Hansard -- Volume 5, Number 3 -- 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

Introductions by Members		2285

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2286
	Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 17) Hon. G. Hogg

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2286
	Hugh A. Curtis I. Chong Fetal alcohol syndrome K. Stewart Kenney Dam proposal D. MacKay

Oral Questions		2287
	User fees for emergency services J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins Long term care beds J. Kwan Hon. K. Whittred Funding for Surrey school district D. Hayer Hon. C. Clark Funding for women's services G. Trumper Hon. L. Stephens

Petitions		2290
	Hon. R. Thorpe

Tabling Documents		2290
	B.C. Transit and Rapid Transit Project annual reports, 2000

Reports from Committees		2290
	A Future for Learners: A Vision for Renewal of Education in British Columbia

Petitions		2291
	J. Nuraney

Committee of the Whole House		2291
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13) Hon. G. Collins

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2292
	Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13)

Committee of Supply		2292
	Supplementary Estimates (No. 2) J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2302
	Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14) Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills		2302
	Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14) Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House		2302
	Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2302
	Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)

Committee of Supply		2303
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Bond

Royal Assent to Bills		2309
	Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2002 (Bill 2) Supply Act (No. 1), 2002 (Bill 13) Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2) (Bill 14)

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2309
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations (continued) J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Speaker, you know all of us have very busy lives, and our lives are made considerably easier by the people that work with us. From time to time, as life goes, people move on. Sometimes they retire, and sometimes they just go on to other vocations.

Today, sad to say for me, but I'm sure it's happy for her, I'm losing a lady who gave us an enormous amount of extra effort and help during the busy time that we had here this past summer in moving from the ministry into my office. I don't know why she would leave me for the man that she's going to, but in fact she is, and she's been with him for many, many years.

Margaret Ketchen is sitting in the gallery today wearing a beautiful purple orchid flower. She's an avid gardener, and Laird didn't know this, but he's about to become an avid gardener as well. Margaret, on behalf of myself and really, in a sense, for everybody here: thank you for those many extra hours, and enjoy your time in the garden.

One other thing I'd like to point out is that it's important for all of us to have somebody who wears that yellow vest who knows, when it's time for a fire and the bells go, that you have to get out of the place. We're in a lot of trouble now in 310, because we don't have that person who knows how to throw on the yellow vest, wear the yellow cap, burst into the room and say: "You guys gotta get out of here." But luckily for Laird, he does. All the best.

Hon. R. Coleman: Finally, someone from Fort Langley–Aldergrove has come to Victoria. I am proud to introduce Jim and Marjorie Shiell, who are chicken farmers extraordinaire from Fort Langley–Aldergrove. Jim is a former realtor. Marg is a retired nurse. She could probably tell us all how to fix the health care system. She certainly told me enough times. They're great volunteers, great people and great friends. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, we're joined today by two future members and bright stars of the legal profession of British Columbia. They are members of a mooting team from the University of Victoria law school who succeeded in not only winning a western Canadian mooting cup called the William McIntyre Cup but going beyond that to win the national Sopinka Cup on behalf of the University of Victoria.

I heard a little bit about what they had to do to get there and the work they did in the moot. The moot was presided over by a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. One of the members of the team that I'm going to introduce gave his opening remarks in perfect French without a single note, which I think was a surprise to the people who were hearing him, and he said it was a bit of a surprise to him. The other was, in fact, so recognized for her achievements at this event that she will be attending the annual meeting of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America soon.

The two up-and-coming stars are Almira Esmail and Timothy Livingston. Importantly also, they are joined today by their coaches: Nils Jensen, who is a well-respected lawyer in British Columbia and a member of my ministry; and a respected local barrister named Adrian Brooks. The two of them gave many, many hours to helping these two younger people succeed.

Let me tell you: mooting is tough work. To succeed at mooting does truly mean that you have a bright future in the practice of law. I hope the people on the floor of the Legislature will welcome those four individuals to the precincts and gallery today.

J. MacPhail: I rise today to announce a birthday. One of our interns, Richard Overgaard, turned 23 today. That, combined with earlier events this month, makes our average age not that bad. [Laughter.]

Hon. J. van Dongen: It's my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislature 40 ESL students with the Abbotsford Community Services. Abbotsford Community Services provides great service to my community, and I ask the House to make them all welcome.

R. Stewart: We're joined today by Sonja Puhringer and her mother, Renate Puhringer. Sonja is a Rotary exchange student for the Victoria-Harbourside Rotary Club. Sonja has been visiting our province this year. I ask the House to please make her and her mother welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: In the gallery today I am pleased to welcome Annie Peraddy. Annie is a grade 6 student from East Kensington Elementary School in Cloverdale, which, I might add for the benefit of those here today, is the oldest school in Surrey. It's over 100 years old. Annie is representing the grade 6 students from Ms. Larch's class. I would ask that the House please make Annie feel welcome today.

Hon. G. Hogg: We are joined in the House today by a lifelong friend of mine, a fellow I went to school with, and he still admits to knowing and liking me.

Hon. G. Hogg: Okay, so I'm making all this up. He's not really here. I had to feel better about myself. [Laughter.]

Would the House please welcome Wayne Proctor, Wilma Proctor, Carmen Proctor and their friend, Vanessa Henneau.

Hon. G. Hogg presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G. Hogg: The Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2002, is a package of three major, two minor and several housekeeping amendments which will make further improvements to British Columbia's child welfare legislation.

In the February Speech from the Throne, this government promised to give social workers more options to provide safe care for children within the environment of extended families. Today we are delivering on that commitment.

The amendments we are proposing are necessary to better serve children and youth at risk as well as their families. This will be done by increasing the range of options available to ministry workers and to family court judges. The current legislation limits the choices for judges and child protection workers when confronted with a child at risk of harm in their home. Currently, there are two options: the child must be either taken into the care of the ministry or left within their own home. We believe that extended families and communities should be considered as part of the solutions for these children and youth at risk.

The Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act makes these options available when it is deemed to be in the best interest of the child or youth involved. These amendments uphold the principles of the act.

A new section of the act has been developed to allow the director of child protection to apply for an order to transfer guardianship of a child in the director's continuing custody to a person other than the child's parents.

Another amendment will clarify the role and mandate of ministry social workers and refocus ministry resources on vulnerable children and their caregivers. A lack of clarity in the current language of the act around the duty to report has meant that limited social work resources have been strained to investigate and assess reports in areas where they have no legal jurisdiction to act.

A further amendment imposes penalties on individuals who might disclose private or identifying information about children in the care of the ministry. This amendment makes B.C.'s laws consistent with similar legislation in other provinces as well as with the principles of confidentiality that's widely accepted for youth under the Young Offenders Act.

I'm pleased to be able to introduce these amendments today, and I move that this bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

I. Chong: Today I have the pleasure of paying tribute to a constituent, a well-known citizen of Saanich and also a great British Columbian.

This past weekend the highest formal honour possible from the municipality of Saanich was bestowed upon this citizen in recognition of his long and outstanding career in public service and to acknowledge his commitment and dedication to the Saanich community.

The honour of Freeman was bestowed upon Hugh Austin Curtis on Saturday, March 23. Throughout history, municipalities have acknowledged the accomplishments and contributions of specific citizens with this honour, which is much like being given the key to the city. Once the citizen is a Freeman, they can always vote in elections regardless of where they reside, and their name is printed in the front of the list of electors.

Hugh began his career as a radio broadcast announcer, and it was not long after that that his interest in public service took hold. He was elected for the first time to Saanich council in 1961 and re-elected in '63. He was elected reeve in 1964 and re-elected for three consecutive terms. It was in Hugh's reign, in 1968, that the term "reeve" was changed to "mayor."

He was the first chair of the capital regional district, and during his municipal years he also served as president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, vice-president for B.C. of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, and chair of the Municipal Finance Authority. In 1972, Hugh Curtis was elected a member of the British Columbia Legislature, where he was subsequently appointed Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, provincial secretary, Minister of Government Services and Minister of Finance.

Hugh's legacy of dedicated commitment to public service is much broader than the government spectrum. He has committed energy to many worthy endeavours, including the Variety Club of B.C., the David Foster Foundation and, as honorary director, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association.

The legacy of Hugh's work and public service is felt not only in Saanich but provincewide. After a unanimous vote of council, Freeman of the municipality, the highest honour of the municipality, was bestowed

upon Hugh Austin Curtis. Hugh has indicated that while free parking is not included with the title of Freeman, it will nonetheless be very treasured.

K. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present some disturbing facts about the leading known cause of intellectual disability in children, a disability which is 100 percent preventable but 100 percent incurable. Fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental disability in children. The damage is permanent. Most children with FAS will never be financially or socially self-sufficient. They are also more likely to be in foster care, require special education, drop out of school early, develop substance use disorders, have trouble with the law, and experience joblessness and homelessness.

For an estimated 140 children born with FAS in British Columbia this year, between $140 million and $280 million in additional funds will be required to care for them over their lifetime. This cost will continue every year that FAS rates remain high. The human costs — the loss in quality of life, effects on mental health, joblessness, homelessness and even early death — are immeasurable.

Children do not grow out of FAS, even with the best family environment and schools. Early diagnosis and intervention make a difference in reducing the secondary problems mentioned above. In my riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, we are fortunate to have the Asante Centre. This centre is championed by Dr. Asante, an acknowledged world leader in the assessment and care of children with FAS. The centre is progressive in the diagnosis, assessment and family support that is so essential in a solutions-focused intervention by providing family caregivers and educators the correct tools to care for and support children and adults with alcohol-related disabilities.

These programs give the best opportunity for normalizing the disabilities afflicting those with fetal alcohol syndrome and are most worthy of our support. In the words of Dr. Asante on his centre: "We do good work here."

D. MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the Kenney Dam, which is located west of Vanderhoof, was completed in the early 1950s. When the dam was created, several lakes were created behind the dam, such as Eutsuk Lake, Tetachuk, Ootsa and Whitesail. Collectively, those lakes are now known as the Nechako Reservoir or the Nechako watershed. The water from that watershed travels down Tahtsa Narrows and produces power at Kemano, which then travels on to Alcan and into the B.C. grid.

In 1997 we saw the formation of the Nechako environmental enhancement fund, which was made up of three people. The purpose of this committee was to look at options to enhance downstream benefits to Vanderhoof and Prince George, which suffered with the lack of water in the Nechako River. In 1998 the Nechako Watershed Council was formed. It was made up of 18 different organizations with the same purpose — that is, for the social well-being and environmental benefits to downstream communities.

I am pleased to report to the House that the Nechako Watershed Council has developed a proposal for a cold water release facility at the Kenney Dam site, which will see cold water taken from deep inside the reservoir and released over a spillway to be built near the Kenney Dam. The preliminary work for this proposal will be funded jointly by the province and Alcan over the next three years. With this implementation we will see less water having to come from the Nechako watershed to cool the Nechako River during salmon migration — less water than we presently have going over the spillway today.

This proposal will create economic opportunities while maintaining environmental standards and ensuring sustainability. The fact that consensus was accomplished within the Nechako Watershed Council, which now consists of 25 members, is indeed a worthy accomplishment, and I would like to add my note of gratitude to all the members of the Nechako Watershed Council for a job well done.

J. MacPhail: The Vancouver coastal health authority wants to make patients pay for emergency care in Richmond. The Minister of Health Planning has said that she is currently working on signing off on these health authority plans. Will the Minister of Health Planning authorize this change?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The member knows that we are committed to being in full compliance with the Canada Health Act. What she's referring to is working documents. Nothing's been signed off yet.

J. MacPhail: I fully expected the Minister of Health Planning to skate, as she always does.

Well, every day British Columbians learn more and more about cuts to health care in this province, and every day this minister washes her hands of responsibility. It's a old document; it's a working document; it's up to the regions.

Again, to the Minister of Health Planning: will she or won't she authorize charging patients for emergency care in Richmond, and how much are they going to be charged?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Our government is fully committed to being in compliance with the Canada Health Act,

and we expect the health authorities to be that way too. And you know what? We've given our health authorities a challenge: to go out and plan in the best way for the needs of their population.

And you know what? That member over there, when she was Health minister, agreed with that because she said that her government was moving health care decision-making out of Victoria and into the hands of community and regional authorities who had their hands on the pulse of patient priorities. And you know what? We agree with that, and that's what we are expecting our health authorities to do.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the only difference is that our government knew what we were doing, as opposed to this…

J. MacPhail: …minister, who gets faced with a leaked document day after day after day. She has no idea what's going on, and this is another example.

J. MacPhail: It's apparent that this minister has no concept of what's going on at all with the health authorities. That's the difference. There's chaos out there in the health system, and she has no idea what's going on, although she does admit, Mr. Speaker, that she's got to sign off on the plans. It's almost the end of the fiscal year.

It's almost the end of the fiscal year. Hospitals and patients need to know now what services are going to be available and which ones are going to cost more. Will the minister stand today and tell us when the health plans will be signed off and made public, and just when will patients get to know what extra costs they have to bear under this government?

Hon. S. Hawkins: For the first time ever health authorities got their budget letters on time, and for the first time ever they got three-year budgeting envelopes. They were told what their budget was going to be for three years. What we have asked them to do….

Hon. S. Hawkins: I find it really interesting that she's talking about plans, Mr. Speaker. For the last ten years there was no planning, and that's why we're in the mess we're in. We're asking good people on the ground to help us identify the needs of their community and what the plans are. They're working documents, and — you know what? — we're working closely with them. She obviously doesn't believe they're capable of doing that. We have every confidence that they are capable of doing that.

J. Kwan: What we're concerned about is that this government is off-loading its responsibilities to the local authorities, and when programs are cut they're saying: "Hey, we didn't do it." In the New Era document the government promised to create 5,000 intermediate beds, but in communities around the province that promise is being broken. This week workers at the Penticton Retirement Centre were told that that facility and its 100 long-term care beds is going to be closed.

To the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care: would she like to explain to the senior citizens living there, many of whom I'm sure voted for this government, why she is breaking her promise to them?

Hon. K. Whittred: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to say that I, in fact, was in Penticton just last week to open a brand-new campus of care for 135 new units.

Hon. K. Whittred: This new campus of care is the latest in what the research tells us seniors want. It consists of 35 assisted-living units, where seniors can live independently while enjoying support. It consists of four brand-new dementia cottages, each one housing ten individuals. It offers care to 60 multilevel-care patients and an adult day centre.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: This minister knows that not one new bed was added. She knows that those were replacement beds.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

British Columbians with aging parents were counting on this government to fulfil its promise of 5,000 new beds. If mothers and fathers get sick, and they have to provide care around the clock, they need to know that they will have a safe, comfortable and caring place to live. Most children simply cannot afford to provide the care that their parents need at home.

To the minister once again: it's time to come clean with the seniors and their children. How many more new long-term beds is this minister planning on putting in place for British Columbians, and how many beds is this minister closing?

Hon. K. Whittred: Over the break not only was I honoured to go to Penticton to make this announcement, I was also in Williams Lake, where I announced a new seniors facility. I was in Victoria, where I announced a new supportive living housing….

The facility in Penticton is the new for the old. What we have done is phase out, over time, an old facility that is no longer useful. In addition, Mr. Speaker…

Hon. K. Whittred: …this represents a new partnership. It is not a drain on the public purse. This is a partnership between the interior health authority, B.C. Housing and a non-profit society. This is how those 5,000 beds are going to be delivered.

D. Hayer: I would like to ask a public written question submitted by Mary Polak, chairperson of the board of school trustees of Surrey school district 36, to the Minister of Education.

Hon. C. Clark: We introduced a new funding formula this year, and we are moving towards equity in funding of school districts for the first time in quite a while in British Columbia. That doesn't mean, though, that it's not still more expensive to educate a child in a district that's widely dispersed and rural than it is in a district that's highly compact and urban.

In a district like Surrey, where the transportation and heating costs may be less, we recognize that. In a district like Bulkley Valley where schools may be widely dispersed, where schools may have a low population, where they may have extra heating costs, we recognize that it's more expensive to educate a child there.

We are moving towards equity for every child in British Columbia because every child deserves the same opportunity to learn in our schools.

D. Hayer: The minister has previously committed to directing every possible dollar to where it is needed the most: providing services to students in the classroom. Can the Minister of Education confirm that any additional dollars that become available will be allocated to the public school system on a per-student basis?

Hon. C. Clark: I am delighted to be able to announce today that we have available, at the end of the fiscal year, $44.6 million that we will be making available to school districts across the province. This is good news for students.

Hon. C. Clark: Our government has a commitment. When we save money in our ministry, we will deliver that money to school districts so that they can deliver that money for better education for every child in British Columbia.

In Surrey that means an additional $4,320,523 — money that they will use to ensure that every child in Surrey gets the best top-notch education that we can provide.

G. Trumper: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. I understand that the minister

announced today one-time funding grants for providers of women's services across British Columbia. Can the Minister of State for Women's Equality tell us where those dollars are being allocated.

Hon. L. Stephens: I'm very pleased that the member has asked this question. Our government very much values the fine work being done by women-serving organizations across this province.

That's why I'm extremely pleased to announce today that over $954,000 will be going in one-time funding grants to women-serving organizations across the province. Again, through those ministry savings, we were able to make this limited contribution to these organizations. What we are doing is making sure that our government recognizes…

Hon. L. Stephens: …the priority essential services of this government for women-serving organizations across this province.

G. Trumper: The minister has committed to protect the funding for essential women's services, including transition homes, second-stage housing and counselling services. Can the Minister of State for Women's Equality tell us if today's funding announcement will be directed to these priority services?

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes, in fact I can. There are 145 community organizations that will be receiving this one-term funding. They include women's centres, family emergency societies, women-in-need societies, multicultural family support services, community services societies and a number of others around the province. All of these organizations will be receiving this one-time funding because the government is well aware of the extremely critical work…

Hon. L. Stephens: …they do in the province to support British Columbia's families.

Hon. L. Stephens: This government does indeed recognize the value that women-serving organizations bring to this province and the services that they provide…

Hon. L. Stephens: …through these organizations to the women and their families in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have the honour to present a petition from the Summerland Hospital Action Committee regarding the Summerland Hospital.

Hon. J. Reid: I have the honour to present the annual reports for B.C. Transit and Rapid Transit Project 2000 for the year ending March 31, 2001.

W. McMahon: Pursuant to the committee's terms of reference, I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing Committee on Education for the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament, entitled A Future for Learners: A Vision for Renewal of Education in British Columbia. Hon. Speaker, I move that the report be taken as read and received.

W. McMahon: This report reflects the Education Committee's consultation with students, parents, educators, administrators and other British Columbians on measures to improve access, choice, flexibility and quality in public education and measures to strengthen our network of colleges, institutes and on-line learning throughout the province. The committee's report concludes that the economic, social and democratic interest of learners, of local communities and of the province are best served by a seamless education system that enables all British Columbians to access a variety of world-class learning opportunities.

To achieve this vision, the committee agreed that we must refocus attention on learning and on the needs of learners and communities. The report identifies strategies and actions in three major areas: mandate, service delivery, and governance and management. The recommended changes will create a system that is focused, responsive, accountable and professional.

I appreciate this opportunity to move the adoption of the committee's report, and I would like to thank the members for Delta North, Surrey-Whalley, Okanagan-Vernon, Burnaby North, Surrey–Green Timbers, Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, Vancouver-Kingsway, Victoria-Hillside and Coquitlam-Maillardville, as well as the Clerks to the committee, Kate Ryan-Lloyd and Anne Stokes, consultants to the committee, Bob John-

Mr. Speaker: The member is now moving adoption of the report, and that requires leave. Shall leave be granted?

J. Kwan: I have the honour to table the opposition's report on the future of education in British Columbia, entitled Excellence and Opportunity for All: Investing in Education and Investing in People.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. member, it's out of order. The report is not in order at this time.

Hon. members, the motion is leave to adopt the report, and further debate is allowed on the motion. Is there any further debate?

R. Masi: Over the months that the select standing committee held public hearings, the members heard many, many education stakeholders present reports of how they felt government should best deliver education to the learners of this province. The report represents the voices of a broad range of interests which include parents, learners, teachers, community activists, post-secondary educators, union representatives and business interests. It also reflects the serious deliberations of the select standing committee.

The report focuses on the development of a seamless education system, a system which will allow learners to enter and re-enter the system at any age, at any level of education; a system which provides flexibility, unencumbered by excessive rules, regulations and contractual restrictions; a system that provides maximum opportunities for learners by reducing bureaucratic duplications and territorial duelling.

Mr. Speaker, this report represents a vision for the future, a vision for the renewal of education in British Columbia.

J. Nuraney: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by about 158 people concerning our health care system.

J. Kwan: I have the honour to table the opposition's report on the future of education in British Columbia, entitled Excellence and Opportunity For All….

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. We must ask leave to present a document. Would the member please ask leave. The House must give leave.

Hon. G. Collins: Despite what the member opposite thinks, the rules are the same now as they were a year ago, two years ago and three years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I call, in Committee A, Committee of Supply. For the information of members, they'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General, followed by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; T. Christensen in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 13, Supply Act (No. 1), 2002, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: supplementary estimates (No. 2) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

Hon. G. Collins moved that the said message and the estimates accompanying the message be referred to Committee of Supply.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I was out for 30 seconds. I don't understand this referral, Mr. Speaker. Could you explain it to me before I vote on it?

Hon. members, all estimates are referred to Committee of Supply, and we'll have a brief five-minute recess for distribution.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, this comes as brand-new news to me that we're doing this today, so I'd appreciate very much that as we distribute…. I'd also ask, Mr. Speaker, if you could consider the fact that I'm going to need time to consider the content of the supplementary estimates after its distribution. It's brand-new news to me.

Hon. G. Collins: Supplemental estimates and bills in the House are almost always news to the opposition. In fact, every one is. This procedure is not without long historic precedence. There's nothing nefarious here. I'm glad to provide the member opposite with time to look at the supplemental estimate. I'm glad to have somebody talk to her if she has some questions about it. It's not complicated. In fact, it's simpler than the one we did two weeks ago. I'm glad to provide whatever information the member needs, but this is not an unusual process.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The House will recess for ten minutes.

Mr. Speaker: We will recess now for ten minutes — till 3 o'clock — for distribution of the bill.

Hon. G. Collins: I'd be pleased to do that. I just did so outside the chamber in response to the comments of the member opposite, and I'm very glad to do that here.

As the member knows, supplemental estimates are required when government anticipates there will be an expenditure over and above that which has previously been set out and approved by the Legislature. In this year there was a previous supplemental estimate about two weeks ago. The member will recall that dealt with the write-down, virtually in its entirety, of the asset which was Skeena Cellulose as a result of decisions made by the previous government — some $400 million, I believe.

As well, included in that was the request for approval from the Legislature for several hundreds of millions of dollars in order to provide the funding to pay physicians as a result of the arbitration and legislation that had passed with regard to physicians' compensation.

Since that time, we have had a couple of things happen. First of all, there was the workforce adjustment numbers, which were included in the budgets and the quarterly reports over this last number of cycles over the last ten months. The number that government had reported was, I think, about $85 million. That was determined for this fiscal year based on the government's restructuring plans for changes that are happening now and in the future.

As the member will recall, the adjustment plan included voluntary severance. If people chose to volunteer to leave their positions, there was a package. We announced that in November. Certainly, there was a briefing at that time provided to the member, the public and the media on how the workforce adjustment programs were going to work and the costs associated with them. There was a volunteer severance provision. There were also early retirement provisions made available to public servants who would choose to retire early, thereby voluntarily leaving the public service.

We found we put forward the best estimates. I know that Vince Collins, who is the deputy responsible for PSERC, had put forward a plan of what that might look like and how that might phase in over time. I'm pleased to say that we have had a slightly higher take-

up on the voluntary provisions than was originally anticipated, so there will be a larger proportion of the people leaving who will be doing so in a voluntary capacity or doing so as a result of the early retirement provisions.

There have also been opportunities in some cases to start to implement the service plans of government earlier than had been initially planned, so in fact we're a little bit ahead of schedule. That has resulted in a higher amount for severance and restructuring for this year. Any amounts that are additional this year are amounts that will not end up being funded according to the number that was forecast in the plan for the next year or the year after.

Essentially, what has happened here is that people are leaving earlier. As a result, they're leaving in this fiscal year as opposed to next fiscal year. I was hoping for and we may still end up in a situation where we could fund these out of contingencies with the room in the contingencies budget.

However, as we near the end of the fiscal year, it has become clear to us that as a result of the windup of Tech B.C. and as a result of the lease arrangement the previous government entered into with ICBC under the administration of the member opposite, the cost of the lease to Tech B.C. was well above market rates or at least a certain amount above market rates. As a result, we will probably need to incur in this year a write-down of the future costs of that lease as we extricate ourselves from that building and that lease.

I am still hopeful we will be able to contain this within the contingencies — both the Tech B.C. write-down, although we have not been able to put a fixed number on it, as well as this cost. However, given the slimness of the room that's left after many of the other things we've been trying to clean up for the last year, I thought it was prudent to come to the House to seek a supplemental estimate as opposed to using a special warrant, which was something the previous government used quite regularly.

Doing this process of coming for a supplemental estimate allows us to ensure that there will be appropriate funding there and that government will not run afoul of the appropriations and will not have to seek a special warrant or use that process, which we've committed not to doing. It will also ensure that we book the costs in the appropriate year.

We certainly hope, and I hope, that once all the numbers are in for this fiscal year, this appropriation will not be required, either all or in part. I hope we don't need it at all, but I think that given the tightness and the unpredictability of the final amount for the Tech B.C. write-down, it's appropriate to seek the provisions in advance.

J. MacPhail: Here we are at ten after three just before a long weekend, and here's what the public has found out today about this Minister of Finance's budget. "Oops, we found $44 million in the education budget that we had no idea was going to occur. We've made lots of mistakes, and there were cuts to education, so let's get that out the door."

Then we have a bill where, no matter how much the minister tries to skate and bring up things he has no responsibility for, we are paying out $95 million for this reason:

No matter how much the minister tries to make up for his inability to budget anything in the way anybody can predict, here we are today. That's what the vote is about. Let's discuss it in the context of the vote, the $95 million. Let's start with the less controversial part, I assume, of the $95 million: the operating costs that are supplemental. Could the minister identify what that $1 million is for?

Hon. G. Collins: There is $85 million for the workforce adjustment. That's $81 million for voluntary departure. That's estimates to date. There's $4 million for involuntary departure and related severance costs, estimates to date. There's $1 million in accommodation restructuring — that's tenant improvement payouts and lease payouts. There's $9 million for other restructuring, which is write-offs for capital assets and contract termination penalties incurred for cancelled projects.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, maybe I could seek guidance from you. I received this information moments ago, and the minister's reading out very quickly. Either he can repeat it, or we can go though it line by line. I asked about the $1 million in terms of operating costs.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm glad to move more slowly, if the member would like that.

The $1 million in costs she refers to, as I said, is accommodation restructuring, which is tenant improvement payouts on vacated properties as well as lease payouts.

J. MacPhail: And where are those improvements? What is meant by improvement to a property — improvement to sell, to lease again? And where are those?

Hon. G. Collins: If I'm not accurate on this, I'm sure my staff will tell me.

My understanding is that when you occupy an office space, it is not unusual in the public or private sector for the tenant to seek improvements — changes to the layout, carpet, different lighting, moving a wall, paint, curtains, blinds, those sorts of things. Those are generally known as tenant improvements.

In some cases the tenant may pay for those themselves. In some cases they may be folded in as part of the ongoing lease and will be paid out over a period of

time as part of the lease. So when someone vacates that property prior to the end of the lease, there are penalties associated with it. In some cases that means you have to buy out the lease; there are various contractual arrangements around that. In some cases it means that you have to pay the remaining portion for those tenant improvements which you would have paid over the term of that lease, but now that you're not there and you're getting out of the lease, you have to pay them up front.

J. MacPhail: I'm curious as to that, because clearly this didn't come as a surprise. The restructuring was announced to the world on January 17. I assume the government knew about the restructuring well before January 17. What possible reason could there be to incur an unconsidered cost of $1 million about lease improvements? Maybe the minister could list the properties in which that occurred. Were they public service properties? Why has this come as a surprise?

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, it hasn't come as a surprise. It is part of the government's estimates, having canvassed in a general way what provisions there are, what leases are in place and where leases will be vacated. It wouldn't come as a surprise to the member opposite if she'd raised this in the estimates of the Ministry of Management Services, where it all could have been discussed in great detail. That didn't happen. That's fine. But there is no surprise here.

The tenant improvements the member refers to, for example, may have been on a lease that was entered into three years ago, and there was a term left on the lease. There would have been a requirement to pay out those tenant improvements over a period of time. Perhaps the final two years of, let's say, a five-year lease are not going to be taken up. Then you would have to pay out the lease, which is part of the $1 million, as well as the improvements there.

There certainly has been no attempt by government…. It certainly hasn't happened, to my knowledge — although, given the size of government, one never knows — that there would have been improvements in a leased property that would have been approved after government had decided they were going to close that particular property. Given the size of government and the difficulty for communication, I'm not going to say that would never happen. I'm just not aware of it, nor would it be our intent to have that happen in any way, nor would I think any manager would intend that to happen either.

J. MacPhail: I don't want to talk in the hypothetical; I want to talk about the $1 million here. This $1 million is spent for costs associated with government's approved plan for restructuring, which was announced January 17.

For the minister to somehow suggest that we could have discussed this under the estimates of Management Services…. The reason we're here is because these are costs that weren't contemplated in the estimates for '02-03. The reason we're here is because they're expenditures for '01-02. Could the minister please name the properties and the improvements?

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, this debate could have happened in the estimates of the ministry, because government has made it public since at least November that we had forecast, I believe, $85 million for restructuring for this fiscal year.

As early as November the member opposite was aware, as well as everyone else in the public and the public service, that government was forecasting an additional cost over and above the budget from July 30 last year for these restructuring costs. That's been out there for some period of time. There's not a surprise on that. That's why I don't understand why the member would be surprised. These are not costs government is surprised today, all of a sudden, that we're going to incur.

We said in November when we released the restructuring package that these costs would incur. We estimated them at that time to be about $85 million. As I said earlier, they're going to be more than that for the reasons I've already stated. This was in the quarterly reports as well. It's been out there to a great extent.

I had not brought this supplemental estimate in last time, two weeks ago, with the other one, because I was hopeful we would be able to contain it within the contingencies and other previous appropriations government already had. As a result of the Tech B.C. potential write-down on the lease, it's not guaranteed that room will be there or that it will be sufficient and still leave enough room to allow me as minister to be comfortable. That's why we're doing this. As I said earlier, I hope we don't end up having to spend this, and we'll do everything we can not to spend the additional appropriation in whole or in part.

There are no surprises here. If the member wants to have a detailed breakdown of each site or place, then I will be pleased to try and get that for her. I can't do it today obviously. But I'd be glad to try and get that for her, make that available and provide a briefing for her. I'm sure the deputy minister for PSERC would be able to provide that in some detail. If there are other officials that are helpful — BCBC — to try and do that, I'd be pleased to provide that if that's what the member would like.

J. MacPhail: I don't think it's any surprise to the Minister of Finance, the fact that nobody knows what's going on with the finances of the province.

The minister may have said that the costs for severance were going to be around $85 million in the fall, but that was at the same time the government was denying they were going to increase MSP premiums. Someone needed to get a new deep throat. The opposition said that the government was going to increase MSP premiums. Well, it turns out that the government increased MSP premiums.

At the same time that the government was speculating that the costs for severance for this year — in fact the government didn't specify that it would be for this year — may be around $85 million, there is also a leaked document for health suggesting that the costs for severance are well over $200 million.

This is the time when we actually get the facts. It's the first time we've seen these facts on paper. Yes, I do want a list of every property, what the improvements are and why the improvements need to be made for $1 million.

This is up to March 31, 2002. This is dealing with the budget that changes daily. Today we had $44 million restored to help with education cuts that the government has made. It turns out that money was available too. I'm sure the public is not quite sure what's happening with their finances.

The next one I wanted to deal with was the $9 million under "other expenses" — an accounting of that, please.

Hon. G. Collins: I'll say again that this isn't a surprise to anyone other than the member opposite apparently. It was disclosed in November with the workforce adjustment and the restructuring at that time.

I've explained why the number is slightly higher. I've explained the fact that we hope we don't have to use this appropriation, and we'll do everything we can to not use it. Given we're at the very end of the fiscal year, rather than have to correct this after the fiscal year, if we can't and there is insufficient room, I think the appropriate thing to do is come to the Legislature and seek the appropriation. Then it's there if necessary. If it's not, then that's good news. So I think I've explained that.

I would be very happy to provide a briefing to the member opposite on the details and breakouts of all of these items, this $95 million. Perhaps we can do that at the same time as we're providing her with the briefing I committed to on how Skeena Cellulose went south and the costs that are associated with that. When the time is appropriate and amenable to both the member and staff in this ministry, I'd certainly be pleased to provide all of that detail.

The member asked about the $9 million for other restructuring. That is for write-offs of capital assets — i.e., information systems. We could have a long discussion about information systems and what they've cost the government and taxpayers over the last decade, but now is probably not the appropriate time. I'll wait for estimates.

The other is contract termination penalties incurred for cancelled projects. Again, I would be very happy to provide the same detail on these as I would on the million-dollar items that she was referring to.

Further, in response to the member's comments — although not particularly relevant here — about the education decision today, I just want to make it clear that the money being granted to school districts is money that was contained in the education budget for this year. It is not additional funding. It is money that was in the budget, and because of proper planning and cost control within the ministry this year and a variety of issues, the ministry has money that is available.

This government committed to not cut the funding for education or health care. There is money left in the education budget. We also said in the election that we were going to focus education dollars on students. That's why that money is being directed back to the school districts for them to provide for the needs of students at their will.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister please name the information systems that are being written off and the contracts that have term penalties being paid out?

Hon. G. Collins: I am not able to do that. I am very happy to provide a detailed breakout and briefing for the member when the time comes. As I said, these are estimates. We don't have all of the information from the information systems as to what the total cost will be, but I'm certainly prepared to provide for the member a breakout of that and a briefing at the same time if she wants the details on all of these items. I'd be more than happy to make that available.

J. MacPhail: I had ten minutes to prepare for this, and I'm prepared. I'm not quite sure why we can't have this information. This is the place where this information is revealed, not in private briefings. Please, what are the write-offs for the information systems and the contracts that are cancelled that require penalty payments?

Hon. G. Collins: My answer is the same. It is not uncommon at all for briefings to be provided in general estimates during, before or after. In fact, I recall numerous times when that member was the minister of various ministries, when more detailed information was offered to members either prior, during or after an estimate. I will stand by that longstanding practice here and make that information available to the member.

J. MacPhail: Briefings were always provided before. Well then, let's adjourn. Let's recess, and I'll take a briefing right now before we pass this.

This is ridiculous. At 3:30 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon this government is spending $95 million of taxpayer money, and nobody can get any detail on it. Why isn't the Liberal back bench rising up and saying: "What's going on?" These are pretty basic questions, Mr. Chair, and I can't get answers to any of them — to any of my questions. It is unbelievable. It is an abuse of the time in this chamber, and it's abuse of the taxpayers as well.

I request again that we recess and that I get a briefing on this. Then I can reveal to the taxpayers what this money, the $9 million, is being spent on.

Hon. G. Collins: It is not required. In fact, the information is as in the legislation. It is an estimate. I

would state to the member that despite her hysteria, there is nothing different today from what her government did except for the fact that we've taken it to the Legislature rather than merely sending the Minister of Finance over to the Lieutenant-Governor, without knowledge of anyone, to get a special warrant. This is part of the new transparency. That's why there's a supplemental estimate as opposed to a special warrant, which was the practice of the previous administration.

As I said, despite the member's hysteria, this is a practice that is longstanding in many jurisdictions. In fact, there were times in the last parliament, just before the last election, or the session prior it, I guess…. That would have been the 2000 session. I believe — and I stand to be corrected, but I'm pretty sure — there were supplemental estimates tabled by the then Minister of Finance, Paul Ramsey. In fact, the scope of the information is identical to the information that is here. The member can go back and check the Hansard. She wasn't involved in the debate; I was. She's welcome to check that, but we intend to move forward. As I said, although I'm not required to, I'm very happy to provide further detailed information to the member and to provide a briefing to her as I've offered her repeatedly in my time in office.

J. MacPhail: This is worse than a special warrant. There is no detail. There is absolutely none. The minister shows up in this chamber hours before adjournment for a long weekend, hours before the conclusion of the fiscal year, spends $95 million of tax money and has no answers for anything — absolutely none. That is different; that is new. It's unwarranted, and it's an abuse of this procedure. There is nothing transparent, and there's nothing accountable about this.

I request…. Mr. Chair, I'm shocked that I'm being refused a briefing so that we can actually ask questions. I guess these members must know what the $9 million is being spent on, because they're going to stand up and go: "Yes, I'm in favour of this." They're going to vote in favour of it without knowing. Well, maybe they had those caucus times. Maybe in caucus they all sit around, all 76 of them, and say: "Oh, that's good — to spend that $95 million."

Guess what. The public isn't at the caucus meeting. This is the chamber where this government is required to be open and accountable. It's the only way anyone can hold this government open and accountable other than through leaked documents. That's the other way. That's how British Columbians find out about what's going on here: through leaked documents or through this procedure. Through this procedure the answer is: "I don't know. I'll get back to you." That's the answer. It's unbelievable.

Well, I am extremely disappointed on behalf of the taxpayers that there are no answers forthcoming.

On the item of $85 million — $85 million. The minister broke that down into two parts of $81 million and $4 million, I think. Could the minister repeat that?

Hon. G. Collins: I'd be pleased to in a moment, but before I do that, I would like to refer to just how much briefing the member opposite has had and the opportunity she has had to receive briefings on this issue. In November, when the government put forward the workforce adjustment package for staff in the public sector, there was a great deal of information put out. I believe there was a briefing provided to the member opposite; in fact, I'm positive there was. Indeed, there have been opportunities since then for the member to request a briefing.

Secondly, in the quarterly reports this issue has been referred to repeatedly. As well, I'll direct the member…. I know she did receive provision before the public and privileges as opposition that we never had when we were in opposition. There was a lockup for the member, and she was allowed to come into the House and released from her lockup. That's something that's never done in opposition, but that's fine.

I'm sure that in the member's time in her lockup, she would have referred to page 67 of the budget and fiscal plan for 2002-03 to 2004-05. For the member's benefit, page 67 actually has government restructuring which includes the workforce adjustment strategy, the accommodation restructuring initiative and other restructuring costs. The estimates are there, and the only reason we're here today is because there is a requirement for a supplemental estimate. As I've explained repeatedly, it was hoped that we wouldn't need to do that despite the fact that it was what had been said. The member has had certainly more opportunities….

Thirdly, she had every opportunity to canvass in whatever detail she wanted from the Minister of Management Services, who is part of this as well through PSERC, if she wanted detailed information. Certainly BCBC, the Crown corporation, was available for the member to receive a briefing. Across the floor I've offered her briefings dozens of time on a whole range of issues, and to my knowledge they've never been taken up.

I know the hysteria and the fevered pitch at which the member is pursuing this issue. I would just say that if that feeling was genuine, if her outrage was genuine and if her desire to do the public good was genuine, she's had a multitude of opportunities to get whatever details she wanted prior to today on this subject or many others. Clearly, she hasn't thought that was sufficiently important to put at the top of her priority list, which I know is clogged with many things. I understand that, but those offers are available. They remain available. The government is going to proceed with this estimate in the legislation today. We're nearing the end of the fiscal year.

If the member wants to talk about abuse of this House and its time, I recall being in this House around the clock on a number of times on the very last day of the fiscal year, and sometimes that was even on weekends. Here we are, and despite the member's outrage, this government is behaving in ten times more responsible a fashion than was ever displayed by the previous administration, including the time when she was Minister of Finance.

Despite all her bluster, despite what she's saying and despite trying to make this into some sort of political issue…. Perhaps she's not prepared for the estimates that are to follow. Despite that, Mr. Chairman, all of this information is available if she wants further detail: contract by contract; address by address for buildings; individual by individual for workforce adjustment, not using their names, of course, but by positions; individual contract by contract; lease by lease. I would certainly be more than happy to make that information available to the member opposite as it becomes available.

There is nothing here that should cause her to be as exercised as she is. As I stated, this information has been out there since November. It was included in the budget; it's been included in the quarterly reports. Briefings have been offered to the member repeatedly. I don't know what more I can add.

J. MacPhail: Methinks thou doth protest too much. Frankly, I'm always surprised at how little the minister knows about his job. This is the budget for '02-03 and refers to costs of $215 million that would be incurred in '02-03, which starts April 1. Fair enough. The Minister of Finance and I will debate that cost when we get to his estimates.

You know what? If the minister himself would actually like to treat this House with respect, he'd actually answer my questions.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm trying to be as respectful as I possibly can to the member opposite. In doing so, I'll draw her attention to the fact that if she looks at page 67, which she was just referring to, and goes to the very bottom of the page — I'm pleased to highlight it and send it over for her — she'll see a table where it says funding categories for operating, capital and total restructuring costs. There are a range.... The 215 number that she's referring to is the total workforce adjustment strategy in salaries. I'm assuming that's salaries; that's right. The 85 across is 215. If she looks across the top of the chart, she'll notice that there is a total column at the right, but it's a total for four fiscal years: 2004-05, 2003-04, 2002-03, which is the next year that she was talking about, and I think mistakenly referred to the 215 number. In fact, next year that number was 65.

Also here in this, because we're trying to disclose as much as we can, she'll notice that the first column is 2001-02. That's the fiscal year we're in right now. The number is 85 for the workforce adjustment strategy as has been disclosed repeatedly and, as I said moments ago in answer to the member's question, $85 million for the workforce adjustment, $81 million for voluntary departure — that's an estimate to date — and $4 million for involuntary departure and related severance costs. That's an estimate to date as well.

As I said, if the member wants a further breakdown on that position by position, as it becomes available, I would certainly be pleased to provide it to the member.

J. MacPhail: I'm well aware of what the book says. Frankly, all of this trying to somehow say that it's ridiculous that these questions are being asked doesn't wash with the public out there. Just the same way that every time this minister, and this minister particularly, stands up and arrogantly says that he doesn't have to answer these questions, it makes people out there in the public extremely angry.

It's particularly related to the position of the Minister of Finance. The fact of the matter is that this has not been debated in this chamber. The public has no idea what this money is being spent on — until now. This minister won't answer the questions — full stop. That's what taxpayers know — completely. Despite hour after hour after hour of being in this chamber, there have not been questions answered on this matter yet, and today the minister won't answer it either.

In fact, no one knew until an hour ago that we were going to have to rush in here and debate this matter. No one knew that. As a matter of fact, it's because the minister wants to slip it through; $95 million of taxpayer money to go because this government wanted to do a radical, extreme restructuring of government. I can't get any answers about that extreme expenditure of $95 million.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'd like an accounting by ministry, then, of the severance costs and the early retirement costs.

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, the member is correct. There have not been a lot of questions about this issue in the House. It's because she hasn't asked them.

Hon. G. Collins: There were plenty of opportunities in the estimates of the Ministry of Management Services to do that, and she chose not to. As I said, I would be more than happy to provide more detailed information than what is here to the member if she'd like that. I'm very happy to do that. I would be glad to set that briefing up for her sooner rather than later.

J. MacPhail: I'll go through it alphabetically. How much of workforce adjustment money in terms of severance is going to the Ministry of Advanced Education?

Hon. G. Collins: As I said, I am very happy to provide the member with a more detailed breakout, if she'd like that. This is an estimate of the cumulative amount. It's an estimate that has been disclosed previously; there is no surprise about it. As I said, I'd be more than happy to provide her with that information in a briefing.

J. MacPhail: So the minister doesn't know how much is going to Advanced Education.

How much of severance and early retirement is going to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries?

Hon. G. Collins: My answer is the same, and it will be the same answer as she goes through the alphabetical roll call. She can ask the question repeatedly if she likes. I'll answer her in advance, and the answer remains the same.

J. MacPhail: How much is going to the Ministry of Attorney General? Does the minister know? And if not, why doesn't he know? How much is going to the Ministry of Children and Family Development? Does the minister know? If not, why not?

J. MacPhail: How much is going to the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for severance and early retirement? Does the minister know? If not, why not?

J. MacPhail: How much money is going to Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise for severance and early retirement?

J. MacPhail: How much money is going to the Ministry of Education? The minister must know this one because he spent $44 million today of money that he said was extra money. The minister must absolutely know about the Ministry of Education, because this is an expenditure for '01-02.

J. MacPhail: I can't believe it. We spent $44 million in education money today. The minister stood up and said, "Oh, we had money left over in the Ministry of Education," and he doesn't have the answer of how much for severance and early retirement is going to the Ministry of Education. How could he have made the statement? How could the Minister of Finance have made the statement that there was money left over? Perhaps he can answer that question.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't this an interesting, open, transparent and accountable process. It's $85 million of taxpayer money. Even the ministry today, where the Minister of Finance stood up and said: "Oh, we know exactly what's going on there. As a matter of fact, there's $44 million left over…." Perhaps the minister wasn't being quite forthright, because he can't answer my question.

This is an expenditure for '01-02 out of the same pot of money that the Minister of Finance said today: "Oh look, there's $44 million extra because we've managed so well." My gosh, isn't that interesting? You know what could be the problem? Maybe the Minister of Finance doesn't know what's going on.

Hon. G. Collins: My answer remains the same. If the member wants to move onto the Fs, Gs and Hs, we can continue.

J. MacPhail: There is no answer to the question I just asked. It probably puts under a cloud of suspicion whether indeed the government was maybe meeting other concerns around that $44 million under the Ministry of Education. That surely should be a ministry that the Minister of Finance could tell me how much out of this is for severance and early retirement. Here's what he would have had to do. He would have had to calculate what the costs are for education, and then he would have had to say: "Well, that money isn't available from Education, so we have to come in here and do a supplemental estimate." Meanwhile, he went out the door and spent $44 million, which…. Thank God for students in classrooms that they saw the error of their ways.

How much money is for Ministry of Energy and Mines for severance and early retirement? I actually believe that the minister does have this information.

Hon. G. Collins: As the member knows, as far as the direct government goes and what's listed here, there are not the direct workforce adjustments in the Ministry of Education. The budget hasn't been cut. As I said, if she wants to go on to the Fs, the Gs and the Hs, we can move along, but my answer remains the same. I'd be more than happy to provide the member with the information in detail when it's available for her at a time that's amenable to her — hopefully sooner rather

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why we have this process is so that members can be informed and see whether they wish to vote to support this expenditure. I'm trying to find out information to determine my vote. That's this process here, Mr. Chair. That's why I'm asking these questions. These questions are completely legitimate, they're on topic, and this is the place and time to ask them.

How much for early retirement or severance is being allocated for the Ministry of Finance?

J. MacPhail: How much money is being allocated for the Ministry of Forests for severance or early retirement?

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm going to continue, Mr. Chair. Here's one: the Ministry of Health Planning. How much money is being allocated for severance and early retirement for the Ministry of Health Planning?

J. MacPhail: Is the money for restructuring of the health authorities that has occurred in this year dealt with under this $85 million?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm not going to get an answer to that question. I have actually a specific question for the minister. Maybe he'd answer this question. In the Central Vancouver Island health region the CEO, the head health administrator, quit last week — quit voluntarily. He's been given 16 months of severance. Not fired. Not anything. He quit. Where's the cost of that being allocated?

Hon. G. Collins: I wish it was allocated out of that member's legislative budget, because it was her government who was responsible for signing it.

J. MacPhail: In fact, there is legislation passed by our government that specifically precludes this payment — specifically. In fact, this payment is in violation of that legislation. Our government passed that legislation. This payment is specifically precluded. So, sorry, nobody's responsible for that except this current regime who refuses to enforce legislation. That's why I'm asking this question. Voluntary departure — how is it and where is it being paid for? It was precluded by legislation.

Hon. G. Collins: If there are severance arrangements that have been made by the previous government which are in violation of the legislation, then those provisions will not be honoured. Clearly, the legislation has precedence. I don't think we need to have a debate on that. That's the law.

In fact, the Premier has asked myself to review many of those outrageous severance provisions that were in many of the contracts set up by the previous administration, with an eye to protecting the public interest. That is underway. I'm sure we can talk about that at some later date.

J. MacPhail: Clearly, the Minister of Finance has no idea what's going on — absolutely none. In fact, he wasn't even aware of the legislation. It's all very well and good for this government to do radical, extreme restructuring, and they don't have a clue what's going on. They don't have a clue how the money's being spent. They don't have a clue whether their government is upholding the laws of the day. Yet patients are suffering. Kids can't get treatment for autism. Inner-city funding is gone, not to be restored. This minister, this government, has no idea what's going on right under their nose on their watch.

How much is for restructuring for severance and early retirement for the Ministry of Health Services? The leaked document said it was going to cost about $227 million, in terms of restructuring costs for severance and early retirement. How much of this $85 million is going toward the cost of the $227 million in total for restructuring under Health Services?

J. MacPhail: In the estimates for the Ministry of Human Resources, they're talking about office closures throughout the province. How much are the restructuring costs for early retirement and severance for the Ministry of Human Resources, as part of this $85 million?

J. MacPhail: Oh, my gosh. Isn't this great? Don't you feel good? Don't you feel good about democracy?

To those of you who are watching, isn't this a good process? There's $85 million of tax money being spent, and no answers. None. Zero. No answers, and somehow the minister says: "Why don't you go into a private room with some of my officials? They'll give you a briefing, and that way, nobody will know."

Isn't this good news for all of those MLAs who have to return to their constituencies? Return to Penticton and say: "Where are the 5,000 beds? What portion of these new 5,000 beds have I got here in Penticton?" Isn't that good news? How much money is being spent for restructuring for severance and voluntary retirement for the Ministry of Provincial Revenue?

J. MacPhail: How much money for restructuring for voluntary retirement and severance is being paid for the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General?

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry this is taking so long, Mr. Chair. It's because it's the largest and most expensive cabinet in the history of British Columbia. That's why these questions are taking so long, and that's why the lack of answers is taking so long. We have the largest cabinet in the history of British Columbia. Gosh, I wonder how effective that cabinet is. Well, let's just continue going on, then. Let's see what else the minister doesn't know.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is suffering substantial cuts to the ministry. Those have already occurred. Those estimates did explore this issue, and the minister didn't have the answers, so this is the place where we ask this question. How much of severance and early retirement costs of the $85 million is being allocated to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management?

J. MacPhail: Oh, gosh. Even when the minister was given the direction to ask the question by one of his cabinet colleagues, he can't answer the question.

Now, the Ministry of Transportation. That was an interesting set of estimates, Mr. Chair. Two members have to either be in the little House or…. I was actually answering questions of the public, and there were 76 MLAs. No, there would be 75 MLAs. Let's see. Ministry of Transportation and Highways, a very important matter. It's huge. The concerns of the MLAs in their ridings I've heard over and over again. They have concerns about transportation and highways. Let me see: the estimates went through in — what? — 25 minutes.

The Chair: Order, members. Can we try to keep the discussion relevant to the estimates that are before us this afternoon. The Ministry of Transportation estimates were concluded yesterday, I believe. If the member could please limit her comments and her questions to these estimates.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, that's good guidance. I'm about to ask a question about the Ministry of Transportation and how much of the costs of the $85 million are allocated to severance and early retirement for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. As you know, it was decimated by over a thousand layoffs.

I checked Hansard this morning to see if in the 25 minutes the 75 MLAs in the Liberal caucus stood up and said: "Oh, my God. What are you doing about those layoffs, and how much is it costing us?" You know what? It wasn't asked. Isn't that interesting? That's why I'm asking it now.

Right through in 25 minutes. I guess under the lob questions on transportation and highways, there won't be any questions to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Knowing that this question wasn't asked last night, how much of the severance and early retirement costs of the $85 million are being allocated to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways?

Hon. G. Collins: The reason why the members of the government, the MLAs, didn't have to stand up and spend hours after hours asking irrelevant questions of ministers is because they took the opportunities that were afforded to them to have lengthy briefings and discussions on the issues at hand. That's something I would advise the member opposite to do.

My answer to this question is the same as for the others, and it will be the same answer right to the end of the alphabet. Then we can proceed with the next matter the member wants to discuss.

J. MacPhail: If indeed, Mr. Chair, the minister has the answers for Liberal MLAs, why does he not have the answers for me?

Hon. G. Collins: I do have available, probably, to the member the detailed information that she seeks. As I've said, I've offered that repeatedly. If she would like a briefing on the detailed information, I'd be more than happy to do that. That is a very common practice. As I've said, there's a backlog of briefings offered and not accepted. We'll continue to do that.

J. MacPhail: What we know is that the minister is fine to give the details to his own caucus members behind closed doors, and yet he won't give the information either to the public or to members of the opposi-

tion. Clearly, he just admitted that the information is available. That's exactly what he said right now. The information is available, but the Minister of Finance refuses to make it public.

How much severance and early retirement payments of the $85 million are allocated to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection?

Hon. G. Collins: I'll repeat. These are estimates, and when the information is available, I'll make it available to the member opposite.

J. MacPhail: Well, I find it unbelievable that this Minister of Finance, who spent $44 million just like that this morning, who said he knew what was going on, said: "Oh gosh, you know what? It's Thursday. I woke up this morning, and I figured out there was extra money for education." Well, clearly, I guess the public will take him at his word that he knew what was going on.

All I'm asking is for that same kind of calculation from the Minister of Finance, that he knows what he's doing when he's spending this $85 million. It's a pretty fair assumption that a Minister of Finance would spend $85 million of tax dollars on the basis that he knows what he's doing. That's the reason for these questions.

You know what I have to say? Let me be very clear. This is the time when people get the information to make an informed vote. I didn't receive any information that would allow me to make an informed vote — none. I'm worried about what this expenditure is on — absolutely worried. I have no idea why it is that the Minister of Finance would deny me information so that I can make an informed vote.

I have no idea, based on the public record, how any one of these Liberal MLAs can make an informed vote on this matter — none. They certainly won't be able to stand up and say: "Look, here was the discussion, or there was the information before; here's the information today." They're going to stand up and go aye, aye — little ducklings in a row — and say: "Oh sure, go ahead. Spend that money. We don't know what it's for. We have no idea whether it's legitimate or not." They're going to say to the Minister of Finance: "Fine, go ahead and spend that money." I can't do that, Mr. Chair. I can't do it because I have no idea what the money is being spent on.

I don't want to vote against it. I'll tell you why. I don't want to vote against it because there may be families who are relying on this, but I don't know. It may be that this money is a necessary expenditure. Maybe I could find out whether there are some things going on in the ministries that I didn't know about before. Maybe I could have an answer to my question about the Health Services expenditures of 16 months of salary that isn't necessary and isn't required by law.

So I can't do that. Mr. Chair, here's what I'm going to have to do. I can't vote. I can't vote because I have been denied the information on the basis of which I can make an informed vote, and unless the Liberal MLAs in this chamber have had secret briefings about information that the Minister of Finance refuses to give me, they are not making an informed vote either.

Hon. G. Collins: Let me just pursue the logic being used by the member opposite for one moment, if I may. She says that she doesn't want to vote against this because there may be families who are reliant upon the severance available. She says that she doesn't want to hurt them.

Let me put it this way to her. There's an estimate of about, I think, $85 million, which is going…. Perhaps she might want to stay around. She can offer her wisdom.

There's an estimate that there will be about $85 million which will be directed to individuals for retirement or voluntary severance. Her questions have centred on which ministry that's in. It would seem to me that if she favoured all employees in the same way, it wouldn't matter whether all of it were in one ministry or whether it was split equally amongst all the ministries or whether it were divided according to where the demand was. She would therefore support what that amount was to those employees in the various ministries they happened to be in. As I said, if she's interested — I can't imagine how it would sway her vote for or against — in a breakout, I'd be glad to make that information available to her in the future with a briefing.

I can't understand her logic that somehow having more or less of it in one ministry or another to different employees in different ministries would change her vote — whether she supports it or not. I've been somewhat baffled today by the exercised nature of the member opposite, given the long history of supplemental estimates, given the opportunities that have been provided to her over the last four, five or six months to get detailed briefings on this, given the opportunity to ask these questions of the Ministry of Management Services and given her alleged concern for this issue.

What I've seen today by the member is pure politics. I expect it's done because she's not prepared for the estimates which are to follow the supplemental estimates.

As I said, that information will be available to the member. I've offered her numerous briefings in the past. To my knowledge, she hasn't taken them up yet. The offer stands. There's nothing unique, different or unusual in any way, shape or form about what's being done here today, other than that this government chooses to bring it to the Legislature for approval the way it's supposed to be done, rather than do it through a special warrant. I don't know what more I can add to what should be a very simple debate.

I notice the member didn't seem to want to respond to that, so with that, I call a vote on 58(S).

Hon. G. Collins: I move the report of the resolution from the Committee of Supply on March 28, 2002, be now received, taken as read and agreed to.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that there be granted from and out of the consolidated revenue fund the sum of $95 million. This sum is in addition to that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, 2001-2002, in section 1 of the Supply Act 2001-2002 (Supplementary), and is granted by Her Majesty towards defraying the charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2).

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Collins: I don't know if you want to distribute the bill. Perhaps we can take a moment.

Mr. Speaker: If we could just ask members to remain in their seats for a few moments while we distribute the bill.

Hon. G. Collins: The use of supplemental estimates is consistent with the spirit of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act. This bill is introduced to provide supply for the operation of government programs for the 2001-02 fiscal year, as outlined in the supplementary estimates tabled earlier.

The bill will provide the additional funds required to defray the charges and expenses of the public service for the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002.

In accordance with the established practice, the government seeks to move this bill through all three stages this day.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, in keeping with the practice of this House, the bill will be permitted to advance through all stages in one sitting.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Bill 14, Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2), read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; T. Christensen in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 14, Supply Act, 2001-2002 (Supplementary No. 2), reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Perhaps we could wait a couple of minutes. I notice we're still awaiting a member of the opposition. Ah, she just arrived.

J. MacPhail: Some of these questions came into our office via the public. I read this over the lunch hour. This is from a Monica Andres in Surrey: "Could you please ask the following questions of the hon. Minister of Advanced Education? When the Minister of Advanced Education refers to 'student needs'" — this was from the debate this morning — "is she only referring to students that manage to be accepted and registered for post-secondary education? What about the individuals that want to be students in post-secondary education? How will they be accounted for?"

It's important that I read this whole thing for the minister, because it has come from the public.

Hon. S. Bond: We have, in the budget letters sent out to institutions across the province, set targets and measurements in terms of what the expectations are for the institutions, in that we are looking at a projected growth across the province of 2,700 students at minimum. As we work on the accountability framework with institutions over the next year, we'll be looking at other measures for outputs. Obviously, we have set targets. We expect institutions to increase the number of seats.

In fact, we also have given them as much flexibility as possible in looking at class sizes. We want to increase the number of seats. We recognize that over the next ten years there will be significant growth. There will continue to be numbers of students who want to get into post-secondary education, and we are working to increase seats. We are looking at measuring how many students get in, and we're going to work as hard as we can to ensure that the number of seats continues to grow over the next three years.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll just have to rely on Ms. Andres from Surrey about whether the minister has answered her questions or not. I suspect that she'll say: "What about the question? What is there for individuals who want to be students and can't because they don't qualify for loans?"

Hon. S. Bond: We have a student assistance program in this province. We will continue to help students who are most in need. In terms of how students are accepted and who's accepted, there's a specific set of criteria. In addition to the assistance that we provide, institutions are also working very hard to provide additional assistance for students. The criteria are very clear. Institutions, as I've said, are adding to the program of student financial assistance that we have.

I certainly can't comment on individual cases or why a particular student doesn't qualify, but there are very clear criteria. We want to help those students most in need in this province.

J. MacPhail: I don't think the member of the public was asking an individual question. This question came in to us via letter while the minister and I were discussing the government's refusal to guarantee a bursary system, somehow suggesting that there was greater student financial aid available through a loan system.

I have no idea whether Ms. Andres is in this category or not; I'm sure she isn't. The government is kicking people off welfare and expecting them to get a job. I expect that there are many people in that category who, through no fault of their own, won't have the credit rating to qualify for a student loan. I'm sure that's why that question arose.

Here's some more questions that came in from the public while the minister and I were last talking. The minister kept on saying that there are new tools given to institutions to manage their costs that the government isn't funding. What are those tools?

There's two parts to the public's question. What are those tools, and how much will each of those tools save?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously, the first tool is the decision that we made to send resources to institutions using block funding, which allows them to look at how best to use those resources to meet the requirements and demands of students in communities. We've also given institutions the ability to determine and adjust class sizes and the number of students that

are assigned to faculty. We've looked at how they can extend the hours of operation and times when instruction can be delivered. As I've said, we are also looking at improved utilization of facilities. In fact, we have given a number of tools to allow for the kind of decision-making that needs to take place.

In terms of the amount of savings that will be generated, that's dependent on each individual institution and the usage of the options that have been provided them. An example of that is one that I also shared this morning with the member opposite. For example, if class sizes were adjusted to include one additional student, we would be able to add, significantly, thousands of seats over the next number of years at institutions in the province.

J. MacPhail: When this member of the public sent this question in, I saw that the minister has actually given a number for savings for productivity. In the three-year fiscal plan it talks about productivity tools. The minister has been referring to it as flexibility to institutions, but in the document it's called productivity tools. There's a savings of $37 million over three years booked for that. How did the minister come to that figure?

Hon. S. Bond: That is the estimate we would use, for example, if one student was added to each class in the province over the next number of years. It would make some assumptions about class size and how students would be added to that. It would make assumptions about extended use of facilities and the offering of courses. It is an estimate of potential cost savings as a result of looking at class sizes and the way facilities are operated in the province.

J. MacPhail: I'm curious about that because my understanding is that there are very, very few restrictions in the college and university sector on class size. Am I correct in that?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there were no restrictions in the universities as institutions. Having said that, there were significant numbers of restrictions in colleges and institutes in the province, and that's why those changes were made.

J. MacPhail: In fact, that's not the case. There were a few restrictions at the college level — a very few. There were none at the faculty level and a few at the college level.

Here's the reason I asked this question. If the minister has such great faith in the institutions, which I do as well…. The institutions which had no restrictions on them on class size must have done their class-size determination according to what makes most sense for education, and the minister never received one single request from any institution that class size was an issue. How is it that all of a sudden the minister says, "Here's a new tool," when in fact this tool has been available to institutions, and institutions which may have been restricted by class size never brought it to the attention of the minister as a problem?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, across the province, in the institutions and in the colleges and institutes, there were very different restrictions, particularly on academic class size. Certainly, the comments in the consultations I had with lots of people over time talked about the ability to manage the system, and so one of the things I looked at and considered were the kinds of things that created inconsistency in the institutions.

Let me give you an example. At Capilano, for example, the academic class-size restriction was a maximum of 35. Let's just choose another one here. At Northern Lights lecture courses, the restriction was 35. Tutorials and seminars were 20, labs were 18, and labs with support staff were 18 to 24. At Northwest there were 36, with a number of reductions for specific courses, and the list goes on. At Cariboo it was related to a particular academic year.

In our view, we wanted to find as much flexibility within the system as possible, and we took the very basic principle that by adding one student to those classes.... We looked at the issue of quality and class size, and we looked at the research behind that and asked: "If one student were added to a class, what would that do to the class?" It would give us one more seat in the institution and across the sector.

We did consider all of those things, and in fact a great variation of restriction existed across the province.

J. MacPhail: Well, I know the minister has read out the couple of examples that exist in a system that's substantial — no class restrictions in the university sector at all. Yet the minister takes.... The minister can count up all she likes, but the College Institute Educators Association has done this calculation, as have the faculty associations, and there are no restrictions at the university level — none.

Yet the minister says: "Across the system, the system needed this productivity." Well, the productivity has been available. Here's what I can tell that the minister has done. She has to justify the fact that her government is underfunding post-secondary education. She had to have some justification for saying, "Oh, the issue was really a productivity issue in the system," and that she could then do a silly, silly, simplistic calculation by just putting one more student in every classroom. That is the silliest calculation I've ever heard. She said: "Now these new productivity tools are available to the institutions." They're not new; they're silly. It's merely a justification for cutting $37 million over three years out of the education system. That's why.

The minister's plan also says that there's a three-year fiscal plan that estimates $14 million in savings moving to results-based management. What does that

mean, and how much will be saved this year on moving to a results-based management?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I would like to ask the member opposite to direct us to the source of that particular question — the $14 million generated savings.

I would just like to make one comment about the fact that adding one student to each class in this province is a silly, silly suggestion. I would suggest that it's not so silly if you're the one student who actually couldn't get into that particular class.

In fact, let's talk about what this government did to funding in post-secondary education. We protected nearly a $2 billion budget. In fact, we're trying to work with institutions to generate as many seats as we possibly can, because we know the number of students is going to increase. You know what? As we fix the economic state of this province, we're going to reinvest in education. In the meantime, we're going to be as creative and think as hard as we can to put even one more seat in a classroom in this province.

In terms of your second question, if you could direct us to the particular area that you're referring to, I'd be very appreciative.

J. MacPhail: I'll get that information. It was off the ministry's own website. Sorry, I've done my research and put it in a binder. I'll certainly get that information. It's exactly out of the ministry's fiscal plan.

When I said it was simplistic and silly, the minister knows full well that there are all sorts of ways of calculating what the most effective way is of teaching students, the most effective size, the resources needed, safety requirements, tutorial requirements, adviser requirements — all of that. For the minister and these people who sit here and applaud and say: "Oh…." You know what? I know that the parents sitting in my riding, hoping like heck they'll be able to afford to send their child to school, probably say: "Well, that makes sense. Just add a chair." The minister knows full well that's not how our post-secondary institutions are run. They're complex, diverse beings.

It's ridiculous to simply make a silly calculation like just add one student to each class. That's what I'm saying. The simplistic attitude is to merely justify the cuts this minister has made to post-secondary education. You know what? I actually do say something. You're right. The fact that the government has protected the previous government's record for spending on post-secondary education is good news, because people on welfare are having their resources cut by $500 million, kicked off welfare and told to get a job. I guess that is good news. That's why I'm trying to find out what sort of commitment this government made in terms of their strategy to help all people in this province, not just the rich; how they've decided to help all people in terms of their strategy.

Let me ask this. It's a follow-up to the woman who wrote in about student aid. Can the minister tell me how many more students it is estimated will need to borrow student aid? What is the minister calculating for the average increase that will be needed in order to make up for tuition fee increases?

Hon. S. Bond: With the changes we have made in the student financial assistance program, we are looking at an increase of approximately…. In 2001-02 the projected number of students we would provide assistance for was 67,000. The budget is now in place for 71,737 — so 4,000-plus students. The maximum award available will be $9,350 for students with no dependents. It will be $14,790 for students with one to two dependents. That is the case of students who have dependents.

J. MacPhail: Does the 67,000 estimate include students who get first-year grants?

J. MacPhail: Okay, we have a system here now where the elimination of the first-year student grant program saves the government $39.6 million. The student financial aid is going up $2.3 million. Can the minister explain where the students are going to have access to student financial aid or these student loans equal to $39.6 million, or are they supposed to go and work for six bucks an hour?

Hon. S. Bond: The position we find in student financial assistance is that we were over budget in this fiscal year on grants. We are very close to being on budget, however, in student financial assistance, and that was primarily due to low interest rates. We couldn't count on low interest rates for the next fiscal year. We needed to take measures to address the pressures year over year. We did that by shifting; in order to offset those pressures, we shifted from the grant to the loan. We also needed to be aware of the additional requirements that we felt would be necessary by students in the province.

J. MacPhail: Well, there's some interesting forecasts on interest rates. That'll come as a shock to the Minister of Finance, I'm sure. His debt servicing is predicting continued low interest rates. Let's just go right to the book, could we? Student financial assistance programs in '01-02 are $154.444 million. Now the government is expending $156.756 million. In '01-02 what portion of that was student grant, and what portion was loan? And then I know the answer. I assume that it all becomes loan in '02-03.

Hon. S. Bond: In '01-02 the grant amount was $83 million, and the balance was loan.

J. MacPhail: So what we now have is a situation here where…. Oh, I'm sorry. That would be the grants

over the four years. What portion of that is first-year grants that have been converted to loans?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have with us the number for first-year grants that was budgeted in '01-02, but we will be happy to get that for you.

J. MacPhail: But I assume the $83 million is for the four years of grants? The minister is nodding yes. I'm wondering, then, how the ministry calculated that there would be $39 million saved. I assumed that maybe that would be the $39 million saved that they announced — or because they were cancelling first-year grants.

Let me ask this, then. The minister says they overspent. What portion was budgeted for first-year grants, knowing that they overspent?

Hon. S. Bond: If the member's referring to '01-02, I don't have that number. I just said that, and we would be happy to get that for you.

J. MacPhail: No, I'm sorry. I'm going from the information that the ministry released earlier — that they planned on saving $39.6 million by cancelling first-year grants. I'm combining that with the information that the minister just gave me — that she's aware that they overspent on first-year grants. I'm just asking for a rationale or a rationalization of those two facts.

Hon. S. Bond: What I'll do is walk through how the base budget number was created. The potential pressures we faced, should the demand continue in terms of the grant program, would have been $31.7 million. Those were the potential pressures we faced. By making the shift from grant to loan, that would have been a gross savings of $47.8 million.

So we're at $47.8 million. When we moved that to the loan program, there were costs associated with that. The cost associated with that would have been $8.2 million, therefore coming to the number the member suggested in terms of savings of $39 million, which we needed to apply to the pressures that were anticipated.

In addition to that, as part of it, $3.7 million went to offset the increased cost to students of $15 per week. We also enhanced by $4.2 million the loan provisions to assist students with higher debt. When you take the savings and look at the pressures we addressed and also the other items mentioned, the total then comes to $156.8 million.

J. MacPhail: The minister has put into the pot for student financial aid an increase of $2.3 million, but she has converted the money and deducted costs of the grant program to the student financial aid. Now that is all 100 percent loan. Is that basically what the minister…? Actually, it's not a trick question. I'm reiterating what I think the minister is saying.

Hon. S. Bond: In the first year a typical eight-month program is considered 34 weeks in duration. For any program that is 34 weeks or less, all of the programs are loans. Grants are available to students who take programs that are longer than 34 weeks in duration. Of course, the grant program exists in the second, third and fourth years as well.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, that wasn't the question I asked. Anyway, let's just leave it at the fact that student financial aid is going to have to cover the first-year grants now. Let's ask about what the minister knows about these students who will have to take out the loans. What's the student loan default rate now, and can the minister break it down between private post-secondary institutions and public post-secondary institutions? I assume that the student financial aid program changes are for both private and public institutions.

Hon. S. Bond: We can certainly go through the default rates by institution type. Indeed, the changes to student financial assistance do apply to both private and public institutions. I should point out that there is a difference between default rates and bad debt, in essence. Default rates is a student who has missed even one payment, so when we talk about default…. Often students miss one. Default is typically anything beyond one payment. Bad debt is obviously students who at the end of the day simply cannot pay back and won't repay. We just need to have the definitions clear.

In B.C. universities the default rates for 2000 were 5.1 percent; B.C. colleges and institutes, 7.5 percent; B.C. private institutions, 19.9 percent; and the average in all British Columbia schools was 11.3 percent. We also have to caution that the rates for 2000 may rise slightly when the rest of the data is included, because borrowers who have gone into repayment in that calendar year may default in the future, so that the rates might rise slightly. Those are the student loan default rates. Again, I want to point out that default can mean one payment.

J. MacPhail: I'm happy to have the minister just work with bad debt statistics if she wishes.

My next question is going to be: what does the ministry anticipate in terms of the bad debt rate rising as a result of conversion of first-year grants to loans?

Hon. S. Bond: We currently, looking at past history…. I should point out that we've only been back in the direct lending business to students for a year, so it's difficult to calculate exactly what the bad debt will look like. We've only been doing that for a year. That responsibility was given back to government. We look at 10 percent in terms of bad debt. The portfolio is built around a 10 percent assumption. Because there will be higher costs for many students in the coming year, we anticipate that those numbers will increase. But I also need to point out that while that is a challenge, students in British Columbia currently have and will continue to have some of the lowest debt load in the country.

In answer to your question, the portfolio around bad debt is based on a 10 percent assumption.

J. MacPhail: I'm not looking at this from the point of view of the student. I'm looking at this from the point of view of the taxpayer about penny-wise, pound-foolish decisions, because, of course, the bad debt is absorbed by the taxpayer.

What is the assumption of what the taxpayer will be absorbing? The policy, I assume, is the same — to write off bad debt eventually. What is the assumption of what that will cost the taxpayer based on this change?

Hon. S. Bond: I wanted to point out once again that before we get to the place where a student loan is actually considered bad debt, there are a number of steps we go through to ensure that that student gets all of the help, and we are also protecting taxpayer dollars.

I want to point out that as we looked at the possibilities of the options of what to do with student financial assistance, we tried to take a balanced and blended view in terms of the taxpayer and the student. As the student has difficulty paying back the loan…. As I've said previously, we are enhancing eligibility requirements for interest relief. We are improving assistance benefits under the B.C. debt reduction in repayment program. We are providing repayment options, including principal deferral opportunities and extended amortization periods. We're moving from 15 years to 20 years.

We're trying to give students as much help as possible and balance that with what is reasonable for the taxpayers of this province. I think the approach is a blended one. We have budgeted conservatively for an increase. The assumption around the portfolio is 10 percent currently. We assume that will increase. We believe we've looked at this from the perspective of the taxpayer, and we're also trying to help those students who will struggle when they have to pay back the loan.

J. MacPhail: The minister failed to give me a number in that time. Could she give me a number, please?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, certainly at 10 percent it would be approximately $10 million. As I've said, we are looking at a conservative number in terms of the increase and because we do not have a history — only a year. We've only been in the business for a year. We're looking at a historical portfolio, an amount of 10 percent. That would be approximately $10 million.

J. MacPhail: I have an incredible admiration and great respect for the bureaucracy, and I know how hard people work, so my comments are intended with only the greatest of respect. But it's not as if student loans were invented in the last year. It's not as if the history about private institutions in terms of bad debt wasn't passed on to the government. It's all very well and good to say that, gosh, we've only been in the business a year, but the experience of all of this has been passed on to the government.

So it's $10 million. The only reason why I raise this is to explain to the public that there are hidden costs to the taxpayer when one moves to a completely loan-funded system for providing post-secondary education. Not only is it regressive in that the rich have a much greater advantage in access to post-secondary education, but what it means to certain families — you know, it actually breaks my heart that this is going to occur — that have been struggling for years to save and send their children to post-secondary education, who are not going to give up that dream just because this government has imposed more costs on them….

What they're going to do is go into debt, or their child is going to go into debt, probably for the first time in some cases. Or they're going to go into debt and risk everything, including their financial well-being. That's what this government is doing instead of — in the year 2002 — moving to a place where the child of a forest worker can get an education even if that forest worker is laid off, the same way that the child of a physician can get an education. That's gone now. In fact, forest-worker families probably can't get any loans because of the trouble that they find themselves in. That's where we're moving to in the year 2002.

There's a cost to families. There's a cost to the children. The minister needs to know that as a result of this minister's policy change to say no more grants in the first year, there are families out there whose children will not be going to university or college.

The next step is that if a child is going, families will be risking debt accumulation for the first time in their lives — probably debt that they can't afford. In fact, if you're in an area of this province where the economy is greatly at risk, in the rural areas, there's a decreasing potential that you will even qualify for a loan. We know that because the banks have already…. I met with a person from Port Alberni today who said that town is struggling and almost shutting down in terms of economic activity, including loans being made.

On top of that, there are costs that the taxpayer will have to bear because of the lack of generosity, for the mean-spiritedness of this policy by this government. It is mean-spirited; there's no other way of looking at it. The cost to the taxpayer is going to be that bad debts will increase, and the taxpayer will have to bear the burden of that.

I can't be anything other than sad about it, actually, when I contemplate it. We heard from people over the lunch-hour who said: "That example of a family isn't hypothetical. It's exactly the circumstances we find ourselves in." Only the family wasn't making $54,000 per year; they were making far less.

The service plan of the ministry says that they are going to improve the business practices in the delivery of student financial assistance. Apparently, the commitment includes ensuring that there is a timely assessment of loan applications. It says "and grant applications"; that'll be gone. What have been the cuts to the staff responsible for processing student financial assistance requests?

Hon. S. Bond: In the department that deals with student financial assistance, there was an FTE reduction of ten. So we moved from having 99 employees

that did that to 89. In fact, the improvements that we're going to look at are an on-line application for students who want to be able to apply on line. Currently, much of that was done manually, and we're looking at making efficiencies. So we reduced FTEs by ten.

The reason it says that it will deal with loans and grants is because we still have grants in years two, three and four. Again, that still makes our student financial assistance program one of the most generous in Canada.

J. MacPhail: Not anymore, it doesn't. The minister's going to have to stop making that claim. And yes — I apologize — the minister is right about the grant. My apologies for that.

As a matter of fact, you can already apply on line. Is the minister somehow saying that there will be added improvements? There's a full ability to apply on line now.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, you have been able to apply on line, but only for the last week. You weren't able to do that before. We actually went on line with the application form — I want to be correct here — last Monday.

J. MacPhail: So is the reduction of ten the equivalent of what the ministry assumes will happen when people go on line? Is that what it's for? I'm just wondering how it is that somehow this is delivering a timely assessment of loan and grant applications. I had heard that the staff was going to be cut by almost a third. Has that changed? That was actually announced.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly not in the student financial assistance area did we talk about a third. Ten FTEs were reduced. When we did our analysis, we believed that perhaps three would be related directly to the on-line situation, and the other seven were in line with what we've done across government — looking at how to be efficient, how to do things and how to streamline things.

In fact, we reduced it by ten, but we left 89 people there to be able to manage this very important service to students. I'm quite excited, actually, about the technological improvements that our staff have worked very hard to bring into place as of last Monday.

Hon. S. Bond: We're trying to address as many learners' situations as possible, so hard copy is it obviously. That's why, to some degree, we have maintained a staff of the size we have. We are hopeful that as we continue to look at on-line services across this province, more and more students will have access to on-line facilities. If not, they are certainly able to apply with hard copy.

J. MacPhail: What is the minister doing to ensure there is a timely assessment of loan and grant applications? What system has been put in place to deal with the continuous announcements of tuition fee increases, which would have an effect on student financial aid applications?

Hon. S. Bond: We currently have a 48-hour turnaround in terms of the information that comes in. We have a benefit for doing the application on line. One of the most significant problems students had is that if they did apply by hard copy or some other way, we could actually get it all the way in there and get all the information, but something would be missing and we would have to send it back. What the on-line application allows us to do is that if the student doesn't get the information in correctly in the first place, they can't submit the application. It actually saves us and the student a lot of time. They actually have to make sure all the correct information is in it before the application is received. We're looking at a 48-hour turnaround.

The application for students is not based on tuition in the province. It's based on their financial need. For all students in this province, whatever their family circumstances — we're focusing on those students most in need —it is based on personal circumstances and on their particular financial and personal situations, not tuition.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. That's from the government's point of view. I'm talking about whether or not a family needs to apply for student financial aid to make that decision. Try to think about it from the family's point of view. There are students and families now finding out that whereas before they may not have needed to apply for student financial aid, they may now need to apply, with the student tuition fee hikes. Those are being announced pretty much on a daily basis. So what system does the government have in place to deal with these changes or this anticipated increase in applications for student financial aid? Or does the minister think there won't be any increase in student financial aid applications?

Hon. S. Bond: We are going to work to assist as many students who are most in need in this province. We recognize that as those particular tuition fees are put into place, students may need to apply. That's why we've set service objectives for ourselves. We intend and plan to bring additional staff on during periods where it is obviously a heavier demand. We are going to work to meet the needs of those families, and we are committed to providing as much assistance as possible to those students who are in need in this province. That's what the criteria are based on. Our system is simply…. We're working to improve it so that it can be more timely, and we will continue to be as flexible as possible to help assist those students in need.

J. MacPhail: Let me try it from this approach. Does the minister know how much revenue is raised systemwide for a 1 percent increase in tuition fees?

Hon. S. Bond: This is obviously an estimate, but an assumption of a 1 percent increase in tuition across the sector would result in approximately $3 million.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask this question, then. A 1 percent rise in tuition fees is approximately $3 million. Has the minister got any indication from the institutions, as they're raising tuition fees, what the total cost in tuition fee raises will be? Almost every single one of the ones I've heard now have been in excess of 20 percent. That's about $60 million. Maybe the average is actually higher, given that the lowest increase is 20 percent.

Hon. S. Bond: No, we don't have that information institution by institution. Institutions are making the decisions. They are looking at what those dollars will do to benefit students in their institution, and many institutions have not made their decisions yet.

J. MacPhail: I hope the ministry is actually keeping track of this — it is their job to do this — and I hope the ministry is keeping track of it in a way of examining how it relates to the increased pressure on student financial aid.

I can't imagine that this minister thinks that the two issues are separate. If we're going to do anything other than harm and reduce access to education, which I fear is happening anyway, I urge the minister to keep track of those statistics greatly. It's going to have a huge impact on whether families have any availability to student financial aid if the student financial aid pot dries up, which I expect it will be if the….

Mr. Chair, I had hoped to be able to finish this section. We have been unable to do so, so I'll have to move that the committee rise, report progress and 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.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the Administrator will be here in just a few moments, and he asks that everyone please remain in their seats.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Administrator doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to these acts.

Hon. G. Collins: That was the most enthusiastic vote I've heard all week. I hope people have a safe holiday.

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

J. Kwan: Before the lunch break we were talking about legal aid issues, so I'm going to continue on with some of those issues. The minister was stating that this year the cut to legal aid is only $3 million; however, over the next three years the cut to legal aid services is going to be $36 million. The impacts are going to be significant.

Even if it were the case that for this year the cut to legal aid is at $3 million — I was just calculating — at the cost of approximately $1,000 a case, utilizing the case I read into the record earlier where the cost was estimated to be $1,000, that's about 3,000 cases in terms of support or assistance provided to British Columbi-

ans in the area of legal aid services. I would say that 3,000 cases are a lot to lose, if the average amount of $1,000 is used as a projection.

The B.C. Association of Community Law Offices and the Native Community Law Offices Association of B.C. have expressed their points of view with respect to legal aid cuts. I'd like to get the minister's response to this letter that I'm going to read into the record.

It goes on to reference a column by a columnist in the paper, so I will skip over that as well. Then it reads:

It is signed by Maggie Bello and Charles McKay, the two presidents, respectively, for the B.C. Association of Community Law Offices and the Native Community Law Offices Association of British Columbia. I'm asking the Attorney General what comments he has for these two organizations and to the two presidents who have written this letter.

Hon. G. Plant: A number of things. First of all, I just want to correct an error, which was probably unintentional, in the early part of the member's remarks. When I said there was a $3 million reduction in expenditures between this year and next year, it was not for all of legal aid. I was referring to the funding for family justice services. That includes both the funding available to the Legal Services Society — which we expect to be around $21.2 million next year, although that is of course subject to the LSS's independent allocation of funding — and the $25 million in family justice program funding that this ministry carries out, outside the scope of the grant to the Legal Services Society — that is, its work and its service that we provide in the family justice area, in addition to the amounts that we provide to the Legal Services Society.

The second observation is that at some point during the letter the member read, the statement was made that the government will only be funding the minimum services required by the charter. That is not true. In fact, the services that will be funded under the legal aid program in British Columbia will be much more extensive, in my view, than the services required by the charter would be.

Among the services we have not talked about much so far but which are important to refer to in this context are these. We think there will be money in place to maintain duty council, and there will also be some money available for advice lawyers.

In fact, the addition of $7.74 million, which is a commitment we have been able to make since January 17 but which will have an impact on the society's service delivery capability in the next fiscal year, will ensure that the society is better able to do a couple of things, at least, to fund the continuation of existing approved family cases and to look at some other possibilities, including the expansion of services by way of duty council information or advice services and increased support in family violence cases. With the new money that we have found since January 17, we think the society will be better positioned to discharge its core responsibilities over the three years of the service plan.

We've talked about the people who work hard as lawyers and advocates, who provide civil legal aid. I have actually met with some of them. I've even met with the Native Community Law Offices Association

and the Association of Community Law Offices to hear their concerns and to encourage them to come forward with proposals and ideas for how we can maintain some level of service delivery. In fact, I've received some suggestions from them.

I've also met with the Canadian Bar Association poverty law subsection. I don't want to mislead anybody here. I don't think they came to me as anything other than a group of quite concerned people, but we did have a good discussion about the issues that they see arising here, and we made a commitment that we would continue to meet to see if we can work through this in a way that focuses on identifying constructive ways to address the challenges we face.

Really, that's my message in response to the letter that the member has read. We clearly do face a challenge, but we are going to have to get used to the fact that we face that challenge. I encourage all members of the legal profession and community groups who have an interest in these issues to roll up their sleeves with me and work hard to see how we can change the way we provide services so that we can ensure that we maintain a minimal — and if more than that, so much the better — level of access to justice.

J. Kwan: The minister advises that the information is incorrect from the B.C. Association of Community Law Offices and the Native Community Law Offices Association of B.C. with respect to the coverage of legal aid services around the Charter.

However, earlier today I read off a list of program cuts in the area of legal aid and the impacts around it, and that included family cases where violence is not involved, poverty law matters, summary advice services, the public legal education grants to local organizations for community development and public legal education projects, and other support to public libraries. Those will be eliminated. The out-of-custody duty counsel services will be affected. The referrals for approximately 5,000 family cases will no longer be covered. The tariffs on human rights cases, material witnesses to crimes, victim assistance in criminal proceedings and also administration on behalf of the Attorney General in these areas will no longer be covered.

Other cuts in programming are the 60 offices that the Legal Services Society operates or funds, which include the head office, the branches, the community law offices, the native community law offices and area directors. I asked the minister earlier if this list of information is correct in terms of the loss of services to the community, and he didn't answer that question directly. I know he mentioned that it's up to the society to decide, but given that the society, over the next few years, will lose some $36 million in its funding, that's a significant impact. Where does the minister expect the Legal Services Society to eliminate programs in order to make those kinds of savings?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me provide a bit more information and make it clear that there are aspects of the letter the member has just read from that are not, in fact, going to happen. In general terms, as I have said pretty consistently, coverage will continue to be available in adult and youth criminal cases, in cases involving mental review board hearings and domestic violence–child apprehension matters. There will be family law coverage, and there will also be a widespread and extensive legal education and information coverage.

Let me give some specific examples of how we think the funding will work itself out in the next fiscal year — that is, '02-03. In the current year there is $4.9 million being spent on a category described as domestic violence. And $4.9 million will continue to be spent on domestic violence issues in each of the three years of the service plan. By domestic violence we mean emergency representation where there is domestic violence — to obtain a restraining order, initial custody access and maintenance orders and variation orders. Child protection, $4.3 million in the current fiscal year, '01-02. There will be $4.3 million available for child protection in '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05. That will provide coverage in child apprehension matters and appeals.

In addition to those two aspects of family law coverage there will continue to be a family law tariff. The family law tariff amounts for '01-02 are $13.1 million. In '02-03 they will be reduced to $7 million. I think these figures may be figured before taking into account the $3.75 million in new money and the impact that may have on the society's ability to expand its services in the area of family law.

A category called "other family initiatives." We think there will be at least $2.7 million available for that in '02-03. That funding will be used to deal with current referrals and to expand services beyond domestic violence cases. Again, I think it may be that the impact of the $3.74 million in new money may actually be to ensure that current referrals can be continued.

The budget for public legal education and information, which includes family law but is not limited to family law, will actually increase from $2 million to $2.3 million as we move into the next fiscal year. It will remain at $2.3 million for the three years of the service plan. That's going to include things like the family law website, the Law Line and electronic and print materials.

That is an example of some of the work that will continue to be done and the funding that will continue to be available for matters that are related to family law.

There has been a lot of talk about office closures. I think it is important to get some of these facts straight. Sometimes I've heard it suggested that there are 60 community law offices closing. That's not true. There are actually only 45 community law offices. They will be closing. There are 15 local agents in other communities that have provided services funded by legal aid money. The 45 plus 15 would correctly yield this — 60 different locations where legal aid services have been available.

What we're going to see happen, according to the Legal Services Society and their proposal is that there will be seven regional centres plus 24 local agents, for a total of 31 locations for service — clearly a change, and clearly a reduction, but nonetheless there will still be a legal aid presence in many, many communities in British Columbia. In that respect also, the scenario outlined in the letter the member read from was, in some respects, inaccurate, even when the note was written. It has certainly become outdated.

That's not exhaustive, but it does illustrate that we have, in fact, a pretty comprehensive array of services that are going to continue to be provided. I don't deny that there's going to be a significant impact in terms of what happens when the existing community law offices are closed, but that's the challenge. What we need to do is translate that into an opportunity to see how we can rethink how these services are provided so that we can build on a strong foundation of education and information that will include access to advice, and see if we can build from there.

Madam Chair, I need to excuse myself for about ten minutes and would ask that the committee recess for ten minutes.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General was listing for the committee the programs that would not be eliminated. Does the Attorney have a list of the programs that would be eliminated as a result of the 40 percent cut to legal aid services?

Hon. G. Plant: The reconfiguration of the physical presence of the society across the province will clearly have an impact. If you move from 60 locations to 31 locations — seven regional offices and 24 agent locations — clearly that is going to have an impact in terms of physical proximity to the traditional lawyer-client or paralegal-client relationship. That's one aspect.

The second aspect, which is part of the first, is that civil legal aid and the provision of civil legal aid in the form of actual representation in cases like the kind that the member has talked about earlier — WCB, UIC, pension claims, residential tenancy matters, I suppose the occasional mortgage foreclosure matter — will largely be eliminated. We are going to be able to maintain information and education materials and services, and the society may be able to provide some level of telephone or in-person advice in those areas.

It is primarily in the area of civil legal aid provided through the community law office clinics, in cases other than family law, that the impact of the expenditure reductions will be most significant.

I should also remind the member of what we've said about immigration and refugee legal aid. The government's intention is to get out of the business of supporting funding for refugee and immigration legal aid over the course of the three years. I think the service plan contemplates that the province would be out of that business by the end of '03-04.

J. Kwan: I'd just like to seek a clarification from the Attorney General. He states that family law legal aid is going to be provided, but I understand that family law legal aid would only be provided if there are issues around violence. Am I wrong in understanding that? As well, on the issue around custody, is representation only available where apprehension issues are a matter in the case, or are all custody cases being provided for under the legal aid system, in spite of the cuts?

Hon. G. Plant: Representation in family law cases will be available where there is domestic violence and in cases of child apprehension. Because of the additional money, there will be some representation available in a broader category of cases, although the discussion is ongoing with respect to how we can ensure that we are also making enough money available to provide the wider range of services that I've talked about, which include access to mediation or counselling and so on.

The original expectation was that the traditional family law tariff — that is the family law tariff that does not apply to domestic violence and child protection matters — would be reduced to virtually little or nothing by '04-05, but because of the additional funding that's been found, we now think that there will be some funding available for family law matters in addition to domestic violence and child protection matters. Assuming that we can do — and we intend to do — what we say in relation to immigration and refugee matters, there will actually be an additional $4.8 million available for family law purposes in both '03-04 and '04-05.

I guess I need to say this last thing: some of the memoranda circulated by the LSS in the early days after this announcement were inaccurate in terms of their expression of what was, or at least what we believed was, doable with the funding. But perhaps more importantly, they have been superseded by the work that's been done since then.

J. Kwan: Just so I'm clear then: legal aid services for family law where domestic violence is involved would be funded. Cases of apprehension in relation to children would be funded. Some family cases where domestic violence is not an issue may be funded but may also not be funded. Also, cases where there are custody issues in a separation or divorce or other family law–related matter where there is no violence may or may not be funded.

I think that's what I heard the Attorney General say, and I think he said that there is an injection of $3.6 million into the family law services area. With the injection of the moneys into legal aid in the family law area primarily, how many cases does the minister anticipate would be turned away?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the member wants to put things in slightly tidier boxes than is probably possible.

First of all, the two parcels of additional money that we've been talking about total $7.74 million. On top of that is the $4.8 million which LSS was budgeting to spend on immigration and refugee legal aid but that we think will not be required for that purpose in the latter part of the service plan.

The larger challenge in responding to the member's question is that it contains implied in it an assertion or representation about the extent of coverage available now. In fact, there are lots and lots of cases where people do not get family law legal aid, particularly for support, where it's just a husband-and-wife support situation. My sense is that the society has always worked harder to ensure that legal aid is provided in cases that involve either custody of children or support and maintenance for children.

When the society was perhaps less constrained by the fiscal situation than it certainly will be over the next two or three years, I think you would probably find, if you'd interviewed a range of intake officers in the society, a range of different experiences. It's a large and complex organization. It's certainly not safe to say that all British Columbians have access to legal aid for custody and child support matters as of now. Certainly there were reductions in legal aid funding during the course of the last government that had an impact on that.

It is true that the amount available for traditional family legal aid will probably be reduced over the life of this service plan, with a corresponding reduction in the number of available referrals, certainly tariff referrals, for support and maintenance and custody cases.

I also want to say this: as government, we have a pretty good idea of what the LSS can do, and probably will do, within the envelope, but I don't tell the LSS what to do. They almost certainly will have a new statutory mandate that will create a relationship between government and the Legal Services Society that will preserve their independence and give them the tools they will need to adjust priorities, to some extent internally, according to what they think they can and ought to do.

J. Kwan: We've already gone through the grounds around the issue of independence of the Legal Services Society's board. In fact, when the Legal Services Society board told the government that they could not carry on with the 40 percent cuts to legal aid, and that they would not be able to meet the New Era document's objective of ensuring access to justice for all, the government simply took the position of firing the board members and appointing its own trustees.

On the one hand for the government to say that the Legal Services Society is operating independently…. That applies only insofar as they do what the government directs them to do. If they advise the government that what they're directing them to do is not feasible and that it would jeopardize British Columbians' access to justice, they get fired from their positions, and the government puts a trustee in their place. I don't think the issue around independence is validated by the actions of this government.

Around legal aid for family law, it would appear to me that with the 40 percent cuts coming for legal aid services over the next three years, there will be families who will be unable to access legal aid services. Yes, previously not all families had access to legal representation, but now, with the proposed cuts, even more families will not be able to access legal aid services. That seems to me the big issue that's before us.

The minister has confirmed that in the poverty law areas, the services from legal aid will be eliminated. For other administrative justice law areas, legal aid services, those too will be eliminated. What about the summary advice services? In the earlier bulletin of February 25 from the Legal Services Society, it states that all summary advice services would also be phased out by April 1, 2002. Is that the anticipation of the government?

Hon. G. Plant: First of all, I wish I could allow the member's brief statement of what I've said to pass, but it's hard to when it's not right. I've spoken about certain kinds of poverty law, civil legal aid services, being virtually eliminated, but in fact not all services that relate to civil matters will be eliminated. There will be an increase in funding for public legal education and information of up to $2.3 million, which is a significant commitment to expand the range of information and information tools that will be available to citizens to understand their rights.

In terms of the situation with respect to the board, I think it's important to put this on the record. The board refused to implement a budget. That meant that the board was saying, in effect, "We will not deliver legal aid services in British Columbia," because they don't do it unless they have a budget. I can't think of a more definitive impasse that could exist between, on the one hand, government and, on the other hand, the Legal Services Society than to have the society say to government: "We won't do our job."

My priority and the priority concern of government is the public interest in ensuring that there continue to be legal aid services delivered. When the board said that it wasn't going to do that, by refusing to implement a budget, I think most people would agree that it doesn't leave government with very many options. Fortunately, in this case, there is in the statute an option. The option is to appoint an official trustee. That's what was done. The official trustee stands in the place of the board and is as independent of government as the board was.

The additional practical problem presented by the board's refusal to implement the budget was that the delay in implementing the budget was going to cost money. In fact, it was going to cost money that was going to jeopardize the ability of the society to deliver the services which need to continue to be provided. I think that if you look at it objectively, it's difficult to know what other course of action would be available to

a government in circumstances where a funded agency with statutory responsibilities says to government: "We won't do our job."

The member will say they would have agreed to do their job if we'd found $30 million or $40 million more for them. Well, that's not their job. It's government's job to decide how much money is available. Their job is to implement a budget to deliver the services they are required to deliver within the funding available for that. I do think that we were left with no alternative, in order to protect the public interest in continued access to legal aid services, but to appoint the trustee. I think that responds to the member's question, but if not, I'll certainly hear it again.

J. Kwan: The reason the board resigned is because the board feels that, as in their bulletin, they could not meet the ministry's stated new-era objective of providing equal access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians. That's the stated reason. They have been mandated to do a job, and given the funding envelope that the government has given them, they say that they cannot do what the government has said in its ministry's new-era objective — provide equal access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians. For that, the government fired them.

The issue around independence and accountability. I would argue that the old board, which was fired, acted in a responsible and accountable manner. For doing that, they were fired. That's the government's solution to addressing the issues of equitable access to legal representation and justice for all British Columbians.

The issue around legal representation in the areas that would be impacted. Perhaps I should rephrase it to: where the service cuts would take place and what those impacts would be. The new scheme the government is proposing would largely centralize the services into seven regional offices or centres. The 60 offices that the Legal Services Society operates or funds will be gone and will be replaced with seven regional centres. There are some 24 local agents that would be available. The minister mentioned that there would be some replacements; however, it's a significant loss in the area of access for individuals who need legal representation.

This is particularly impacted in rural communities and smaller communities. In my experience of travelling into those communities, it's often a long distance to travel from one place to another — as an example, Tofino and Port Alberni and the women's centres there. When the centre shuts down in one location, it will take two hours to drive to the other location — that is, if the person can get a ride and be driven there. If they rely on public transportation or other means, it will take a lot longer.

Access to justice. Where the accessibility is at risk because the community law offices are shut and no longer available, that creates a problem on the question around access to justice.

The issue around access to justice in its representation; in the areas around family law. Perhaps with the changes on the family law side…. It's fair enough to say that there wouldn't be no access, but I think it's fair enough to say that the access to family services with the pending cuts over the next three years would be severely reduced in these areas, which ultimately would yield a denial of fundamental basic legal rights to the poor.

I asked the minister the question, also, on the issue around summary advice services and whether or not those services would be reduced. I haven't had a response yet from the minister on that question.

Hon. G. Plant: It's early days to say, because the second part of this new funding has just become available — that is, the additional $3.74 million, which is part of the total of $7.74 million. That is the new money that has become available since January 17 and the announcement of the service plan summary.

It's early days. It's really only in the last couple of days that we recognized we could make available this additional $3.74 million. There is, I think, some possibility that the LSS will be able to use some of that money to provide the kind of advice the member is referring to.

J. Kwan: That's uncertain at this point in terms of summary advice services. What about out-of-custody duty counsel services?

J. Kwan: On the question around administration, on behalf of the ministry, of the tariffs for human rights cases, material witnesses to crimes, and victim assistance in criminal proceedings, would those services be provided?

Hon. G. Plant: We're having a hard time breaking down the components of the member's question, at least as I heard it. It sounded like a number of different things rolled into one. It may be that each of the different components needs a separate answer. It may also be the case that I'll have to get the answer for the member. Once again, the services are being provided by the society, not by government directly, so we would have to go and make an inquiry of the society to determine what the exact status is in respect of the different areas that the member canvassed.

If the member wouldn't mind just breaking that down again, then we'll see if we can have some information here that we could use to help.

J. Kwan: The areas are human rights cases, material witnesses to crimes and victim assistance in criminal proceedings. If the minister doesn't have that informa-

tion now, he can provide that to me in writing at a later date to double-check with the Legal Services Society in terms of what this status is. Perhaps in that process the minister can then provide me with a full list of all the services that are being provided and all the services that are being eliminated.

I'll ask this one last question in the area where potential elimination of services may be contemplated, and then I'll move off to another area. There is a long list, and I appreciate that, in the interest of time. If the minister agrees to provide that information to me in writing, could the minister just indicate when I can expect to receive that information? I appreciate it as well.

My last question around services in this area would be on the public legal education grants to local organizations for community development and public legal education projects, and grants and other support to public libraries. It was talked about that it would be eliminated in this February 25, 2002, memorandum, but the minister mentioned that there will be increases or dollars available for education. Maybe that's a different arena altogether for where those education dollars would be directed, so could the minister please clarify that point.

Hon. G. Plant: My advice is that these are areas of the LSS's activities where the society is in fact considering these issues right now, or more or less right now. I will include that as part of the member's earlier question and give the information to the member as soon as I can.

J. Kwan: I'd just like to ask the minister, in terms of time line, when he says "as soon as he can," what kind of parameters are we looking at?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't actually control the society that's making these decisions. I'm certain that these issues are, as I'm told, being dealt with now. What I think I talked about earlier and I think I committed to do earlier was to provide the member with something like the budget and the service plan for the society for the fiscal year that we're about to embark on. That's going to include answers to these issues. We'll certainly do that as soon as we can get the information from the society. I think that's the best I can offer. It's not information that's directly within my control.

J. Kwan: The Attorney mentioned that he would provide the information as soon as he can. I appreciate that. I would anticipate…. Correct me if I'm wrong. This fiscal year ends in about a week's time and then the next fiscal year begins, so the new budget actually sets in. I would anticipate that it wouldn't be too long before that service plan and the budget are available. Legal aid actually has to have the workplan in place for the new budget. I can assume it is reasonable that within a couple of weeks, then, that information would be available, because the budget year is ending soon and the new budget is going to come into effect for April 1.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the entire question. I've already said what I'm going to say in terms of my willingness to provide information to the member and the fact that I don't have control over the production of the information. It's being produced by somebody that isn't government. We're going to do the best we can.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that this work is not being done by the minister or the ministry, but there is a time line that needs to be met. The fiscal year ends in about a week's time, and the new budget kicks in for April 1. There has to be a service plan available for the new budget. Clearly, the minister must have some sort of expectation of the time period in which he gets that information. He can't sort of just let that decision be outstanding if he's mandated as the minister responsible to ensure that these services are delivered.

I'm hoping to get a tighter time line from the minister other than "as soon as we can; whenever we can." Does the minister himself have any expectations of when he would be getting that information — a week, two weeks, three weeks? What's a reasonable time frame? That's what I'm trying to get at.

J. Kwan: The minister has refused to provide a tighter time frame on this. I think that's unfortunate. I think there is an issue around area of responsibility and the responsibility of the minister directly. He didn't hesitate at all to fire the legal aid board. He didn't hesitate to do that, to appoint a trustee and to intervene. When he is asked when the service plans will be ready, what kind of cuts we will see, and what kinds of services will be provided out of the legal aid services plan out of funding they would receive from government, and what are those impacts, the minister is not prepared to commit to providing a tighter time frame on that. I think that's unfortunate.

I think the minister ought to be concerned and ensure that this information is available. As I identified earlier, the fiscal year is ending in about a week's time, and the new budget kicks in — a budget introduced by the Liberal new era. That budget will dominate what services are going to be provided under legal services.

The Attorney General has expressed a commitment to providing family law resources for mediation to prevent cases from reaching the courts. How much money will the minister commit to this?

Hon. G. Plant: There is $11 million in the Ministry of Attorney General budget that includes the work of the dispute resolution office and the family justice counsellors. The extent to which the Legal Services Society will create or expand funding for mediation

services is part of the planning work the society is doing, in part, having regard to this relatively recent decision to find additional money we can give to the society.

J. Kwan: The different approaches to dispute resolution. I've read some of those in the newspaper and so on. When does the minister anticipate that those new kinds of dispute resolution approaches would be in place?

Hon. G. Plant: British Columbia is actually the leader among Canadian jurisdictions in its approach to alternate dispute resolution. While it probably pained me to do it at the time, I used to actually commend some of my predecessors in this position for the work they were doing in this regard. We intend to build on that work.

There is no specific time line in terms of a defined project that looks like this and will conclude or be implemented within three or six or nine months. We are probably in discussions with the Legal Services Society to explore ways, as I said earlier, to integrate the delivery of family justice services. That will certainly include a consideration of the role of mediation as one dispute resolution technique in family justice.

I already also referred to the task force that the Law Society has sponsored, which includes representatives of the Provincial Court Chief Judge and the Supreme Court of British Columbia Chief Justice. It also includes Mr. McHale, my assistant deputy minister, who is, frankly, one of the country's leading experts in the area of alternate dispute resolution. The task force will be looking at this issue from a pretty broad perspective.

Regularly, when I have the opportunity to speak to members of the bar or continuing legal education meetings, I talk about this issue, among others. I try to stimulate a conversation among members of the legal profession about these ideas. A huge amount of this work can actually be done, and really ought to be done, by the profession or by service providers in the private sector.

What may be required in some cases is to look at the rules of court in terms of civil process to ensure that the rules both facilitate and enable mediation and other dispute resolution techniques. There are already rules of court that do that. It may be appropriate to look, both at the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court level, at ways of expanding that.

In addition to that, which is a conversation about the judicial system generally, the administrative justice project includes a large focus on ensuring that administrative tribunals are fully enabled, where appropriate, to engage in early case-settlement processes to attempt to resolve the issues that come before them in settlement negotiations, or perhaps to engage the assistance of mediators. That work, if we are successful in doing it — and I expect we will be — is going to expand the culture of mediation across society to embrace institutions like, perhaps, the Workers Compensation Board and the human rights process.

That work is ongoing now in my ministry, for example, as we look at some of the strategic shifts my colleagues are embarked upon in changing the way they deliver service for the programs they deliver. We're looking at how we can assist those other ministers in their ministries in embracing an approach to mediation or negotiated settlement or case management, private arbitration, and all kinds of alternatives that I think we need to continue to look at to build a strong and durable toolkit for people who need help resolving their legal issues and disputes.

J. Kwan: The Law Society of British Columbia is so concerned about the Attorney General's actions that they intend to hold an extraordinary general meeting to vote on a motion of non-confidence in the Attorney General. This is unprecedented in British Columbia, and it demonstrates the fact that the B.C. legal community does not believe that the Attorney is capable of doing his job. Will the Attorney resign if the non-confidence vote is successful and passed?

Hon. G. Plant: I hold my office because the Premier has seen fit to repose in me his trust. So long as I am able to provide the Premier with some indication that I deserve his trust, I have expectations that I will continue to hold this office.

It's an important office. It contains some onerous and serious responsibilities. Since I was first appointed in early June of last year, I have worked hard to put forward to the public a commitment to reforming our system of justice, reforming civil law, reforming administrative law and administrative processes, making sure that we have a system of justice that is sustainable and affordable and that meets the necessary tests of efficiency and effectiveness.

I think we have a great justice system in British Columbia — a system we can be proud of, but a system hugely in need of reform. I know that engaging in the reform project is an ambitious one. There are few other areas of public policy where a minister of the Crown has a larger challenge in terms of moving forward with public policy, because the justice system is a system with many actors, and many of those actors are rightly, properly independent and work hard, appropriately, to guard their independence.

We need to find a way to work together as partners or to work collaboratively. That includes Crown counsel. That includes the defence bar in criminal cases. It includes the judiciary, the Provincial Court, the superior courts. It includes members of the bar in all walks of the profession. It includes community groups. It includes municipal governments when we work with them to see how we can ensure that access to justice is maintained in communities where we expect that we will have to close courthouses.

I think that there is a lot of great work that we can do. I have pretty consistently, both…. Well, in fact, throughout my time as opposition critic, I was pretty consistent in extending an invitation to the legal pro-

fession to welcome ideas and input for how we could and can improve the justice system. I've been pretty assiduous in doing that since I was first appointed Attorney General. We've got some processes in place that I think formalize that conversation. They include the administrative justice project. They even included things like Professor McClean's consideration of financial planning instruments. They most definitely include the issue of system reform that I believe the Law Society's task force is engaged upon.

My duty, my job — and I embrace it willingly and happily — is to continue to move forward to improve justice in British Columbia. I intend to continue to do that in the weeks and months to come so long as I continue to enjoy the confidence of the Premier who has appointed me to this position.

J. Kwan: Unfortunately, members of the public may not have as much confidence as this minister thinks is there for him. It is unprecedented: for the first time in the history of British Columbia that I know of, people from the Attorney General's own profession have challenged him in a non-confidence vote in the job he's doing. That speaks to his performance around this issue. I think it speaks volumes, whether or not the vote passes. The fact of the matter is that people in the legal profession, the same profession that the Attorney General himself came from, have grave concerns with the performance of the Attorney General to date, particularly in relation to the legal aid services provisions and the cuts that have been announced by government.

I wouldn't be pounding the desks on this issue, given the Attorney General's response. The fact of the matter is, from the Attorney General's own admission, that some people in British Columbia would be denied access to justice. Criticisms have come from all walks of life, whether it be from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, legal counsel representatives, trial lawyers, Crown counsel, community law offices or a person in need of legal aid services — a single mom, a single dad, a family, an individual.

People from all walks of life have criticized the government's actions on this, including, even, the media. I'm not one to praise the media. Often we find ourselves at different places in terms of positions on issues, but they have come forward to challenge the Attorney General in his actions, his decision to cut legal aid services by 40 percent. I think the irrefutable reality is that access will be denied in the area of justice for some British Columbians, particularly those who are most marginalized and most disadvantaged.

The service plan calls for the ministry to complete a review of adjudicative agencies and make recommendations. When did this review begin? When will the review be completed, and what is being reviewed?

Hon. G. Plant: The administrative justice project was launched in late July or early August. We are working towards releasing a White Paper in June of this year, with a view to introducing legislation in the spring session of 2003.

J. Kwan: The press release was also distributed by the Ministry of Attorney General on July 27, 2001, stating that the initial review of the agencies and boards would be completed by November. Has this review been completed?

Hon. G. Plant: The initial review has not been completed. The reason is that the review that was originally contemplated became part of the government's core services review. The administrative justice project facilitated the core services review of a number of administrative justice agencies. That project took up a pretty significant amount of the resources and energy of the people working on the project. As a result, the initial review, if you will, of the agencies, which is really like a core services review, has not yet been completed.

We did, a few weeks ago, I think at an open cabinet meeting, announce a series of decisions that flowed from the core services review, the mandate view, of 67 of the province's administrative justice agencies. I think the recommendations there dealt with about 33 of the agencies. The core services task force is still underway, and the review of the balance of the agencies continues.

J. Kwan: Following this review, a White Paper is supposed to be released for public discussion. When can the public expect this White Paper?

J. Kwan: The press release also states that the public review is to be completed by April 30, 2002, so my question to the minister is: have the public consultations started yet? Where are the public consultations taking place? Who is in charge of the public consultation process?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm not going to be able to recall all of this off the top of my head. The member could gain a bit of insight into the administrative justice project by following some of the links available on the website. I think there's a link to the administrative justice project on the B.C. government home page, which is an indication of the importance of this project.

The project has produced a number of background papers, and each of those has been made public as it has been produced by the project. They are all available for public review and comment on the website, as they have been in some cases for several months. The project leaders have engaged in a pretty extensive series of meetings and consultation exercises, if that's the right word. I have attended some meetings with members of the bar who are interested in administrative justice issues, and meetings of the B.C. Council of Administrative Tribunals, which had tribunal heads, tribunal

I think members of the task force have met with pretty well all of the interested subsections of the Canadian Bar Association. I think there's been ongoing work with the Law Society. The background papers themselves have, as I said, been available for public comment for some months, and we are watching and listening. In the fullness of time, later this spring, we hope to be able to bring all of this work together into the form of a White Paper. Of course, by definition a White Paper is a public document intended to encourage public discussion around a set of government recommendations in a particular policy area.

J. Kwan: I have, in the information my staff have researched and pulled up from the website, some of that information with me here. In it, though, I don't see the information about the public consultation and particularly who is in charge of the process and where the consultation has gone. If the minister means that consultation is simply through the web information, where people are submitting opinions through the web…. If that's the only form of consultation, then that's one thing, but I got the impression that the consultation was going to be broader than that.

If it is the case that it is broader than that, can…? If the minister doesn't have that information here with him, that's fine. If he can provide that information to the opposition, I would appreciate that. I expect the consultation is broader than just people submitting responses through a webpage.

Hon. G. Plant: Indeed it is. That's why I took such pains in my last answer to explain all of the other things that are happening and have been happening and will continue to happen.

J. Kwan: I'm asking in terms of locations, as an example, in terms of consultation. Is it going to hearings? Is it going to different locations? If so, what locations? Can the minister provide that information to this House?

Hon. G. Plant: This is not a select standing committee of the Legislature that gets a budget to go out on tour. This is a project that has been hard at work for a number of months, engaging the legal profession and tribunals — the tribunal stakeholder community — in a consideration and examination of the role of administrative law and the role of administrative justice in our society. It has solicited input from stakeholders — which is another one of my least favourite words, but I guess we'll have to use it — and from people in the administrative justice community who have an interest in these issues.

The release of the White Paper will, of course, provide the public with what I hope will be a very useful opportunity to respond to a comment on these issues. I don't think this is one of those exercises that's going to turn itself into a road show that has public hearings in different parts of the province. The important thing here is that people who care and know a lot about these issues and the larger public have all been invited to participate in a discussion.

It's actually, I think, a fairly comprehensive road map in terms of how to develop a public policy. You sit down and think about the issues. You commission background papers, and you make the background papers available for public comment. We still have more background papers, I believe, that are yet to be finalized. Then you take the response to the background papers. You work on putting together something that looks like the broad outlines of good public policy. You put that into the form of a White Paper. You get the White Paper out there, and people get to comment on the White Paper. Then after the government listens to public response to the White Paper, government will come forward with legislation in the spring of 2003.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that not all work done by government will take on the form of public hearings for consultation, although that happens from time to time, as well, and not necessarily just committee work is restricted to public hearings.

I take it that there will not be any public hearings around this front. There has been ongoing consultation in this area, so consultation has already started. Can the Attorney, then, at a later date provide the opposition with a list of who his ministry has been consulting with? I don't need to have that list right now, but I'll be interested in knowing who the ministry has been consulting with in this area and, also, just providing the information on who is leading the work around this consultation process so that we actually have a contact person on that. I assume we could get that information from the Attorney at a later date.

Hon. G. Plant: As the member knows — because no doubt she's been following this with interest since it was first announced on July 27 of last year — the website information in fact provides direct access to the administrative justice project. She has as much opportunity as any other citizen to have a visit to the website and get in contact with the task force project people and provide her input on issues that are of interest to her in relation to the work that's being done.

J. Kwan: I have some of that information, which I have pulled from the website, but it doesn't make a list or advise who the people are that the group has consulted with. I'm asking the minister to undertake to provide that information to the opposition.

Hon. G. Plant: That's different. The list of people with whom we have been in touch for this purpose begins with all of the people involved in the 67 administrative agencies in British Columbia. It includes the 9,000 members of the Law Society of British Columbia

and, by extension, the 9,000 members of the Canadian Bar Association. It includes stakeholder groups across the province who are interested in all the issues engaged by the work of administrative tribunals.

Pick a tribunal and imagine instantly.... I'm sure the member can do this because of her own work as advocate in many of these areas. The stakeholder and community interest groups around the province know about this work. They are communicating and contributing to it, whether it's worker or employers groups, the WCB, human rights advocacy organizations or people who are involved — as the business council is — in labour relations. The list of people that have been engaged by this project is hundreds and hundreds and, as I've said, thousands of people.

I'm going to decline the member's invitation to try to pull together a list of people, because I want the member to get a sense of this issue. I don't do public policy the way I think she thinks public policy is done. We're doing public policy in the area of the administrative justice project in the way that I have set it out.

It has included extensive meetings and day-long workshops with members of the bar and members of the administrative tribunal and the community affected by these issues. It's included an extensive amount of work with tribunals during the core services review project and consultations throughout that project with people affected by the work of administrative tribunals. It's not possible — it might be possible, but frankly, I doubt it — to make a list that would actually exhaustively describe all of the people who have been invited to be part of this project, have been invited to contribute to it and have in fact contributed to it.

J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, I think consultation is an important process. In the interests of public and accountable government, who is the government engaging in consultation with? I don't know why it is so difficult for the minister to do that — to provide that list to the public. When I asked this question, before the minister got up to respond, he said in his own seat: "I hate these kinds of questions."

J. Kwan: The minister is admitting now, saying that in his own seat — "I do; I do" — in reference to the point around how he hates questions around consultation and whom the government has consulted with.

You know, these are important questions. The minister tries to imply that perhaps in the opposition's wish to get the information, it somehow leads him to think that how we move towards public policy decisions is flawed. The fact of the matter is that this government had promised an open and accountable government. If it has promised an open and accountable government, I then fail to see why there's so much difficulty in providing information on with whom the government is consulting.

The minister gets up and says: "Well, there are hundreds and thousands of people." Well, who are they? Make that list available by organizational names. Make it available and make it public. Compile the list for all to observe. Why is that such a difficult task? With the exception that (a) either the minister has zero — zero — intention of or zero regard for consultation processes and whom government consults with or (b) the government's trying to hide something…. If none of those assumptions are true, well, then, make the information available. Why is it so difficult?

The minister continuously refuses to provide that information and makes a mockery of those requests for that information, as though somehow they're irrelevant. I have to say that these issues are relevant. I do question this government's approach to consultation. We've already seen, in the area around legal aid cuts, that cuts were made, and the government says they have consulted, and then individuals have come forward and said: "You know, we've never been consulted." The whole list of people who say they've never been consulted have raised these issues. After the fact, when the cuts have been made, consultation takes place. Again, I refuse to understand why the minister has such a difficult time in committing to providing this information.

I expect that the minister's not going to change his position. He's just going to flaunt his power, as the minister, to say, "I'm going to pay total disregard to consultation issues," and to the information around whom the minister has consulted with.

J. Kwan: The fact of the matter is that the minister hasn't. He hasn't. I asked for a list of all the organizations with whom the consultation has taken place.

J. Kwan: The minister said, "Well, there are hundreds of people," so I've asked for detailed list. The minister has declined to provide that list. I have to raise the question: why is the minister refusing to provide the information? It doesn't make any sense to me.

J. Kwan: Other members may be too. I actually think they come from a government that doesn't value openness and accountability. When they're held to account, they actually have difficulty in that regard. They get frustrated when they are asked by opposition members to provide information in that regard.

J. Kwan: If members want to get up and ask ministers questions, they are welcome to do that. I am going to continue to ask questions of this minister and attempt to hold this government accountable, even though this minister, I think, has total disregard for openness and accountability.

J. Kwan: I have lots of questions. Do you want to ask a question? Get up and take the floor and ask questions. We'll be here until after Easter, I'm sure. We'll be back — no worries. I haven't even started my treaty ones yet.

Hon. G. Plant: I suppose one of the reasons why I do find the exchange a little frustrating is because I think it's, fundamentally, an excuse for avoiding the public policy issues. We've actually been engaged, in part, in this discussion about administrative law reform since last July. Since last July we've been engaged in a pretty thoughtful and disciplined discussion about administrative…

The issue that interests me is the issue of administrative law reform. What does the member think about standards of review? What does the member think about the role that administrative tribunals should have in terms of adjudicating or not being able to adjudicate on charter issues? What does the member think about issues like qualifications for appointment of administrative tribunal members? That's the public policy discussion that we're having. What does the member think about the currency and the relevancy of the mandate of agencies like the Disaster Financial Assistance Appeal Board?

That's the public policy discussion we're having. We've been having it with a lot of people. We had it with the 67 different agencies and all of their members across government. We're having it with the Law Society, as I said — 9,000 members of the Law Society. We're having it with the Canadian Bar Association — the same 9,000 people. We're having it with anybody from the public who wants to provide input by sending letters in and sending submissions.

We're having it with the stakeholder groups who are engaged by the responsibilities and the activities of agencies like the B.C. Benefits tribunal; the Commercial Appeals Commission; the Liquor Appeal Board; the Motion Picture Appeal Board; the criminal records review program adjudicators; the criminal records review appeal panel; the Disaster Financial Assistance Appeal Board; the manufactured home park dispute resolution committee; the motor dealer customer compensation fund; the Travel Assurance Board; the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission; the Children's Commission; the Community Care Facility Appeal Board; the Environmental Appeal Board; the Forest Appeals Commission; the Land Reserve Commission; the Mineral Tax Review Board; the property assessment review panels; the Property Assessment Appeal Board; the safety appeal boards, including the Building Code Appeal Board, the Electrical Safety Appeal Board, the Elevating Devices Appeal Board, the Gas Safety Appeal Board, the Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Appeal Board; the Coroners Service; the Expropriation Compensation Board; the Financial Institutions Commission; the Forest Practices Board; the mental health review panels; the Residential Tenancy Office; the Criminal Code review board; the Securities Commission; the Board of Parole; the fire commissioner; the Health Care Practitioners Special Committee for Audit; the Mediation and Arbitration Board; the agricultural marketing boards — there are 13 of them; commissions of inquiry and the issues raised by them — I think that statute needs to be amended; the Employment Standards Tribunal; the Farm Practices Board; the Gaming Commission; the Health Care and Care Facility Review Board; the human rights agencies, including the advisory council that commissioned the tribunal; the Labour Relations Board; the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board; the Medical Services Commission; the Motor Carrier Commission; the Public Service Appeal Board; the Racing Commission; the Utilities Commission; and the Workers Compensation Board including the review board and the related agencies.

These are all the subject of the work that's being done. They're all the community of people who have been talked to and the broader community of people who were interested in the work of these agencies. Really, pretty well everybody who is interested in the administrative justice project and in administrative justice is being given an opportunity to have a public policy discussion about administrative justice.

So let's have that discussion. Let's have the discussion about administrative justice in British Columbia. Let's see if we can contribute to a constructive discussion about administrative justice in British Columbia here in this committee right now.

We can talk about the relevance and the mandate of some of these agencies. We can talk about the extent to which we should think about whether there should be common standards of practice across the administrative tribunals in British Columbia — common standards for appointments. Should we as a government have a commitment to a specific approach in ensuring the tribunal members have access to, on a regular basis, the training they need to make sure that they can do their job? What is the basis upon which government should make appointments to these agencies and tribunals? Should the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

have unrestricted power and discretion and privilege to make these decisions? Or should we work hard as government to put qualifications and criteria for appointment into the statutes of British Columbia? These are the public policy issues.

Should inferior administrative tribunals have the power and the authority to make decisions about whether or not they can disregard, on Charter principles, the provisions of the statute that empowers and enables them to do the work? What should the role of the administrative tribunal community generally be in relation to Charter issues? Should we think about consolidating tribunals? Should we think about, for example, whether or not we can consolidate or amalgamate or at least streamline access for workers to one single window of tribunals so that any time there's an issue or a dispute that arises in the workforce or on the floor of the factory in British Columbia, instead of having to sort out which among a dozen different agencies a worker may need to have access to, to address or remedy the problem, maybe one-stop shopping is the idea we should be looking at?

The range of issues here is great, and it's considerable, and it's complex. Frankly, you are not going to get the picture of the administrative justice project in British Columbia if you go to the website and download ten or 20 pages and think you know everything. It's bigger than that. It's more comprehensive. It's serious business. It is very serious business. It represents a significant commitment on the part of the province and the government of British Columbia to change the way we deliver, to improve the way we deliver administrative justice services in British Columbia.

It's very exciting, and to spend our time talking about who got a letter or who showed up at a meeting or who didn't show up at a meeting is, frankly, a waste of time and a waste of the taxpayers' dollars required to put this forum into place here and now.

I'll certainly continue to listen to the questions, because the member is entitled to ask them, but think about the exciting topics we could talk about in this forum. Think about the issues that we could engage on in this forum as opposed to asking me who sent me a letter last week or who the project director of the administrative justice project wrote a letter to last week. If the member wants to pursue those questions, she is absolutely within her rights to do so.

You know, I'll even go back and ask the people working on this project if they have been keeping a list of who writes them, or where they've been meeting or who they've been meeting with. If the member wants to know that information, then I will certainly work hard to get it.

But you know what? I don't think the member wants that information. She just wants to fill time in this room because she doesn't want to have a discussion about how we can improve the justice system in British Columbia. She doesn't know or care enough to know about the difficult issues of administrative justice, so she decides we're going to talk about consultation processes. We can talk about consultation processes, but it won't avoid the real issue we are going to have to grapple with and she will have to grapple with when it comes to the floor of the Legislature next spring in the form of legislation. She is going to have to do her job for her constituents, read that legislation and think about whether or not it makes good public policy. How much better we would all be if in fact we started having that discussion here in this room now so all of us were better prepared to have the discussion on the floor of the Legislature next spring when it arises? Some of these issues may actually be engaged by legislation that comes in later this spring. As we have been looking at the mandates and the work of some of the agencies we have already made decisions about, I know there is going to be legislation introduced to give effect to some of those recommendations in relation to some of the issues I've already talked about in the course of these brief remarks about the administrative justice project. Some of those issues are, I think, already going to be engaged as we move forward, even in the next few months, without waiting for the work that will flow from the issues the White Paper will deal with.

Change is challenging. There is no doubt about it. It requires work. It requires research. It requires thought, and it requires a commitment to think about issues. I'm certainly willing to use this forum as a place to have that conversation. But, as I said, if the member wants me to go and get the lists, if they exist, of the people we have been "consulting" with, then I am certainly willing to do that too.

The Chair: For the information of members, His Honour the Administrator will be in the chamber to issue royal assent at 5:30 p.m. Accordingly, debate in this chamber should be adjourned by 5:20 p.m. It is now 5:15 p.m.

Shame on the minister for making a mockery of the importance of consultation. Shame on the minister for thinking that questions around with whom the work is undertaken right now and who is being consulted on these questions….. The minister makes light of it and somehow thinks it is irrelevant. Judging by this minister, I know he thinks he has all the answers. This government thinks they have all the answers, and they don't need to listen to anybody, with the exception of people who finance their campaign, people who actually got the big corporate tax cuts and the biggest, largest corporations.

J. Kwan: I can't tell you how offensive it is for the minister to rise up and somehow make light of the importance and the value of consultation and the people

who bring those opinions to the table. The minister is absolutely offensive, in my opinion, with respect to his attitude around the issues of consultation. Judging by the members who are sitting around the table here — the member from Chilliwack, and others too; he wants to identify particularly the member for Chilliwack-Sumas…. Shame on them for actually belittling the issue around consultation.

Yes, I do believe this. The Liberal caucus, the Liberal government, does not think consultation is important. They say it is but when held to task on that issue, they actually find it irritating, agitating and something that is completely unimportant to be looked at, reviewed or questioned. It is absolutely unbelievable — this government's attitude about the opinions, thoughts and voices of British Columbians.

The minister wants to engage in debate in terms of what my opinions are around each of the boards and each of those agencies faced with changes. I will offer that in due course in the House. From time to time I've offered it in different ministries too. With the Minister of Human Resources, we've talked about the tribunal changes in terms of the representation there, and we've engaged in debate around that and what my thoughts are. The minister actually wanted to hear the opinion and answer the questions, unlike this minister who takes absolute offence when he's held to task with respect to issues around this important matter, and especially when he's held to task around listening to the voices of British Columbians.

I can see by his body language that the fact he even has to do consultation bothers him greatly. Perhaps that's why he makes light of the entire matter on the question around consultation.

But finally, the minister has committed that he would provide that information. I would like to receive that information from the minister for the opposition caucus.

In the February 7, 2002, press release from the ministry, which describes some of the changes that the government has made to administrative justice agencies — and has already moved forward on some of those changes…. Yet the consultation process has not been completed and the government has already made a decision in terms of what those changes are. They've already decided and announced that.

On the question around consultation, the heart of it is also their real intent with respect to the government's approach to consultation — and I do question that. I do question this minister and this government's approach to that because they've made decisions and oftentimes they made decisions without consultation and after the fact they say: "Well, we're consulting, and this is an open and accountable government." Well, their actions prove otherwise.

With that, noting the time, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, no. You didn't say anything, Jenny. No one voted aye, and I voted nay. So that's where we are.

Hon. G. Plant: Do you want to vote for it? You didn't vote for it. I didn't hear you say "aye." She called for aye, and you didn't say it.