incremental increase in wages? The wage bill for post-secondary institutions in '03-04 would really be about $54.4 million more that year.

J. MacPhail: So far we have a budget where the minister suggests somehow — and even if we concede that the minister says that education funding has been protected…. What that really means now is for $32 million so far in the first year, we have a cost charged against that $32 million of $8 million in increased MSP premiums. We have a cost of $34.4 million in increased wage costs. We have the fact that the institutions have to also provide 2,700 more seats for education.

Hon. S. Bond: What's good for post-secondary education is that we've protected a budget during very difficult fiscal times. What we have done is looked at a block funding situation which would return resources to institutions to give them as much flexibility as possible. We've given them the tools to look at issues such as class size.

We have protected the budget. We have given institutions the ability to manage their institutions. We have made it clear that there will certainly be the opportunity for institutions to look at the priorities they have. In their budget letters we have laid out the expectations that government has. Institutions will make decisions based on what the priorities are for their institutions.

In fact, the budget has been protected. We have increased the amount to institutions by $32 million.

J. MacPhail: The only thing that's been protected is the butt of the Liberal government for not having to put in any more money, by them getting off the hook and confusing the public — at best, confusing them; at worst, misleading them — and by suggesting that they're the good guys in funding advanced education.

Here's what's actually happened. This government has completely forced institutions to do one of three things — none of them asked for by the institutions, by the way: make program cuts, which is what Vancouver Community College is doing; increase class size, which none of the institutions ever asked for or even contemplated when the Liberal government was saying how they were going to protect education; or do massive increases to tuition.

It's quite clear that the $32 million doesn't even cover two of the real cost pressures that the institutions are facing — real cost pressures that don't expand access and don't reduce the costs to students.

It's ridiculous for the minister to stand up and say: "Gee, we've increased funding by $32 million." Wrong. This government hasn't even covered the basic extra costs, let alone the costs related to inflation.

Who is going to fund the expanded access of the 2,700 seats? The Liberal government isn't putting one red cent into expanded access — not one red cent. In fact, they're making the institutions bear cost pressures where the institutions, as of April 1, won't even have the same amount of money to cover exactly the same costs that they faced on March 31.

Could the minister stand up and tell me who it is that's funding expanded access to the tune of 2,700 FTEs?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, let's just look at what is fact. There are challenges across the entire government of the province of British Columbia. This ministry has a protected budget. As a matter of fact, the total envelope of my post-secondary budget increased by $8 million, and the dollars being sent to institutions, in very difficult fiscal times, actually increased by $32 million.

In addition to that we have suggested and given institutions the ability to manage those institutions, and, for example, one of the things that institutions are going to look at when we talk about access is the issue of class size. In fact, if we were to add one student to all of the college classes in the province over the next three years, we would be able to add 4,800 new seats. I know that institutions are looking at a balance between quality and class size, but we have given them the tools. In very difficult times we have given them $32 million more than they got last year, and we did in fact give them the kinds of tools necessary to increase access across the system.

J. MacPhail: This would go a lot more smoothly if the minister would actually answer the questions that I asked.

Who's paying for the expanded access of 2,700 FTEs? The minister gave institutions $32 million. Then she put pressures on those same institutions of $8 million in increased costs for MSP premiums and $34.4 million in terms of negotiated wage increases.

The minister needs to answer the question. There's no money left out of the $32 million. In fact, we're actually in the hole now. Let's see: $34.4 million plus $8 million is $42.4 million in extra costs over '01-02, and the minister gave the institutions $32 million. So before there's one extra student or seat added to the system, the institutions are $10 million in the hole. Who's paying for the expanded access of the 2,700 seats?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I did answer the question, but I'll try it one more time. In fact, we are looking at increased access in the province. For example, one of the tools that we've provided to institutions is the ability to adjust class size, and by simply adding one student to all of the classes in this province over the next three years, without additional cost, we can add 4,800 new seats, thus covering off the concern about the 2,700.

In addition, the province has given to institutions $32 million more to assist them with meeting the challenges that they have. We have also given them tools to be able to manage those things, and in fact we have asked them to look at the kinds of decisions that are important, the priorities that are important for their institutions.

So my overall budget increased by $8 million. The dollars going to institutions increased by $32 million. We have given a series of tools and opportunities for institutions to manage those pressures and the expectation that growth will occur across the system.

J. MacPhail: My gosh, isn't it wonderful that the minister is somehow saying that it's so hard on her because her budget was only increased by $8 million, and they gave $32 million to the institutions. Guess who paid the price for that, Mr. Chair. Youth programs. Youth programs were cut from about $14 million in the previous budget to nada — zero. So that's who's paying for it, not this minister. There's been no sacrifice whatsoever in this ministry or by this minister.

So far we have no increased funding for the real costs facing institutions. In fact, we have less funding going to the institutions by about $10 million, given the fact that the increased cost pressures — real cost pressures — on just two items is $42 million, and we have larger class sizes. Well, good. I wonder. What if the New Era document had said: "Hey, you know what our plan is for advanced education? It's increased class sizes and less money going to institutions for post-secondary education. You know what our solution is? We're going to make you pay higher tuition. We're going to make you pay higher tuition just to get to where you were before the election"? That's exactly what this government's plan is for advanced education.

Why didn't the minister reveal that, even as people stood up here and asked what her plans were for post-secondary education? Larger classes, less money for institutions and increased tuition fees.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, we have sent $32 million more to institutions this year than they received last year. We can go through each institution one by one and indicate the number and the amount of the lift those institutions are receiving.

In terms of what we have done as a ministry, in fact we made a 20 percent cut. Just so that when we talk about how there's been no impact in my ministry, we are 30 FTEs fewer than we were, and while that may not seem like a significant number, it certainly was in our ministry. We looked very much at restructuring our ministry and at the number of staff we have working so we could send maximum dollars to institutions.

We are looking at a whole series of options for institutions to be able to manage the situation, including the additional resources we've sent them and the additional tools we've given them. In addition to that, we are adding things to the system. We are looking at adding a medical program that will look at the number of medical graduates in this province being increased to in excess of 200 over the next number of years. We're going to double the number of graduates in this province in computer science and in electrical and computer engineering. We're going to create leadership chairs so that we can focus on research in British Columbia.

All those things are good for students. All of those things we're managing within the protected budget we have. Those are the new-era commitments that we made and that we intend to keep.

J. MacPhail: The minister isn't adding that to the system. The minister is ordering institutions to deliver those programs, and they're making students and parents pay for those increased pressures on those costs.

Let's be very clear. This government isn't contributing one red cent that's new to post-secondary funding — not one red cent. The $32 million isn't even enough to meet the pressures that institutions are facing for salaries and increased taxes imposed by this government. It isn't even enough. They're $10 million in the hole. All of the added access, all of the increased seats, including the new medical programs and the new nursing programs, will come out of the pockets of somebody else other than this government. Those increased costs are going directly onto the bottom line of parents and working families in this province — nobody else.

It would have been nice if families in this province had known that the only way post-secondary education in this province was going to get any extra benefit was out of their own pockets. This minister refuses to say that now, even though all the numbers show it — 100 percent of the numbers show it — and she refuses to stand up and say: "Flexibility in this government means parents pay more for education."

Given the fact that institutions are $10 million in the hole, starting in '02-03, just in terms of costs for MSP premiums and wage increases, what other unfunded costs are there for institutions that this minister knew about?

Hon. S. Bond: We have laid out very clearly in the budget letters to institutions the expectations we have in terms of the number of students. We have given you today the MSP costs and the wage costs that are anticipated, and as I've pointed out, the institutions across the sector will receive $32 million more in order to meet those costs. When we talk about post-secondary education not receiving more money, there is in fact $8 million of new money in my budget in this particular year.

We did exactly what we told British Columbians we were going to do. We said we would not make cuts to the funding of health care and education. That's exactly what we did. Institutions are getting a lift over their core grant from last year, and we'll continue to look at the management of their institutions to deliver the expectations in their budget letters.

J. MacPhail: What other unfunded costs facing the institutions can the minister list that she knew about and has not funded?

Hon. S. Bond: We have indicated the pressures that institutions will face. In addition to that, in their budget letters we laid out their targets and the measures that we expect for them. In fact, we also believe that institutions will be doing things differently. They are going to look at greater efficiency. They are going to look at how they utilize their facilities. In other words, is there a way for us to increase the use of a particular facility? We're looking at things like private–public sector partnerships. We're looking at entrepreneurial endeavours on campus. We're looking at the issue of class size. We're also looking at administrative efficiencies and streamlining operations. What we've done is fundamentally change the way that we are sending dollars to institutions. We are giving them a block funding amount.

There are cost pressures associated with the sector. To help with that situation, we have sent $32 million more to institutions and given them a package of tools to manage within the sector. We know that things are going to be…. This is a different approach. Institutions are actually working very hard at making this work.

K. Manhas: I have some fine gentlemen from the Tri-Cities visiting here in Victoria, young Liberals from Port Moody, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam: Forrest Parlee, Clay Smith and Dharrol Alves. Would the House please make them welcome.

You know what? It isn't going to be useful for the minister to continually parrot that we gave the institutions $32 million more and somehow that's good news. I would just ask the minister to stop doing that, because all it's going to do is force me to go through every single institution and tell her what it means by institution. Already we know, on examining just two increased cost pressures imposed by this government, that the institutions are $10 million in the hole. They're $10 million in the hole. Mr. Chair — $42 million of increased pressure from just two items. The minister only

gave them $32 million, and she took that out of the pockets of poor youth programs. She robbed youth to pay for the increased costs of this government that they've imposed on institutions.

Let me try it this way then. The minister conducted a review of tuition. In that review, knowing that she was going to cut funding for the real costs going to the institutions in '02-03 because there was a wage settlement and increased MSP premiums, just to name two items — we're not going to talk about increased heating costs or PST increases like that — and knowing there was going to be an overall $10 million deficit just to stand still and that the minister was asking institutions to expand access by 2,700 seats, what estimate did she conclude in her review that tuition would have to rise across the system in order to just stand still?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, just as the member opposite continues to ask the question, I'm going to continue to answer it with the factual information. My budget went up by $8 million. We sent as many resources as absolutely possible to institutions, which represented a lift to the institutional core grant of $32 million.

We have said clearly that there are cost pressures, but we've also said we don't necessarily expect institutions to operate in the same way. We want them to look at efficiencies in how they deliver service. We want them to look at year-round utilization. We want them to look at things like public-private partnerships.

The consultation on tuition. We spent a significant amount of time discussing the issue of tuition. As the member opposite knows, we made a significant policy decision about who is in the best position to determine tuition rates in British Columbia. We made the decision to return and restore autonomy to those institutions to make the decisions that have a direct impact on students. We have also made it clear that we expect there to be consultations with students and demonstrated benefits associated with that principle.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying she doesn't know how much tuition would have to go up just to stand still?

Hon. S. Bond: What I am saying is that the decision around tuition as a public policy issue is a decision based on who is in the best position for determining the needs of students and their institutions.

Every institution in this province is in a different place. It's quite a different and unique learning experience. Students need different things in different institutions. In fact, institutions will determine the rate of tuition that will be charged at their particular institution.

J. MacPhail: That's not the question I asked, Mr. Chair. I said: what is the rate of tuition increase needed to stand still?

The minister must know that. She did a review. She must have figured out that there…. In fact, the minister must have said: "Well, we're not giving the institutions any extra money to cover their increased costs. We're actually going to give them $10 million less just to stand still, and we're making the institutions provide 2,700 more FTEs. Let's see, what are the sources of revenue? Oh, I know — tuition. We can make the institutions increase tuition. Let me see. In my thoughts as minister, knowing that my responsibility is to improve advanced ed, what shall I tell the institutions that they need to increase tuition by just to stand still, let alone meet any of the pressures that the institutions have been crying about?"

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, what we reviewed in the tuition policy discussion was: what were the hidden costs of the six-year freeze that was placed on tuition? That's exactly what we reviewed. We decided that what was important here was good public policy. We made the decision to restore autonomy to institutions because we believe that in order for them to assess what the needs of their students are at each unique institution, they should be in the position of making that decision. We reviewed tuition, as we said we would. We looked at what the hidden impacts were. We gave back the right to institutions to determine what the tuition rates should be at their institutions.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so the minister figured out that there were hidden costs to the tuition fee freeze. The only study this minister has been able to reveal about tuition fees and the effect on education — with which I do not agree, but even given that — is that somehow access is negatively impacted by a tuition fee freeze.

Surely what the minister must have looked at is: if I remove the tuition fee freeze and want to improve access, because that's the reason for lifting the freeze — so says the minister…. In fact, that's the only reason she's been able to come up with; it's not about whether poor kids get to go to university or not, but just about access. The minister must have asked the basic question: given that my government is not going to give the institutions enough money, how much does tuition have to increase to fill the gap just to stand still? She must have. Otherwise, what was her study for?

Hon. S. Bond: The study that we did was to look at the impact of a six-year freeze on tuition in British Columbia. What we discovered was that British Columbia had the second-lowest rates of tuition in the country, second only to Quebec — who, by the way, are looking at whether or not they can actually sustain the tuition policy that they have at this point in time, because institutions are saying that quality of student programming is impacted. What we did look at was the issue of timely completion. One study, the study that is quoted by the member opposite's colleague as well…. But there is a lot of other information that we looked at.

The issue for us as a ministry is also about the quality of the program. We're talking about the inability of institutions to be able to do some of those things that impact quality. What we looked at was the public policy question about who should make the decisions around tuition — who is in the best position to look at what students need in their particular institutions. The impact across the system varies from institution to institution. It depends on class size. It depends on the cost structures. It depends on a number of factors. We believed that the best public policy decision was to return the ability to make those decisions to institutions in this province.

In addition to being able to send $32 million more to institutions, what else did we do to help them? We tried to give them as much flexibility as possible by giving them a block funding formula, which for many institutions was the first time that had happened, and at least give them the opportunity.

There are cost challenges. There are pressures. We're giving them tools. We're giving them $32 million and the ability to manage their system.

J. MacPhail: In fact, the minister doesn't know. The minister, after doing a review — probably a phony review — to lift the tuition fee freeze, doesn't even know the impact of lifting the freeze. She doesn't even know. She doesn't have a clue what it means for institutions in terms of what money they now need to raise just to stand still. She doesn't have a clue.

Here's what I think the minister has done — and feel free to challenge it…. The minister knew full well that her government wasn't going to assist institutions, that her government was going to assist nada institutions and in fact that her government was going to impose costs on institutions that she wasn't going to give the money for. In the first year alone, examining two items, it's a deficit of ten million bucks already. A $42 million increased cost was imposed by this government, and this government gave to the institutions $32 million, so there's $10 million down.

The government didn't want to have to be accountable for post-secondary institutions, didn't want to have to be accountable to all those families that voted for them, who thought their kids were going to get as good or maybe better access to post-secondary education. So she did a review, for which she can't answer any questions on tuition, and said: "Oh, there's a good word. We learned this word from K-to-12. Flexibility. Let's give the institutions flexibility."

Well, in K-to-12 what flexibility means is closed classrooms, closed schools, larger classrooms, no money for special needs or English as a second language — that kind of stuff. That's what it means.

Here's what it means in post-secondary education. Parents and kids and young adults pay more if they want to just stand still in this province. If they want to move ahead at all, they pay hugely more. This minister doesn't even have a clue how much pressure her policies have been putting on working families.

Hon. S. Bond: I would hope that the comment about the phony consultation was an overstatement, because I would like to suggest that…

Hon. S. Bond: …the 700 or 800 or 1,000 people who participated in the process….

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, there was a mixed review in terms of the impact.

Hon. S. Bond: What I absolutely do know is that there has been an impact as a result of a six-year freeze in tuition in British Columbia. Students — yes, students as well as educators and administrators; there are two sides to this — said: "I can't get through my courses as quickly as I want to. The quality of courses has been affected." In our view, when we talk about impact, there has been one for six years in terms of the tuition in the province.

In fact, as institutions consider the tuition fees that they are looking at over the next number of years, it's wonderful to look at the kinds of principles they're employing, which is how they're going to actually show benefit to students. They're going to provide, in fact, additional bursaries. They're going to work at looking at how they can make more quality and look at the enhancement of a program for students in this province.

We did do a consultation, but the purpose of the consultation was to look at what was the impact of a six-year freeze on tuition with British Columbia students being the second lowest in Canada. We also have a responsibility to look at sustainability and quality over time, and that's exactly what we did during our consultation.

J. MacPhail: I said the review was phony, because the minister knows full well that the mixed results of the review weren't mixed toward supporting removing the tuition freeze. They were mixed in that some people said, "Lift the tuition freeze," and the vast, vast majority said: "Don't touch the tuition freeze. Fund education the way you promised."

A family in my riding — Vancouver Tech — has a kid. Let's just say this is hypothetical. Actually, it's typical, but let's say it's hypothetical. A family has a student in grade 12 accepted at UBC. The family income is about $54,000 a year. Can the minister tell that family how they're better off this year than they were last year in terms of access for their child to post-secondary education?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, with a protected budget and expectations of institutions, seats will grow by 2,700

across the province. Institutions in this province care about students, and so does the ministry. In fact, the University of British Columbia has a board policy when it looks at students. They have a policy that says that no qualified domestic student will be turned away from the University of British Columbia because of financial need. Working with institutions and trying to find ways in very difficult times, we want to look at students just like that and find ways to try to ensure there is access for that student.

I am not going to stop saying it. We did exactly what we said we were going to do, in very difficult times, as we look at some of the other ministries in this government. We protected the funding. Yes, some difficult decisions were made. As a result of that, we sent $32 million more to institutions. We've also asked institutions that as they consider tuition, they consider students and that part of that be how to help students exactly like the one that you've described today.

J. MacPhail: Okay, maybe the question was too complex for the minister. Let's break it down: family income of $54,000, child graduating from grade 12 and going to UBC. How is that family better off this year for providing that child an education at UBC than they were last year? Specifics, please. Talk about your tax cuts. The minister should talk about the tax cuts if she wishes. She should talk about UBC. She should stand up and say: "Hey, it's only X hundred dollars increase, and your tax cut was what?" I'd like specifics, please.

Hon. S. Bond: This is a government who said clearly from the beginning that we were going to protect the budget for post-secondary education. I've said this more than once. As other governments in this country face challenges fiscally, they did not make the decision to protect funding.

The students of British Columbia will see access increase by a minimum of 2,700 seats. We are also going to look at more opportunities for health care professionals in this province. We're actually going to look at being able to train people where they live in this province so that we can extend the kinds of opportunities to university and college students around the province.

We have said clearly: "There are challenges." There are challenges for institutions as they make these decisions, but working together with them, we are going to focus on students. We are going to increase the number of seats. We are going to work with them at providing more opportunities for students through on-line learning. We're going to train more social workers. We're going to work hard to improve not only the quality but the access available to students in this province.

As I've said, we are asking and expecting institutions to look at benefits to students as they increase or look at the future of their tuition. We're working hard at that. We want very much to focus on what is best for students in this province.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, actually, the minister may be seeing things coming in. There are actually people watching TV, watching very carefully. They're sending in stuff, so these are real questions.

I asked a question specifically about a family situation, and the minister stands up and talks about institutions. Why is it that this minister can't stand up and say: "Here's the amount of tax cut we gave that family, and here's the amount of tuition cost increases, and maybe we could put them together and see whether that family's better or worse off"? Why is it that the minister can't do that? That would resolve the issue for people who are watching on TV and wondering how it's affecting their family.

Hon. S. Bond: The best thing we can do for families in the province is look at restoring the economy of this province. We want to increase the number of seats by 2,700 this year, so that students in the province can actually get a seat in an institution. We want to look at restoring economic viability, so that we can actually have students get jobs in British Columbia. That's what we can do for students in this province. We can actually help them get a post-secondary education and fix the economy, so they can get a job and can stay and live in British Columbia where we want them to.

J. MacPhail: So the minister can't answer the question. I'm really searching very hard for a question that the minister will answer, because these are real questions and they're within her jurisdiction. This minister is responsible exactly for that family situation. I say to the minister that the minister knows full well that the tax cut for that family doesn't even nearly make up for the increased tuition costs alone of that student, let alone all of the other extra cost pressures this government has put on that family. It absolutely puts to the lie that the minister somehow says that her government's working to stimulate the economy and that's the best help families can have.

Let me ask this question. People are calling in, and they said: "Ask the minister to release all of the material and submissions that she received on the tuition fee freeze review." Will the minister please release all of the material and submissions that she received during her tuition fee freeze consultation review?

Hon. S. Bond: A detailed summary of the consultation process is available on the website. In addition to that, the transcript of the student consultation was made available to all of the participants in that particular process. We have made information available about that. In terms of actually releasing the information that was sent to me specifically, I will consider that.

J. MacPhail: Yes, because somebody called in and said: "Mixed results." That's entirely interesting, and the person would be interested in knowing what mixed results means for this minister. That's why the request to release all of the materials and submissions that the minister received on tuition fee freeze — so that the public can interpret what the minister means by mixed

results. Is the minister aware of an announcement made this morning, or I guess yesterday, at the College of New Caledonia that the college has cut 31 full-time faculty jobs and at least five programs to try to overcome a budget deficit of $1.2 million?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I am aware of that situation. In fact, the institution has been carrying a deficit for a number of years. We were able to send — I'll have my staff check — just about half a million dollars more to that institution. Undoubtedly, there are challenges. That deficit has run for a number of years. They have to set priorities, and they have to make some very difficult decisions. We've given them some tools to look at in this institution in particular related to class sizes. They did get a lift of half a million dollars more than they got last year.

J. MacPhail: As we already know, the half a million dollars doesn't even come close to covering the increased costs imposed by this government on this institution.

The minister knows full well that the cuts are a direct result of lack of funding of this government. Here's what happened at the College of New Caledonia. It's interesting how it jibes with the new-era commitment around education.

There's a quote from a local faculty person saying: "People here are just numb as they try to absorb what's happening." The volunteers adult literacy training program has been cancelled. The program apparently goes back many years and now is gone. The adult basic education program, now called college and career preparation program, is gone. This is at the very time this government is cutting welfare to people and expecting people on welfare to get jobs.

Other programs cuts are: legal secretary, computerized bookkeeping, the second year of electronics technology and the first year of wood technology. My gosh. Here's a government that's facing a softwood lumber dispute and looking for ways to add value to the lumber of B.C. so that we're not beholden to the market in the United States. In the heart of a forest-dependent community, this government is cancelling the first-year program of wood technology. That was just established a couple of years ago to boost the value-added industry and use of wood — exactly the kind of thing we need to do in British Columbia to counteract the negative effects of the softwood lumber dispute.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, there is not an unending supply of dollars in government. Despite how difficult these circumstances are, we protected the funding. We managed to send more dollars to institutions. Yes, they have difficult decisions to make. Obviously, for the people impacted by those decisions and those having to make them, it is very challenging.

In terms of making the decisions, I'm sure the board of this institution looked at all of the priorities and needs of that institution before they even considered those kinds of things. It may be that some of the classes were underutilized.

Institutions are going to manage their institutions. They are going to have to make difficult decisions.

I will not…. When I look at the situation across government and across our province, we protected the funding and we did send more dollars. Will there by challenges? Yes, there will. In fact, we did what we said we were going to do. Tough decisions do need to be made. The people who need to make those are the people who live in those communities and who understand the needs of their students.

I'm sure the board had a difficult time making the kinds of decisions they had to make, but those are the people who should be best positioned to make those decisions.

Hon. M. Coell: As many in the chamber know, I represent the riding of Saanich North and the Islands. Saltspring Island is in that riding — a wonderful place to live.

We also have a great and very innovative school board on Saltspring and the Gulf Islands. Today we have 21 grade 3 students from Fernwood School on Saltspring. They have five family members with them and their teacher, Mrs. Andison. I hope the House will please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I guess the new-era Liberal promise for post-secondary education is: "Hey, take a job on the board of governors of a post-secondary institution, and you too can be responsible for cuts to education." That's this minister's view of their commitment to post-secondary education. We'll give you no money, and we'll ask you to make all the tough decisions, and we the Liberal government will stand back here and say: "Hey, don't look to me about why these programs were cut. Go to that board of governors in that community. They knew best how to cut education." There's a gap in that logic. The gap is that people didn't expect from this Liberal government that there would be cuts to education, and here we have cuts.

Let me ask the minister — given the softwood lumber dispute where we now face huge challenges domestically to reinvigorate our softwood lumber industry so that we're not beholden to the United States — how does it help (1) the local economy, (2) the forest industry and (3) young people looking for new and innovative jobs in our resource-dependent economy to cut the wood technology program that was established

Hon. S. Bond: We believe that the role of a board of governors at an institution is actually to govern it. So we are very excited about the boards that we have in place. I've received letters from presidents of institutions who have said: "We've been given an incredibly capable group of people who are also excited about focusing on what's best for students."

That particular institution, as the member opposite knows well, is in my community, and I can assure you that the board of governors in making a decision to cut that program or adjust the funding — I haven't seen the actual details of what the program is — would have considered all of those factors, because we and they know better than anyone the kinds of things that students in our community need. So I am confident that the board of governors made that decision based on the best use of their resources to meet the highest priorities for that institution.

J. MacPhail: I was asking the minister, as part of a government and a member of the executive council dealing with the softwood lumber dispute, for her view on how it helps to cut that program.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, the board of governors of that institution would look at all of the course offerings that are available in our community to attempt to meet the needs of what is a very difficult set of circumstances for us not just there but for the people who we serve through that institution.

As I've said, I'm sure the factors that were considered were appropriate and relevant, and I'm sure there remains a significant number of courses that will benefit our community.

J. MacPhail: Once again, no answer. Rhetoric and no hope. Every time this minister stands up she offers rhetoric and no hope and, in fact, a huge amount of off-loading. That's exactly what the minister has done.

So far we know that in the K-to-12 system this government's policy is: give no money and off-load all responsibility to the school boards. We know that's the policy in health: give no money and off-load the responsibility to the health authorities. And now we see it in the post-secondary education system too: give no money and off-load the responsibility to the boards of governors of colleges and universities.

The minister will stand back and say: "Hey, we gave the tools." Well, this college has the tools, and guess what: they're cutting programs.

Let's look at Vancouver Community College. Actually, people from Vancouver Community College were watching the debate last night, and they sent in information from the college about what's actually going on there. They were listening to the minister, and they said: "Whoa, what the minister's talking about is different than our reality." So they sent in the reality, and this is that Vancouver Community College is cutting programs and laying off staff and that they have a shortfall of almost $9 million. The major causes of this shortfall are cancelled funding envelopes, increased labour costs, increased operating expenses and a decline in revenue from outside sources. It seems pretty clear that they've got major challenges that this government knew all about and that are not as a result of anybody else's making.

Here's what Vancouver Community College is thinking about doing. The funding envelope for institution-based training is completely gone. Why did the minister make that decision to eliminate funding for IBT?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the money is not gone. What we've done is send the money in a block back to institutions. Vancouver Community College, as I pointed out last night…. Actually, yes, they have cost pressures and challenges, but in fact Vancouver Community College received $381,000-plus more than they received last year. In fact, the money isn't gone. The institution's getting more money than it got last year. They have some difficult decisions to make, but they should be making the decisions about whether or not that particular program is beneficial, if it's efficient and if it fits the profile of that institution.

We sent them block funding. We increased the amount of resources. Yes, they have challenging decisions to make. We've simply removed the line-by-line targeting of those dollars and sent them in a block funding formula.

J. MacPhail: Here's where I'm going. Let me outline this for the minister so she knows where I'm going on these questions.

I asked the minister a question about an ordinary middle-class family and the effect of the changes, the cuts that have been brought in by this government, on an ordinary middle-class family. Now I'm trying to figure out whether the minister has any understanding of the effects on low-income people, poor people, of the cuts her government has imposed on institutions. At the College of New Caledonia the cuts are in the area of adult basic education, jobs like legal secretary, computerized bookkeeping — good, solid, entry-level or middle-level jobs for people who are being kicked off welfare.

As the minister knows, this government is kicking tens of thousands of people off welfare and telling them to go and get a job. I'm trying to figure out, given that the Minister of Human Resources is kicking people off welfare, what assistance for low-income families the Minister of Advanced Education is giving them to get a job. We have adult basic education cut; we have IBT cut. How is that helping? The minister couldn't say how her government was helping the middle-income family. Maybe the minister can stand up and say how her government's helping low-income families booted off welfare to get a job.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I did say how this government was going to help middle-income and low-

income families in this province. What we have done is make this particular ministry and education and health care a priority of this government. We demonstrated that by protecting funding during very difficult times.

In addition to that, we are committed and remain committed to helping those students who are most in need. The fabulous news about that is that so are institutions around this province. As they look at the needs of students, they're looking at increasing the number of bursaries available for students. We have a student financial assistance program that helps almost 70,000 a year. We still have one of the most generous student financial assistance programs in the country.

We do care about students having access. We are prepared to make very difficult decisions to make sure we're trying to send as many resources as possible down to institutions to ensure that access is increased and students do have an opportunity to attend an institution.

J. MacPhail: Don't worry. We'll get to student financial aid and the changes that have been made by this government.

How does cutting funding for institution-based training and adult basic ed help low-income families?

Hon. S. Bond: The funding to institutions has increased by $32 million this year. Institutions have been given block funding. They've been given an amount of money with which to manage those institutions.

They need to make decisions about their institutions and the programs that are offered. It needs to be based on the demographics in their communities. It needs to be based on the resource industries that are in those particular communities. Those decisions are being made at the institutional level. And as many times as you ask the question, I can answer it: $32 million more went out.

Are there challenges? Yes, there are, but how have we demonstrated a priority? We protected the funding at a time when that is very difficult for this government to have done. In fact, the majority of institutions received an increase, and in their budget letter they also received a set of expectations in terms of the kinds of things that we expected to occur in terms of access. Difficult decisions will need to be made, but we have increased the funding that has gone to institutions this year.

Let me pose this to the minister. Let's say an institution knows that if they keep an upper- level program going that's professionally based because they can jack up tuition fees hugely on that, but programs targeted toward low-income families, which they can't justify huge tuition fee increases…. What has this minister put in either an accountability framework or a letter such as the one that's here to Vancouver Community College to say: "Oh, you know what, college? You have to serve low-income families as well as upper-income families"?

Hon. S. Bond: Boards and presidents of institutions care about students. They are going to look at what is in the best interests of their particular communities. Yes, they have difficult decisions to make, but I am confident that they look first and foremost at what's best for students. I am confident that the first thing they think about is what their community looks like, what the needs of those community members are and how to best address them with the additional resources we've given them. Tough decisions, but they're going to focus on what's best for students, and I am confident of that.

J. MacPhail: Oh, this isn't to besmirch the reputation of the board of governors of any institution. It's to say that responsibility lies with the provincial government.

Individual boards can only manage within the money that they're given. If the only revenue source individual boards of colleges and universities have is to jack up tuition fees to meet their needs, then they're going to look and say: "My gosh, this group of low-income families, poor people, can't have tuition fee increases, so we can't afford to offer that program anymore."

It's not an attack on the boards. It's to say that given that the structure for raising money for education in this province is resting entirely on the shoulders of working families, middle-income families, those kinds of programs for low-income families will be the first to go. It isn't the boards' fault or the institutions' fault. It's the kind of system that this government has changed overnight in our post-secondary education system.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the decisions about how that's done will rest with boards of governors and institution presidents, because we believe they're best positioned to make the decisions. They know their communities; they know their students. That's the whole thinking behind a public policy decision that says: "We think block funding is the way to go here." In essence, institutions can decide which programs are most appropriate for them.

Let's just look at what we said to Vancouver Community College in the letter we gave them: "To be clear, though, programs such as adult basic education, literacy, English language training and adult special education are important avenues for disadvantaged students to access post-secondary education. Institutions' ability to meet the needs of these students will be a component of the accountability framework to be developed over the next year."

While we believe those institutions will make decisions based on what's best for students, we've also indicated that we believe those are important priorities, and we'll work with the institutions over the next year

to develop a framework so we can measure the outputs and make sure students' needs are being served well.

Hon. S. Bond: What we will be doing is working with institutions to make sure students' needs are being served in this province. If an institution makes a decision that a specific program is not perhaps working most efficiently, we're going to ask: "What is it you're doing to serve the needs of those particular students?" Perhaps there are new ways of addressing those kinds of needs through different forms of programs. We're simply saying these are important considerations for Vancouver Community College. We're going to concentrate on outputs. How are those students being served in the coming year? We have made that clear in their letter and attached that amount of accountability at this point. We're saying those are important things. We're going to look at the outputs, and we're going to ask: "How are you serving the needs of those particular students?"

J. MacPhail: Well, there's a real live example. I'd be happy to know what letter the minister is going to write, as we speak, to the College of New Caledonia, because the adult basic education program in Quesnel has been cut — gone — and is being replaced with nothing. What letter is the minister going to write to the College of New Caledonia in the accountability that she so champions?

Hon. S. Bond: We will be reviewing the outputs with all of the institutions in the province next year. As the board of governors made the decision to look at that particular program, we will be asking how they intend to serve the needs of those students. The board obviously had a set of criteria. Perhaps, in terms of looking at their overall program, they needed to look at a more efficient way to deliver that service. In fact, we will be looking at the results of the decisions they have made and how they impact and affect students across the province.

J. MacPhail: By next year, does the minister mean the next fiscal year starting next week? Or does the minister mean a year from now she'll check in?

Hon. S. Bond: These expectations are expectations of the institutions for the next year that they serve students. Obviously, over the course of the next year we have said that we are going to work with institutions to continue to develop the accountability framework that will be in place in this province. We will continue to measure the outputs. This letter was delivered to them just a matter of weeks ago, and it's the expectations we have for them for the year 2002-03.

J. MacPhail: The letter that the minister sent to these institutions has resulted in these program cuts. It's a direct A-to-B link — nothing in between.

Here we have a situation. The minister tries to comfort low-income people here by saying: "Oh, don't worry. We have the priority for low-income families." Here's what's happening in Quesnel. The adult basic education program is gone. Quesnel now has less, if any…. I'm sure the school board is trying to do its best to deliver adult basic education, but now we have a program for adult basic education in Quesnel that is gone. People are being kicked off welfare, starting this week, and told to get a job. People who need adult basic education — ABE — in Quesnel have nowhere to go. Quesnel is also being hit by the softwood lumber dispute; there are layoffs in the forest sector. And I have to stand up and listen to the rhetoric of this government saying: "Oh, we care deeply about forest workers and families and their communities. We care deeply."

Just take this as an example. It's a real live example arising directly out of the letter that this minister sent to an institution. Let's take the example of a family in Quesnel, then, that has been displaced from their source of income either through being a laid-off forestry worker or by being kicked off welfare, and they need adult basic education to be able to be trained for a new job. How is this minister's policy helping that Quesnel person?

The Chair: I'd like to remind members to direct their questions through the Chair, please.

Hon. S. Bond: We have said and continue to say that we are going to help those students that are most in need in the province. The board of governors' job is to look at the number of students in their particular region and make difficult decisions about that. We will be looking at the outputs for that institution and for each one in this province as we look at how the needs of students were served.

These are very difficult and challenging times in the north of British Columbia and across this province. In difficult times we are trying very much to make post-secondary education a priority of this government. We are working hard to do that.

J. MacPhail: That's not an answer, Mr. Chair. The minister knows full well that's not an answer. That's because this government has no commitment to broader access to education, regardless of family income. This government has completely abandoned middle- and low-income families who want greater access to post-secondary education for their children or for themselves in an economy in transition. Zero. The minister just demonstrated the point with a real live answer to a real live example.

Mr. Chair, the minister has said she will look at releasing the submissions to the consultation on the tuition fee freeze. I would really urge her to do that because her report itself doesn't support a lift of the tuition fee freeze. It doesn't. There was majority support for continuing the freeze. The only category out of students, parents, professional associations, educators

and administrators who were opposed by a majority were administrators. Of course the administrators would be opposed because they probably had inside knowledge that this government wasn't going to give them any extra money to deal with the issues facing them. It would really be helpful for the minister to release the submissions she received that led to the lifting of the tuition fee freeze, because the report doesn't support the lifting of the tuition fee freeze.

The minister herself raised the issue of student financial aid. Let's look at the changes to student financial aid. Could the minister — and I'd ask for specifics here — detail the changes to student financial aid that her government has brought in and the timing of its implementation?

Hon. S. Bond: Student financial assistance. The overall budget has increased by $2.3 million. In addition, as of August 1, 2002, the first-year B.C. grants will be replaced with B.C. loans. That does mean that students in the first year of a program will be having the grant portion transferred to a loan portion. It does mean that students will continue to be eligible for B.C. grants in their second, third and fourth years of study. That's five years, in fact, for students with dependents. That has allowed us to send more dollars. Admittedly, it's a loan, but students will actually have access to $500 more over the course of that first year as a result of switching this from grants to loans. Those are the changes.

In addition, we have enhanced the debt management part — in essence, the going-out side of a loan. If a student is having difficulty once they leave the system, we want to provide more help there. We have looked at the interest relief program, and they will no longer have to qualify for the federal program before we help them in British Columbia. We are looking at principal deferment and enhancing that process as well.

We're helping students on the way out. We are looking at increasing dollars on the way in. Admittedly, as I've said, they are moving from grant to loan.

J. MacPhail: Would it be fair to characterize it as: "We're going to put you further in debt, but we won't hassle you or bankrupt you sooner. We'll hassle you or bankrupt you later"?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, it would be fair to say: "We realize that students need assistance, additional dollars." We are going to provide $500 more for those students who are single without dependents. They have access to that. We believe that if we actually help them get in the system and get them a job, they're going to get out and in fact be able to help pay back those loans. We're saying that in cases where that's very extraordinarily difficult for students, we are going to provide help when they're finished.

J. MacPhail: The subvote for student financial assistance in '01-02 was $154 million. The increase is about $2 million. Oh, you said $2.3 million. I don't have my calculator here, but I can send for it. Is there anyone over there that can do a quick…? What's that percentage increase — $2.3 million on $154.4 million?

J. MacPhail: What is that 1.5 percent increase in student financial aid going to deliver for students in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: It will cover, obviously, a larger number of students who will access the system because of 2,700 new seats, and it will also look at the $510 increase to single students with no dependents.

J. MacPhail: So we've got about a 1 percent increase to cover off 2,700 new students. Let's go back to the family, if I could, with the Vancouver Tech student, family income of $54,000. What would have been the eligible grant that that young adult would receive for first year?

Hon. S. Bond: If I might, I also want to introduce a member of our staff who has joined us. Merv Scott is the acting director of student services.

The maximum average grant that's available in the first year to students for that particular family would be between $3,400 and $3,500. Again, that would be very much based on individual circumstances and specific criteria.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's say this family gets a third of the grant. Even if they just get a third — let's say $1,000 — from the first-year grant, now we have a family — I mean, this is a middle-income family; we're not even talking a low-income family — who is going to pay increased tuition to send their child. This is, like, right now. This is what this family is dealing with right now, as we speak, planning for their kid's future. They have increased tuition. I think the minimum increase — I'm doing this from memory — in tuition at UBC is more than $500 per year. It goes up to thousands in increase, but I think the minimum on a first year is a little more than $500. Then the grant is gone for the family. Let's say, even if this family were only eligible for a third of the full grant, there's another thousand dollars. Let's see: that's $1,500 more just in costs that they wouldn't had to have absorbed last year and that they now have to pay.

Maybe the minister now could tell me how her government's helping this student get a post-secondary education.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the family will still have access to the dollars. They have moved from grant to loan. Ultimately, the student will have to pay back the first year on completion of their education. We still have grants in place in second, third and fourth year, which is the most generous program in Canada. What

we tried to do was look at how we were going to increase the access to student financial assistance for more students. We did that by converting this from a grant to a loan. The family will have access to the dollars. It will be a loan now.

In addition to that, we expect, as the member opposite points out, that institutions are looking at increases. In fact, the undergraduate increase at the University of British Columbia is under $500. Having said that, they are also committed to providing additional bursaries and additional assistance to students. Institutions are working on helping students. We have looked at trying to assist and make available to students access to those dollars.

J. MacPhail: There's a huge difference for a family between having to go into debt, which is what this government is forcing the family to do, and getting a grant from a government to assist their child to go to first-year university.

Guess what. It may be all very well and good that the grants for second, third and fourth year are still there — although I'd say nobody can count on that; nobody in this province can count on this government not taking that away in future years as well — but it requires the student to complete first year.

This poor family now has to cough up — I'm giving it the best ballpark figure — $1,500 in increased costs that weren't there the year before just to get their child through first year. The minister stands up and says: "Oh, don't worry. The family still has access to the funds. They just have to take out a loan." Oh, that's good news. That's really good news.

Frankly, I am so surprised that anybody in this government would somehow suggest that reallocation of funds within an institution through the bursary system is good for low-income families, because here's what happens. First of all, it's within an institution that the reallocation has to take place. Here's what it means. It means that the institution jacks up tuitions overall, hugely, and then says, for those that can't pay within that jacking up, that we'll decide how to reallocate it to low-income families. A family in Prince George may not have access to that internal reallocation that's available in UBC because they can't afford to send their kid out of town. That's exactly what's happening.

You know, that's why we have a progressive tax system. This government seems to think that the only thing they need to change in the tax system is to cut taxes for the wealthy by making the poor pay more. This is exactly another example of this. What good does it do to reallocate costs of tuition internal to UBC to a family in Prince George who can't afford to send their kid to Vancouver?

Hon. S. Bond: The student and that family have access to the same number of dollars — in fact, probably a little bit more — this year than they had last year. The student takes out the loan, and at the end, obviously, of their schooling they pay back the loan. The dollars are still available for the particular student to be able to take advantage of. It's the same amount of money. In fact, it's enhanced this year over last year.

As we discuss the issue of tuition, while those tuition fees certainly in some institutions have increased, at this point students in British Columbia still will benefit from them being amongst the lowest in Canada. We're continuing to look at student financial assistance. We've increased the amount of dollars. Students still have access to the dollars. Yes, at the end of the day they will have to pay it back, but what we've done there is say that when students have extraordinary difficulty paying it back, we'll help them there too.

J. MacPhail: I asked a question about bursaries. Perhaps the minister could answer that question.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sorry. I concentrated on one part of the question. There were two or three there. Could I ask the member opposite to repeat the part about bursaries, please?

J. MacPhail: The minister stood up and said: "Don't worry, students of low-income families. Be happy, because institutions are going to expand the provision of bursaries." Here's how it works. Institutions on an individual basis raise tuitions overall, and then they decide internally how or if to reallocate that to people who can't afford tuition. That's how the minister is changing the education system — in the most regressive way possible. In fact, how does it help?

My question was this. I also said, editorially, that we used to have a progressive tax system that did that, and the only way this government wants to change the tax system is to give huge tax breaks to the rich and take it out of the pockets of the poor. This is another example of it.

The example I used was a family in Prince George. How does it possibly help that family to say there will be bursaries in UBC for poor kids, when the Prince George family can't afford to send their kid out of town?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, for families in Prince George one of things we're trying to do as a government — our program in terms of medical training is a great of example of that — is provide as many increased opportunities around the province as possible. Seats will increase around the province. Having said that, when institutions look at bursaries — for example, at UBC — it's not simply them looking at it. Institutions around this province are looking at helping students.

I would hope the member opposite would also be pleased that institutions, as they look at and consider what the future is of tuition and the students in their institutions, are considering additional financial assistance for those students. I think that's actually commendable. In fact, all of that assistance that would be made available to students will be made on top of what's available through the ministry.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and what's available through the ministry are loans that used to be grants.

All right. Let me see, then. What is the ministry committing to, to ensure there's a provincewide, equitably distributed bursary system at every college and university?

Hon. S. Bond: The ministry is providing a basic level of student financial assistance consistently for students across the province of British Columbia. We hope to be able to help an additional number of students this year and to increase the amount of dollars that are available, in particular, for single students without dependents.

In terms of the ability and the expectations of institutions around bursaries and additional financial assistance, institutions will make the decisions about what's best for students. In fact, by practice and by everything that has occurred to date, each institution has looked at student financial assistance. Institutions like UBC, for example, are looking at 20 percent. Simon Fraser is looking at a significant amount, and UVic is as well. Certainly, in most cases that we have seen at this point in time, institutions care about helping students who are in need, and as they consider tuition they are going to look very seriously at how they can also provide assistance to students.

J. MacPhail: So there is no system in place — absolutely none in place — to ensure equitable access to bursaries. In other words, here's what the government has achieved on behalf of low- and middle-income families. They've abandoned the grant system, increased tuitions and said: "Hey, family, take your best shot at an institution to see whether they have bursaries for low-income families and their kids."

My gosh, isn't that great. I feel so comforted to know that institutions are looking at a bursary system. What is the government doing? What is this minister doing to guarantee a bursary system for low-income families?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, this government is operating one of the best student financial assistance programs in this country, and we're going to continue to do that. What we've done, in fact, is look at enhancing the number of dollars that students have access to this year. What institutions around the province will do is look at helping students and topping up.

In addition, this ministry and government are going to provide consistent assistance across the province. We are going to, as we have…. We hope to increase the number of students who will have access to that across the province. Institutions are looking for ways to provide additional assistance to students in this province. They've done a commendable job to this point as they've looked at tuition. One of the first priorities is looking at how student financial assistance will also be provided.

J. MacPhail: I guess I said, in other words: what's the minister doing to guarantee that institutions provide bursaries on an equitable basis? The minister said that she's doing nothing. So is that the answer?

Hon. S. Bond: What the ministry is doing is providing a consistent and one of the best student financial assistance programs in the country…. What institutions are doing is making the decisions that are best for their students, based on the principle that institutions and the people who govern and work in institutions are in the best position to determine what's best for the students and what the unique and significant needs are in their communities. The great news is that they're doing exactly what we would want them to do. They are looking at what's best for students, and as they look at tuition increases, they are committing to provide additional assistance to the program we currently provide to students in this province.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm wondering if this minister is trying to do herself out of a job, because she's not going to do anything for advanced education. She has no role to play — zero, as far as I can tell. She's taking responsibility for nothing, giving no money, and she won't guarantee anything.

Let me try it from this point of view, then. The minister is on record as saying that the budget pressure for the institutions in '03-04…. There's an extra cost just for wage increases of an additional $20 million, and the previous $42 million cost rolls through. So that's an increased pressure of, let's see, $62 million for '03-04. The minister said that the funding will be frozen at…. I can't remember what she said. The funding to the institutions will be at the same level as it is this year.

Let's see. Less money going to institutions because of this government's lack of commitment to education, increased pressures…. And the ministry is hoping that the institutions will be good kids in their bursary program.

What if next year an institution says: "My gosh, we can't maintain science labs. We can't afford to lay off any more faculty. We can't afford to increase class sizes anymore because students and parents are rebelling"? The institution turns and says: "Well, we've got a bursary program. There's no obligation for us to deliver this bursary program. In fact, it's just those poor kids."

The minister can roll her eyes all she wants. That's why I'm asking the minister what kind of guarantee she is giving to say that that program won't be cut.

Hon. S. Bond: It's clear that I have more confidence in the people who manage our institutions than the member opposite has.

I believe that they are going to look at what's best for students. I have in fact said that tough decisions need to be made. But what have we done? Am I work-

At this time in the province of British Columbia this government protected the post-secondary budget at very difficult times. We can say this as many times as we want to.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact it does mean something. It means that institutions did receive more funding in their core grant this year than they did last year.

Let's talk about what we're going to do for the province of British Columbia. We're going to train more doctors in this province. We're going to train more social workers.

Hon. S. Bond: We are going to do that. We are going to double the number of graduates so that students in this province get excellent training and can end up with a job and stay here in the province of British Columbia.

We're going to look at how we can expand. We have already expanded the number of nursing seats available. One of our new programs, and one that's really exciting, is we've instituted a forgivable loan program so that we can actually say to students in this province: "If you train here and you agree to serve in those communities that need you, we're going to forgive your loan 20 percent for every year that you stay in the province of British Columbia." That is progressive, and that is great news.

That's just one of things that we're going to do in post-secondary education. We said we were going to do it, and in fact we did.

We're going to work very hard. I want to assure the member opposite that we care about post-secondary education. We care so much in fact that in very difficult times…. Are institutions going to be challenged? Yes, they are. We've admitted that. We have said: "Look. We are trying to send to you as many resources as we possibly can." We know and we are confident that they are going to focus on what's best for students.

The Chair: Members. I'd like to remind the members that when a member is recognized and standing, they have the floor. It would be courteous if we kept the debate on an equitable basis when they're standing.

H. Bloy: I would like to thank the minister for all the work that she's done. The students that I talked to at Simon Fraser University are pleased with the direction the Ministry of Advanced Education is taking.

The students that I talked to are happy that the university will now set the tuition. The students are happy because they'll be able to participate with the university and the other stakeholders in setting these fees.

The students that I talked to at Simon Fraser University are pleased that now they'll be able to get the courses they want to take, when they want, so that they have the option of graduating within four years — unlike this past government, which allowed education to falter in British Columbia by underfunding it and not allowing the courses to happen.

H. Bloy: There's a lot of things going on at the university, and there is so much support for what the ministry is doing. One of the areas where there are a lot of concerns and questions is the fees that are charged by the student union societies at Simon Fraser University. They're advocating an increase of 50 percent in fees. Is there anything the minister is prepared to do with regards to what the student union is doing in increasing fees?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we have heard concerns about the increase in terms of student fees, but those fees are a decision between students at an institution. It's basically a democratic process where, I'm assuming, students at institutions would have the debate about what those fees do, how they participate, who pays them and how much they pay. That's a process that takes place at institutions, so that is a matter for those students to make clear on their particular campus.

J. MacPhail: It's too bad the students don't get to vote on whether there should be tuition fee increases so this member could understand that students at Simon Fraser University are horrified at the tuition fee increases they face. That member for Burquitlam does a disservice to articulate any other point of view on behalf of Simon Fraser University students.

It is clear that this minister is doing nothing to guarantee a bursary system that assists low-income families and their children. She is leaving it up to the good grace of institutions; then she will underfund the institutions. The minister will continue to impose increased costs on institutions and then somehow say to the institutions if they are forced to end their bursary program: "Sorry. That's the choice of the institutions." That's exactly what this minister's doing for low-income families.

I have many, many more questions, so I move that the committee rise, report progress and certainly ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
(continued)

J. Kwan: Last night we were discussing the issues around legal aid. I'd like to continue my questions in this area this morning.

Carman Overholt, who is the president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, said: "The Attorney General is receiving a cut of 12 percent. To impose a 40 percent cut on legal aid is disproportionate and wrong, because it impedes access to our justice system."

My question to the minister is: why has the area of legal aid received a cut that is substantively higher than the 12 percent cut imposed on the ministry? Why are the people who are least able to afford legal aid cuts the ones who are most significantly impacted by the cuts of this ministry?

Hon. G. Plant: The budget for the Ministry of Attorney General includes responsibilities across a number of program areas. When we were in the midst of both the core services review and the budget exercise last fall, we gave careful consideration to the implications of expenditure reductions on all aspects of ministry operations. We also took into consideration, frankly, the practicality of even thinking about expenditure reductions in some areas. For example, one of the elements of the budget and the responsibilities of the Ministry of Attorney General includes the Crown Proceeding Act. My view is that it would be unwise to predict that amount could in any significant way be reduced or, frankly, reduced at all over the next few years.

Other aspects of the ministry's responsibilities include funding the judiciary, funding courthouse services, funding the criminal justice branch and the management areas of the ministry. We went through the entire ministry as a whole and recognized that, for example, the province would not be well served by reducing the number of judges, if that is even possible. That meant there are significant expenditures associated with paying the costs of the judiciary that cannot be reduced at all over the course of a three-year service plan, so it does mean that some areas of the ministries will take a more significant reduction in order to achieve the overall relatively modest reduction of 12, 13 or 14 percent.

The point is that we will continue to have a well-funded legal aid program in British Columbia throughout each of the three years of the service plan. Within the budget constraints that we're going to be operating under, we are in fact going to be able to preserve and, I hope, improve the way in which the legal aid system operates to protect the core service priorities that the system and the program should be there to protect.

J. Kwan: On February 1, 2002, the minister made this statement. I think the article is correct in identifying that there is no more damaging criticism of the cuts to legal aid than the words of the Attorney General himself: "I expect there will be people who will have an even harder time finding access to justice than before." That was a statement made by the Attorney General. With 40 percent cuts to legal aid, the impacts are going to be felt. By the Attorney General's own admission, the impacts are going to be felt by the people, and they will have a harder time finding access to justice. That is the statement.

Given the core review, as such, by the ministries across government, the minister could have, I think, made the decision to say no, legal aid cannot afford to assume a 40 percent cut, and he could have said no to that proposal. It might mean that overall within the ministry the cuts have to be less than 12 percent, but that would have been the prudent thing to do to protect justice and access to justice for British Columbians.

That has not happened. What we see now is a 40 percent cut over the next three years in the area of legal aid. As I was mentioning yesterday, a variety of people have come forward and questioned the government's wisdom in that decision and, more particularly, raised concerns about that decision. Those concerns tie to the individuals who depend on legal aid services to get access to justice in a range of administrative justice and poverty law areas. This is especially in light of the fact that the Human Resources ministry is currently restructuring social services to reduce the number of people who qualify and the amount of funding allocated to recipients. At the same time, the Ministry of Attorney General is cutting legal aid funding in pov-

erty law. That means that people currently receiving B.C. Benefits would not have access to legal aid assistance to challenge the government if they are cut off assistance.

Again I ask the minister: how can this government justify its aggressive, hostile and, I would even go so far as to say, inhumane attack on the poor? The government says its priority is to protect the most vulnerable and most marginalized, yet these actions speak in contradiction to those commitments.

Hon. G. Plant: Over the next three years of the service plan we expect that the Legal Services Society will be able to maintain all the necessary levels of services in the area of adult and youth criminal legal aid, child apprehension cases, domestic violence matters, mental health reviews and, at least for next year, immigration matters.

All legal aid should be and, generally speaking, is intended for people who can least afford to pay for lawyers. In that respect, when we provide legal aid to people accused of a criminal offence that carries with it the risk of imprisonment, we are in fact reaching out directly to those who are most vulnerable in our society. We are ensuring that they have access to advice and representation to ensure that they have a full and fair defence to the charges brought against them. That's true also of people facing the risk of confinement because of mental health reasons or people involved in child apprehension matters and so on.

In the area of civil legal aid, the member talks about the changes coming in the area of Human Resources. I think it's important to point out that a significant amount of the work that has traditionally been done, both as advocacy and as adjudication, in the area of income assistance proceedings has actually been done by laypeople, not by lawyers. I think on the whole that's an approach we should work to expand. There is a role for people who know the subject matter and have experience with it but don't necessarily have legal training: to assist in ensuring that people who have applied for income assistance and believe they've been wrongly denied it have the information they need to help them pursue an application for appeal or reconsideration of their denial of benefits. The same is true in other areas, including workers compensation.

J. Kwan: The areas where funding is not going to be available for legal aid range from some areas of family law. It is my understanding that an individual involved in a family dispute that does not involve violence — on issues around custody or otherwise — would not get representation, as an example. Poverty law issues are no longer going to be covered by legal aid.

It's true. With legal aid services, sometimes the provision of the aid is not provided by lawyers per se but by paralegals or community legal advocates. The community law offices that are going to be shutting down across the province — every single one of them will be shutting down — provide those kinds of services in poverty law. They also provide assistance for people who are faced with residential tenancy rights disputes, of which there are many, that arise at the residential tenancy branch. Sometimes people are wrongfully evicted. Sometimes rent increases are exorbitant and may be in violation of the act. Sometimes repairs are not done, and people need assistance to bring those cases to the residential tenancy branch for determination.

Disability claims. Those will no longer be covered in legal aid services. WCB claims, employment standards, UIC — the list goes on. There is a whole range of areas in which legal aid services used to provide assistance to British Columbians in need. Those will no longer be in place because of the cuts. In my view, that will impact the most vulnerable British Columbians who need assistance from individuals who have access to the information, who understand the law and who can put their cases together and bring their cases to these administrative tribunal-like arenas.

The impacts are enormous. There is no doubt about it. The justification…. To suggest that cutting this area in the provision of legal assistance from legal aid services and the community law schools will somehow be okay, I think the Attorney General is amiss in understanding the impacts of those services to our community. I think the minister is wrong in suggesting that.

Moreover, not only do we have cuts in these areas, we also have a very important program: the Law Students' Legal Advice Program, LSLAP. The Ministry of Advanced Education has cancelled the Student Summer Works program. The program provided funding to the Law Students' Legal Advice Program, a non-profit charitable organization that enables law students to provide free legal advice to low-income, disadvantaged individuals in the greater Vancouver regional district.

Will the Attorney General commit to providing funding to this valuable organization from other sources within his ministry?

Hon. G. Plant: The primary vehicle that the government uses to fund the provision of legal advice to persons of low income is through the grant made to the Legal Services Society. The society is an independent organization. It's independent from government. While discharging its mandate under the statute, it makes its own decisions about how it will spend money. That includes decisions around whether or not to provide funding either directly or indirectly for organizations like the Law Students' Legal Advice Program at UBC and, I think, also the UVic law clinic. My ability as the Attorney General to direct the LSS to fund any particular program or service is limited. I think this needs to be clearly understood.

I have had conversations and have asked my officials to have conversations with the Legal Services Society about the UBC and UVic law student programs. I understand that those conversations are ongoing. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge here that I

think both of those programs are valuable from a number of perspectives. We're working from within that context to see what can be done.

The member talked about residential tenancy as another example of where she thinks there will be a significant impact flowing from the reduction in the grant to the Legal Services Society. Residential tenancy dispute resolution processes were established to be used by laypeople, not by lawyers. In fact, that system would break down completely if disputes that regularly involve $200, $300 or $400 were only processed by lawyers.

We need to work to ensure that dispute resolution processes under the Residential Tenancy Act are easily understandable and readily accessible. As the Solicitor General continues his project of updating and modernizing the Residential Tenancy Act, he is committed to that goal. Frankly, the fewer lawyers that we get involved in the business of residential tenancy disputes, the better.

J. Kwan: It just goes to show…. The last statements from the minister illustrate his lack of understanding in terms of what actually happens at the residential tenancy branch in those disputes. The fact of the matter is that as it exists now, it is not lawyers — it's true — who represent many of the clients, unless sometimes the landlords bring lawyers to the table in disputes at the residential tenancy branch. For the most part, the tenants go either on their own or with an advocate.

Many of the advocate services being provided are funded by legal aid services. There are the community law offices who provide for those services. Actually, when I was a student at SFU, I did my practicum at Legal Aid. I was dispatched to represent many people in these kinds of disputes — tribunals, residential tenancy branches and the like. I know that Legal Aid continued to do that by sending students, paralegals and advocates in the system to represent clients. They are, by and large, not represented by lawyers. Nor am I suggesting that all of these cases need to be represented by lawyers. I'm simply suggesting that from time to time these people may need assistance, and when they do, that support should be there.

The cuts being imposed by this government will diminish the ability of these individuals to ensure that their rights are afforded to them. That is the issue at hand here, whether it be through disputes that are brought to the residential tenancy branch; whether it be disputes that have to be dealt with through the WCB, UIC, employment standards or welfare tribunals, or any of those kinds of arenas.

The fact of the matter is that when these cuts are imposed, people will be jeopardized in their ability to access justice. I hope the minister understands that, or maybe he has a complete lack of understanding of the reality out there. He makes a mockery of the needs of the broader public for that kind of support. To suggest that somehow the government will streamline their practice of administrative justice and that there wouldn't be any need for such advocacy work or for such legal representation in the broader community is a complete fallacy — absolutely.

Maybe the minister has never come across individuals who have literacy challenges. I myself have come across many people who have literacy challenges. What about people who have language barriers? Many immigrants who come to the system in British Columbia are faced with challenges, and they have language barriers. They can't read the documents. Many of them don't even know what their rights are.

My parents, as an example, when we first arrived back in 1975, didn't know what their rights were. My mother worked as a farm worker for $10 a day to support our family of eight. For many hours she was out in the field making $10 a day. We didn't even know there was such a thing as minimum wage. We didn't even know there was such a thing as employment standards, until many, many years later we found that out.

Those people are going to be hurt. Their rights are going to be hampered. That's what legal aid services provide. That's what the community law offices provide for many people who are marginalized, who face multiple barriers. Sometimes they need a lawyer. Sometimes it's an advocate, not always a lawyer. These cuts will hurt them.

Will the minister simply admit — and he already stated to the Vancouver Sun — that access to justice will be denied to some British Columbians? Will he admit that? If he does, will he stand up today in this House and tell this House that he will rectify that and reinstate the funding for legal aid services?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I have said pretty consistently that there will be an impact from the expenditure reductions. Because by definition, legal aid is legal advice provided to those who could not otherwise afford to retain counsel or obtain that advice, any reduction in the provision of legal aid services is going to have an impact on the ability of those people to get the help they have been getting. That doesn't for a moment diminish my commitment to rethink how we provide help to people who need help, including help in the form of legal advice and information and assistance.

I've also said pretty consistently that we're going to work with the Legal Services Society on the strategies that I think can be developed to enhance the legal information services that are already out there, to work in cooperation with community-based organizations to recognize there are literacy issues and language issues that need to be taken into account. I acknowledge that those issues, those challenges, are out there in British Columbia. We're committed to working within the funding we have available to us to do the best we can to mitigate the impact of the expenditure reductions.

I really do think it's important that people start to wrap their heads around the fact that I'm committed and the government is committed to changing the way we do things so that some of the potential impacts people talk about will not be felt. If we can make our

administrative tribunal systems work better, then there will be a reduced need for the representation that has been provided to deal with instances where those systems don't work better. Is that going to eliminate all need for appeals, disputes, reconsiderations or, in some cases, advice and representation to assist people in those cases? Absolutely not.

We're talking about improving the system, realizing that there will always be disputes, there will always be people who are unhappy with decisions governments make or decisions other private parties have made who are in a relationship with them that has consequences that engage legal considerations. We need to have dispute resolution processes in place that will allow people to resolve those issues, including, if necessary, going to court.

One of the other good things about what's happening, on a going-forward basis, is that within the service plan expenditure limits, the Legal Services Society has a significant commitment to reducing the existing overhead. I think that if we can work with the Legal Services Society so that they can find a way to spend less money on management and overhead and more money on direct service delivery, then we will in fact make better use of the dollars available and protect access to justice for those who can least afford it.

J. Kwan: The minister talks about changes to the approach to dealing with administrative justice issues. He says he's consulting with groups and individuals around these issues. It's interesting, though. When the cuts were announced, the groups and individuals that the minister suggests that he's consulting with indicated that there had been no consultation when the decision was made by government.

I have a letter dated February 7, 2002 — a memo from the Legal Services Society. The letter highlights the challenges and problems and their position on the government's announced cuts to legal aid. This is referring to a board meeting held by the board of directors at legal aid — that is, before they were fired by the minister.

In that board meeting, it indicates that in a majority vote the board decided that it could not implement a budget based on the government's hierarchy of services and its severe cuts to legal services funding. In reaching that decision, the memo states…. They made it clear that the society needs more money if it is to provide the necessary legal services to the poor and disadvantaged across the province. As well, they were adamant that LSS funding must be provided with no strings attached and that the independence of the board, as written in the Legal Services Society Act, must be honoured.

Then the memo goes on to say that the board had then written a letter to the Attorney General expressing their serious concerns, which included the following. The level of funding proposed by the government — the funding cut, that is — would deny legal services to as many as 100,000 clients. It would require the society to largely centralize services, which would have a disproportionate and detrimental impact on rural and remote communities, and eliminate poverty law representation and advice services and severely reduce family law services, which would deny the poor their fundamental legal rights.

In spite of the society's request for meaningful dialogue and consultation, none occurred before LSS was presented with these cuts. The memo goes on to say that Ms. Tremblay, who is the president of Legal Services, noted in her letter that with the funding and service constraints it imposed on the society, the ministry has put Legal Services in the position of being unable to provide continued and effective delivery of legal aid. She added that under these circumstances, no one can meet the ministry's stated new-era objective of providing "equal access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians."

The memo is dated February 7. The then legal aid board made it clear to the Attorney General that with the 40 percent cut coming forward for legal aid, first, there was no consultation when those cuts were made and, second, no matter what changes are being suggested by government, legal aid would not be able to meet its mandate, which is to provide legal aid services to the poor and to the most marginalized. It stated clearly that it has no ability to meet the minister's new-era objective to provide equal access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians.

That was February 7. That's what the Legal Services Society board had to say. The minister has since fired that board and put in a trustee. I suppose it's his prerogative to do that. But what is the minister's answer to the then board of the Legal Services Society, the people in the profession who provide the services, the front-line people out there who know what the demand is, who see the cases that come forward? What is the minister's response to them when they say there is no way, with a 40 percent cut, that the services needed for legal aid clients in British Columbia could be met?

Hon. G. Plant: One or two things in response to that. The process by which government makes budget decisions is a process that pre-eminently involves government, because that's our job. We are accountable to the citizens of British Columbia for determining the amount of money available for expenditures for public purposes. The process that I referred to briefly in my remarks at the opening of this debate, followed last fall and into the winter, included both the core services review and the budget process. It was, as budget processes are, largely internal to government. When we reached a point where we made decisions as government about the level of expenditures across ministry areas for the fiscal year to commence in the next few days, we announced those expenditure levels.

In the case of my ministry, we immediately began conversations and consultations with other partners and actors in the justice system, including the Legal Services Society, with respect to what the implications

of those budget decisions might be. In the case of the Legal Services Society, we had done an awful lot of work internally to plan out, to anticipate, the likely impact of expenditure reductions, given what we know of the work that LSS does, their statutory mandate and our sense of what constitutional obligations lie in the Crown to ensure that individuals have appropriate access to state-funded legal aid. We not only did this work internally throughout the fall and into the winter, but my officials were engaged in fairly regular consultation with the staff of the Legal Services Society in the lead-up to the announcements on January 17.

There are a couple things that I think, viewed objectively, need to be said about this process. First, this was probably the most open budget development process in the history of the province. In fact, it is its openness that has encouraged, I believe, a higher level of public interest in debate than would have been traditionally the case. The fiscal year has not yet started, but as early as the middle of January we were engaged in a very public conversation in British Columbia about what the budget — certainly the expenditure side of the budget — would be and an exploration of its implications and impacts.

Secondly, I think the extent of the work done internally and in conversations and consultation with persons affected by budget decisions is also probably unusual. It may not be unique, but it's probably unusual. That is a bit of an overview of the lead-up to the announcement of the service plan summary in mid-January.

The member makes some statements about the ability of the Legal Services Society to discharge its mandate. She refers to a document that is certainly part of the correspondence record that exists in terms of the dealings that government had with the Legal Services Society both before and after January 17. The former chair of the board, Ms. Tremblay, commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to set aside the appointment of the trustee. The proceedings were dismissed by an order of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I'm informed that a notice of appeal has been filed, so some of the issues engaged by the member's questions are probably, properly speaking, in some way before the court.

Having said that, I think it's important to put on the record our notes of what Chief Justice Brenner said in dismissing the application that was brought by the former chair of the board. He made this statement: "The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council was justified in passing the order-in-council. Notwithstanding that the Legal Services Society was able to continue providing the section 3 services, it refused to comply with the Attorney General's request to implement the budget based on the budgetary allocations." That was the finding of the Chief Justice of British Columbia when he was presented with arguments and an evidentiary record that presumably included memos like the memo that the member has just referred to.

J. Kwan: The minister speaks of an open and accountable process that they have embarked on with regards to the budget exercise. I think the minister has rewritten history, because in particular in the area around legal aid cuts, if you ask the trial lawyers, "Were they advised? Were they consulted when the cuts were announced by government?" you'll find that the answer is no. If you talk to people in the community law offices who provide legal aid services and ask whether or not they've been consulted, their answer is no, they have not been consulted. If you talk to the Canadian Bar Association and ask them, "Have they been consulted?" again the answer is no. If you talk to the native community law offices about the cuts the government is proposing, the 40 percent cut to legal aid services, and ask, "Have they been consulted?" the answer is also no.

When the government made the announcement of the cuts, there'd been no consultation. In fact, at repeated requests from community groups asking for consultation with the minister, they did not get that consultation. Yes, now that the issue is public and there is strong opposition to the actions of government, to the point where there are court cases — I think for the first time in the history of B.C. such court cases are brought forward against the government — then the government is thinking: "Gee, maybe we'd better talk to people."

In their approach to talking with people, they have not opened up the opportunity to say to people: "Yes, we want to find efficiencies within the system — how to do it better." I don't object to that, but the minister and the government have not given any opening with respect to increasing or reinstating the funding that is being cut from legal aid.

So the consultation process that the minister talks about is a sham, because when the cuts were made, there was no consultation prior to that. It's a complete sham for the minister to suggest that this is an open and accountable process, because there's a long list of people who would dispute that claim from the minister.

I have here a series of other letters from people who have found out about their cuts — how they feel about it. Then I also have information here around what services would be provided by government and what services will be cut, a more recent memo from the Legal Services Society. I will be going through those cuts in a minute, but I want to first turn to the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia in terms of what they have to say around the cuts and closures targeting justice itself.

That's a letter from the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia, an open letter to the government.

That speaks to courthouses as a compounding issue to the cuts to legal aid services. The native community law offices are independent agencies contracted to fulfil the mandate of the Legal Services Society of B.C. as set out in the Legal Services Society Act. This press release talks about all the funding cuts that would be impacted by the Attorney General's action to cut 40 percent of the funding to legal aid. It gives one example: the challenge a client was faced with and how they provided assistance to them.

What does the minister have to say to a family who would be faced with such a situation and find they have nowhere to go because the community law offices are shut, nowhere to find an advocate to represent them? What does the minister have to say to this family if that service is not available to them?

Hon. G. Plant: The member had much to say in that last intervention, not much of which had any foundation in fact. The member referred to correspondence from stakeholders in the legal profession who expressed concern about consultation. I want to try this one again, just to be as clear as I possibly can. While I do think there was a fairly remarkable amount of work done — both internally and in terms of work for legal aid and consultation with LSS staff — prior to January 17, the budget-making process is not a process that does involve a widespread, structured public consultation or even, for that matter, an unstructured public consultation process. Fundamentally, budget decisions have to be made by government.

What was, I think, remarkable about what we have done so far this year is that as early as the middle of January — which is to say two and a half months before the implementation of the changes promised in the service plan summary — we announced the direction of government. We announced the funding that would be available in the Ministry of Attorney General. We talked about the decisions that we believed needed to be made to ensure that we could maintain public safety and access to justice within those budget constraints.

Since January 17 there has been a pretty significant effort on the part of government to engage the public and, in particular, a significant effort on the part of my ministry to engage the public, the legal profession and the judiciary in a conversation and consultation on the kinds of things that need to be thought about as we move to ensure that we support and protect the public interest in justice while also reducing the amount of money we spend in the Ministry of Attorney General.

As early as January 18, the day after the service plan summaries were released, the chief executive officer of the LSS sent a memo to staff and to a variety of other actors in the justice system, with a copy to me, in which he pointed out that we are intending to introduce changes to the Legal Services Society Act to give it the flexibility it needs to work within a new financial environment. The memo said that the Attorney General said ministry officials want to consult with the LSS, the Law Society of B.C., and the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch. He said that he would also like input from the society and the legal profession regarding the LSS board structure and appointing process. We have in fact been doing those very things since January 18. That is what communication and consultation are all about.

Recently the Law Society announced that it wanted to lead in the creation of a task force to examine justice system reform. That task force has been created. It's a task force that has the former president of the Law Society. It has a senior official from my ministry — Mr. McHale. It has representatives or nominees from the Chief Judge of the Provincial Court and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I'm informed that it will have the active participation and involvement of the Canadian Bar Association. That's consultation. That's working with the public and with the affected communities to ensure that we can improve the justice system.

I say yes, there is a limit to what government can do legitimately and what government ought to do in terms of the process that it follows as it decides how much money is going to be available for the delivery of public services. I think we did more than most governments traditionally have done during that part of the process. Once that decision was made on January 17, we had and continue to have a huge ongoing effort

to work with the people who are affected by these decisions to explore alternatives for how we can continue to deliver the service that is required within the funding limits that are available.

The member also took pains to say that we have not listened to the demand for more money, that we've done nothing. That also is completely and absolutely wrong. She should know, if she was listening at all last night, that since January 17 we have in fact managed to find more money that will actually help improve the delivery of services by the Legal Services Society, both in terms of funding that will assist in offsetting the transition costs associated with the restructuring of the society and also in terms of funding that is going to substantially reduce the carry-forward deficit, or the debt, of LSS. We have found money. We have found nearly $8 million worth of money since January 17.

What will happen as a result of that money is that there will be more legal aid, more services available, particularly in the area of family law. I want to say again that this is not to say that there has been more money found to do things the same old way. We are committed to changing the way in which justice services in the family area are provided, to continue to build on a strong tradition of reform and to find further reforms.

There is, in fact, a lot of work that has been done, a lot of concrete action already taken since January 17. We're not even in the new fiscal year yet. In other words, I think we have done a pretty good job of preparing ahead of time for changes that we know are coming and to put in place, as best we can, additional resources and processes that will allow us to communicate and consult with justice system partners and stakeholders to ensure that we can maintain the services that people are entitled to.

The member gives a specific although hypothetical example. I must admit that in listening to that specific although hypothetical example, it did occur to me that the place where the person she identifies should go is actually to the Ministry of Human Resources for hardship assistance to find housing. If housing's not available, that's why we have the Ministry of Human Resources. More specifically, we will in fact have $3.2 million available for public legal information and education that will provide information and assistance to people in situations similar to the one the member talks about.

Let's not forget the fact that for as long as there has been a legal profession, there have been lawyers who are willing to take on cases where clients cannot afford them. In fact, there are lawyers across this province with a strong commitment to service to their profession and the community who, for their entire careers, have assisted people on an urgent basis in precisely the very situation that the member refers to.

Civil legal aid has never been the entire picture in terms of how it is that people get access to help that involves and engages legal issues in our society. There have always been a variety of ways in which people can get access to legal advice and legal representation in addition to the community law office clinics. For example, the Canadian Bar Association has run a legal referral program for a number of years. It's very successful and ensures that people can have very early access to get answers to the kinds of questions a person has in the hypothetical situation in the example given by the member — that kind of thing.

Let me be clear again. Yes, it may be harder for some people to find that advice. There's no doubt there are going to be challenges ahead. That is the consequence of a reality we face, which is that we are going to have to make some reductions in the expenditures of the Ministry of Attorney General, as we are elsewhere in government, in order to dig the government out of the huge fiscal hole it is in. That is an important part of this context.

You can't simply talk about impacts in the abstract; you have to realize that impacts are real. I will do that; I acknowledge that. At the same time and in the same breath as I acknowledge that there will be impacts, I want to reaffirm my commitment to mitigating, minimizing and avoiding those impacts by all the means I have talked about in the last hours, and more.

J. Kwan: The minister talks about the case I read into the record as a hypothetical case. It's not a hypothetical case. It actually happened, and the native community law offices assisted that family to prevent homelessness. It's not a hypothetical case that the minister talks about. Nor is it a case that Human Resources will provide assistance to.

I have dealt with Human Resources in my capacity both as MLA and as a community legal advocate. When you have a situation like that and an individual goes to the welfare office for assistance, they don't take these cases on. They don't provide advice. What they do is give referral information. They tell these individuals or families to go and get a legal advocate to deal with those cases. That's what Human Resources does.

If the minister doesn't already know, the fact is that maybe all he has to do is just talk to his colleague in the ministry. There are significant cuts coming in Human Resources. I just got a phone call this morning from an individual who is on disability 1. He just received a letter telling him that the Ministry of Human Resources will no longer be providing for, yes, damage deposits. That will render a lot of people who are seeking housing unable to afford to pay for the damage deposit, because Human Resources is no longer going to be paying for that. This person just received this letter and phoned my office this morning around that.

The problems with respect to landlord-tenant issues and homelessness are going to escalate because of such changes. I will canvass these issues with the Minister of Human Resources, but for this minister to suggest that the woman who had that problem, the family who were faced with the problem, could go to Human Resources and get assistance, the minister is dead wrong

about that. Human Resources has never provided direct assistance for dispute resolutions for its clients.

Hon. G. Plant: That wasn't what I said, Jenny, and you know it. I'm talking about housing. You made the point about shelter, and that's where you get help for shelter. Get on with it.

J. Kwan: The minister is agitated because he knows the cuts that this government is imposing on the most vulnerable and the most marginalized are going to hurt people. People will find themselves out on the streets without assistance. The minister knows that, or he ought to know that, and he ought to be concerned about it.

The minister talked about pro bono services by lawyers. Maybe the minister doesn't know this: there are a lot of people who try to get pro bono services and cannot. Yes, it's true that some lawyers provide pro bono services, but to suggest that pro bono services will somehow fill the gap of a 40 percent cut to legal aid, the minister is completely out of touch in understanding what the demands are in the community. There is no way pro bono services will fill the gap of a 40 percent cut to legal aid services.

The community law office has much to say, and I'm going to go into those issues. Yes, the minister says, "Well, more of that stuff," as though somehow they're irrelevant, as though somehow they're unimportant. Well, I have news for the minister: it's very, very important for the community. The minister is making a mockery of the process of these estimates. He can choose to do that, but it is an opportunity where the minister is held accountable.

Maybe the minister feels uncomfortable in being held accountable, but he is going to be held accountable in this process. I'm going to talk about the community law office issue in just a moment, but I want to turn to the issue around consultation. The minister says they consulted and that they're consulting now. The minister completely lacks understanding of the purpose of consultation. Usually, when you consult, you consult with people before the decisions are made, before the government has made the decision to cut legal aid services by 40 percent over the next three years.

You consult, and then you work with them to make the determination. What this government has done is make the determination and cut legal aid services by 40 percent over the next three years. When there's an uproar, when people say, "We're challenging the government on that, and we will not accept these kinds of draconian measures by the new-era Liberal government," the government is then forced to engage in consultation.

He brags about these consultation processes. If he is committed to consultation, openness and accountability, he ought to say to these groups that the $40 million is back on the table, not necessarily to do the things the same old way but to make sure to signal to the public that the resources are there where they are needed for British Columbians in accessing justice. Then, I think, we would have an opportunity for open dialogue and could look for ways we could improve the system, but that's not what the minister is proposing at all.

The community law office put out more information. Here's another situation they put out, a situation for an individual. I suspect they changed the name of this individual for privacy reasons. Here's the case, a real-life situation.

Ethan grew up in a family that for religious reasons did not believe in consulting doctors. He left school after grade 8. When he married outside the group, his family cut him off, and he lost touch with them. For 20 years he worked in a variety of physically demanding jobs. When his wife died suddenly, he started suffering from panic attacks and depression. He took this as a sign of personal weakness and never thought of going to a doctor.

Instead, he returned to alcohol. His employer complained about Ethan coming in late and threatened to fire him. Then Ethan dislocated his shoulder while heaving a very heavy garbage can into a skip. Rather than seeing a doctor and making a WCB claim, Ethan stayed home without telling his employer he was injured. A week later he received a termination notice in the mail, but he didn't open it or any of the bills that started to arrive. Eventually, the caretaker in Ethan's apartment block called the police when there was no response to his efforts to collect the rent. The police found Ethan unconscious from an apparent suicide attempt.

The hospital social worker persuaded Ethan to contact the legal aid office to ask about his right to sickness and regular EI benefits. Eventually, the poverty lawyer and paralegal persuaded Ethan to allow them to speak with the hospital doctors about the shoulder injury and psychiatric treatment and then to the employer about the reasons for Ethan's behaviour.

This smoothed the way for EI sickness benefits. The lawyers assessed the merits of the WCB claim and managed to obtain wage-loss benefits for six months. Legal aid staff put Ethan in touch with community peer counsellors, who supported him while he put his life back together again. They introduced him to services and resources that reduce his isolation by creating a network of friends.

The approximate cost of poverty law services? A thousand dollars. Result in the world without representation for poverty law clients? Ethan's death by suicide, or homelessness. Cost to the Ministry of Health? Ongoing psychiatric care and prescription drugs. Cost to the Ministry of Human Resources? Long-term income assistance. Cost to society? Loss of a hard-working taxpayer.

That is the value of legal services to the client, including restoration of independence, employability, health and the introduction to a new life. Price? I

would argue it's priceless. That is what is being put in jeopardy in a situation like that with the 40 percent cut to legal aid. What does this minister have to say about the jeopardy he is now imposing on individual British Columbians who are faced with untenable situations because of the 40 percent cut to legal aid?

Hon. G. Plant: The first thing to think about that example is to think about particular rights and entitlements that presumably were engaged by the terribly unfortunate circumstances of that individual, those being rights and entitlements with respect to a wide range of things including social services, health care and WCB. All of those rights and entitlements will be there tomorrow as they are there today and as they were there yesterday.

The second thing is to think about that story from the perspective of the fundamental aspect of the idea of legal representation, and that is to talk about what it is that lawyers do and the problems that lawyers solve. When we are identifying, in particular, what is at the top of the list of priorities for government in the financial circumstances that we face and we look at the idea of legal services, I do think it's legitimate to ask about the difference between the kinds of things that a social worker can do, that a lawyer could do, that someone working in a hospital might be able to do in terms of acting as a referral or helping to advise someone to make sure they have access to the kinds of services that are all still going to be out there.

I'm not absolutely certain that everything that was done by the Legal Services Society lawyer in the situation described by the member is something that needed to be done by a lawyer. I challenge the assumption that the only way in which that person could have been assisted was by someone with legal training. It sounds to me like the individual, and the horrible experiences that person had, actually engaged a wide range of disciplines, most of which had nothing to do with the law. In fact, there are many Workers Compensation advisers who work for workers out there. That's just one example.

The individual in that situation will still have all of the rights and entitlements that they had last month or last year, and I am far from persuaded that the only way that person could have been helped was by someone who is a Legal Services Society or community law office clinic staff lawyer.

J. Kwan: It is absolutely unbelievable, what I just heard from the minister — to suggest that the assistance that was provided from the community law office to this individual is perhaps work that they shouldn't have been doing or that could have been done by somebody else. Perhaps it could have been done by somebody else, but the fact of the matter is that it was done by the community law office. Assistance was provided by a staff lawyer and a paralegal, and they made a difference, a real difference, in this person's life.

Not only that, it seems like the only thing that this minister and this government care about is the bottom line. Be damned with the lives of people — who cares? Let them stay out there in the streets; that's not an issue, because the bottom line is more important. After all, their salaries are tied to their budget, and what's more important? They'd better make sure that their salaries are there in full. Perhaps that's more important than the lives of the people in the community who depend on government services.

If the minister does not take the assertion from the community law office and my assertion about the importance of the work by the Legal Services Society, the community law offices, the lawyers and paralegals and the administrative staff involved — if he doesn't take that advice — perhaps he'll take this advice on the importance of government funding to legal aid and the services they provide. Here is what Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, had to say on February 2, 2002:

That's what Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, had to say in the Vancouver Sun on February 2, 2002.

Here's another person, one of the minister's own colleagues from his own profession, Daphne Dumont of the Bar Association's legal aid committee: "Canadians are starting to have to beg for justice in one of the richest countries in the world." She asserted that governments, not lawyers, are to blame and that the problem is particularly acute in family law courts, where legal aid is often unavailable. As a result, the vast majority of Canada's unrepresented litigants are mothers fighting for child support or fathers seeking access to children.

The minister rejects the community law offices' assertion around the need for legal aid. Is the minister also going to reject the assertion from the Supreme Court justice and from people in his own profession around the need for legal aid services and the provision for it and for government to fund it?

Hon. G. Plant: The position of British Columbia as one of the provinces in Canada in respect of our commitment to legal aid is a relevant part of this debate. It's certainly engaged when we hear comments from the Chief Justice of Canada and a representative of the Canadian Bar Association, both speaking about the issue of legal aid from a national perspective. If you look at legal aid from a national perspective and then examine British Columbia's position in relation to other provinces, it's immediately apparent that British Co-

lumbia is a leader in Canada in terms of the legal aid services we have provided and the services we will continue to provide.

It's important to point out that next year, for example, the amount we'll spend in British Columbia on legal aid is more than the amount that will be spent in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon all added together. It's important to point out that even at the end of three years of a service plan that imposes expenditure reductions made necessary, in large measure, because we are not the prosperous province that we once were, British Columbia will still have the third most expensive per-capita legal aid program in the country and one of the leading legal aid programs in Canada.

In fact, I'll make this prediction, and I'll stand on it. Three years from now, people will look to British Columbia — as they have done — as a leader in Canada in terms of innovation and service delivery for the provision of legal advice and representation to people who can least afford it. One of the reasons that will be so is because of the work we will do and the work the judiciary and the legal profession will do to make sure we reform and improve our justice system in British Columbia so that it is there and it is accessible to those who need it.

It is, I think, remarkable how much we spend and are willing to continue to spend on legal aid services in British Columbia, given the seriousness of the province's financial circumstances. It has to be pointed out again — when people like the Chief Justice of Canada speak, as she is quite entitled to do, about issues like the seriousness of the risk of a criminal record — that we are actually, on a going-forward basis, going to maintain legal aid in criminal cases.

We do need to rethink how we do legal aid even in criminal cases. The way we do it now is: if you meet the eligibility criteria, then you don't have to pay anything. I wonder whether that's an appropriate way to make use of limited public dollars. I wonder whether we ought not to be thinking about creating a system that allows for some partial charges to be made or some initial payment to be made by someone who shows up and says: "Well, I'm charged with this offence. It's important to me. I can't afford to pay the full rate for a lawyer."

Then I say: "Well, would you be willing to spend $50 for an initial consultation?" I think that's a reasonable question to ask. "What about if we can put a lien on some property you own so that although you can't pay now, we can secure our right on behalf of the taxpayers to get repayment for some of the costs of providing the service in years to come, if your financial circumstances change?"

What about ideas like that? I think those are all part and parcel of the dialogue on how we can improve and reform legal aid. I'm certain that if you sat down with the Chief Justice of Canada and with the former CBA president and started talking about those options, you'd hear that they are as interested in those ideas as anybody else. If you pointed out the range of coverage that we will continue to provide and our commitment to innovation, I think you'd hear an acknowledgment that British Columbia has been and will continue to be a leader in the extent to which it makes justice accessible to all people who live in the province.

J. Kwan: I know that a colleague in the House here would like to ask the minister a question, but I want to finish off this area first before I yield the floor to him.

The minister talks about his assertion of what the Chief Justice had said. I want to just put this statement back on the record once again. The article actually started with this first quote from Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada: "Providing legal aid to low-income Canadians is an essential public service." We need to think of it in the same way we think of health and education." The Chief Justice goes on to say: "It is not only the rich who need the law. Poor people need it too."

By reading this, my understanding is that access to justice should not be denied because people are faced with financial barriers — for all Canadians, whether it be in British Columbia, Alberta or elsewhere. If I understand that correctly, I agree. The minister is wrong to suggest that somehow we can find ways to hide the impacts of the 40 percent cuts that the government is imposing on legal aid services and create, I guess, the illusion that individuals would not be denied access to justice. The minister is wrong. Access to justice will be denied. By his own admission, he admitted that himself.

The Attorney General has assured British Columbians that cuts to legal aid are okay, since we've already spent more per capita on legal aid than any other province and that these cuts will only cause us to slip to third in the country in terms of legal aid spending. However, the Attorney has neglected to inform the public that B.C. has problems that the other provinces do not. First, B.C.'s marital breakdown rate is among the highest in Canada, therefore increasing the demand for family law services. Second, in the Liberal government's own New Era document, B.C. has the highest crime rate in Canada. Next, B.C.'s violent crime rate is 40 percent higher than the national average. Finally, B.C. has more immigration issues and cases than any other province.

I fail to understand how the Attorney General can justify using a cookie-cutter approach to legal aid and suggest mimicking the legal aid spending of other provinces, when B.C. is very different in its circumstances and its situation and in the areas around the need for legal aid than other provinces. I fail to understand the analogies that the minister has brought up by way of comparison to other provinces' spending. It doesn't make any sense when you look at the reality of the need and the different circumstances in which we live.

The minister then goes on to suggest that there are lots and lots of pro bono services. Here's what Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada had to say around that: "Legal aid and pro bono work — in which lawyers take cases for free — are being eroded by government funding that 'too often falls short' and law firms that are 'dominated by billing goals.'" This was told to the University of Manitoba law students. The result, she said, is that low-income Canadians are being deprived of their right to justice.

You can account for pro bono services. You can account for the fact that other provinces spend less money on legal aid services. The fact of the matter is that we have a different set of circumstances than that of other provinces. You know, just to be clear, I hope the minister does not think this is an exercise for British Columbia, for this Liberal government, to race to the bottom, cut spending in health care, cut spending in education and cut spending in legal aid. Be damned with people who are most marginalized and who are most in need, and let's give big tax breaks to the richest British Columbians and to the biggest corporations. It appears to me that's what this government's approach has been to date.

I want to confirm with the minister what cuts legal services is imposing as a result of the 40 percent cut by this government. I want to confirm whether or not this information is correct, because it was sent on a bulletin by legal services. It reads as follows.

Specifically, the programs to be cut include the following: beginning April 1, LSS will start to phase out legal representation for all family cases where violence is not involved, approximately 8,000 cases. Of poverty law matters, about 6,000 cases. By April 1, 2002, the current hold-back system will be removed, and all tariffs will be reduced by 10 percent. As of April 1, 2002, the society will begin to phase out all summary advice services, approximately 25,000 cases. As of April 1, 2002, public legal education information will be cut back. Public legal education grants to local organizations for community development, and public legal education projects and grants and other support to public libraries will be eliminated.

A number of programs will be restructured or eliminated over the next six months, details of which will be given to those concerned in the next week. Still to be determined is whether we can continue to cover services affecting approximately 30,000 clients beyond September 2002. Out-of-custody duty counsel, approximately 19,000 cases. The arraignment court tariff is at about 56,000 cases. Existing referrals for approximately 5,000 family cases are no longer covered by the tariffs. Administration on behalf of the Ministry of the Attorney General of the tariffs for human rights cases, material witnesses to crimes and victim assistance in criminal proceedings….

I want to ask the minister to confirm these cuts. Are these cuts accurate as stated by the bulletin from the Legal Services Society? If they are not accurate, would the minister please advise in what areas they are not accurate and provide correct information?

Lastly, I want to make a comment about the minister's suggestion of asking clients to pay for legal aid where they can afford it. For the minister's information, for as long as I can remember, even when I was a student working at legal aid, clients were asked to pay a fee when they could afford to. Legal aid assessment on the issue around eligibility is based on affordability. I recall when I was there as a student — more than ten years ago now — we collected money from clients where they could afford it, on a sliding scale. If they had enough money to take the case on their own, to seek legal representation elsewhere, they paid for it. They were sent to go seek their own legal representation.

In cases where legal aid does not have the capacity to take on the case, they are referred to community legal advocate offices. Those kinds of measures already exist. To suggest that somehow this is a new way of doing business because we are now going to ask people to pay for it…. Legal aid services is already asking people to pay for it where they can afford to. That certainly was the case when I was working at legal aid over ten years ago.

Hon. G. Plant: As far as I know, the Legal Services Society does not have the capacity, statutorily, to recover money. I'm not certain what the member is referring to.

The member asks a question about a memo that she is reading from. What's the date of the memo?

I'm asking about the information that I read into the record about the cuts to legal aid programs. Are those cuts accurate, or is it wrong? If it is wrong, in what areas? Please advise, and provide the correct information.

Hon. G. Plant: The Legal Services Society is an independent body of government. It does, in fact, make its own decisions about how it will spend money. We certainly work closely with the society to have an understanding of what we think the impact of the expenditure reductions will be in terms of their delivery of programs.

One area, for example, where we have been working on one set of assumptions according to our plan — and the LSS at least until recently had a different set of assumptions — was with respect to immigration and refugee legal aid. Our commitment as a provincial government is to get out of the business of funding refugee and immigration legal aid, because we think the federal government should assume the responsibility given that they are completely responsible for legislating and administering refugee and immigration legal entitlement.

To the extent that you take out of the LSS budget an amount which they may assign for the provision of

immigration and refugee legal aid services, you're looking at almost $5 million. That certainly would have an impact on their ability to deliver other services.

The fact that we have recently — in fact, just this week — announced that there will be $3.74 million available to LSS, by way of forgiving their obligation to repay the deficit accumulated during the previous government, also means that there will be an increase in the range of services able to be provided by LSS, although we expect that most of that money will be provided in the family law area. I think that the work with respect to preparing the details of the budget for the fiscal year that's coming up is still ongoing and, to some extent, may turn on the outcome of the consultation process that has been taking place with respect to the statutory mandate of the society.

At some point, probably sooner rather than later, the society will have a budget and a business plan for the next fiscal year that will outline the services they expect to be providing over the next fiscal year. I believe that would be a public document. I'd certainly be willing to provide a copy of it to the member.

J. Kwan: So far what I've heard from the minister is that he has not refuted these cuts. He has said that some pieces of it around family law may receive a little bit more funding, but, by and large, the minister has not refuted any of these cuts that are being proposed. It's being suggested by the Legal Services Society that the services will be eliminated. In addition to these services being eliminated, there are others.

By September 2002 the Legal Services Society must put in place a new service delivery structure that will eliminate about 74 percent of staff positions. In all, 60 offices that the Legal Services Society operates or funds — head office branches, community law offices, native community law offices and area directors — will be replaced by seven regional centres, a provincewide call centre providing enhanced telephone intake and 24 local agents. The society will no longer fund the Association of Community Law Offices of British Columbia and the Native Community Law Offices Association of British Columbia. The provincewide administration support, such as paying the tariffs and providing information technology services, will be included in the mandate of the new Vancouver regional centre.

That's the information that's been provided in terms of the cuts that Legal Services will be imposing — or has had imposed upon them because of the 40 percent cut to their funding. As I said, I haven't heard the minister refute any of that.

The minister says that the Legal Services Society is an independent agency. Yet the minister saw fit, when the independent agency told the government that under the circumstances which the government had imposed, there was no way the board could provide equal access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians For that — because the society had told the government that the 40-percent cut for legal aid would dramatically impact the Legal Services Society in delivering its mandate and providing the services they provide to British Columbians — they were fired. They were fired and replaced with a trustee. So much for an independent voice. So much for an independent agency exercising its authority.

Hon. Chair, I understand that the member for Maple Ridge–Mission has a question for the minister. I'm going to come back after the lunch break on questions around legal aid services, but I'm going to yield the floor now to the member.

Hon. G. Plant: I just want to be clear, in case it wasn't already clear. The fact that I have not taken the time to refute every single putative allegation of fact offered in the course of this debate by the member of the opposition ought not to be taken in any way as any acceptance on my part of any assertion of fact by her, at any point during the debate. What I have said, I think speaks for itself in terms of the issues we have been dealing with. Of course I would be happy to continue the discussion about these issues, if the member wishes to do so.

J. Kwan: Just a quick point, then, hon. Chair. If the minister does not refute the list that I read out in terms of the cuts to legal aid services, then all he has to do is provide the correct information and suggest otherwise, but he hasn't done that so far.

R. Hawes: Having listened to the member opposite and her questions, particularly around poverty law — I think she read a letter from somebody that had issues around it. Through the whole story, it looked like it broke down to access to WCB benefits and difficulty getting there. I know I get a lot of e-mails in my office from people with access-to-WCB problems, and I've heard a lot from legal aid representatives that it's going to be a disaster in their eyes because people need guidance through the web of regulation, or overregulation, at WCB and other agencies, like Human Resources.

I guess my question to the minister would be: rather than looking for legal representation to assist someone through that morass of regulation, are you aware of anything being done to just rid us of the regulation so that they don't need that legal representation? It makes it much easier for everybody to get through what they have to get through. It seems to me it's the regulation in a lot of cases that's the problem and not the need for legal representation.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I appreciate the member's question, because it does strike at the heart of a lot of what we are trying to do as government. In the first place, yeah, we are, as part of our commitment, to reduce unnecessary regulation, looking to make the regulatory world a little bit simpler. Through the administrative justice project and other projects underway in government we're also trying to redefine, rework and streamline the operation of some very important institutions of government, including the Workers Com-

It is surely the case that if we can make those agencies work more efficiently and if we can create the opportunity for them to work more effectively, then there should be a reduced need — probably never an eliminated need; I wouldn't want to go that far, by any means, but certainly a reduced need — for the kind of litigation the current system tends to produce, particularly in the case of WCB, when there are so many different levels of appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and so on. Surely, it has to be possible to design a system that will serve both workers' and employers' interests in achieving prompt resolution and speedy payment of appropriate claims.

The same approach continues, though, when we expand beyond the range of some of the things that are traditionally thought of as being within the purview of civil legal aid into family law disputes, construction law and motor vehicle law where we need to continue to build on the good work that's already being done to find processes, to find tools, that will help people achieve resolution of their disputes before they end up in court.

You know, we talked a bit about family law and family justice services. I've pointed out that in the next fiscal year this government will spend $46.2 million on family law legal aid, family law legal aid–related programs and family justice programs.

In addition to the $46.2 million we will spend, I must point out that it is a reduction of only $3 million from last year. As we go within the next fiscal year, the amount this government will dedicate to family justice and family legal aid is being reduced by only $3 million.

In addition to that, in other parts of our justice system, including parts that we in this ministry are integrally involved in, there is an expanded commitment to mediation. We are working and listening to the Supreme Court in a dialogue around judicial case management. We have all kinds of support for, and I'm certainly just starting to learn about, the new initiatives in the area of collaborative law in family law. I think there's all kinds of potential there to minimize the need for intensive and adversarial and traditional litigation in the area of family law.

We're working to integrate and coordinate the services that are currently provided by the Legal Services Society and the Ministry of Attorney General so that we make better use in a coherent, integrated way of the dollars we have available, and as I say, primarily to try and find ways to encourage at least family law disputes from avoiding becoming litigious disputes in the first place.

Those are some of the things we're doing that will help improve access to justice in British Columbia in the spirit, I think, that was intended by the member's question. It starts with a commitment to deregulation itself that includes a commitment to changing the way our institutions, especially our administrative justice institutions, work, and then moves into the area of justice and justice system reform. I think there are lots of good things that are being worked on and lots of good news yet to come.

Noting the hour, Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.