2015 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 40th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 22, Number 4

ISSN 0709-1281 (Print)
ISSN 1499-2175 (Online)

TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 2015

The House met at 1:32 p.m.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Polak: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 18, the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, and in Committee A, the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

(continued)

L. Krog: I’m delighted to continue debate on Bill 18, the Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015.

As I said before the break at lunch, I think the Attorney General summed it up rather nicely when she said it has the potential to reduce. It reminds me of all those weight-loss commercials that come on TV after Christmastime when they’re promising all sorts of miracles in terms of weight reduction as everyone tries to wear off the results of overconsumption during the Christmas season.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I’m not suggesting for a moment that the opposition isn’t grateful for this small present. I see some of the members trying to pull it in as I’m speaking, hon. Speaker. I’ve obviously touched a nerve with some members of the House. I’ll just try not to let myself be drawn away to talk about weight with what is, as I pointed out before lunch, the weightiest bill of the session so far, with 204 sections. But I digress.

It’s not even a map, really. It’s certainly not a series of well-thought-out directions. I understand the purpose of what the government is trying to do, I believe, with Bill 18, but it is essentially enabling legislation, in the broadest sense of the term “enabling.”

It is attempting to bring into force the opportunity to supposedly streamline our administrative law system which, to use the old cliché, has grown rather like Topsy, for obvious reasons — costs, failure to fund the existing justice system, our court system, our traditional system of resolving disputes, failure to fund that in the way that justice is seen as accessible and speedy and, arguably, even fair.

[1335]

It’s hard to argue for fairness in a justice system where justice is so often delayed that we’ve had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, talk about that as an issue, and our own chief justices in the last few years here in British Columbia. It’s not an uncommon topic, certainly in the legal community or for those who are involved in matters relating to, I’ll call it in the broadest sense, our justice system and the way we have historically resolved our disputes.

What this bill is attempting to do is cluster. I love that term, “cluster.” It’s talking about allowing for the creation of clusters of administrative tribunals. In section 8 it talks about adding the following part after section 10 — part 3, “Clustering.” “The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by regulation, designate 2 or more tribunals as a cluster if, in the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, the matters that the tribunals deal with are such that they can operate more effectively and efficiently as part of a cluster than alone.”

Now, the member for Surrey-Whalley, being the witty fellow he is, did point out that perhaps you could argue there’s a bit of a similarity here between the way the Speaker and the Clerks of the House come in, in a cluster when they approach the chamber. I’m sure that’s probably going to be a more effective cluster than what the government is proposing in terms of the administration of justice.

It’s not as if the Attorney General could stand up in the House today when she had her opportunity to speak — as she did, and spoke at some length on this bill — and tell us what is proposed. What does the first cluster potentially look like? In the very generous and kind briefing that I mentioned earlier this morning by ministry officials, they could not talk about specifics. As we used to say in the legal profession, they couldn’t condescend upon the particulars of what was being proposed.

That’s really the problem here. It’s not that the opposition is opposed to granting the government a blank cheque once in a while if we think they’re actually up to something really good and efficient and is likely to be successful. But it’s not entirely clear from this legislation — certainly, on the opposition’s reading of it — that it is going to lead to the end result that is supposedly desirable. That is, as I mentioned earlier, the hope that it will reduce cost or create efficiencies.

Now, there are a number of areas of the bill that represent, I would suggest, vulnerabilities, and certainly vulnerabilities based on the opposition’s experience and the experience of the public of British Columbia with respect to appointees. There is significant power being given to the executive chair of these clusters when they’re formed.

My understanding is that we may be looking at a substantial period of time before any clusters are formed, and we have no idea how big the clusters will be. We can assume that there may be some that will be working together fairly quickly, and by that I mean within a matter of a few months or a few years. Others may take longer. But the power given to the executive chair, who will be
[ Page 6870 ]
a government appointee, is significant. I guess that’s one of the opposition’s problem.

We have spent considerable time in the last few days of this session talking about the appointment of the Auditor General for Local Government. Again, one would argue, it was a piece of legislation that was not terribly well thought out, to the point where it wasn’t clear how one made that office function or whether you could audit the auditor or how you could terminate the auditor or all of those things that flow from that fiasco.

The Auditor General for Local Government was a government appointee. She wasn’t an appointee of an all-party committee of the B.C. Legislature. She wasn’t like the conflict commissioner or the Information and Privacy Commissioner. She wasn’t like the real Auditor General, the one whose office we suggested should be responsible for auditing local government, if that was seen as a pressing political issue. No, she is a government appointee.

The concept has always been that public servants should be true public servants, in the sense that they would be non-partisan, they would presumably have expertise, and they would be able to render, quite literally, public service.

[1340]

It’s not a foreign concept. It’s the way of western democracies and, indeed, governments throughout history. You try and move forward in a way, with people who can actually deliver the service. The people, whether they be, in the common parlance now, taxpayers or citizens or whoever, would receive services.

But we’ve seen a number of very partisan appointees by this government. John Les. Ben Stewart. Gordon Wilson, for heaven’s sakes. Now, I know if the Minister of Finance were in his chirpy mood, he would point out, of course, that he was a former B.C. NDP cabinet minister. He would take that to heart and say he was a completely non-partisan appointment, except for the fact that prior to the last election Mr. Wilson so publicly and clearly announced that he was happy to support the present occupant of the Premier’s office and the west wing of the legislative buildings.

To describe him as a non-partisan appointment is just rather a bit silly. I mean, it’s rather like arguing that Churchill who, as he put it, re-ratted — left the Conservatives and then to the Liberals and then back to the Conservatives — somehow was a non-partisan individual.

That is a genuine concern of the opposition, because the body that looks after those appointments is run by Ms. Mentzelopolous, and we certainly know her history in terms of being a close associate and supporter of the Premier in the most partisan sense of the word. So when we talk about forming these clusters, the opposition has legitimate concerns that we are going to create a system — even if it appears to be, on the face, fair — that is stacked with partisan appointments.

I’m not suggesting for a moment that this Attorney General would do that, but the concept is: when you bring in legislation, you set up a process so that not only can it not happen; it cannot appear to happen either. The problem here is the system is not structured, as I read it, in such a way that in fact partisan appointments couldn’t be made.

What this legislative scheme is all about…. The administrative tribunals are set up to, essentially, resolve disputes and give justice, and the independence of that process — being separated from government, being separated from undue influence — is an important and fundamental concept. If there is even a hint that there is a partisan aspect to these appointments because there isn’t that kind of process, then it leaves it open to criticism, even in situations where it’s not merited, and it certainly leaves it open to criticism in situations where it is.

I think the average Canadian and, certainly, I think most members of the bar would say that, generally speaking, our judicial appointment system works quite well. Even at the federal level, notwithstanding a bit of a preponderance, obviously, until recently, for the federal Conservatives to appoint male members of the bar as opposed to female and their record on visible minorities — to use a phrase from a while ago — as pretty dismal…. Nevertheless, there is the sense that the quality of the judiciary at the federal appointee level is very high, and likewise in British Columbia.

Here these folks will be flying somewhat below that radar. They will not be subject to the same process, as I understand it. I look forward to a member opposite illuminating me and telling me I’m wrong, but they will not be subject to that same kind of scrutiny and process that exists now. What that means is that that appearance of fairness, of independence, has to be not only true in appearance but true in fact, and that is not necessarily going to be the case here.

[1345]

Moreover, the power that will be given to facilitators under this legislation is significant. One gets the point that it’s nice to have tribunals have that an expertise. In a commonsense way, the concept, for instance, that people dealing with residential tendency problems actually have some expertise, as opposed to a Supreme Court or a Provincial Court, where the judge is expected to have a fairly broad range of knowledge but will be reliant on lawyers to assure the court that the appropriate law is being provided to the trier of fact and the decision-maker.

In administrative tribunals and particularly this system — which has a positive discouragement, if I can use that term, to keep counsel out of the process — it becomes even more important that the persons who are working as facilitators and who will be involved in these administrative tribunals have a significant level of expertise in their area. But they also have to have a level of expertise, understanding and knowledge with respect to how to conduct fair hearings.

As I quoted from the act itself from 2004, they decide the rules, they decide what happens by way of process,
[ Page 6871 ]
and process is extremely important. Process has to be effective and fair so that the parties, regardless of what the end result is, feel that, to use the old cliché, they got their day in court. Ultimately, that’s what this is all about. It is about a replacement for our court system.

The public takes the view, and the government certainly takes the view, that our present court system isn’t functioning effectively. It’s inaccessible, it’s expensive, and I think, in the words of Geoffrey Cowper in his report, there is a culture of delay. All those criticisms are fair. They’re all fair.

The question that will obviously be delved into more appropriately in committee stage of this bill, because the opposition may well take the view that some of the sections of the bill are not appropriate, is: is this the vehicle, the process, by which we will do a better job of resolving issues between British Columbians?

As I understand it, these tribunals handle something in the range of 60,000 matters a year. Now, I don’t know whether that in fact reflects residential tendency matters, as well, or whether that includes every kind of the smaller tribunals, the specialized tribunals that may deal with a forestry issue or an environmental issue or an oil and gas issue — things on which I claim no expertise. The reality is: this system impacts on a lot of British Columbians, and it is the system that they look to in order to resolve disputes.

The people who are involved, and now people involved in the cluster, particularly the cluster executive chairs — again, “cluster” is never defined — will be in charge, it appears from the briefing the opposition received, of hiring the front-line people and, potentially, contractors who will be in the position to make these decisions.

I want you to think about that for a moment. When I appear as counsel in front of a Supreme Court judge — I’ve never had the pleasure, thank the Lord, of appearing as a litigant — I’d like to think that person was completely and utterly independent and is seen as one of the highest forms of public service.

This is contemplating a process whereby that person may be a private contractor making money. In other words, this is a business. This is a provision of services for monetary gain. You go on the Supreme Court bench, the Provincial Court bench. You know what the salary is. You’re going to be well paid. There’s going to be a pension.

[1350]

You’re protected till 75 as a Supreme Court judge. And, essentially, now in British Columbia, it’s basically the same thing for Provincial Court judges. You know that you are free from influence related to money, related to a reappointment, related to, in this case, the renewal of the contract if you’re a contractor.

I don’t know if the government has thought all of this through. Certainly, it hasn’t been addressed yet by the Attorney General in her remarks on second reading. But these are legitimate concerns that any thinking British Columbian would have and certainly the legal community, which is used to dealing with litigious matters and of the resolution of disputes between parties.

Moreover, there’s a bit of a kicker in the legislation that says essentially that a decision of the tribunal cannot be made invalid due to an invalid appointment of a chair or a member. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that if it’s determined there was a terribly partisan appointment and that on the outside it looks like justice wasn’t done, the parties involved in that dispute can’t say that because of the tribunal — the person who heard it, because of their partisan appointment — they can’t get that decision set aside or appealed or dealt with?

These are questions which have to be answered. It is not clear. It is not clear from what we’ve heard so far or in the reading of the bill how that’s going to operate.

Again, I come back to one of my essential points: the bill is a pretty thin framework. If I was thinking of building a house, I’d say that the 2x4s are up, but the roof isn’t on. There’s no gyproc on the walls, there’s no siding, there’s certainly no electricity, but we have some idea of what the house is going to look like. Just imagine trying to decide between Arborite and granite and quartz countertops, just as a simple example, to furnish the kitchen, let alone deal with the quality of the taps, who you’re going to hire to be the electrician. Is it a lifetime appointment, or is it a contractor?

All of these are legitimate questions that arise from the process, as it’s suggested, and how the power has been given to these appointees. Again, I come back to it. If the process by how people are hired is not seen as a public and a non-partisan and an appropriate process, then it will bring the whole system into disrepute. It will raise the possibility of more challenges than it’s worth and, indeed, potentially make the system more complex than it was intended to be.

There are still many in the legal community who would say that all of these administrative tribunals aren’t always effective. This bill, to some extent, is saying: “Look, we think that there are efficiencies to be obtained.” And maybe there are efficiencies to be obtained. Certainly, the opposition hopes so. We don’t want to be supporting something that’s not going to happen as a result of the passage of this bill.

Again, with the lack of detail around what form the clusters will take — and the appointment of members and chairs and all of those things — we don’t know what it’s going to look like. The briefing indicated that there might be 25 or 28 that are clusterable.

If the government hasn’t thought through what the end product looks like, why are we in a position where we’re being asked to give a carte blanche to the government, when they don’t know what the end result is going to look like?

I mean, it may come as a surprise to the Attorney General, but the opposition’s job is to criticize. But we
[ Page 6872 ]
rather like to have something relatively concrete to criticize, without having to step back and say: “We know there’s a big, grey elephant, we think, in the room, but we’re going into it blind because the government hasn’t said it’s an elephant because the government doesn’t know what the elephant looks like either.”

We’re all sort of poking around and prodding at it in the belief that somehow we can do our job effectively when the government hasn’t thought this through far enough to even know what it’s going to look like. That, again, is a real problem.

[1355]

How does it fall together? When we talk about the chair….

Deputy Speaker: Is the member the designated speaker?

L. Krog: Yes, I am, hon. Speaker. I know the members opposite are delighted to hear that, so they’ll have more opportunity to listen to my words. [Applause.]

I’m always flattered by the attention given by the government benches. My friend from Surrey-Whalley does point out that the opposition benches were not nearly as enthusiastic, and I’m not sure the independent members even care.

Notwithstanding that, I will carry on. This is supposedly based on the Ontario system, as opposed to, I think, the Manitoba and Quebec systems. This appears to be the new model of the way we’re dealing with administrative tribunals. That may well indeed be the right thing to do.

One has to respect and accept that Ontario is one of the founding provinces of Canada. They have a larger population. They’ve had a legislature longer. Presumably, they’ve got some idea what they’re doing back there, notwithstanding it’s a Liberal government. Nevertheless, one has to respect a province that’s substantially larger than ours — roughly double and a bit.

What’s going to happen with respect to the clustering that takes place? How does that work? I mean, if you’re going to have separate statutory mandates, how does that fall into place? How does that mesh? Again, one would have thought that the government, in its wisdom — because this is not an easy process to put together — would have sort of worked that all the way through.

As I pointed out, once you get to section 30 and you get to part 10, the miscellaneous section, starting alphabetically, bless them, with the Administrative Tribunals Act and going all the way through to the Utilities Commission Act — hardly a letter of the alphabet omitted. All of those sections, 31 through to 203 — 204 is the commencement of the section — deal with the nitty-gritty of how we have to coordinate this and bring it together and make it work.

In deference — and I say with great respect, because I appreciate the difficulty of legislative drafting — this was a massive undertaking. This did not happen in a matter of a few weeks. I have no idea, understanding a little bit about how the process works and the Cabinet Committee on Legislation and Regulations — or Legs and Regs, as we used to call it in the happy days of the ’90s…. I have no idea how long this took, but I don’t think this got created overnight. So what that means is it has been in process a long time. Again, I come back to my point. Why isn’t the end result clearer? Why is it we weren’t given — and I suspect because they couldn’t — answers as to what it would look like when it’s done?

We’ve got confusion and concern around the power of appointees and how they’re going to be hired and whether that process will be subject to the obvious criticism. We have concerns about what the clusters will look like, because the government apparently can’t tell us. And it leaves…. Bill 18 changes the tribunal process to focus on the end goal of a settlement, using facilitators rather than the satisfaction of the parties involved in the conflict, who are represented by counsel.

Now, if a settlement can be declared that it’s not satisfactory to either party, if the process is facilitated and is unsatisfactory to any other parties, they can, however, have a traditional hearing and, ultimately, have recourse to the courts. However, under Bill 19, which we’ll be talking about later today, recourse to a court hearing is not permitted in strata disputes, for instance.

[1400]

We’ve got a system that, on one hand, recognizes the commonsense view that the tribunal and the people who work within the administrative structure will have expertise and therefore be able to perhaps deal more expeditiously or with greater understanding with the issue, problem, dispute that is placed before it. But at the same time, you are not going to be in a position to argue your case in the traditional way.

Now, there is a strong argument that we don’t want people to be disadvantaged because they can’t get access to legal representation. We know, from the significant cuts that still exist to our legal aid system, that getting legal aid for family disputes in this province is still problematic. We know that it is virtually impossible to get any assistance with other civil matters unless the pro bono justice society, or whoever, steps in and is prepared to give you assistance. But essentially, there are no guarantees.

Those under our system who can afford counsel presumably have a great advantage. But is this the best solution — to simply deny the possibility to people that they will have access to counsel? I’m not entirely convinced that that is necessarily the best method of approaching it.

With respect, also, there is the issue of costs. An applicant can be required to pay partial fees under the current dispute resolution system, but under Bill 18 a tribunal can decide that all or part of the fees must be covered by the applicant. Again, it’s all kind of amorphous. It’s not spelled out.
[ Page 6873 ]

Now, in the spirit of coming into the 21st century, you can say, to the government’s credit, that there’s going to be brand-new, purpose-built technology. You’ll be able to file on line 24-7. Just imagine. You’re up at 1 a.m., and you want to file your claim, and away you go.

We all know that stuff that gets sent at 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. may not be good for you for a whole series of reasons. You might say things to people, for instance, that get you into trouble. You may say things that might make it into the media, if you’re a politician, and cause you great embarrassment. But there’s nothing wrong with recognizing that many of us work strange hours and have strange inspirations at different times of the day.

It’s not improper that the government accommodate people who want to do that. You could say that’s a good thing. What we understand is that at the briefing, the request proposal went to PricewaterhouseCoopers. Then they subcontracted to a Vancouver firm. And we have a cloud-based platform with Salesforce, and that clearly raises a number of privacy issues.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t remind the government, who I’m sure would like to forget, that their history with technological innovation has been a pretty expensive disaster from time to time. We could go back to Gordon Campbell’s web portal, if we want something historic.

More recently, I can’t remember all the details of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on systems that were supposed to make it easier for people who were dispensing the miserly amounts that the Ministry of Social Development pays to people who require assistance. We don’t need to talk too much about that. We know there are some attempts being made within the health care system to get accessible medical records available across the province. That is not necessarily going perfectly.

I don’t pretend to be an expert in all of this. But what I do know is that the government’s general history with technological innovation is not a record of success that gives the opposition comfort. I think most of us, by and large, if we file a claim — and you can do that electronically in the court system — have some comfort that it’s going to work.

[1405]

I don’t know that that confidence is going to extend to a system being set up under legislation painfully short on specifics with a potentially partisan appointment system in place being handled, possibly, by contractors, not even people who enjoy some independence or security of tenure in a way that would protect them from influence. The reality is that the people who will make this system work can’t give us a guarantee that this system is going to work.

It’s not as if we are taking over an existing system from some other jurisdiction that has a proven track record. I can’t remember which came first — no jokes, please, from the members opposite about which came first — the Model A or the Model-T, but I think it was the Model A. Henry Ford had something to work with, and then the Model-T followed. We had a proven kind of system for a car that worked. You could improve on it, but at least you knew it functioned.

Well, there’s no guarantee that this new purpose-built technology is in fact going to function successfully. Again, we are asked to be comforted by the government’s confidence in this, without any substantive record or history of technological innovation that has worked successfully and that hasn’t in fact resulted in the wasting of hundreds of millions of dollars of money. There is a sad history here.

The process which is set out in Bill 18, by way of amendments to the Administrative Tribunals statute as it exists, is one that is going to require a great deal of work. It’s fairly clear from the government that there isn’t even an intention that this will be up and running in the near future. Perhaps it’s a three- to five-year buildout. You sort of have to ask yourself: “Well, why are we in a position today where we don’t know where we’re going?”

To use a house analogy, if this is the structure, why don’t we have an idea of what the finished product is going to look like? If this is a road map, I’m not sure that it explains what the destination is. We certainly have no itinerary as to how long it’s going to take us to get there, by what circuitous routes, by what side paths. What obstacles may exist and, more importantly but not necessarily the only important thing, what is it going to cost and what savings, if any, are going to accrue to government as a result of these changes?

At the end of this, we in the opposition are all left with a significant number of questions, significant concerns. Although it’s hard to say that this is not a step forward in the broader sense, the opposition really has to question whether or not it will achieve the ends that the government intends.

The proposed amendments, in their own summary, say it’s to enable a clustering of administrative tribunals, giving tribunals the authority to require that early dispute resolution methods be used, including on-line resolution, and enhancing the accountability of tribunals through new reporting requirements.

As usual, as is the habit of modern governments and this government in particular, most of this is left to regulation, to be determined at some later date. I think I’ve said it at least three or four times in the last couple of days, speaking to various bills, but I’m going to repeat it again, just in case there’s someone listening for the first time. The problem with that is this. We get to debate some things here in this chamber. They’re televised. They’re open. They’re available. You can read it in Hansard. You can go on line. You can see the concerns that are raised by the opposition. You can see the government defend itself.

[1410]

But when it comes to regulation, that happens over there in the west wing or in the Vancouver cabinet offices or wherever the cabinet may meet, wherever the
[ Page 6874 ]
Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may gather, without public scrutiny, without the ability of the public to express its views during the course of the debate, which we hope and trust takes place around the cabinet table.

They obviously had quite a discussion the other day when it came to denying George Abbott his appointment. I would like to have been a fly on the wall for that discussion. But it’s out of public view.

To come back to my housing analogy, if the flooring and the wall covering and the siding and the roof and the cabinetry and everything else that’s going to go into this house are all going to be decided by regulation, that’s what we say, in the trade, a pretty big blank cheque. I’m just not satisfied that a change like this, which is essentially the government asking the public to trust them, is appropriate.

To use the road map analogy, we’re not sure what the end looks like. We’re not sure how we’re going to get there. We don’t know if there are going to be savings. We hope there are going to be savings — but again, nothing of substance. Indeed, the forum here is singularly lacking as well.

As Desi Arnaz said to Lucy, the Attorney General has got a lot of explaining to do.

Interjection.

L. Krog: ’Splaining to do. The Minister of Environment has just tried to improve my accent and obviously admitted that she’s older than she looks by remembering Lucy and Desi. I’m flattered that she would pay close attention to my words.

That aside, there’s an awful lot of explaining to do. This opposition is not going to let this thing slide through without that kind of criticism. The fact is that these are significant changes, both this and Bill 19 — which is going to follow in terms of debate, as I understand it — and so much so that the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and the Trial Lawyers Association aren’t in a position to provide the kinds of comments that one would normally expect from those organizations — and they’re just two amongst many, but important organizations — when this kind of legislation is placed before this House.

I would hope that the government, before we proceed much further, will ensure that bodies that represent significant numbers of people who are already working in the justice system in the broadest sense, in the administrative tribunal system presently, will have that opportunity to offer their comments. I didn’t hear the Attorney General say that she’d happily run it by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association or the Trial Lawyers Association.

We know that the chair of the B.C. Council of Administrative Tribunals has indicated some happy support of this. That’s nice, but that’s the only body that I’m aware of that has happily said something. We need to hear a great deal more.

I look forward to committee stage of this bill, at which time the Attorney General, I’m sure, will be able to give us a full description of what this house is going to look like or what the destination looks like. Right now we really are working in the dark.

B. Ralston: I rise to address Bill 18. As the critic has pointed out in his speech he just made, the high-level rhetoric of this bill is hard to disagree with in the sense of making justice more accessible and finding economies within the operation of that particular branch of the judiciary. The grouping or clustering — I prefer the term “grouping” — may yield administrative efficiencies.

[1415]

Prima facie, there are some obvious benefits to grouping together tribunals that deal with a roughly similar subject matter, although the more you cluster, the more they become like courts of general jurisdiction, and you’re back to the legal system. Part of the reason for creating administrative tribunals was the very reason that they are focused on a specific area where the tribunal develops some expertise and familiarity. Presumably, that makes for more expeditious and fairer decisions, because there’s a knowledge, on the tribunal, of those decisions.

I think it’s probably worth looking at an actual case study of where some of these kinds of reforms have been implemented. The Community Legal Assistance Society, a very well-respected advocacy organization, did a recent study — it’s October 2013 — on the residential tenancy branch. It’s entitled On Shaky Ground: Fairness at the Residency Tenancy Branch. What they conclude in their summary is:

“There are significant and ongoing problems with the branch’s adjudication services at all stages of the adjudication process, resulting in inconsistent and unreliable enforcement of the legislation.”

They go on to say:

“In our opinion, many of these issues stem from the fact that the branch is drastically underfunded when compared to other similar administrative decision-makers in the province. As a result, in recent years the branch has prioritized efficiency and cost saving at the expense of fairness. For the…obligations contained in B.C.’s tenancy legislation to have meaning, the provincial government must give the branch a renewed focus and the necessary resources to do its job fairly.”

They point out, and I think this is probably a given:

“Tenancy disputes are not trivial. They include disputes that can and do lead to rapid homelessness, disputes relating to the health and safety of rental premises and disputes over significant sums of money and property.”

Many people may not realize this if they have not been involved in a landlord-tenant dispute. As an MLA, frequently constituents come to the office for assistance dealing with these matters. All but 1 percent of the hearings are teleconferences. It’s not a conventional court or tribunal in the sense that people are meeting face-to-face.
[ Page 6875 ]
They’re making their representations on the phone. What they say at page 33 of the report:

“The hearings are almost always done by teleconference. This creates challenges for arbitrators and for the parties.

“Hearings are typically very short.”

Some may see this as an advantage. They have some more complex reflections on that.

“From 2007 to 2012 between 92 and 94 percent of all hearings, annually, took place in less than an hour, and 68 to 70 percent took place in less than 30 minutes.”

So these are very brief.

They go on to say that “the community advocates and legal organizations that represent tenants at hearings universally reported a strong sense of frustration with the arbitrators’ approach to the process, noting that the hearings are unpredictable and at times disorganized, disrespectful and unfair.”

They do a review. There is an opportunity, a limited opportunity, to undertake what is called judicial review, which is to take the decision and ask a higher court — that is, the B.C. Supreme Court — to look at those decisions. They found a rather high…. Typically, with administrative law reviews, it is very difficult to overcome the legal hurdles that are placed before someone who would seek to overturn such a decision. The court exercises what’s called deference to the tribunal — in other words, giving them, largely, the benefit of the doubt where there may be some ambiguous aspects to the decision.

The number of decisions that were overturned is very high. I think it’s 57 percent, and 35 percent were because of procedural unfairness serious enough to invalidate the original hearing and justify a new hearing. For example:

“An arbitrator proceeded with a hearing and issued a decision even though one party had never been notified of the hearing. One party was unable to connect to the teleconference, and the hearing went ahead in her absence. An arbitrator conducted a hearing without ensuring both parties had received all the documentary evidence that was being considered.

[1420]

“One party was not prepared to present its case and was not permitted to challenge the other side’s case. An arbitrator decided the case on the issue that neither of the parties had raised or argued, without giving the parties an opportunity to make submissions. The branch allowed one party to communicate with an arbitrator post-hearing without giving the other party a chance to respond.”

These are elementary, one would think, aspects of basic fairness, which is recognized in administrative law. This is a fairly lengthy experiment in these kinds of hearings.

When it comes to reviewing, a judge has commented…. Mr. Justice McEwan, in a case called Helgren v. Campbell, 2010, B.C. Supreme Court case No. 1247, says:

“Before proceeding I think I should note that the nature of these proceedings is highly problematic. The dispute resolution officer never sees the parties or the witnesses, and they do not see the dispute resolution officer. In cases such as this, where credibility is an issue, the dispute resolution officer is deprived of a very significant factor in the assessment of credibility, and the participants are deprived of a face-to-face sense of what apparently matters and what does not to the officer.

“The accountability imposed on tribunals required to face the participants is lacking in such hearings. It is certainly impossible to say that justice has been ‘seen’ to be done. The lack of a record makes review of the decision that is made very difficult, particularly where it is submitted that material evidence was overlooked and ignored.

“The hearings on judicial review of such proceedings are fraught with other perils. The court usually sees and hears from the participants themselves — or some of them, as in this case — and, lay litigation being what it is, hears a great deal of evidence in the form of unsworn submissions. The court must proceed deprived of a record, on the one hand, and consciously excluding much of what has been entered its record on the other.”

That’s a judicial comment on the process.

As the report points out, these sometimes can be very substantial disputes resolved in this way. What is proposed here, I understand, in broad terms, by this bill is to expand that system — if not this bill, in Bill 19, the companion bill — to the small claims court, where the jurisdiction is, I believe, disputes that are of a value not exceeding $25,000.

For most people in the province — maybe not for the top 2 percent that the government is so fond of — a sum of up to $25,000 is a pretty substantial sum. One has a question, then, about how this process will unfold. Recognizing, of course, that the resources of government are not infinite and that economies must be made and should be made where possible, what weight is given to procedural fairness and actual fairness, and what weight is given to economic efficiency in the administration of the act?

Certainly, my colleague from Nanaimo has mentioned the appointment process. What is not entirely clear but seems to emerge from this bill is that the executive chair of the so-called clusters will be a government appointee, will have both executive and adjudicative functions and may be able to hire the members of the tribunal within that particular grouping and — as the member for Nanaimo has mentioned also — possibly as contractors.

This does give rise to the issue of the perception of bias in the performance of those duties, particularly where the person is a term appointment — that issue has been litigated — or, in perhaps the more extreme case, where the person is a contractor, paid, perhaps, on their ability to resolve disputes and thereby reduce expense, thereby creating an economic incentive for them to resolve disputes in a way that may not be fair to both sides.

[1425]

There’s a well-known British case, Starrs and Chalmers v. Ruxton, where the decision really says — and this was an issue about appointment for a term of one year:

“The appointment for one year at the discretion of the Lord Advocate did not square with the appearance of independence, nor did the removal from office through ministerial policy rather than statute. A well-informed observer would think that a temporary sheriff might be influenced by his hopes and fears as to his prospective advancement.

“The combination of a one-year appointment with liability either to recall or suspension or limited use is inconsistent with the requirement of independence. Security of tenure is one of the cornerstones of judicial independence, as the adequacy of judicial independence cannot appropriately be tested on the assumption that the executive will always behave with appropriate restraint.”
[ Page 6876 ]

That’s a very judicial and restrained way of expressing the concern about political interference in the process.

The judge, Justice Prosser, goes on to say — and this is, I think, an important point:

“I would add one final point. Like your lordships, I am not suggesting in any way that there has ever been any impropriety, either on the part of temporary sheriffs or on the part of any holder of any ministerial office or their officials. But I would add that if a judge is not independent, then however great his integrity, it may be very difficult for him to know whether his want of independence affects the way in which he carries out his judicial duties. However determined a minister or public servant may be to carry out his functions in relation to the judiciary only on the basis of wholly appropriate considerations, it will be important for him to remember that his own confidence in his own integrity is not, and cannot be regarded as, a guarantee.”

I think what’s being said here is that self-evaluation — the “I would never do that” kind of response that people sometimes give — isn’t sufficient. I think that’s a very useful and well-phrased caution to those who would consider this issue a trivial issue, a lawyerly issue, not really in tune with the exigencies of the budgeting process of the government.

It’s clear that this bill — I can give one further example — really takes a very negative view of lawyers in their participation in the process. I turn to section 62 of the bill, which says somewhat cryptically: “Sections 94 (2) and (3) and 95 are repealed.” The reference is to the Environmental Management Act.

What do those sections say? Section 94(2) says…. It’s in division 1 of part 8 of the Environmental Management Act. It says under section 94(2): “A person or body, including the appellant, that has full party status in an appeal may (a) be represented by counsel, (b) present evidence, (c) if there is an oral hearing, ask questions, and (d) make submissions as to facts, law and jurisdiction.”

The ability to be represented by a counsel, call evidence, make legal argument, ask questions that would presumably be cross-examination or questions of any form — it’s not entirely clear…. Certainly, those will all be swept away. The person will be able to show up, they will be able to appeal, they’ll be able to appear before it, but they won’t be able to do anything that would have any impact on their case. Presumably, all they would do is be able to show up and answer to their name and say nothing further.

Section 94(3) says: “A person who gives oral evidence may be questioned by the appeal board, a panel or parties to the appeal.” That’s the cross-examination provision, that a party to the appeal — that is, the appellant — will be prohibited, if there is oral evidence, from asking any questions.

This is merely one section buried in this bill — one section buried in this bill. Perhaps the government, somewhat like the federal Tory government, is interested in “streamlining” the environmental appeal process that views legitimate advocacy on behalf of those who would challenge decisions going before the environmental appeal board as people who need to be silenced.

[1430]

Certainly, this goes some way towards silencing those people. You can’t cross-examine, you can’t have a lawyer, you can’t ask questions, and you can’t call evidence. A drastic and sweeping revision of the powers of the Environmental Appeal Board.

Now, that doubtlessly will streamline this process. It doubtlessly will make it more “efficient.” But does that serve the ends of justice? Is that good public policy for the province? I would submit that there’s at least a strong question about that. I’ll be looking forward to hearing the minister’s justification of that kind of…. And that’s only one example in this particular act.

The other thing that I wanted to address was…. My colleague from Nanaimo has addressed it. There is some proprietary software that has been, basically, set into the legislation. It’s always perilous when one deals with proprietary software because you become the financial captive of the supplier of the software. How it’s connected, whether it was sent out to tender, what’s the opportunity for changing it, what are the cost implications of the software in terms of saving money, again, is not at all clear.

The bill really does generate, as the member for Nanaimo has said, a number of very serious questions about the future administration of justice in this province. That’s not something that just concerns lawyers or members of the Legislature. That concerns the 60,000 or 70,000 or so disputes that are taken before the Residential Tenancy Act tribunals and the countless others that are taken, prospectively, before the small claims court.

It really is a major change. One certainly can see the need for perhaps greater pressure or incentive to resolve disputes, although…. I have been involved in the past in the mandatory mediation in the small claims court, and generally what happens is the most stubborn person wins in the sense that you can drive the case forward if you are not reasonable.

Litigation and tribunals and court systems have to be constructed to deal with the person who is the most stubborn, not the most reasonable. There’s an assumption here that somehow people are necessarily going to want to come to agreement and resolve disputes rather than taking them forward to a tribunal where someone else will decide. That isn’t always the case, regrettably. Human nature, perhaps, doesn’t run in that grain.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

I would say in conclusion, then, that this bill raises a number of very serious questions about the ongoing administration of justice in the province and what is good public policy in this area. We’ll be pursuing those issues as this bill proceeds through the House.

V. Huntington: I just want to speak very briefly to Bill 18 and to reiterate or at least compliment my two other
[ Page 6877 ]
colleagues here who have discussed their concerns at fair length about the bill.

I, too, am very concerned that there is, with this bill and a number of others that have occurred over the last year or so and are about to occur in this session, a fundamental reshaping of access to justice and the administration of justice as we know it. I have said before in this chamber that my concern is that the public is not aware of these changes and does not understand that these fundamental changes to the way we understand justice to be served in this province are occurring.

[1435]

I note that the White Paper on Justice Reform, Part Two that was released in February of 2013 discussed transformation of dispute resolution and tribunal processes. I take it what we’re seeing in Bill 18 is that transformation beginning to take place.

However, there are certain issues that arise from this bill that are deeply concerning, and that, as my other colleagues have said, will be explored in full during committee stage. But I just would like to bring a couple of my concerns to the fore and to assure the minister that these issues ought to be explained in their full context in to what the government is attempting to do here.

If you take, just for instance, the changes in the forestry and agriculture areas alone, where the forest practices code, the farm practices appeal board and the Environmental Appeal Board…. We see interesting provisions such as that the necessity or even the right to hold public meetings has been revoked or changed; that hearings don’t necessarily have to be open to the public any longer; that written reasons, and even reasons for accepting or rejecting an application, no longer have to be written; that decisions no longer have to be written in the farm practices appeal board hearings. The notice of a hearing is no longer required.

Well, I have to ask: what is this? And what does this mean to fairness and justice and equality and the public right to know? There is something going on here that is not healthy, that I would like to understand much more fully, that concerns me and I think other members of this House — that the administration of justice in the province of British Columbia is being manipulated in a fashion that we no longer understand nor have we agreed to.

To suggest that “Oh, the parliament of British Columbia has authorized this legislation” isn’t sufficient, because we know that a lot of the debate in this House will not be paid attention to, will have no force and effect by this minister or this government. Again, how does the public enjoy an understanding and an appreciation for what justice should mean to it and what it is going to mean to the public in the future?

I am very concerned, even to the point where I hope that we get a fulsome explanation of the difference between dispute resolution and facilitated settlement. I, perhaps, don’t understand the full difference, but I wonder if anybody does at this point — especially when it looks like unless the tribunal chair or the member that is assigned to a particular facilitated settlement can require consent of one or none of the parties to that facilitated assessment as a condition of the facilitation.

There are many things that need to be explored here, many things that the public in British Columbia and, I hope, the legal profession are careful to listen to and are also participating in discussions with the minister’s department.

With that, I just wanted to foreshadow some of the concerns I hold. I do look forward to the committee stage, and I hope it is taken very seriously the questions that will be presented to the minister.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member. Seeing no further speakers, the minister to close the debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I take the comments of the members opposite, and obviously, we’ll be considering them carefully prior to committee and during committee stage. I thank them for those comments.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 18.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 18, Administrative Tribunals Statutes Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[1440]

Hon. T. Stone: I now call second reading of Bill 19, intituled the Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015.

BILL 19 — CIVIL RESOLUTION TRIBUNAL
AMENDMENT ACT, 2015

Hon. S. Anton: I move that Bill 19 now be read a second time.

The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act was passed on May 30, 2012. It establishes the civil resolution tribunal, which will have authority to resolve strata property disputes and some small claims matters. Work is well underway on the launch of the tribunal, including creating extensive software systems, assembling the legal and other information required for on-line dispute resolution, appointing tribunal members and otherwise getting ready for the tribunal to open its virtual doors.

Our plan is for the civil resolution tribunal to begin operations this year as a voluntary tribunal. In other
[ Page 6878 ]
words, almost all parties must consent to the tribunal resolving their cases. Before implementing the tribunal, however, legislative amendments are required to ensure that the tribunal can shift from a voluntary model to a mandatory model when it is ready.

The amendments we are debating today will enable British Columbians to access justice in a different way, as we make the civil resolution tribunal the primary avenue for resolution of most small civil claims and many strata disputes.

For small claims, the existing justice system is difficult to access for many reasons. First, one must go to the courthouse at designated times to conduct court business. This can prove difficult for persons with work obligations, child care responsibilities, lack of transportation or difficult winter driving conditions. British Columbians who live in rural areas, for example, may not have an easy time pursuing a legal matter in small claims court. Under the civil resolution tribunal model, however, cases could be handled any time of day or night from one’s living room or anywhere, with a smartphone.

Secondly, currently a small claims matter could take a year or more to resolve. Most people need a resolution far faster. Even among those that don’t need a fast resolution, most would like the matter resolved one way or the other quickly so they can move on with their lives and their businesses.

Strata property cases are currently more expensive to take to court than small claims, as only the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over these cases. The Supreme Court process is well suited for major strata disputes but is too complicated, slow and expensive for minor strata property matters. The B.C. Supreme Court should not be handling disputes between neighbours about the noise from someone’s hot tub or the colour of drapes.

The tribunal will provide British Columbians who are trying to resolve small claims or minor strata disputes with early dispute resolution tools that are available on line 24-7. It will also use staff and independently appointed tribunal members to resolve small claims and strata disputes fairly and quickly. The civil resolution tribunal will be aiming to resolve its cases, on average, within 60 days.

The civil resolution tribunal will start up this year as a primarily voluntary tribunal, meaning the parties must agree that the tribunal may resolve their case. This will allow the tribunal and its innovative technology to be phased in and tested with the lower volumes inherent in a voluntary tribunal.

Parties in conflict over small claims, however, may not agree to the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Similarly, uncooperative strata residents may decide to avoid accountability if they can decline the tribunal’s jurisdiction, leaving the other parties with no option other than the Supreme Court’s processes. For these reasons, the proposed amendments, when they come into force at a later phase of the tribunal’s implementation, will make the tribunal’s processes the required method of intake if a party wants to use the formal justice system.

During its first year of operations as a voluntary tribunal we will be able to ensure that processes and systems are working as effectively as possible before it takes on the higher volumes expected in the mandatory model. We will be monitoring the technology and processes carefully and will implement the CRT in stages to ensure that it is effective and functions well at each stage before moving to the next phase.

A mandatory tribunal will focus on encouraging a collaborative problem-solving approach to dispute resolution for both small claims and strata disputes. Once it is fully implemented, we anticipate that it will provide up to 40,000 British Columbians with improved access to justice services every year.

[1445]

While the amendments provide for a mandatory tribunal, they also enable British Columbians to request that their matter be handled by the courts in the traditional way. For small claims matters, any party can apply to the provincial court for an exemption to the tribunal process. Further, after the tribunal renders a decision, either party will be able to object to the decision.

If any party objects to the decision in a small claims matter, the party wishing to pursue the matter will be entitled to bring it before the Provincial Court. If a party does not object to a tribunal decision within four weeks of that decision, then the tribunal decision may be filed in the Provincial Court and would become an enforceable decision of the court.

In order to deter parties from delaying enforcement or from routinely objecting to tribunal decisions, the amendments also provide for a judge to order the imposition of filing fees, costs, penalties and the posting of security. The amendments include safeguards to ensure that these provisions do not hinder access to justice.

For strata property disputes, the amendments will bring a balanced approach by adding to the 2012 provision that compelled strata corporations to participate by providing that owners and tenants can also be compelled to participate in tribunal proceedings.

The civil resolution tribunal will have jurisdiction over many but not all strata disputes. However, the B.C. Supreme Court will retain jurisdiction over all strata property matters. For cases within the tribunal’s jurisdiction, the B.C. Supreme Court will retain full authority to determine which ones must be heard in court. In strata property disputes decided by the civil resolution tribunal, the tribunal’s decision will be final, subject to limited rights to an appeal to the B.C. Supreme Court.

These amendments align with the recommendation in two government white papers on justice reform. Those white papers have set out the government’s plan to rebalance the justice system, including the implementation of the tribunal.
[ Page 6879 ]

The move to a mandatory tribunal also aligns closely with core review objectives by implementing a proportional model for resolution of these disputes. The tribunal will provide a specialized and user-friendly dispute resolution process for the majority of strata property disputes and lower-value small claims, reserving Provincial Court and B.C. Supreme Court judicial resources for cases where they are most needed.

In conclusion, I believe the amendments we are debating today will transform the way small claims and minor strata disputes are resolved in British Columbia. In doing so, we are transforming our justice system and assisting British Columbians in accessing justice wherever they live and whenever it is convenient for them.

L. Krog: We’re now with the second of the Bobbsey Twins, Bills 18 and 19. Obviously, as night follows day, 19 has to follow 18 because of the changes that were outlined and discussed at some length earlier today around Bill 18.

It’s again obvious that the vehicle of justice in this province is a little slow. The minister is well aware that we passed the Civil Resolution Tribunal Act back on May 30, 2012. Here we are just about three years down the road, and it remains unproclaimed, basically, and we are now making amendments to it.

It’s always good that the government takes a famous second look, and à la W.A.C. Bennett, that’s probably a very positive step, but they certainly don’t seem to be moving expeditiously to reform the justice system in the way that they believe or think it is appropriate.

The proposed points that were provided by the ministry at their briefing — and I want to thank again the Attorney General for the work of staff in briefing the official opposition on this — make it very clear that justice is going to be accessed in a different way in British Columbia, and this flies in the face of some of us old traditionalists.

The Attorney General talked about the problems now with small claims court — not being able to get into the system. You’ve got to trot yourself down to the small claims registry and file your claim and those kinds of inconveniences.

I guess my immediate reaction when I heard it was, in terms of accessing justice: “Well, why didn’t we propose a system that allowed for electronic filing in small claims court and see if that speeded up the process or made things more expeditious for the public and those who find themselves in situations requiring the assistance of the court to resolve their issues or difficulties?” I think that would have been a fairly smart thing.

[1450]

Obviously, we’re moving into an age where smartphones and computers will allow for what is the ministry’s much-touted first on-line tribunal. I’ve got to give compliments to the government in terms of that. That’s a pretty significant step. It will be fascinating to see how it works out. It’s not something that’s going to require a lot of adaptation by the legal profession, because the legal profession is still essentially excluded from this process.

As the Attorney General well knows, when the bill was introduced, there was a fairly quick response by way of a press release from the Canadian Bar Association. In the appropriate diplomatic approach, they thank the Attorney General and ministry staff for some of the amendments that address issues that they’d raised earlier and say very kindly:

“It is clear that the consultation and input leading up to the bill’s introduction were taken seriously.”

Of course, it’s rather like the way I often say something nice about the government, then say something that isn’t quite as nice. That’s pretty much what the Canadian Bar Association has done here. Then they go on to quote Alex Shorten, the current president. It is complimentary, in a way. He says:

“There is no question that, for strata disputes in particular, the new civil resolution tribunal will be a significant improvement. Court was rarely a practical or accessible option for strata disputes,” etc.

Then the press release goes on to say:

“On the matter of extending the civil resolution tribunal process to small claims matters currently resolved through Provincial Court, there remain two significant issues of concern to the bar.”

One, CBABC, the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, “strongly advocates for the repeal of section 20, which…sets restrictions on the parties’ right to retain legal counsel.”

The second great concern of the bar is that “as the government moves funding and jurisdiction….” Note that they’ve hit the nail on the head: funding and jurisdiction. I think there is every argument to be made that our court system has been underfunded for a number of years. Certainly, on the legal aid side we’re still not, after 14 years, up to the same raw dollar number, not taking into account inflation or population growth, we’re not up to the same budgetary number that was in place in 2001, and we’re 14 years down the road.

In any event, the release says:

“The second concern of the bar is that as the government moves funding and jurisdiction away from justice administered by independent courts, the public is being funnelled into a process that relies on the appointees of the government who are fulfilling adjudicative roles in deciding general civil claims matters — without actual judicial independence, security of tenure, a higher degree of administrative independence from government, etc.”

Those are two very important criticisms of this whole process. As I know the Attorney General listened carefully to what I had to say earlier today, I will not repeat all of my arguments around the effect of Bill 18 with respect to the hiring, potentially, of even contractors who may be fulfilling these roles, who may be treating adjudicating these matters as a business, for heaven’s sake.

I won’t go on at great length about that, but the Canadian Bar Association gets it. Is that the right way to adjudicate disputes in our society, as opposed to an independent body whose members have security of ten-
[ Page 6880 ]
ure and that degree of administrative independence from government?

Again, we’ve just gone through this fiasco with the Auditor General for Local Government — not an appointee of the Legislature sitting as a whole through an all-party committee making a unanimous recommendation about the appointment of a person, but a government appointee.

The same concerns apply here with respect to the resolution tribunal. Who are these appointees going to be? What expertise will they bring? How will the process work? Will we be in a position to say with comfort that they, in fact, are in a position to do this appropriately? Will they be seen as patronage appointments?

[1455]

I mean, are we going back to the days, hundreds of years ago in England, when the local landed gentry were, in fact, the magistrates, when they got to decide disputes between parties — speaking only for their class, of course — in a hierarchical system that we’ve moved away from? Who are these people going to be?

These are extremely legitimate concerns and criticisms of this legislation, and the Canadian Bar Association was absolutely right to raise them. Indeed, they’ve been raised again in a letter that has been sent to the Attorney General as of today, asking that the government repeal in particular section 20 of the act and replace it with a section that says: “Representation: a party may be represented by counsel or an agent and may take submissions as to facts, law and jurisdiction.”

One of the reasons that there is a good argument to be made for that is not just that the right to legal representation has been recognized throughout our legal history — and by that I mean both Canadian and British, on which our legal system is based — for hundreds and hundreds of years, but the evil that, presumably, section 20 was designed to correct or solve has, unfortunately and sadly, been solved by this government’s failure to fund legal aid appropriately, therefore denying access to many people in disputes, who might historically have had some assistance — and also by the realities of the marketplace, where the most significant portion of our society is not in a position to afford legal counsel.

Now, the downside is, of course, that those who can, if they’re involved in a dispute with someone who can’t…. Then the same old cliché applies: there’s one law for the rich and one law for the poor.

This bill, you could argue — and I’m surprised the Attorney General didn’t make that point — in its clumsy and crude fashion attempts to solve that problem by saying, rather like a plague on both your houses: “Neither of you get to have counsel involved in this process, so it’ll all be fair.” But whether or not it’s fair is also going to be dependent on the quality of the people who are dealing with the matter. And that, again, is a legitimate concern of the opposition.

There’s a reason — and I don’t wish to sound in any way pretentious or arrogant or the things that lawyers are often accused of being — you don’t take your baker into the courtroom with you when you want to plead a case. There’s a reason you don’t get your brain surgeon to look after your automobile. That’s because they bring different experiences, education and training to their various roles, callings, occupations, professions — whatever you want to say.

The reason you don’t want to be in an adjudicative process of any kind without a lawyer is because they bring an expertise and a knowledge that most people don’t have. That knowledge and expertise is to be respected and honoured and is valued in our society. A process that denies people their right to that expertise is questionable, and the prohibition against being able to use that expertise or employ it — is that the solution?

It’s a legitimate question, and it’s a question raised not just by me. It is, as I have pointed out and read into the record here today, a question raised by the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, who represent some 6,700 members in British Columbia.

And just by the way, the members of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association all make their choice to pay hundreds of dollars in fees. It used to be mandatory in this province. If you wanted to practise law, you paid CBA fees. Essentially, what we have is roughly half or better of the lawyers in this province consider the CBA so important that they’re prepared to pay fees voluntarily to support its good work.

[1500]

It speaks for a significant portion of British Columbia’s lawyers who have said through Mr. Shorten, quite appropriately: “Don’t deny people’s rights to legal representation.”

Now, there are three key elements to the bill. It makes the tribunal process mandatory. It attempts to address some constitution issues and small claims matters through court review. It is designed to deter parties from routinely seeking court review in small claims matters, and it’s designed also to address constitutional issues and strata property matters by retaining Supreme Court jurisdiction and rights to appeal.

It’s pretty clear that if in three years we haven’t proclaimed the first bill…. We’ve had a long time and obviously a great deal of representation from various parties who’ve raised these issues, so before we let this horse out of the barn, so to speak, we just want to make sure it doesn’t have a broken leg or something stuck in its hoof and it’ll be able to trot out safely. Well, I’m pretty sure also that the government has been a little reluctant to feed the horse so that it could move anyway. That seems to be a continuing problem with this government in terms of providing funding.

Indeed, we probably wouldn’t be discussing these bills if the government had been funding the justice system
[ Page 6881 ]
appropriately over the last few years or providing legal aid with the necessary funds to effectively deliver legal services to the poor and vulnerable of this province. But that’s an issue for another day, and I’ve certainly raised that issue in this House often enough, as have other members of the opposition. I’m sure that the government members are well aware of the impacts of those cuts to our justice system, whether it be just in the legal aid side, which affects the poorest and most vulnerable, or in terms of delays that their more prosperous constituents or business owners face when trying to get matters resolved in our court system.

Making it mandatory. Now, on one level, there’s something to be said for forcing people into a tribunal process for small claims and strata matters but retaining some access to court. Our very system in this Legislature, I think you could argue in a higher-plane philosophical discussion, is not necessarily the healthiest way to address problems and issues because there is an ongoing dispute, arguably, between the haves and the have-nots in our province, between those who care about the environment and those who think things are just fine, those who care about human rights and those that think human rights are more than protected.

This is an adversarial place. We don’t engage one another, by the very process we’re engaged in this afternoon, in the way that we would, for instance, around a committee table or the way a family might discuss an issue around the dinner table. This whole process is one where we’re not only not compelled to meet and discuss and try and resolve. This process, indeed, discourages us from that kind of discussion and potential resolution. Again, that’s a topic for another day.

What this process says is that you have to get into it. You have to try and resolve it. That includes both small claims and strata property disputes. Now, as I say, on one level, I don’t like the concept that people are forced to choose a process and that their rights to use our court system in the way it was designed to be used are, in fact, taken away. On the other hand — and I know this is the hope and wish of the Attorney General — if it resolves disputes and people leave this system with the matter resolved, with little or no expense, then that is a pretty positive thing.

In fairness to the government, we’ll see how this rolls out, but the proof is in the pudding, to use a time-worn cliché. How this will get resolved, I’m rather hopeful, might be seen within, gosh, even the remaining two-plus years of this legislative session, the term of this government — hopefully, its last for a while. But in two more years we’ll see if they actually get something up and running — maybe, if that horse does literally and figuratively get let out of the barn, funded and appropriately resourced.

[1505]

Now, the second issue is that it tries to address constitutional issues and small claims matters through a court review. It’ll enable the parties, for instance, to apply to Provincial Court for exemption. That’s going to be a difficult process, and if you can’t have lawyers, who’s going to make up the law, so to speak?

I must tell you that notwithstanding the high quality of our judiciary, generally, they do tend to rely on counsel in a courtroom providing them with the law to enable them to make an appropriate decision that is not inconsistent so that if you applied for the same kind of thing in Prince George as you do in Duncan, as you do in Chilliwack or Courtney, you’re likely to get the same result. That kind of consistency is what our legal system is all about. The law must be certain.

If you don’t have lawyers in the process who can ensure that the court is reasonably informed as to the law and you don’t resource judges in a way that they have time to study the law, that presents some issues. We’ve seen a case recently where a judge was heavily criticized for, essentially, going out and doing a little work on their own. I won’t bother bringing up the details, but it wasn’t seen as a wise thing. In this case, this bill, by these very sections, recognizes that that’s going to be potentially an issue. If we have a tribunal decision within four weeks and it’s not objected to, then it’s going to become the decision, so to speak, and enforceable as such.

The other thing is that it’s designed, the act, to deter parties from routinely seeking court reviews and other small claims matters. Part of that…. This is a serious issue, and this is one where the government, again, is asking us to take it on blind faith, because the legislation itself doesn’t contain the numbers. There are provisions for filing fees and costs and penalties, a potential requirement to post security for both the amount of the tribunal decision and for costs.

Now, the great advantage that I have had, both as a lawyer and as a politician, in dealing with people who do come into your constituency office is that you can say to them: “Look, if you can’t afford to litigate this matter or you don’t have access to a lawyer, you can always go off to small claims. And you know what? The worst-case scenario is that if you lose, you’ll lose the filing fee. It’ll be assessed against you, you’ll be stuck with the witness fees, but it’s not a lot of money.”

It gave people who had limited resources an opportunity to have their disputes adjudicated, knowing full well that if they succeeded, there’d be no great reward, other than getting what they thought they deserved or claimed, but there’d be no great punishment either if they lost.

Here, on one hand, this legislation is saying: “We want you to use an on-line process, and we want to make it more accessible, and we want to encourage resolution, and we want to have it dealt with in a simple manner. But oh, by the way, if you’re not happy with this process, we’re going to have a system of filing fees and costs and penalties and posting of security.” That goes exactly against the whole purpose of small claims court, which was to be
[ Page 6882 ]
“the people’s court,” where you could go in cheaply and try and get it resolved. If you lost, you lost, and so be it.

It’s kind of a yin-and-yang thing going on here. We’re not entirely sure what the government is up to. On one hand, they’re saying, “We want to bring in a process because small claims now are potentially costly, arguably, and time-consuming and not efficient and not responsive,” but at the same time: “Oh, by the way, when this new, flashy system” — electronic make your claim in the ether — “comes into being, if you’re not happy, we’re going to have a system of costs and penalties and the necessity of posting security.”

[1510]

Now, far be it for me to suggest that the government’s position on this is somewhat inconsistent. But you know what? What is it? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I think it’s a duck. I think this position is somewhat inconsistent. At this point, we don’t know what that fees and cost system is going to look like. We do know that the government is going to bring it in, and as usual, it will be brought in through regulation.

If I was on the government benches and believing we were purer than driven snow, I’d probably be happy with bills and acts that said we could do anything we wanted and do it by regulation and away we go. I mean, it’s just like, to use my barn door analogy, letting you out in the field, and you run wherever you want because, after all, we’ve opened the barn door.

Well, I’m not on the government side. I’m surprised the members didn’t start to clap or cheer at that point. It means they’re not listening to me.

We on the opposition side now — not being in control of the barn, so to speak — kind of want to know whether that horse has a little control. We’re just a bit concerned that the government is asking to let it out without knowing where it’s going and without knowing what it’s going to do, whether it’s going to even be trained, whether it’s going to be rideable, whether it’s going to be useful. That’s a concern for the opposition.

Now, on the fourth point, and that’s the constitution issues and strata property matters, I must say in fairness…. I don’t disagree with the submission of the strata owners associations in the province who have said: “You know what? Please give us an expeditious, sensible system that doesn’t involve us having to go to Supreme Court.” I get that.

I mean, you have to think about this. If you’re an owner in a ten-unit strata and you’ve got a difficult owner and your strata fees may be, say, $200 or $300 a month to cover the basic expenses annually and you’ve got some…. I was about to use a term that referred to a donkey, but I won’t. If you have some individual owner who is difficult and has access to cash and wants to drag the strata council into court and the strata council has to go to the ten owners, including the person who’s like the donkey, and ask for a special assessment in order to cover legal fees to deal with that person who is like a donkey, one can understand the incentive and the desire to have a process that’s expeditious, cheap and doesn’t involve legal expense and/or lawyers. I get that.

It’s hard to argue with the strata owners of this province who have expressed themselves fairly clearly. They like this, and they want it done. The opposition, in fairness, agrees with them. We’ve still got the option to get to Supreme Court in terms of appeal and other rights. Ultimately, we want a process that recognizes the reality of the hundreds of thousands — and that is without exaggeration — of British Columbians who live in strata units across this province.

One doesn’t have to look very far. Let alone in the wonderful city of Victoria and my own community of Nanaimo, in the Lower Mainland in particular — that is where people are living. They are living in strata units. So we need a process that responds to their needs.

I think I couldn’t put it better than Sandy Wagner, who is the president of the Vancouver Island Strata Owners Association, who said: “The civil resolution tribunal will be of great benefit to the strata community by helping our members to resolve their disputes more quickly, saving them time and expense. With the CRT’s 24-hour-a-day accessibility, it will meet the lifestyle needs of our members and, in the spirit of our strata communities, a system to reach collaborative resolutions.” That’s a positive thing. That’s a step forward.

[1515]

Then we’re going to come back to another issue, and that is the purpose-built technology that I raised earlier. I have to work on a sort of primitive legal assumption that if I don’t say it for this bill, it doesn’t form part of the debate on this bill, even if I said it with respect to Bill 18, the other of the two Bobbsey Twins that I mentioned earlier. So I’ll come back to it.

We’re going to have this new purpose-built technology, and as I said earlier today, this government’s record with technology is pretty dismal. I’m sure some of the brighter members on the opposition benches could start to chirp up now and mention the various technological disasters that have cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in wasted money that has gone into trying to bring in systems that didn’t work or didn’t work efficiently, weren’t tried in other places or had no history. And here in British Columbia we have a new technology that we hope will work.

I don’t wish the government any ill. After all, like every member of this chamber, I pay my taxes in British Columbia. As I’ve said in this chamber many times, I don’t think we pay enough taxes in this chamber, but that’s a question for another day. Having said that, I don’t like to see public moneys wasted when there are so many desperate needs in the province and so many people in desperate need in the province. So, again, those are legitimate concerns of the opposition.
[ Page 6883 ]

The Canadian Bar Association has expressed itself, but because this is a complex bill…. At this point, my understanding is that the B.C. Trial Lawyers Association, which is an important group whom the government should listen to in matters of this nature, hasn’t even had a chance yet to prepare an appropriate response or commentary on this bill.

Now, I don’t know how the House Leaders are going to work this out, but I would hope that there will be sufficient time for the B.C. Trial Lawyers Association, particularly, and others to comment on and raise concerns or, indeed, potentially offer their compliments to the government around Bill 19.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

L. Krog: I’m the designated speaker, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

L. Krog: It’s nice to be designated. It’s even better when they actually listen, hon. Speaker, but I’m not sure they are.

Interjection.

L. Krog: All ears. All ears.

Hon. M. de Jong: We’re actually designated listeners.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, I suppose it’s better than going out partying with the crowd and being the DD, the designated drunk. Having said that, I’m delighted to have so many designated listeners over there paying attention to my every word.

So is this going to be an improvement? One would hope so. Has it taken a long time for us to get here? Absolutely. Are there significant issues with this bill? Pretty clearly. Has the government entirely thought through this process? Probably not. Are we satisfied that the individuals who are going to be involved in this process à la the changes to the administrative tribunal statute…? Are the individuals going to be able to do this work effectively?

Given, as the Canadian Bar Association so eloquently put it when they talk about the public being “funnelled into a process that relies on appointees of the government who are fulfilling adjudicative roles in deciding general claims matters, without actual judicial independence — security of tenure, a higher degree of administrative independence from government, etc….” Are the people who are going to do this able to do it? Will they do it effectively? Will they render justice? Will the system have the respect of the public who is going to be using and paying for it? And will justice be the result of the process?

[1520]

That, much like the lack of detail in Bill 18, very much remains to be seen. So during the course of committee stage I am hoping that the Attorney General, in her wisdom and with the assistance of staff, will be able to illuminate the provisions of this bill and bring light into this so that we might actually understand whether what’s being proposed is going to work and whether or not it will actually be the improvement that it purports to be.

Certainly, on the strata side — and I say this only somewhat mockingly — probably anything would be an improvement over the present system, which left the Supreme Court as the only venue for resolution. Anything would be an improvement. So this is fairly clearly, I think, an improvement. On the other issues it remains to be seen how well this will work.

Again, I look forward to the continuing debate and other members who may wish to participate in a discussion of legislation which is not capable of generating great emotion but will have an impact on all those thousands of British Columbians who, once this legislation is proclaimed, will in fact be forced into this system. There are thousands of people now who take their claims before the small claims court every year, and all of those people will now be in a position where they will have to participate in this process. I hope for their sakes that it actually works.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, minister will close the debate.

Hon. S. Anton: I thank the member opposite for his comments, and I look forward to diving into them in detail during committee stage.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 19.

Motion approved.

Hon. S. Anton: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 19, Civil Resolution Tribunal Amendment Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call second reading debate on Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

BILL 10 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2015

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 10 be read a second time now.

Bill 10 promotes a number of policy and economic development initiatives. It also enables government to adapt to changes in accounting standards in particular
[ Page 6884 ]
sections of the bill.

Broadly speaking, there are two parts to Bill 10. In part 1 the Financial Administration Act is amended to add a provision that enables payment out of the consolidated revenue fund to discharge liabilities resulting from retroactively applied accounting changes. These accounting changes arise from updates to the set of standards and guidelines that comprise GAAP, or generally accepted accounting principles, for senior governments in Canada.

In part 2 of Bill 10 eight statutes are amended. They are, to be sure, designed to implement many of the tax measures announced in the 2015-16 budget. Bill 10 amends the…. I’ll go through them, though, recognizing that there will be an opportunity in committee to delve in more detail into the specific amendments and the rationale behind the specific amendments that I am going to refer to now.

Bill 10 amends the Income Tax Act to enhance the B.C. tax reduction credit effective for the 2015 tax year. The credit is increased from $412 to $432, and the credit phase-out threshold is increased from $18,327 to $19,000. The credit phase-out rate is also increased from 3.2 percent to 3.5 percent. The upshot of all of that numeric description is that the enhancement will increase the amount that British Columbians can earn before paying any provincial income tax. That will benefit about 500,000 low-income taxpayers in British Columbia.

[1525]

The Income Tax Act is amended also to create the new children’s fitness equipment credit. The non-refundable credit of $250 complements the existing children’s fitness credit by acknowledging equipment costs that are associated with children’s fitness programs. The credit will be set at 50 percent of the amount claimed for the existing B.C. children’s fitness credit.

Bill 10 also amends the Income Tax Act to create the new B.C. education coaching tax credit. This, too, is a non-refundable credit, in this case of $500, that will benefit teachers and teaching assistants who volunteer their time to support extracurricular sports and arts activities in B.C. schools. The B.C. education coaching tax credit recognizes the important contribution that educators make to creating a vibrant school community and enriching the lives of B.C. students.

The Income Tax Act is further amended to extend the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit to the end of 2015. Members, I hope, know that B.C.’s mineral exploration and mining industry is a vital part of our economy, and the flow-through share tax credit will help to encourage continued investment in mineral exploration and development.

Bill 10 also amends the Income Tax Act to extend the training tax credits for an additional three years, to the end of 2017. Extending those credits will, we are confident, support apprentices and their employers and help ensure B.C. has the skilled labour force necessary today and well into the future.

The Income Tax Act is also amended to extend the interactive digital media credit for three years, to August 31, 2018. This refundable tax credit is worth 17.5 percent of eligible salary and wages. B.C.’s interactive digital media industry is an important employer for many, many British Columbians, providing thousands of highly skilled and well-paying jobs for people here in the province.

Bill 10 also provides support for B.C.’s film industry. The Income Tax Act is amended to expand the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to include post-production activities, something the government pledged several years ago. This will provide an additional 17.5 percent refundable credit on labour expenditures relating to post-production activities and will be available to productions that start principal photography on or after March 1.

Bill 10 also provides support for small businesses. The Small Business Venture Capital Act is amended to increase the small business venture capital tax credit budget by $3 million for 2015, providing up to $10 million in additional equity capital for new small businesses.

Building on the changes made in Budget 2012, Bill 10 amends the Carbon Tax Act and Motor Fuel Tax Act to further streamline obligations related to larger volumes of fuel imported into B.C. by ship.

Bill 10 also amends the Motor Fuel Tax Act to enhance deterrents for the unauthorized use of coloured fuel. Effective July 1, 2014, in certain circumstances purchasers of coloured fuel who do not provide required documentation must pay tax on that fuel at clear fuel tax rates. These purchasers may be eligible for a refund of the difference in the tax rate if they demonstrate that the coloured fuel was used solely for an authorized use.

In addition, the penalty for using coloured fuel for an unauthorized use is expanded. A person who purchases or uses coloured fuel for an unauthorized use may be subject to a penalty equal to the greater of the current penalty of three times the tax that would have been payable on the fuel if it had not been coloured and a new fixed amount penalty not to exceed $1,000.

The authorized uses of coloured fuel under the Motor Fuel Tax Act are expanded, effective July 1 of this year, to include coloured fuel to operate a locomotive.

[1530]

The Motor Fuel Tax Act is amended to move the due date for tax returns in respect of motor fuel tax payable on natural gas used in a stationary combustion engine to be consistent with the due date for returns under the Provincial Sales Tax Act.

Bill 10 also amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act effective February 18, 2015, to ensure consistency in that tax treatment of goods acquired to make other goods that are then used to improve real property outside of British Columbia. Again, technical provisions that I’m hopeful
[ Page 6885 ]
at least the opposition critic has had an opportunity to have reviewed with her in a technical briefing and that we can discuss in more detail when we get to the committee stage.

With these amendments, such goods will be taxable regardless of whether they are purchased in B.C. or if they are brought, sent or delivered into British Columbia.

A person may be eligible for a refund of PST paid if sales tax in another jurisdiction is paid on the resulting goods that are used to improve real property in the jurisdiction in which the real property is located.

Bill 10 also amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to extend mandatory registration obligations to businesses located outside of B.C. that in the ordinary course of business sell goods to a person located in B.C. and holds those goods in inventory in B.C. at the time of the sale.

Voluntary registrations will be accepted before September 1, 2015, and a person may be subject to failure to register penalties if they are not registered as required on or after September 1 of this year.

As previously announced, effective January 1, 2015, the Provincial Sales Tax Act is also amended to clarify the calculation of the multi-jurisdictional vehicle tax payable on commercial vehicles that are licensed under prorate. Consistent with the implementation of full reciprocity under the international registration plan, the multi-jurisdictional vehicle tax will be calculated using set travel ratios for new fleets and actual travel ratios for existing fleets.

Bill 10 further amends the Provincial Sales Tax Act to adjust the maximum allowable tax rate under the municipal and regional district tax program from 2 percent to 3 percent. The municipal and regional district tax is imposed on behalf of local governments and approved eligible entities to raise revenue primarily for local tourism, marketing programs and projects.

Local governments and approved eligible entities will be required to request an increase in the municipal and regional district tax rate in their community. The application requirements for such requests will be made available later this year.

Bill 10 amends the Tobacco Tax Act to clarify that security is payable on tobacco that a wholesale dealer brings or sends into B.C. The Tobacco Tax Act is also amended to ensure that the security scheme under the act designed to protect provincial revenues operates as intended.

Finally, in Bill 10 there are consequential amendments to the Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and the Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act. As I mentioned a few moments ago, most of these provisions actually are technical adjustments on existing provisions. Most relate — or a goodly portion of them relate — to initiatives that have been set out in the budget. To the extent that there are technical provisions and the questions regarding the manner in which they are intended to operate, I will be only too happy to try as best I can to answer those questions as we move through the committee stage debate.

Before we get there, however, I am certain that there are submissions and reactions to these provisions from members of the House.

C. James: Thank you to the minister for that overview. As we discussed on a previous bill, many of these, as the minister has said, are technical amendments coming forward. This really is the bill that implements the measures in the budget that require legislative changes.

As the minister has said, many of these are technical in nature. Certainly, Income Tax Act, Motor Fuel Act, etc., I think, are changes that, as we saw in a previous bill, will coordinate acts together and will deal with people who are doing business inside and outside the province and bring some consistency to that. Those will be pieces that I expect will go forward in committee stage without a lot of questions.

[1535]

Just as I talked about in a previous bill, I think it’s important to take a look at the bill and the impact on British Columbians, the impact on business, the impact on the economy and the impact on families themselves. That’s really the eye that I took when I took a look at the Budget Measures Implementation Act. What will be the impacts on British Columbians? What will be the impact on families? What will be the impact on our economy?

I just want to take a few minutes of my time to talk to the specifics that are in the bill — a few of those, as the minister has mentioned. Then I also want to take a few minutes to talk about what might have been in the bill — what isn’t included in this bill and could have been included in the bill and, from my perspective, would have made a much stronger budget and certainly a budget that I believe would have benefited families.

Just to start off and talk a little bit about what is in the bill. The government did introduce, as the minister has said in his remarks, a couple of tax credits in this bill. While I am sure that every family would say that every penny is appreciated, given the fees and services and the costs that families are facing
[ Page 6886 ]
that the government has forced on them, I would say they’re very little comfort to those families that are struggling.

If you take a look at the children’s fitness equipment tax credit as one example, this combines with a fitness tax credit at the federal level, and that will provide a benefit of up to $12.65 per child. When parents are taking a look at increases in MSP premiums and taking a look at increases in ICBC rates and taking a look at increases in hydro rates, they certainly can use every penny. I would be the first one to say that families deserve a break, that they deserve support.

But those pennies, up to $12.65, are going to be more than eaten up in increased costs that families are facing in the budget overall. You know, these are families that are working hard and trying to do everything for their family. They’re trying to squeeze their dollars.

Every parent knows that they want their children to be better off than they were. They want their generation to be better off than they are. And yet that’s not what we’re going to see in the bigger budget. The $12.65 isn’t going to go very far to help those families.

As I am sure other MLAs do in this House, I see those families in my office. I talk to those families who are struggling, who say yes, they want to make sure their child has every opportunity that every other family does in British Columbia. They of course want their child in sports. They of course would love to take the opportunity to be able to get a tax credit and have their child engaged in sports in the community.

But I have to say that $12.65 isn’t going to take them very far. I don’t think it takes much. If anyone’s been involved in sports and takes a look at the costs that families are facing in everything, every level of sport, never mind the equipment, the travel for many teams for local involvement…. Even for something as basic as soccer, which we think about as the sport that most kids can take part in, when you’re talking about buying a pair of cleats or when you’re talking about young children whose feet are changing sizes every six months in some cases, that’s a big expense for families.

Again, as I said, while $12.65, I’m sure, will be a support to families, I think it’s small comfort when you compare it to the $230 million-plus that the high-income earners in British Columbia ended up getting.

It seems to me that if you are a millionaire in British Columbia, you get a $17,000 tax break in the budget coming up. If you’re a hard-working parent trying to make sure that your child has an opportunity for sports, you get $12.65 — up to $12.65 per child. It certainly seems to me that there’s something skewed there and the priority is wrong when it comes to the direction that’s there.

[1540]

There’s also another example in this bill of a tax credit. That’s the B.C. education coaching tax credit. This tax credit provides a benefit for teachers and teaching assistants who carry out at least ten hours of extracurricular coaching activity per year.

Now, I want to take a minute just to recognize those hard-working coaches and teachers and teaching assistants who put in the extraordinary time and energy to be able to coach school teams, community teams that provide that extracurricular life that, for many kids, keeps them in school. As we know, there are many children for whom that’s their opportunity to engage in school. They’ll stay in school, even when they’re having some challenges, because they may be involved in an extracurricular sport. That’s really their passion.

As we know, teachers and teaching assistants and coaches don’t get paid for that extra time they put in, in schools. That’s their own time that they put in. It isn’t simply the few hours when a game happens. It’s the practices. It’s the weekends. It’s the following-up. It’s the trips that go on. Those are all extra hours that are put in. So I want to recognize all teachers who provide that extracurricular support.

This speaks to coaching activity, but I think, as we all know, there are drama teachers. There are music teachers. There are counsellors. There are very few teachers I know who don’t put in some time outside of school hours in extracurricular and other activities in the school to keep kids engaged in school. I think it’s important to recognize and acknowledge that extraordinary work that goes on in schools and the hours that teachers put in long beyond their school day.

Again, I’m sure that for those teachers and those teaching assistants and those coaches, every penny is appreciated, because they certainly put out a lot of their own resources to be able to do this kind of work. But with this tax benefit, with this credit, they’ll get a benefit of $25.30. Well, I can guarantee you that the coaches and the teachers and the teaching assistants who do that extracurricular work are putting out more than $25.30. They’re spending hundreds of dollars on supplies. They’re spending hundreds of dollars on trips and support for their students.

I think it’s important to do that comparison where the government did make choices in this bill. If we look at Bill 10, the government did make a choice to leave out extending the high-income tax credit, and I’ll speak a little more about that as I go on. They decided not to include that in the bill. As I said earlier, you will see those millionaires getting their $17,000 in a tax credit, and teachers and teaching assistants and coaches getting $25.30.

I think that sends a pretty clear message, and it’s not a positive one, from my perspective, about the priorities that we see on the other side, that there’s that challenge there for families.

The minister mentioned a change in the B.C. tax reduction credit, which from my perspective is a plus. I’m quite prepared to speak to when I believe something positive has occurred, whether it’s in the budget or anything else that comes forward. This is a change, as the minister mentioned, that reduces the income tax liability for those who make $19,000 or less. It reduces it by $432 and also changes the threshold around where people pay income tax from $18,327 to $19,000, which means that people can earn a little bit more before the credit phases out. A small plus, but a plus nonetheless.

As I said, I believe it’s important to recognize when there are things that are pluses, and I believe this is a plus in the budget. It’s small in comparison, I have to say, to the $230 million. If you look at how much money went into this change and the threshold change, compared to the money that was given to the top 2 percent in British Columbia, that’s a big difference. That number is a very big difference. I think it’s important to acknowledge that.
[ Page 6887 ]

There are, as the minister had mentioned, some business tax credits. I know we’ll have a few others on this side of the House speak to those. The digital media sector is a direction that we support, extending that tax credit for three years to August 2018, and the digital animation or visual effects tax credit is expanded to include post-production activities.

[1545]

These are both very positive steps, industries that we certainly support in this province — that give back to us in British Columbia and that provide opportunities for all of us when it comes to economic growth, when it comes to good-paying jobs, green jobs in our province. So these are positive steps.

I do think it’s important again, though, to note that while it’s great to see the extension and the expansion of these credits, it does not make a plan for a sector. While we’ve seen the government focused on LNG and LNG alone for the last number of years, there is a real worry that industries that have provided long-term support for British Columbia have not received the kind of attention they should have.

Whether we’re talking about the digital sector, whether we’re talking about the high-tech sector, whether we’re talking about mining or forestry, those are industries that have, long term, provided support to our province. They’re here now, not in the future, as we talk about with LNG. They’re here now and, I believe, haven’t been getting the kind of support that they should have as industries, have not been getting the kind of attention from government that they should have.

As I said, while I’m pleased to see those changes and those credits extended, it doesn’t provide the opportunity for a real plan to support diversifying our economy and support all of those industries that have contributed to British Columbia.

The changes to the Tobacco Tax Act, as the minister had mentioned, and the Provincial Sales Tax Act are minor and pretty straightforward coordinating acts. We see, as well, the B.C. training tax credit extended. Again, I know there will be others on our side who will be speaking to these specifically, but that is certainly something that we would support.

Extra support for apprenticeship and trades training is something that we’ve long advocated for and felt was a real gap in the Premier’s jobs plan, where the Premier talked a lot about creating jobs and didn’t talk a lot about providing support for apprenticeship and trades training and, in fact, cut post-secondary budgets instead of looking at providing that support.

I think this is an interesting area. When I was on school board, it was an area in the 1990s where it was an education program to really show parents and to show students the opportunities that were there in the trades.

I think many of us as parents came through the system when it was expected that you’d talk to your child about going to university — that it was their future, that it was important to go to university and to get a degree. There was a lot of work being done to convince parents and to convince students that trades apprenticeships were a real opportunity for their student.

I think that education work has really paid off. Certainly, the students and the parents that I talk to see the huge opportunities that are there in the apprenticeship and trades area, the skills that are needed, the work that needs to be done to move into those areas. I find it a bit ironic that once that work’s done now, it’s tougher for students to be able to access the trades, to be able to get their apprenticeship, to be able to do that kind of work.

While the credit is certainly helpful and is certainly something that, as I said, we support, I certainly think that a more thorough plan…. We’ve had a few lost years, in my opinion, and I think that’s unfortunate for our economy. It’s unfortunate for students and parents as well.

Now I just want to take a minute to talk about what’s not in this bill. I think that’s one of the most important pieces. It seems odd to focus on a piece that’s not in the bill, but if you take a look at a bill that looks at tax measures and implementing tax measures, I think an obvious piece that could have been included in this bill was to extend the income tax charge for the top 2 percent income earners in our province. That’s something that expires at the end of 2015 and certainly could have been included in this tax measures bill as an extension over this year.

[1550]

While I’ve heard the minister say that they’re not implementing a tax break for high-income earners — I’ve heard the minister say that it’s simply the expiry of a surcharge, or of a charge on high-income earners — I think whatever way you look at it, the government made a choice. The government made a choice not to continue on with that tax increase for high-income earners and to basically give the top 2 percent a tax break.

It’s not that it couldn’t be done, because in fact there were tax measures extended in this very bill. In this very bill the area of mining, the area of digital, as we mentioned before, and the area of apprenticeship and trades training have been extended. Those measures have been extended. So the government could have made a choice. They could have made a choice, in fact, to extend the tax on high-income earners as well.

But the government didn’t do that. It decided instead that it would find $230 million to fund that tax cut for the top 2 percent earners and, at the same time, continue on with the increases for families — MSP, hydro, tuition, ICBC, parks, ferry fares. A choice — a wrong choice from my point of view, a wrong direction from my point of view and certainly not support for families.

I think it wasn’t that long ago that we heard the Premier still talking about a families-first agenda. Well, this budget certainly put to rest any direction around families first that came forward from this Premier when that’s the
[ Page 6888 ]
choice. I guess it’s only certain families that are the choice. I guess it’s only the top 2 percent income earners’ families that are the choice. It’s certainly not a choice for other families in this budget. It’s a choice for that top 2 percent.

I think that if you look at the reality for families in our province, it’s very clear that we’ve got huge challenges. At a time when other jurisdictions are taking a look at how to support the middle class, how to increase the middle class — knowing that that’s not simply good for those families but, in fact, is good for the economy, is good for all families — we’re seeing the opposite happen in British Columbia.

Statistics Canada put out some data that showed that between 2006 and 2012 British Columbia experienced the worst income growth of any province in Canada. Income here in British Columbia actually declined for families. Wages actually fell by 2.4 percent.

So at a time when the government is making choices in their budget and bringing forward a bill that speaks to implementing a budget, it’s clear that they weren’t looking at statistics for families, average families in British Columbia. The numbers are particularly bleak, as I’m sure people would understand, in B.C. cities. In Metro Vancouver we saw incomes fall by 3 percent, in Victoria by 4.8 percent and in Abbotsford by 5.1 percent.

This really is a statistic that needs to be paid attention to, because what it’s showing is that families are falling further and further behind. We know that. We hear that from people every single day. We hear that people are struggling to get paycheque to paycheque, that it’s not easy to get by right now.

We also have the highest level of wealth inequality in Canada. We have the highest level of market income inequality. As I said, when jurisdictions around the world are looking at how we support a strong middle class, here in British Columbia we’re going in the opposite direction. This bill, in fact, goes in the opposite direction as well.

Very tough for young people to get ahead. Vancouver ranks last among ten metropolitan cities when it comes to median incomes for those between the ages of 25 and 35 with a bachelor’s degree or greater. These are individuals, again, who have gone to school, who have got the degree, who wanted to better themselves and who are still struggling.

British Columbians have the worst worry about retirement security. Again, I think that points to the challenges that families are facing. I haven’t even spoken to what the most vulnerable face in British Columbia, the poverty rates in our province, the struggles that families have to get by, the number of children living in poverty. I think it’s always important to remind people that over half of the children living in poverty have one or more parent who is employed.

[1555]

We are not simply talking about people struggling on income assistance, although there are those individuals, many of them — most of them, all of them — who are struggling on income assistance rates or people who are living with disabilities who are facing huge challenges. But there’s also a large portion of families who are living in poverty who are employed. I think, again, that speaks to the wrong direction that this government has gone.

While families are struggling to get by, while we see slow economic growth, slow job growth, slow income growth on wages, what does the government decide to set as a priority? They decide to set, as a priority, not including in this budget a continued tax increase for those at the top 2 percent. They decide instead that families are the ones who are going to have things made more difficult for them.

I think it’s important, again, to acknowledge that many of the increases that families are facing are not included in the budget. You will not see MSP premiums in this bill. They are not included as a measure that comes forward in this bill. But as everyone knows, we’ve seen them increase 92 percent under this government, and they’re going to continue to increase by 4 percent each year.

B.C. Hydro — 74 percent since 2001, going up 28 percent over the next five years. That impacts not simply families who are struggling to get by but businesses. That impacts industries, including industries like the mining industry, who face huge increases when it comes to hydro rates. B.C. Hydro used to be one of our competitive advantages in this province. It was an opportunity for us to attract investment here in British Columbia. Instead, now we’re seeing businesses that are struggling because of that. And there’s nothing in this budget that will address that unfairness.

We will have questions specifically on various parts of this bill as we get to committee stage. But I think it’s important, as I said at the beginning, to take a look at legislation that comes forward, particularly budget legislation because it really speaks to a government’s direction, a government’s choice, what they see as important and what they don’t. It’s why I take a look at bills and say: what’s included and what isn’t?

In this bill, I certainly believe that if the government had continued with the tax increase for the top 2 percent income earners, $230 million, and had looked at giving average families — hard-working British Columbians, middle-class families — a break, I think British Columbia would have been better off, and families certainly would have been better off.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I know we have other colleagues who wish to speak.

S. Simpson: I’m pleased to join this debate around the Budget Measures Implementation Act, Bill 10, with a few comments.

Just as the previous speaker said, budgets more than anything are about choices. They’re about government’s choices, they’re about government’s priorities, and that
[ Page 6889 ]
gets reflected in the budget process and in the presentation of the budget. Part of those choices and part of that gets reflected, in this case, in this piece of legislation, in Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act — a piece of legislation that addresses a whole series of tax-related measures that the government requires in order to fulfil the budget.

As the previous speaker has said, the reality, though, about budget measures and about this particular piece of legislation is it becomes a question of choices. It becomes a question of what choices government chooses to make. We see in this legislation that the government has made a number of those. They have extended a number of credits. They have taken a number of initiatives that were in previous budgets that were intended to expire at some point and chosen to extend those for policy reasons of the government.

We’ve seen the extension of the B.C. training tax credit for an additional three years. That’s something that I’ll speak about a little bit more specifically in a few minutes. It has been extended out to the end of 2017. The B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit — extended for another year. The B.C. interactive digital media tax credit — for an additional three years, through to the end of August 2018. And the government has extended the small business venture capital tax credit for qualifying new corporations for one additional year.

These are all examples of things that the government chose, where the government chose to make extensions around tax policy and to continue with tax measures that were in place previously that were intended to expire.

[1600]

In the making of those choices, you have to ask yourself: what are the most fundamental of those? Those sometimes are the things that probably best demonstrate the government’s thinking, the government’s priorities and the government’s desire.

I think that as this side would say — you’re going to hear this, I suspect, a little bit in debate around this, and you may hear this in committee stage as well — for us, probably the most telling thing about Bill 10 is the choice that wasn’t made. That choice that was not made was to extend the tax rate for the top 2 percent of earners, for those earning over $150,000 a year — the decision not to extend that. That’s 2 percent of earners.

The cost of not extending that, a tax rate that will expire and revert back at the end of the calendar year, is about $236 million. That was a choice that was made, a choice to not do that, and it was something that could very well have been included in Bill 10, had the government made the decision that extending that particular tax made sense.

Of course, the result of that is a significant revenue loss, $236 million, revenue that could have been used to create opportunities for those who are probably more in need of that money than the top 2 percent. As an example, of course — and we’ve talked about this before — if you earn $1 million, it would be a $17,000 tax break that you get. A $17,000 tax break — that’s almost, within $3,000 or $4,000, a minimum-wage earner’s full-time wage for a year. That’s the tax break that we see there. That could have been extended. It could have been continued.

We didn’t hear…. Maybe the government did. Maybe the Minister of Finance did. Maybe the Premier did. But we certainly didn’t hear people who are at the higher end, who fall into that 2 percent, clamouring for that tax break. Everybody likes a tax break. Nobody wants to pay more taxes than necessary, but I think that many of those people understood that they were in a position where they were getting by just fine.

There are a lot of people in British Columbia who can’t say the same thing, a lot of people in British Columbia who are facing significant challenges. They’re people who, instead of getting that tax break or something that would have worked for them…. We know that, in fact, in the budget there were about $700 million of increased fees and costs in services that essentially apply to everybody. It is the middle class, primarily, who are going to wear that and bear the brunt of that — about $700 million.

[D. Horne in the chair.]

I think that when British Columbians look at choices — and the Budget Measures Implementation Act is a reflection of choices — they say the government chose to give the top 2 percent of earners a $236 million break that they didn’t ask for and instead hit everybody else with $700 million of additional fees and charges in services.

I suspect most people don’t see the fairness in that. They don’t see the balance in that. They don’t see a government that’s trying to create opportunity for them as hard-working middle-class British Columbians. There’s a frustration level around that that I’m guessing members on the other side have heard about from constituents and will continue to hear about as times get tougher.

They are getting tougher, and we know that’s reflected in the challenge around pay packets. As my colleague, the Finance spokesperson, said, wages are flat. Pay packets are flat in this province. They have been flat for a long, long time. People are falling behind. Their pay packet is not keeping up with increased cost pressures. It gets a little tougher all the time.

It becomes hard for them when they see what isn’t in this bill that suggests a problem. I think that that’s a discussion that we will continue to have over the next couple of years. It’s a discussion that is about priorities, and the government has clearly demonstrated its priorities.

I want to talk, just from my critic responsibilities around skills training, about one specific tax credit that is in this bill. It’s one that we certainly support. It’s the B.C. training tax credit, which is being extended for an additional three years. What that tax credit does is pro-
[ Page 6890 ]
vides support, both for employers and for apprentices. It provides that support in the form of tax credits for both.

[1605]

In the case, for example, of an employer, the completion tax credit at levels 3, 4 and 5 could be as much as 15 percent of eligible salary and wages, up to $2,500; in level 4, up to $3,000 or 15 percent; and in level 5, also up to $3,000 or 15 percent of eligible salary and wages.

There also are credits for apprentices, credits that allow apprentices who are involved in both Red Seal and non–Red Seal programs to get additional credit support, ranging generally from about $1,000 to $3,000, depending on the situation you’re in.

Those are all good things, and they’re a good thing at a time when we’re facing significant challenges around skills training. The biggest challenge that we’re seeing is, in fact, at the apprenticeship level, and it is the job placements. It’s very, very difficult right now. We’re not seeing the job placements that allow people to complete their apprenticeships.

These tax credits…. I’m looking forward, maybe in committee stage, to having some discussion with the Finance Minister about how well we are doing — or not doing, in this case — in being able to find those apprenticeship placements, those job placements, that allow people who are looking to do what the Premier said she wanted, which is to ramp up their skills, to become qualified to take advantage of opportunities that are in front of us and opportunities that may come in the future — including, as has been pointed out, what is going to be, as our population ages, the loss of a significant number of workers who will simply age out and head into retirement.

We know that this is problematic. In a piece in the media on the 20th of March of this year Gary Herman, who’s the chief executive officer of the Industry Training Authority, the authority that’s responsible through government for delivering the apprenticeship program, largely…. What Mr. Herman said was that there are three ways to get journeymen, skilled tradespeople. “You can grow your own, you poach from others, or you import foreign workers, which is poaching abroad.” Herman said that employers need to step up now. “A tsunami is coming.”

The government has talked before about the million jobs. What we know is that about 70 percent of those jobs, a little under 70 percent, are going to be retirees. Those retirements are starting, and we’re not there in any way, shape or form to train people for this.

Part of the challenge we face now, of course — and I think we’re starting to see this — is because of the situation around oil prices, the meltdown of the Alberta economy and the impacts that has on the oil sands. The reality is that a lot of people who left British Columbia to go to work in the oil sands because there was money to be made are coming home. They’re coming home because those opportunities aren’t there anymore. They’re coming home now, and they’re bringing some skills with them.

You’re going to find those employers — those employers that we need to engage in the apprenticeship process, those employers that we need to be wooing with the training tax credit that’s in this bill — not finding that to be a package that they’re incented by — not enough.

So we have this challenge where we know that we’re not getting spots. Young people are going to school and then not being able to fulfil those apprentices because they can’t get a job. Employers are just not seeing the benefit here and are choosing not to participate in a meaningful way.

We need to find a way — maybe it’s the carrot; maybe it’s a stick; maybe it’s a combination of both; often it is — to get employers into the game.

But of course, the thing we know…. We wouldn’t be having to give these employers, necessarily, the same break. We might, but that’s a conversation…. The thing we know is if you want to get private sector employers to do this, then the government has to step up itself. We have not seen that.

The Minister of Jobs has mused a little bit about whether the government should take some action. We’ll see whether that comes at some point in the future. But today the government of British Columbia, most of the public service, offers very, very little in the way of direct government apprenticeships. B.C. Hydro — maybe a couple of hundred. Lucky if there’s a couple of hundred in the rest of the public service in its entirety. So we’re not creating those opportunities.

[1610]

We know the government…. We’re spending record amounts of money on capital projects. Maybe with money cheap, that might not be a bad idea. But we’re spending billions of billions of dollars on capital projects, and we’re not requiring any of those people bidding on those projects — any of those companies that want to build the projects for us with taxpayer dollars — to put apprentices in place.

We’re not saying to any of those businesses: “This is part of the deal. If you want to bid on this work, you’ve got to have a competitive price, but you’ve got to have an apprenticeship strategy as well so that we know we’re going to train some young people. Part of the social benefit of the fact that this is a publicly funded project is that in fact you’re going to have an apprenticeship strategy and apprenticeship plan, or we’re not going to see your bid.”

That wouldn’t be that hard to do, and companies would do it. They would step up. They would be prepared to do it — most companies. When you talk to companies around this, their biggest challenge is wanting to make sure it’s a level playing field and everybody is treated the same way. We can do that on public projects.

As I said, the minister responsible for Jobs and Skills Training has indicated that she gets it. She understands the problem, but understanding the problem and com-
[ Page 6891 ]
ing up with a solution are two entirely different things. To this point, we have not seen a solution. We have not had any indication that there is a solution coming shortly and what the scope of that is. This is a problem, and it’s a problem that has to get fixed.

When we even look at, and we know the debate that’s ongoing now…. We saw the Premier reverse decisions that B.C. Hydro made about their new structure, around how they’re going to generate a workforce for Site C, should that go forward, and what they’re going to do to generate the workforce, a workforce that in the past under the hydro allied agreement would have been, essentially, a project labour agreement, and we could’ve ensured, under that agreement, numbers of apprentices.

There’s not an indication here that we’re going to get an assurance at all now on what is arguably and, people say, the biggest capital investment project this province maybe will ever see, certainly, to this point in time. But we don’t have those guarantees on what that’s going to look like.

I’m looking forward to having that conversation with the minister in committee stage about the effectiveness of that tax credit. The tax credit is a good idea, but I don’t believe it’s accomplishing the objective.

I’ll be very interested for the minister to talk about how he believes, as the Finance Minister, as the person responsible on the money side for trying to create the proper incentives, that this particular credit is effective. Are there other measures that could complement the training tax credit that he sees, as Minister of Finance, to be able to support accomplishing the objectives that I believe the training tax credit was intended to do and is not achieving?

That is, to put more people into apprenticeships, to have more employers step up and say, “We’re prepared to invest, and we’re prepared to take young people. We’re prepared to look at some of those First Nations and aboriginal people who want to train. Some of those reserves and some of those bands that have unemployment rates of 60, 70, 80 percent…. We’re going to help ensure that there are opportunities to take people from there, give them the skill set they need to get good jobs and then be able to take those paycheques back into their community to support and invest in their own communities.” That’s not going to happen if we don’t find a way to deal with this dramatic problem around placements and apprentices.

One step, one piece of that, is the B.C. training tax credit, but it’s not one that’s accomplishing the objective today. We need to figure out how to get to that. I look forward, when we get to that point in committee stage, to getting the minister’s views on that and seeing what the minister has to say. The Minister of Finance is obviously a pretty important person in the decisions of this government and how it moves forward and what those choices are.

As I said before, it’s always a case of choices. It’s always a case of options and priorities. We haven’t seen that from the government at this point on some key measures. We talked about the tax break for the top 2 percent of earners, and we’re also seeing that with some of these other challenges.

I look forward to committee stage. I look forward to the opportunity to ask some questions about this, and I look forward to having the minister explain some of his priorities and some of his choices as they’re reflected in Bill 10.

[1615]

R. Fleming: I want to take my place in the debate on Bill 10 this afternoon, following on what we just heard from the member for Vancouver-Hastings and also the Finance critic for the opposition, the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill. She had a much wide-ranging overview of this bill and placed it in the context of a misguided budget that we have only begun months of debate on here in the Legislature but are well into debate on the philosophical wrongs of that budget.

I may wander into that territory myself this afternoon, but I also want to spend time on a specific section of Bill 10 here at second reading. That is, in fact, section 10 of the bill, which introduces a new tax credit for teachers who are also coaches in our school system. On the surface of it, this tax credit for teachers who volunteer as coaches and do extracurricular activities that are related to sports sounds like it has some merit.

Certainly, the public — parents and students and everybody associated with the school system — understands that without student coaches, there’d be no sport systems at all. The volunteerism on behalf of half a million kids that are in our school system is appreciated by parents and everybody involved within the public education system.

But having said that, I think this bill is trying to attach itself to a sentiment of widespread appreciation for what in fact keeps the school system running and the immense sacrifices and voluntary time commitments that teachers make week in, week out in our school system. It’s trying to attach the bill, this tax credit program, to the sentiment of appreciation for that but in fact winds up being an insult to those who do the coaching so that our kids can achieve their best in the school system.

Why is it an insult? Well, I think a tax credit like this, first of all, suffers when it doesn’t even consult the profession to which it is supposed to benefit. Professional teachers in British Columbia were not consulted by the Minister of Finance. They were not consulted by the Minister of Education. They weren’t consulted by anybody in this government prior to the introduction of this paltry — as we will see — tokenistic tax credit.

That’s why this tax program is so poorly designed. It didn’t benefit from getting the feedback from the teach-
[ Page 6892 ]
ing profession. It’s supposed to be a big pat on the back to say: “Thanks for coaching our kids and making them healthy. We recognize that you’re making a contribution to combatting obesity and rising diabetes rates.” There are all kinds of public good associated with recognizing the teaching profession through a tax credit. But when you don’t even engage the teaching profession in its design, you end up with a ridiculous tax credit program, which is part of Bill 10 — section 10 of the bill, for those following along at home.

Why do I say it’s an insulting amount? Well, I’ll let other people judge here. If you know a teacher who is involved in sports programs at school, you’ll know how many hours a week are required for practising, competitions, regular games, year-end tournaments. Most coaches are not involved in just one sport but several. Teachers spend a considerable amount of after-school time doing this.

Now, what does this tax credit give as a monetary value? This is a tax credit. It has to give a monetary value. It’s putting a market rate, the Finance Minister’s judgment, of what this is worth on an annual basis to a teacher: $25.30. Twenty-five bucks.

I think what the government is trying to acknowledge or defuse is that British Columbians understand — especially after the most disastrous, longest school disruption in B.C. history, for five months. British Columbians understand like they never have before how much out-of-pocket expenses are completely uncompensated by tax credits, let alone the budget for education and school boards.

[1620]

They understand that teachers are out of pocket not just for sports equipment, although that is one item that many teachers choose to pay for because the school district is just not going to procure the supplies that they need. There’s no money for that. It’s for all sorts of things — visual learning tools, school supplies.

Check the Yellow Pages in your community. There are stores that cater to teachers. They know there’s a huge market for tens of thousands of teachers who have to go and shop and buy specialized education items to provide in their school because their district doesn’t do that. So we know this is a widespread problem.

There are no tax credits federally or provincially anywhere that recognize that teachers need their own computer to keep tabs on their students, to record marking. There are no tax credits for any of the supplies that are involved in the school system.

There are plenty of estimates that have been done about how much a teacher typically is out of pocket. One of them I will quote is somewhat old, but this will actually give you an idea of how much teachers are typically out of pocket. This is a 2002 analysis of different salaries in different professions by the Globe and Mail, which showed that most Canadian teachers in that year who have bachelor’s degrees earned somewhere between $33,000 and $55,000. None of that salary, of course, is tax-free, which is available to other professions.

Out-of-pocket expenses. This is 2002.

Interjection.

R. Fleming: I hear a mumble over there from the member from Surrey. How is the low-hanging fruit going out in the cuts to the Surrey school board?

Out-of-pocket expenses are considerable for Canadian teachers. In 2002 numbers the average in Canada was $430 for a Canadian teacher. In that year the average for a B.C. teacher was $1,095 out of pocket for a teacher. In that year the rate of leaving for new teachers from the profession in British Columbia was 40 percent. That wasn’t necessarily the major cause but a contributing cause, nonetheless.

In 2012, $1,095. I think it is safe to say — given that there are so many areas that were once core to the public education budget and that there are so many things that used to be funded in the school district budget envelope that are no longer the case — that figure, $1,095 a year out-of-pocket expenses for a teacher, is low in the year 2015.

What is the government trying to do by providing a $25 tax credit per year? Are they trying to make some kind of partial acknowledgment that teachers typically are at least 1,000 bucks out of pocket — maybe in some cases significantly more? If that’s the intent of this tax credit program, it’s a drop in the bucket, to say the least.

When I earlier mentioned that this tax credit program doesn’t benefit from having consulted the teaching profession, I think an obvious question is: why is this just aimed at coaching? There are so many other extracurricular voluntary activities that involve hundreds of hours of teachers’ time annually that benefit our kids’ intellectual, social and physical development that will be ineligible for a tax credit.

This tax credit will not apply to those that volunteer to teach kids theatre or dance or other sorts of programs — breakfast programs, for example, which are critical to children’s development. Anyone who volunteers hours — dozens, hundreds of hours to those programs…. No tax credit applicable here, not even the cheap $25 tax credit that is supposed to go towards coaches. Multicultural club volunteers that are teachers. Gay-straight alliances. Environmental stewardship. Outdoors clubs. None of those voluntary activities — which, again, involve dozens if not hundreds of hours of teacher supervision time during and after school — will be eligible for this paltry $25 credit.

[1625]

The scope of the thing is ridiculously narrow. I think the point really is that…. Is something that is done so poorly as this tax credit program really worth doing at all?
[ Page 6893 ]

The teaching profession, as I mentioned, wasn’t consulted, but there was a debate recently at the Teachers Federation annual general meeting on this. The debate resulted, I believe, in a unanimous resolution rejecting this program. It rejected it because the teaching profession wasn’t consulted at all about it, and teachers had other ideas.

It’s a system that now in British Columbia is famously underfunded in Confederation, where British Columbia ranks ninth in per-pupil funding in Canada, where there are so many activities and necessary resources for classroom learning that simply aren’t paid for anymore. But government can create a boutique, new tax credit program while ignoring all of these other unmet, unfunded needs in the education system? What’s the point? The program is going to be a failure in that regard.

Let’s look at the $25.30 that a teacher can apply for annually, the maximum amount. What is that per month? Two dollars and something cents. What is that per hour? I mean, I know the government betrayed every family that relies on a minimum-wage salary the other week by giving a paltry 20-cent-per-hour raise to those hundreds of thousands of wage earners in British Columbia who deserved and expected more from this government. This is on a par with that kind of insult to professional teachers.

It has to be put into a context too. I mean, without any notice, just a few months ago this government made a $9 million cut that pulled up the opportunity ladder for students who had left the high school system, had not completed their Dogwood certificates or lacked some of the required courses to get into advanced education — in other words, people who are struggling, who are looking to get ahead and be able to qualify for a post-secondary education, which is pretty essential in the labour market in 21st-century British Columbia.

So $9 million was cut from those students, who would then get a better life, get a better education and pay taxes back to the province of British Columbia to build a more prosperous province. That rung of opportunity that used to exist was reduced for the sake of a $9 million cut. And we’re looking at boutique tax programs? The government can afford those kinds of things?

Now, I would echo, at this point in my remarks, what the Finance critic said. I think the number one priority — one of the biggest spends in this budget, which overshadows everything else — is a $230 million tax cut for the top 2 percent of income tax filers in British Columbia, at a time when none of them were asking for it and don’t need it, in the context of all the other needs in British Columbia, in the context of the inequality problem that we have in this province, which is an economic drag on B.C. in the short term, medium term and long term in particular.

There’s $230 million for the top 2 percent when our kids in public education, hundreds of thousands of them, have to wait two years in some cases, in some cases three years, to get a learning assessment to see whether they have impediments and barriers to various skills that they need to learn, to see whether they need an individual education plan that will help them succeed in school.

These are daily facts of life in British Columbia’s school system. We have no money for that, apparently, from the B.C. Liberal budget, but we have $230 million per year — that’s three-quarters of a billion dollars over the next three fiscal years — in the service plan of this budget for that sort of thing? I think that says it all, Mr. Speaker.

What we have here in section 10 is a tax credit program that does almost nothing except insult teachers by offering $25.30, putting an economic price on their hundreds of hours of voluntary activity, in a profession they do for love, not for money, that is for certain — $25.30 to every teacher.

[1630]

It doesn’t matter if you’re a teacher on call who earns an average of $19,000 in the province of British Columbia. You have to pay mandatory professional fees to the College of Teachers that are in excess of $1,000 a year — teachers who are out of pocket at least $1,100 every year. Those are 2002 figures. I’m sorry. Those are the best I have available. Teachers who pay thousands of dollars to resource their classroom to make sure it has books, paper and learning tools for our students will get no tax credit. They’re out of the scope of this ridiculous $25.30 gimmick the government argues.

I have to say at this stage in debate on Bill 10 that for a government that has done almost everything it could to alienate, insult and agitate the teaching profession in B.C., whether it’s through their audacious violations of the constitution over the last ten years — which, cumulatively, are before the Court of Appeal yet again; it drags on and on and on — or whether it’s through this government’s record of conflict with the teaching profession, which has produced the longest school shutdown in the province of British Columbia’s history, over two school years, the longest in history, disruption in students’ and parents’ lives….

All of that has to be considered in the context of this ridiculous, paltry, insulting program that’s introduced. This is the latest in a long string of insults to the teaching profession.

There’s a cost to that too. The Minister of Education knows that there’s a cost to that too. He and others in his government on the civil service side like to talk about reforming public education, like to talk about how we can drive better results. That’s a good sentiment to have. Those are the right aspirations. But you notice that the jurisdictions that have done that around the world the best….

There’s one common denominator about how you get better outcomes for students, including graduation rates. Whether it’s on international test scores or whether it’s on other measures of creativity and the kinds of citizens
[ Page 6894 ]
you are creating from your education system, there’s one common denominator about how you achieve that, how you drive better performance and results. It’s how you treat the teaching profession.

Where countries like Finland or South Korea or other places that are economic powerhouses and making record investments in education…. Where you have that, they are making the teaching profession and the autonomy of the teaching profession — the skills and the continual training of the teaching profession and a respect for the teaching profession…. That is how they achieve those things. In British Columbia what we have seen over the last decade and more now is the exact opposite — insult after insult after insult and conflict, conflict, conflict, especially from this Premier.

And now we have a boutique tax program that is basically a joke, that fails to recognize the comprehensive range of activities of volunteerism that teachers provide and compensates a narrow group. Coaches are essential to the physical development of our kids and extremely valued, but they put a monetary price of 25 bucks on that per year. What a joke, Mr. Speaker.

I will take my place in this debate and thank you for the opportunity to speak to this bill at this time.

D. Eby: It’s my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill 10 today. There are two particular sections that I’ll confine my remarks to. One is section 50 of this bill, and the other is section 77.

These two sections of the bill are linked. Section 50 is striking out a section of the Income Tax Act that relates to the hotel room tax in the province, increasing the potential tax that can be charged on hotel rooms from 2 percent to 3 percent. Section 77 relates to the Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act, and it repeals it. This was an act that was brought in to help pay for the convention centre. It was the idea that hotels in Vancouver would pitch in through a special levy to help pay for the convention centre.

I’m going to start these remarks by starting back from the history of this. The government decided that they were going to build a new convention centre in downtown Vancouver on the waterfront. Many people in the gallery today and watching at home, I’m sure, will have seen the building. It’s a beautiful building, a very expensive building — almost $1 billion.

[1635]

As the costs escalated, as it went over budget and became incredibly expensive, government wanted other people to help to pay for it. They approached the tourism association in Vancouver and said, “Can you help pay?” and they said: “Yes, we’ll kick in $90 million to help to pay for this project.”

They entered into an agreement with the government, which everyone is at pains not to call a loan so as to make sure that it doesn’t appear on the books as a loan. It has all the effect of a loan. It’s got an interest rate. It’s for $90 million, and there are repayments made by Tourism Vancouver to the government under this agreement.

The agreement has an interest rate of 6.1 percent compounded monthly for $90 million. After the first number of years there was an increasing and increasing level of the hotel room tax that was paid towards — that is paid towards — paying down this debt.

You’d say: “That seems really reasonable.” Hotels are benefiting from conventions coming to be at the convention centre. There are more room bookings. Surely, they see a lot of reason, a lot of good sense, in pitching some portion of the room revenue towards contributing to the cost of this facility.

Well, the impact for Tourism Vancouver has been quite dramatic. The math on this works out that although they’ve made debt payments now of well over $6 million, the debt hasn’t gone down. The debt has continued to climb.

In 2010 the debt was $97 million. It was $7 million more than was originally borrowed. In 2011 it was $101 million. In 2012 it was $106 million. In 2013 — a $109 million debt. These are increases of between $1.4 million and $1.9 million in debt owed by Tourism Vancouver to the provincial government each year.

The problem was that the revenue from the hotel room tax wasn’t keeping up with the increase in the debt due to the interest. They were taking in revenue from the hotel room tax and pitching it over to the provincial government in increasing amounts, and yet the debt continued to climb.

In fact, the government now, through this agreement with Tourism Vancouver, obliges them to pay 37.5 percent of that hotel room tax to them in the form of debt repayment. That’s going to be a debt repayment of, it looks like, close to $3.7 million for this small tourism organization in Vancouver.

I have to tell you, hon. Speaker, there was a lot of disappointment this New Year’s in Vancouver. There was a group that had put forward a proposal for a New Year’s celebration in downtown Vancouver, and they were canvassing for sponsors. “Is there somebody who can pitch in money to help us do a New Year’s celebration? Lots of big cities have big New Year’s celebrations. Why doesn’t Vancouver?”

They approached a lot of corporate sponsors, and they got some corporate sponsorship money, and they got sponsorship money from various foundations and other places, and they were short. They were short the amount of money they needed to put that on. I think the number was $100,000, but they couldn’t make it up.

It’s exactly the kind of thing that this hotel room tax was supposed to pay for but couldn’t pay for because it was being directed to the provincial government in the form of debt repayments on a debt that will never be repaid.
[ Page 6895 ]

When I see section 50 of Bill 10 saying we’re going to increase the hotel room tax from 2 percent to 3 percent, what I read is: this government is going to take 37.5 percent of that increase away from Tourism Vancouver in order to pay down that debt. I know they don’t want to call it a debt, but that’s exactly what it is, and that’s how it’s operating.

Not only is the government increasing the hotel room tax, but they’ll also be clawing that back into general revenue through this agreement. So when you read that the Vancouver Tourism Levy Enabling Act is repealed — this agreement that the downtown hotels would be paying as a group for this facility that brings them some benefit — what you should read is that although that’s being repealed, it’s being replaced with a broad hotel room tax that every hotel operator in Vancouver pays, of which 37½ percent will be going directly into general revenue for this government instead of into tourism promoting initiatives.

I’ve got no qualm with Tourism Vancouver paying back the money that they said they’d contribute to the convention centre. But paying back at 6.1 percent compounded monthly, when this government borrows money at — what do they borrow money at? — 4 percent, this government is actually making money on this and increasing the hotel room tax that’s supposed to be for tourism and sending that money right into general revenue.

[1640]

To call it a hotel room tax to promote tourism in those kinds of circumstances is a bit confusing, I guess, to put the best possible spin on that.

I hope this government addresses the ever-increasing debt at Tourism Vancouver. I hope they help them out of this debt so that they can do what they were meant to do, like put New Year’s celebrations on in downtown Vancouver. But simply increasing the hotel room tax is not going to address that issue. And this bill is not going to address the issue in downtown Vancouver of a tourism association that faces a debt now of well over $100 million, years after agreeing to pay $90 million to this government.

It’s a lot like student debt that way — students paying more interest than this government borrows it at, and a lifetime of debt ahead of them. The same thing for Tourism Vancouver and downtown Vancouver.

Those are my remarks with respect to those sections of Bill 10.

G. Heyman: I rise to speak to some particular aspects of Bill 10 as they pertain to some actions taken by this government in this budget that have to do with economic activity in some of our most important sectors in British Columbia.

Let me begin by saying that like others in our caucus and like people I’ve met who work in the interactive digital media industry…. They are pleased to see the extension of the interactive digital media tax credit for a further three years. I know from a number of conversations that I had that they were concerned about whether it would expire this year. They think it’s an important part of their business model and does impact both economic growth and jobs in British Columbia. So we’re pleased to see that tax credit extended.

Although I have to say…. I perhaps will question the minister during estimates why this is if not an eleventh-hour decision at least an eleventh-hour announcement. Certainly, the minister would agree with me that industries need a bit of a longer time horizon to plan for what they see coming at them, whether it’s the inclusion of tax credits or the expiry of tax credits.

They now know they have three years of certainty with respect to this tax credit. They did, in fact, I know, as the minister knows, seek to have it expanded, but I’m sure that they are pleased to see it continued, at the very least.

Perhaps the minister can share his thinking at some future time about why they had to wait right up to the verge of the expiry date to know that they would have certainty. Clearly, the answer can’t be that this must be an annual decision, because we have a three-year extension. In any event, it is good news for the industry, and it’s good news for young British Columbians who are employed in the industry and others who are thinking about being employed in this industry that has been growing substantially over the last while.

In a similar vein, I think the keeping of this government’s platform commitment to extend the digital animation and visual effects tax credit to post-production work is critically important. The future of post-production is a key ingredient to the digital future of British Columbia, and it’s an important part of the production value chain that will help this sector within British Columbia’s film and television industry continue to grow.

It will encourage productions to do their complete production work here, including all aspects of post-production, now that this tax credit is being extended. And it may, in fact, be the difference between some productions choosing to come here, knowing that every aspect of the job can be done here with the tax credit, or perhaps choosing another jurisdiction. So in that sense, it is good news. It means that our world-class post-production facilities will remain here, instead of going elsewhere. They may, in fact, also grow.

But I do have to ask. Obviously, I can’t ask the minister in my speech, but I may pursue this in estimates. The cost attributed to this tax measure is $2 million a year. When I questioned the minister in estimates a year ago, he said it was under consideration, they were planning to bring it in, and the timing would have to be a factor of the cost.

[1645]

The cost contained in the budget, at least as I read it, is $2 million a year, which seems to me to be, while certain-
[ Page 6896 ]
ly a lot of money, modest in terms of the overall budget and modest as an important job creation and job retention initiative, and perhaps it did not have to wait until the midpoint in the term.

Having said that, it is still good news, but let me put this in context. I think, if I look at various mandate letters for various ministers, one of the calls of the Premier is to put energy into growing the green economy. Now, granted, we haven’t seen a lot of attention placed on that in the government, up to the recent fall in oil prices having a further delaying impact on LNG investment decisions.

But we’ve seen in recent months ministers of this government talk about it. We’ve, I think, heard the minister in the budget speech talk about the importance of having a diversified economy in British Columbia, and that’s helped us withstand the fall in oil prices. When I hear that, I have to ask myself: why, when I pored through the budget, did I find a mere $5 million in new money attributed to anything that could be construed as aspects of a green economy?

It’s true that some tax credits were continued and maintained, but I’m talking about new money — $5 million in new money, $2 million of which, I’ve already mentioned, was the extension of the digital animation and visual effects tax credit and $3 million of which is an expansion of the small business tax credit for new enterprises for, it looks like, a one-year time period.

Again, $5 million is not insignificant, but in the context of British Columbia’s economy, it perhaps could be greater. If it was greater and if we saw in the budget it was greater, perhaps we could see a greater impact on the GDP of British Columbia as well as on the jobs and employment opportunities that are contained in various sectors of the economy like the technology sector.

Frankly, I’m a bit at a loss to determine why there isn’t more in this budget and in this bill with respect to employment initiatives, job creation initiatives — not arbitrary job creation initiatives but investment in industries and sectors in British Columbia that are doing well but could be doing better and — by calculations that, granted, are their own, done with accounting firms they’ve retained but certainly subject to examination by the minister’s staff — project the possibility of significant new employment with some targeted investment.

Let me give some examples. The minister will, I’m sure, as the Minister of Technology, Innovation and Citizens’ Services will be…. A recent report card on the B.C. tech sector was done in conjunction with the B.C. Technology Industry Association by KPMG. It was a report card that said the tech sector is doing well in British Columbia in comparison to other sectors and other industries. It got an A. That’s great.

We know that the tech sector employs more people, 84,000 people, today than all of the resource sectors combined — mining, oil and gas and forestry. That’s not to say those sectors aren’t important and we don’t want to see them grow, but this is a key sector in British Columbia. It helps provide very good jobs, highly skilled jobs, well-paying jobs — jobs that pay, on average, 66 percent above the B.C. industrial average wage. It’s nothing to be sneezed at.

Young people would be looking for educational opportunities followed by employment opportunities in their home province in this sector — in particular, the many young people I know who want to ensure that the environmental future they inherit and pass on to their children is a good one, a clean one, one that respects the looming threat of climate change and does something about it, one that looks for applying technologies to our resource sector to make them have smaller environmental footprints and make it easier to add value.

[1650]

In fact, many people in the tech sector with whom I’ve spoken have said that one of the key focuses of the tech sector in B.C., one of the opportunities for us, is to apply technologies to our resource sector to add value and to lower environmental footprint. This is important from a number of perspectives: from a jobs perspective; from a gross domestic product and, therefore, B.C. revenue perspective; from an environmental perspective; and from a climate change perspective.

Again, I scratch my head when I only see five million new dollars in this budget devoted to anything to do with the green economy, whereas if I flip through the pages and leaf forward, I can find, just as a little contrast, $20 million a year for upgrades of gas roads for an industry that is slowing down and for whose promise of LNG we are still waiting.

There are things we could do — in addition to supporting those sectors, those parts of the resource sector — to support the tech sector, which is high skilled, high paid and holding great promise.

As the minister doubtless knows, the B.C. Technology Industry Association, following studies they’ve done about the state of the industry in British Columbia, produced a four-point plan. One of the important points in the four-point plan was that we needed to take certain steps if we wanted to reach the industry’s potential.

Now, the numbers may not be completely right and their projections may not be completely right, but they’re certainly worth looking at, and they’re certainly based on as much substance, as much of what we’ve heard about the possibility of liquid natural gas — if not much, much more.

To summarize, the BCTIA has said that we have a certain level of investment in B.C. We have a pretty healthy level of angel investment at the start-up phase. What we don’t have significant investment in and what we’re actually losing investment in is early stage venture capital. There are some promising companies, start-up companies, that are currently in the pipeline that need access to venture capital in order to realize their growth potential.
[ Page 6897 ]
To do this, they need some government assistance and attention, which will in turn encourage and leverage investment from the private sector.

The difference between not doing this and doing this, according to the BCTIA in a discussion paper they put out which complements the report card, is that in a mere six-year period — I think their original projection was 2014 to 2020, so maybe it’s now 2015 to 2021 — they see that at the current level of venture capital investment, historic levels, they’re on track to move from 84,000 jobs to 111,000 jobs.

But with increase in venture capital, in the very short period of six years they could achieve 142,000 jobs by 2020. They could double the sector’s percentage of GDP from 8 percent to 16 percent. That’s 31,000 jobs, paying 66 percent above the B.C. industrial average, in a period of six years.

Now granted, what they were asking for from government was not insubstantial, but it was money to help fund an investment. They suggested that the venture capital fund, on the short-term basis, be increased to $50 million. The effect of that would be to fill a gap in venture capital that currently exists. They point out that the early stage venture capital environment in British Columbia has deteriorated in recent years, and there’s been a 60 percent decline in the number of B.C.-based venture capital firms. That needs to be addressed.

They have a number of suggestions about how to address it, including the provincial and federal governments partnering to create a special venture capital fund of funds, a regional fund of funds that would draw additional private sector capital and triple itself from $100 million to $300 million.

[1655]

Those are not insignificant figures. I understand that. People on this side understand it. But there is also an issue of proportionality. Any additional steps this government had taken to add to the small business venture capital fund to indicate that if they could get federal government buy-in, they were prepared to put some money into venture capital on a three-to-five-year period would be a clear signal to the private sector that B.C. was serious about growing our tech sector and that the doors were open and their capital was welcome.

Instead, we have $5 million of new money for the green economy in this budget and only $3 million to the small business venture capital tax credit and no further mention in response to the very serious and thoughtful recommendations put forward by the technology industry.

Now, I don’t expect the government or the Minister of Finance to simply take the sector’s word for it. Obviously, these figures need to be examined, but there is great promise here. We know there’s great promise because we’ve seen this sector grow over the past two to three decades. We’ve seen it grow and take on a huge proportion of B.C.’s GDP and provide 84,000 great, skilled, well-paying jobs in British Columbia.

When we’re looking at the possibility of coming close to doubling that number of jobs — not quite doubling but close — and the difference between doing nothing and taking action being 31,000 jobs, in my view, that calls for some serious attention and consideration from this government.

Yes, it takes some money, but it takes some investment money, and investment money is generally paid back, particularly if it’s used strategically and particularly if it’s made available to people with the expertise to invest strategically to grow the sector. Instead, we see $230 million in this budget annually given back to people who probably will not even notice the difference, because for them it’s minuscule.

When compared to the possibilities of what would be done in British Columbia to grow jobs and grow the economy — help diversify B.C.’s economy even further and help, perhaps most importantly, provide for British Columbia solutions to the climate change crisis as well as help other nations to find technological solutions to the climate change crisis and find ways to develop our resources with smaller environmental footprints and build a strong, diversified, cleaner economy — there is an opportunity here that in my view is being squandered for the sake of giving $230 million a year to people who simply will not notice it.

Others before me have spoken about the failure of the budget to address the needs of middle-class families and families who are struggling to make ends meet. It is a budget of choice, and they are, in my view, bad choices. There are some good choices, as has been said before me and as I, in fact, said at the start of this speech, but they could be better. They could be choices that support families. They could be choices that support a strong, diversified green economy. Instead, I scratch my head.

Across the aisle from me is a government that prides itself on its economic management, and it seems to me that what we’re seeing here is a complete and total lack of future-based economic vision in the best interests of British Columbia. This government should do better, it could do better, but it doesn’t want to do better. There are people on this side of the House who do.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t talk about another important part of our economy, the creative sector. The creative sector even five years ago, based on a PricewaterhouseCoopers study, reported $4 billion in GDP and 85,000 jobs in B.C.’s creative industries. I suspect that’s bigger today, but those are the most recent figures I could put my hands on for today.

[1700]

The budget speech talked about a diversified provincial economy, and it talked about the tax credits for the film industry and interactive digital media. Other than that, there was not a single mention of the creative econ-
[ Page 6898 ]
omy and its important role in British Columbia, both economically and culturally, and the opportunities that exist for it that have, in fact, been identified by people in the industry itself.

Creative B.C. has a budget of $2.2 million — pretty much exactly the same as B.C. Film had before Creative B.C. was established a couple of years ago but with a much expanded mandate.

Creative Saskatchewan has a budget of $7.4 million. That’s over three times B.C.’s budget. Nova Scotia, tiny Nova Scotia, has a budget of $5.3 million, let alone Ontario, which has between $30 million and $40 million.

Those dollars aren’t giveaways. Those dollars support building a strong creative economy. They support building a strong creative economy by helping with project development, content development, export preparedness, market research and marketing — taking this sector, taking our cultural creations in British Columbia, and marketing them to the world.

We should be proud of our creative artists in every sector in British Columbia, whether they’re in writing, dance, music, film and television, or theatre. It’s not just the culture; it’s the economic contribution and the spinoffs. Creative B.C. is a good organization, but with a little bit more help from this government — even matching tiny Nova Scotia’s budget, which is, in fact, 2½ times B.C.’s — much could be done.

Before I take my seat, let me simply say that this is a budget that is disappointing in many ways. The budget implementation bill reflects that in the government’s priorities.

There are huge economic opportunities for different sectors of a clean, green economy in British Columbia that have just been ignored. Not ignored because the government has an economic plan. Simply ignored because the values and priorities of this government were to keep a commitment to the wealthiest 2 percent of British Columbians, to give them a tax break they will not even notice.

Middle-class families, children and youth who are looking to their future, who are looking to jobs in a diverse, modern, growing B.C. economy — whether it’s in the tech sector, the creative sector or a cleaned-up resource sector — wait and continue to wait.

Apparently, it looks like they will have to wait a very, very long time, until at least 2017, before they see a government plan that builds an economy for the future. It’s not in this budget. It should be.

With those remarks, I’ll take my seat.

A. Weaver: I do agree with the member, and I look forward, as either leader or someone in the Green Party forming that government, to offer British Columbians that vision that the member so eloquently put forward.

This Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, really contains no surprises. It outlines what the government has mentioned it would do as part of its budget speech. There’s some good and some bad, as there always is in all budget speeches. Of course, nobody in this House will agree with everything in here; no one in this House will disagree with everything in here.

Let me outline a few of the things that I think are worthy of highlighting, as I do believe they are important steps. For example, discharging liabilities from retroactive changes, in sections 1 and 2. Amending, through streamlining, the Carbon Tax Act. Coming over again to look at the B.C. mining flow-through expenditure, the flow-through of mining tax credits.

[1705]

Now, on this particular case I would like to see some evidence that this actually is benefiting industry in British Columbia and not at the expense of small household investors. Without constraints added to the flow-through tax credit, there’s a danger that the capital can come in and that shares can be dumped on the market. Unsuspecting private investors buy up these shares at an above-market value and simply cannot sell them. So there is some concern about the flow-through mining tax credit, but overall, I think it does incentivize mining investment in British Columbia.

As the previous member pointed out, the digital post-production tax credit…. A very fine piece of legislation, I think, here as well as extending the training tax credits and changes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act.

This bill is…. It’s not so much troubling about what’s in it; it’s about what’s not in it. What we have in British Columbia is the second-highest income inequality in the country and the highest wealth inequality in the country. We’re the only province without a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. We have 500,000 people living in poverty, 160,000 of those being children.

This is a problem. As soon as you see a disparity between the wealthy and the poor growing with time and a decreasing middle class, you start to see the emergence of unstable societies. Human history is full of examples of where such unstable societies end up.

We look at some of the tax credits that are added in here, which make good headlines but, frankly, are boutique tax credits that are similar to what we’re seeing out of the federal Tories and that benefit very few. It benefits those who don’t need them.

A $12.65 per child for fitness equipment…. Now, the people who could benefit from $12.65 aren’t buying fitness equipment. They’re trying to put food on the table. And $12.65 in fitness equipment really is not doing much for anybody. It’s rewarding those who would actually be buying it anyway. By buying it anyway, they can afford to buy it anyway.

Coming to the B.C. education coaching tax credit. This is so egregious I don’t know where to start — $25.30. Picking on teachers who happen to volunteer to do some coaching or they’re an “eligible coach.”
[ Page 6899 ]

What about all those teachers who buy art supplies out of their own pocket? What about all those teachers who buy school supplies out of their own pocket? These are not eligible deductions because they’re employees of the school board, yet they spend their own money on it. What about all those teachers who are volunteering and taking kids on field trips? What about all those other teachers who are struggling with class sizes and compositions that are so unbearable that the burnout rate is incredibly high?

Here we give $25.30 — that’s a case of beer after a soccer game — as a tax credit to coaches. To be honest, it’s insulting. It makes a good headline, “B.C. Government Rewarding Coaches,” and the subtext is: “by giving them $25.30 if they dedicate hundreds of hours to after-school coaching.” Hon. Speaker, $25.30 to somebody struggling to make ends meet is a big deal; $25.30 to a coach may buy that case of beer when they watch Sunday afternoon football.

There are other aspects in here that are troubling. As I outlined earlier, we have the highest wealth inequality in the country and the second-highest income inequality in the country. This does not bode well for a future society, one where the discrepancy between rich and poor grows.

There are real challenges for the middle class in British Columbia that we do not see in a budget measures act. These challenges are for small business owners struggling to make ends meet, struggling to pay bills, struggling to meet payroll, struggling to pay MSP for their families. There are those who are living and trying to afford a place to live in Vancouver or Victoria, where the rents are substantially higher than any income assistance they might get.

[1710]

There are those who can afford to pay more in our society. Those in our society who can afford to pay more, when you talk to them, are willing to pay more, provided that they know where that money is being spent. This is a problem with this bill here. The government is actually finding little boutique credits to give away, but it does not outline a vision as to where it could actually better our society through the injection of funds that we so desperately need in issues like education, social services and others.

We have a very fine debt-to-GDP ratio. I will give the government that. But what we also have is a dramatically declining ratio of percentage of revenue to the government as a percentage of overall GDP. This government has made choices such that health care funding as a percentage of GDP has remained fixed, but education funding and social service funding as a percentage of GDP have dropped dramatically since this government came to power. Why is that the case? It’s because revenue has not kept pace.

Now we hear the mantra — you would expect to see this here — “We will help the middle class when B.C. is wealthy and prosperous” from hypothetical LNG that, as you know, will never materialize. But when it does, we will all be wealthy and prosperous. “We’ll wait until then.” Well, these people can’t wait until then. These people who are so desperately trying to make ends meet don’t find any tax break in here.

Well, I guess they have the increase, the $18,327 to $19,000, before anyone pays any provincial income tax. In fact, that’s a good thing, but one questions as to where this number comes from and what studies were actually done to determine that the 19 with three zeros after it was the appropriate number that should have been done.

With that said, I look forward to exploring the details of this further in committee stage. As I reiterate, in my view, the problem with this budget implementation act is not so much what’s in it, but what’s not in it. With that, I’ll sit, as I see the member for Surrey-Whalley has just arrived.

L. Krog: It’s always a delight to rise in the chamber and speak, in particular now with respect to Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

There is probably no more basic function for the government than the levying of tax, the collecting of tax and then the distribution of those moneys through programs or services or whatever it is that government may provide. I mean, this is the fundamental of the whole place. We pass laws relating to regulatory schemes and ensuring or trying to circumscribe human behaviour and activities, but ultimately what this place is about, what the government does is all about the budget. It is about ensuring that we can deliver services in our society. I’m going to try not to go over the top today.

Interjection.

L. Krog: It’s always pleasant to know that they’re listening on the other side. Nothing pleases me more than the prospect that someone in the B.C. Liberal cabinet might actually listen to a New Democrat, because we’ve had so many wonderful examples recently of what happens when they don’t.

They were advised not to institute an Auditor General for Local Government because it didn’t make any sense — and oh, my goodness, $5.2 million later, one audit, a political embarrassment, the Premier going around much like the poor character in the Rime of the Ancient Mariner with a dead albatross, in the form of the Office of the Auditor General for Local Government. If the government had only listened.

Interjection.

L. Krog: Someone mentioned digressing. It’s always good to digress a little bit, because one has to see everything in the larger picture.

In the larger picture, the Budget Measures Implementation Act is about doing things, supposedly, for people.
[ Page 6900 ]
I must tell the House that, not having had the time to prepare for this as I might have wanted to, I did note with some interest some of the information that’s been provided.

[1715]

Now, much fanfare was made during the budget speech, I believe, about the children’s fitness equipment tax credit, which provides — wait for it — a benefit of $12.65 per child. My goodness. My wife and I were just out the other day doing a little shopping in preparation for Easter. A little bag of eggs from Purdy’s Chocolates for each of the grandchildren was $18.

I can only imagine the enormous benefit and boost that British Columbia children will receive when they know that their parents have another $12.65 per head to provide for their fitness. That wouldn’t even get you a cheap pedometer if the little kids actually still walk to school.

Then we have the enormous benefit of the B.C. education coaching tax credit — $25.30. Now, I understand that governments of every stripe like to do things that they think will encourage support in voters. Certainly, we’re starting to see the goodies dribble out of Ottawa through the federal Conservatives’ hands. But one should at least be providing a benefit through these programs that is actually tangible and that might merit the cost of the public service and the administration of that program.

I’m just trying to think how a $12.65 benefit works. Now, I suppose maybe this is aimed at families with ten children so at least we can just cut one cheque at one time. Maybe that’s where this tax credit is aimed. Goodness knows, if like many modern families you’re only having one or two children…. Well, if you’ve only got two and they issue one cheque, that doesn’t make nearly as much sense as if you have ten children.

Maybe this is the B.C. Liberals’ new plan to increase British Columbia’s population and take account of all the problems we have with an aging populace. Apart from that, I am bewildered by the prospect, and I’m only sorry I didn’t hear the minister’s explanation of the enormous advantage of this benefit.

I am bewildered by the concept that the government would announce a program that’s going to deliver $12.65 per child. I mean, it would be no more ludicrous than perhaps the Minister of Finance trotting around the province into individual schools and dropping off the cheques into the waiting hands of little anxious children for their $12.65.

It won’t buy you a pair of runners. It might get you a pair of shorts on sale, if you’re lucky, at some sporting outfit. Or maybe, with the demise of Target, it would have provided enough money to purchase maybe even a jersey as well. But at $12.65, one is left with a big question: how stupid do the B.C. Liberals think the average voters and parents of this province are that they’re going to be excited by $12.65?

I don’t know if they’ve checked the cost of postage recently, but the only thing that would make this more ludicrous is if they sent out some memo indicating that if you provided the banking information, they’d provide a direct deposit into your very account of the $12.65 per child.

I suppose the B.C. education coaching tax credit, which is available for teachers and teaching assistants and a benefit up to a whole $25.30…. That’s quite marvellous. That’s actually a full doubling — talk about beneficence and generosity — of the credit that would be available per child. Obviously, I think, the real intent of this portion of the bill is to establish the value of a teacher versus the value of a child.

[1720]

We now know that in British Columbia, if you teach them, you’re worth double as much as the children you’re teaching in terms of a tax credit. That’s the only logical interpretation I can place on this.

Now, it’s time limited and only available for the 2015 through 2017 years. It’s a bargain that you’re going to have to rush in and take advantage of in the next couple of years.

Contrast, if you will, for a moment this kind of silly policy…. I realize that everything I’m saying is being recorded by Hansard, and if they were watching at home, they’d be hearing my words. I know that somewhere in the bowels of what I used to refer to as the propaganda ministry there are young, ambitious Liberals trying to figure out how they’ll fit this into a press release, attacking the member for Nanaimo for wanting to deny $12.65 to the little children of British Columbia or a full $25.30 to the teachers and the teaching assistants of the province.

I get that may come back to haunt me. But at a time when we know we have the highest rate of child poverty, at a time when the government of British Columbia just put the teachers through the ugliest, longest strike in our public education system in the history of this province, this borders not just on the ludicrous. It borders on the insulting, if it’s not a full and genuine insult.

I suspect there are lots of parents in British Columbia who would happily send this money back, and teachers who would send it back, and say: “Don’t just deliver it across the board. Give it to the most poor and vulnerable children in our communities. Give it to those schools that are dealing with populations with large numbers of special needs children. Give it to sports organizations who would be able to target the funding to those families and those children who are in genuine need, who require assistance in order to participate in athletic activities and activities that benefit their fitness.”

That, I suspect, is the answer this government would get if it bothered to actually pay attention to what people in this province think. But no, we’ve got this wonderful new program. I wonder if it’ll take up a full page on the tax return when you fill it out and complete it, what exactly the information is you’ll have to provide in order
[ Page 6901 ]
to secure this magnificent benefit. My mind spins with the prospect of what would be available.

Now, there are other things. I don’t want to focus on just the silly aspects of this, because this is serious legislation. This is how the government is going to implement its budget. You know, we’re happy in the opposition to see some things that encourage economic activity, that encourage business development and that encourage, most particularly, employment.

I just had the pleasure, as did a couple of my fellow members, of meeting with representatives of the mining industry in British Columbia, people who are saying to us, quite candidly, “Look, what the government needs to do is spend some money around training and skills training,” thereby ensuring that we have people available to work in an industry which I remind every member is represented symbolically outside this chamber as one of the four great industries of British Columbia, along with fishing and agriculture and forestry. That’s what that lovely ceiling mural is all about.

Perhaps it would have been even better to take that money that we’re giving to the kids and promote training for adults who could actually then, if they got decent jobs, afford to provide athletic and fitness activities for their children. Because to come back to it again, it’s about a tax credit, and tax credits, unless I’ve got this completely wrong, only work if you have a taxable income, and there are many in this province who don’t have a taxable income.

I mean, the government is determined — I think the figure is — that if you make roughly $19,000 per annum, we’re not expecting you to pay MSP premiums, because obviously you need every nickel you’ve got to live.

Interjection.

L. Krog: What’s the number? So below $19,000, no income tax. Thank you. The minister is always helpful, and he’s listening, and I’m terribly touched.

[1725]

Let’s take the minister at his word. So you don’t pay an MSP premium because you can’t afford it. That’s what you’ve determined. But in the meantime, what have we allotted? Almost on par with the magnificent benefit of $12.65 per child, what have we allotted to the lowest-paid workers in British Columbia? My heart quivers at the generosity of the provincial Liberals, who have said to the poorest workers in British Columbia, people who actually have employment: “You’re going to get a raise of 20 cents per hour.”

Now, I’m not suggesting that this government is small-minded. I would never say that. Indeed, it might breach some rule in the book that governs behaviour and comment in this place, and I’d be sorry to cross over that line. I certainly wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. But between the $12.65 for the child, the $25.30 for the teachers and the 20 cents an hour for the poorest-paid workers in British Columbia, I must say you can’t accuse this government of thinking in the big picture. One could suggest that they took a rather small approach to this.

R. Fleming: Trickle down.

L. Krog: Ah, my friend for Victoria–Swan Lake says: “Trickle down.” Well, I don’t want to even go there this afternoon because I’m feeling a little tired today, and I might do something or say something that would be unbecoming and which my sainted mother, if she were alive today, might be critical of me saying in this chamber. She was so proud, after all, as I’m sure all the mothers of the members who are present were when their children got elected to the Legislature.

Let’s give a little contrast. I’ve talked about the small stuff for a while, the petty stuff, the unbecoming parsimony demonstrated by this government with respect to tax credits for children and families and teachers. Let’s contrast that with an increase in MSP premiums: 4 percent. Last time I checked, there’s no such thing as a 4 percent inflationary increase, but that’s going up by 4 percent.

Let’s contrast it — something relevant to all of my constituents — with rising ferry fares. Let’s contrast it with lost economic opportunities so ably demonstrated by that wonderful report that was presented at the UBCM. More importantly, let’s contrast it with the people making $150,000 a year or more in our province.

Now, I appreciate that probably most people live up to their incomes, whether it’s $15,000 a year or the $19,000 a year the minister kindly reminded me about earlier, or $30,000 a year or $100,000 a year, even $150,000 a year. I get it. Most people live up to their income.

The difference is that the people making $150,000 a year can afford helmets for their children. They can afford ice skates. They can afford jerseys. They can afford soccer boots. They can afford the gas to drive their children back and forth to lessons or training, or they can put them in training camps. They can take advantage of this tax break because, after all, they have income. But if you’re poor, not so much.

So $150,000 a year — you were asked to pay this miniscule, I would suggest, extra amount of income tax. And you know what? In a couple of years I don’t recall one person in British Columbia making $150,000 a year or more, to my knowledge, who was discovered on the streets of Vancouver with a tin cup saying that as a result of that incredibly high tax, they were unable to meet their obligations, pay for their groceries or put a roof over their heads.

[1730]

I didn’t see any of them out there with a tin cup begging the Minister of Finance to let this modest, tiny, almost infinitesimal tax increase die its natural death. I don’t think any of them even noticed it, and if they did, many of them had accountants who could figure out how to probably avoid most of it anyway.
[ Page 6902 ]

In contrast to the $12.65 per child, I think the person making — and someone will correct me if I am wrong — $160,000 a year in B.C. was going to pay a couple hundred more dollars a year.

Now, heaven knows we wouldn’t want to ask that of the person making $160,000 a year. I mean, after all, the cost of housing in Vancouver is pretty high. I see that the sales rates for expensive automobiles — Mercedes-Benz, BMWs…. In a little piece in the paper today, I think those sales are up by some double-digit number now in British Columbia. If you ever want evidence or proof that we have a growing gap between the rich and the poor in the province, you only have to look at the sales figures for expensive automobiles, luxury automobiles.

I think there was a piece the other day in the paper that said…. I think Patek Philippe, or one of those high-brow watch companies that I would never be able to afford, nor would I wish to have, issued a $2½ million watch, and they all sold out fairly quickly.

Now, I’m not suggesting that there were piles of British Columbians buying those, but I use it as an example of the extraordinary wealth that exists amongst some in the world and the incredible poverty that is the reality for many in the world, including people here in our own communities. Here, when you had an opportunity to ask them to contribute a tiny bit more, a few hundred dollars a year on an extra $10,000 income above $150,000 — I use that example — this government couldn’t bring itself to maintain that.

I don’t think the Liberals would have lost votes. I don’t think they would have been crying in the hallway of the Vancouver Club. I don’t think the people out in Point Grey or perhaps enjoying the beauty of Judges Row in Qualicum Beach would have been highly offended or found their lives made that much more difficult if the government had maintained that slightly higher tax rate on high-income earners.

That $230 million, which is what it was going to generate, would have gone a long ways to assisting all kinds of people. Why, if you had an extra $230 million, just think. You probably could have doubled that tax benefit up to $25.30 a child. They might even have been able to afford a jersey. And the teachers at $50.60. My goodness. They might have been able to — I don’t know — go out to Swiss Chalet and buy dinner for their spouse one evening, or something like that.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

But no. This government had choices, and those choices are made pretty clear by the Budget Measures Implementation Act.

Tiny tax credits not worth, in my respectful opinion, the cost of administering the program, contrasted with eliminating a small surtax on the highest-income earners, literally the top 2 percent of British Columbians.

The people for whom there are no real, significant disasters in life most of the time. For whom the breakdown of a refrigerator, an example I’ve often used, isn’t of great concern. They would whip out and buy one and have it delivered within a couple of hours. For whom the breakdown of an automobile doesn’t mean they’re going to lose their job, because they could take a taxi in the morning. For whom if the roof starts to leak, yeah, it’ll hit the cash flow for the month. It’ll hurt, but you know what? They can hire a roofer pretty quickly to replace it, if necessary. The people for whom whether or not the price of groceries goes up 2 percent this month or 2 percent next year is really meaningless. It’s not going to affect them.

But for all those other British Columbians, it does.

[1735]

We can talk about ICBC rates, ferry fares, so near and dear to my heart and the other members who represent coastal communities. We have seen our ability to get on and off Vancouver Island severely restricted. We have seen an increase in the price of all the goods we receive as a result of insignificant ferry fare increases. We have lost…. I’m sure the member for Saanich North and the Islands will remind me. The economic report meant we lost about $2.8 billion or $2.4 billion….

Interjection.

L. Krog: It’s $2.3 billion in economic activity. That’s the wonderful thing about having an economist nearby that you can turn to once in a while. It’s $2.3 billion in economic activity as a result of increased ferry fares.

Now, if the government had the $2.3 billion, we might have been able to even triple that credit for the little children and triple it for the teachers and the teaching assistants. Gosh, if we add that extra money to…. If we’d kept that tax increase in place for the top 2 percent, we would have had several hundred million dollars, potentially, available annually to do other things with.

Perhaps we could have held the line on MSP premiums. Perhaps the government wouldn’t have to be taking so much money out of B.C. Hydro annually, placing that crown jewel of our Crown corporations in financial difficulty. Perhaps ICBC would have been able to give a far more modest increase in premiums to its policyholders if they hadn’t had to keep delivering so much money to the provincial treasury. There are a multitude of things that could have been done with that money.

Perhaps you could have instituted lunch and breakfast programs in schools across the province, most particularly those schools where so many of our children arrive hungry every morning, who have their opportunity to learn, their opportunity to absorb knowledge severely constricted by the poverty in which they and their families live day in, day out. As opposed to the $150,000-plus-a-year crowd, the top 2 percent, who if they go to school hungry, it’s only because they were late
[ Page 6903 ]
and didn’t take time to eat breakfast, not because there wasn’t any food in the refrigerator.

Perhaps the government could have used it as an incentive to train people for those jobs that go unfilled in this province, because we know that essentially the budget for post-secondary education isn’t going anywhere. At the very time that the Mining Association is here in this very building, as we speak now, saying that ensuring they have trained people with the skills necessary to work in that important industry, that huge economic driver…. At the very time they say they can’t necessarily get people even though there’s a downturn, this is the very time to be training those people, putting the programs in place.

I would suggest, given the remote location of many mines or proposed mines in this province, what a wonderful opportunity this budget would have been to increase that training and incorporate it with a program that would see aboriginal peoples living in remote communities have an opportunity to take training for an industry that actually operates in their traditional territories, as opposed to forcing, as we have done for decades, so many aboriginal peoples to leave the poverty of reserves across this province to end up living in Vancouver, succumbing to all the social ills we associate with the core of poverty in our major city.

Just imagine if the government had chosen to do that. I come back to my point. This is all about choices, and the government’s choices, I would respectfully suggest, were shortsighted, political, and in some cases actually just silly. Amusing, I would dare say, not wishing to diminish what I’ve just finished saying, talking about serious things, but actually amusing.

If you want to talk about a joke, we’ve discussed it with some of these tax credits.

[1740]

Others. Expanding the digital animation or visual effects tax credit — no one’s going to complain about that. I can tell you it was the B.C. NDP in the ’90s who really ensured that the film industry in this province took off, started the process. We want to see those high-paid technical jobs that produce and pay people wages that mean they pay reasonable taxes that enable us to try and build a society we can all be proud of. No one can take issue with that.

But imagine for a moment if the government had chosen to increase social assistance rates. I’ve said it so many times, honestly, I’m tired of saying it. If you increase social assistance rates, you’re not going to encourage lethargy. You’re not going to encourage people to give up their jobs and go on social assistance.

What you are going to do is ensure that their life might be modestly improved. We know that every dollar they receive will be spent within a mile or two of where they live, going right back into the local economy.

The B.C. Liberals could have done that instead of giving $230 million to the top 2 percent. Maybe they could have kept that money and given it to the bottom 2 percent.

Just imagine a choice, a significant choice that speaks volumes about the attitude of this government. It is about looking after those who have and have often always had. It is about ensuring that those who have very, very little or nothing continue to live out their lives, as Hobbes said, nasty, brutish and short.

It’s about choices. It’s just too bad that I have to speak from over on this side of the House as opposed to that side of the House. When you look at the fiasco of the Auditor General for Local Government, how they’ve mismanaged technology programs, it’s pretty clear this government isn’t up to it anymore.

It’s just too bad we have to have them for two more years and to see a ridiculous budget come forward like this that offers tiny tax credits that are supposedly going to benefit B.C. families. If this is families first, all I can say is it’s a pretty warped view of what British Columbia families need. I look forward to the day when there will be a government in power that will put the people first, not the richest first.

B. Ralston: I rise to speak to Bill 10, the Budget Measures Implementation Act. This act, through the various measures contained in it, implements legislatively the budget that the government put forward in February.

Often we hear in debate the rhetorical cry from members on the government side “You voted against this measure. You voted against the budget. Therefore, you did not support measures within that budget”. I want to take a little time to talk about that.

Gordon Campbell, I think…. I did locate a quotation from him where he said: “Voting against the budget is a vote of non-confidence in the government. It’s a very well-recognized parliamentary tradition and does not necessarily imply absence of specific support for specific measures within that budget.”

It’s frequently used by the government and by some of the speechwriters for government members or cabinet ministers or for rhetorical replies. It really isn’t what parliamentary tradition is.

I don’t think I could quote a more authoritative figure in the Liberal pantheon than Gordon Campbell. No one will want to disagree with that, at least publicly.

What I do want to talk about is some of the measures that are in here that we do support and indeed have supported publicly in many budget cycles. The mining flow-through share tax credit — we support that, and we have supported it in the past.

[1745]

I just say this for the record and for those persons who are monitoring my words. Nothing we say goes unmonitored by the, I think, 250 people that are in government communications in various divisions of that department, mining — if I can use that metaphor — the words of op-
[ Page 6904 ]
position members for things they feel that they can exploit politically later on. So just for those people who are listening there, I support the B.C. mining flow-through share tax credit.

The member for Vancouver-Fairview has made it clear in his speech that we on this side of the House support the extension of the B.C. interactive digital media credit for an additional three years. That’s something that we support. In addition, the companion measure, expanding the digital animation or visual effects tax credit — known by its acronym DAVE — to include eligible post-production activities we support as well.

There’s no doubt that the film industry and particularly special effects and digital animation on the movie side have really dramatically increased. Many people, as film-goers, will notice and have noticed that the more and more authentic and realistic digital effects and visual animation components of movies have really gone a long way from simply miniaturization of a small diorama, for example, on a set. They’re much more realistic, much more surprising and much more, I suppose, ultimately entertaining.

That’s an industry — those visual effects, particularly, and digital animation — that companies in the Lower Mainland, in part, have become very competitive in globally. There are a number of companies that have established themselves here, continue to do their business here and will benefit from this. There will be jobs and training opportunities created here in British Columbia because of that tax credit.

The interactive digital media credit, similarly, applies more to the centre of excellence or cluster of activity that surrounds digital gaming software and the games that result from that. That’s obviously an expanding area. There are some leaders that have been here for a long time, such as Electronic Arts, but there are new companies that are entering that field. On the strength of this measure, they will be able to plan and go forward and create more jobs and training opportunities here in British Columbia.

The training tax credit is a small measure targeted, as I understand the legislation, largely at small business to encourage small business to train people. Often that’s not an option that’s available to small business without some financial sacrifice. It aims to compensate, although not completely, small business for taking on training of people within their enterprise.

The small business venture capital tax credit. My recollection, and my understanding, is that this will cost about — it is an estimate, because one doesn’t know what the takeup will be — $5 million a year. It’s striking that in this measure, the government…. Again, I support it, just so that it’s clear. Although, there is, I think, some desire in the industry for a rethinking of the tax credit in the sense that some of the limits are perhaps too low in the sense that they haven’t been raised in some time, and there is an appetite for venture capital.

One of the problems or the challenges that start-ups and first- and second-round companies face is gathering venture capital, and too often they leave the province or leave the country and seek American sources for venture capital, which sometimes results in the company, when it is successful, moving to the United States, either being acquired or sold to interests, typically, in California. That could be remedied, at least the beginning of a remedy, if there were a larger venture capital market here.

[1750]

At this point I do want to contrast what is happening with this particular credit with what is happening with the so-called Renaissance Fund. It’s something that I explored that technically falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of International Trade. Through the Immigrant Investment Fund, a fund was created in 2007 called the Renaissance Fund.

This basically took about $80 million and invested it in other venture capital and equity firms on the understanding — some of their agreements are not published — that they would open an office here, that they would partner with local firms, that they would attend trade shows here and offer opportunities to companies. In other words, increase the pool of venture capital that was available for British Columbia–based enterprises, with a view of encouraging and helping establish British Columbia companies.

Now, some of the participants in that program have done what they set out to do. Vanedge is one. I think Paul Lee, who used to work for Electronic Arts, is a principal in that. Howard Donaldson, from Digital Media B.C., is part of that group. They have taken the money that has been provided and created a fund to invest in digital media here in the province. This would be a companion piece to the interactive digital media tax credit.

But other companies, rather surprisingly and startlingly…. I think of one called Azure, which is based in the United States. It has had formal access to $4 million in venture capital money for four years and hasn’t done anything — literally, nothing. They have not opened an office. They haven’t made an investment in a B.C. company. They have done nothing.

When the minister was confronted with this, she said that it was early days for them and that one would look to a ten-year cycle. So on the one hand, the government appears to be giving some tax credit, in some of this digital media space and venture capital area, to some companies. But on the other hand, it’s really imposing no conditions upon access to $4 million in capital.

By venture capital terms, it’s probably not a great deal of money. But for most people, I think the opportunity to have a couple of million dollars invested in their business here in British Columbia might make the difference between success or failure — or a small company or a rapidly growing company.

It does seem there is a disconnect between what the
[ Page 6905 ]
Ministry of Finance is purporting to do with this, extending the credit, and what the Minister of International Trade is doing in the Renaissance Fund, which she is accountable for. Unfortunately, she seems unwilling to accept any responsibility for the failure of that fund — at least, particularly, some of the participants in that fund. There have been some successes. It does seem incongruous, at the very least.

Those are, I think, some of the areas, particular measures in this bill, that I support. Others have addressed the new fitness equipment tax credit. What this appears to me to be very much…. The amount is very, very modest, as I believe the member for Nanaimo has pointed out. It does seem to be more in the nature of the kinds of boutique tax credits that we see in the federal budget, where the benefit seems more calculated to make a political impact and a political statement, as much as or more than to have any real financial impact.

I don’t want to dismiss the gesture entirely. But it does seem to me that the cost of administering these kinds of boutique tax credits, as many commentators have pointed out, sometimes may well exceed the actual benefit that individual families get from receiving this credit.

[1755]

Similarly, with the education coaching credit. One knows that coaches, teachers who take on, as volunteers, coaching…. It’s very time consuming. All my children have been through public school, and all participated in sports, where there were very dedicated coaches who participated, gave of their time, gave of their leadership, gave of their inspiration, gave of their advice and gave of their support to children.

Indeed, I think our own leader, the Leader of the Opposition, has spoken of the impact that coaches had upon him as a young student in high school. When he was possibly not making some good choices as a young adult or as a teenager, it was coaches who pulled him back in.

I think we all recognize the important role that teachers take on when they coach. So the gesture, I think, is appreciated. One wonders whether the financial amount, the dollar amount, is really commensurate with the kind of recognition that these coaches deserve.

I haven’t heard a great deal of outcry against it. Again, it seems a very narrowcast boutique tax cut, while there may be other forms of recognition that people would appreciate as much as receiving a tax benefit of up to $25 in any given tax year. I believe there’s a similar recognition in the previous budget for volunteer firefighters.

Again, I think the gesture is important. The recognition is important, but it doesn’t seem to have a great deal of financial impact attached to it. Perhaps that’s the design, and maybe the minister in his comments will want to address that.

The crucial measure in this budget that is not present in the budget implementation bill is, of course, the decision to let the tax break for those earning in excess of $150,000 net taxable income lapse. It was in the 2013 budget implementation act, and it has now lapsed. It has not been renewed. Somehow the minister expressed himself as being almost powerless to influence this decision. It was lapsing simply on its own accord. It wasn’t even in the budget. He had no control over it. It was almost a force of nature that had overtaken the budgetary process, and he couldn’t do anything about it.

Of course, this is nonsense, naturally. I can well understand the minister’s wish to sidestep the political storm. I think, frankly, this caught the Minister of Finance and his colleagues unawares. I don’t think they thought that particular measure would get the kind of attention that it has gotten. In some ways, it typifies and exemplifies the attitude and the approach of this government.

It’s something that could have been extended, just as we extended this measure…. This bill extends the training tax credit, the mining flow-through share tax credit, the interactive digital media tax credit, the small business venture capital tax credit. They were all extended. So this measure could have been included in the budget and extended just as easily.

This involuntary powerlessness that the minister confesses imprisons him and forbids him from acting is something that is…. I don’t think anyone accepts that. Clearly, the government had a choice, and they chose to give a tax benefit to people in that income category. If you’re earning $150,000 net taxable and above, you have access to tax planning advice. You have access to deductions and ways of arranging your fiscal affairs, all of which are legal. There’s no suggestion that they aren’t legal. But you have an opportunity to avoid taxation.

[1800]

For example, RRSP limits. For most people in Canada, if they do make a contribution to an RRSP, it’s not the maximum contribution. There are hundreds of millions of dollars of unused RRSP tax room available because people don’t have the financial wherewithal to make that maximum contribution. But if you’re in the upper 2 percent, likely you have made your full and maximum RRSP contribution, which is a deduction against income.

There are other income tax planning benefits — capital gains and capital losses. There are all kinds of dividend tax credits. These are all kinds of tax advantages that someone with greater income and financial advice will likely avail themselves of.

When you come down to your net taxable income in those brackets, in the top 2 percent, you have probably run through and exhausted a number of tax strategies that reduce your taxable income. It’s not quite like working for wages where, if you’re earning $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 a year, your income tax is deducted at source and you claim it back, typically. Many people in those top 2 percent are self-employed or earn their income through a corporation, which again gives certain tax-planning advantages.
[ Page 6906 ]

It was an opportunity that the minister had. The tax rate in that bracket was 16.1 percent. It’s dropped down to 14.7 percent. He’s chosen not to avail himself. I think that’s really the significant part of the budget that this act legislatively will implement. That was a choice, a choice not taken. The minister chose that clearly and had the option of extending that, as all these other measures were extended as well.

Therefore, because this act implements a budget that we oppose — we express our non-confidence in the government by voting against the budget — we’re therefore speaking, and I’m speaking, against Bill 10 in that sense, with the exception of the measures that I’ve talked about.

I don’t expect that will stop the gibe that “you voted against the budget; therefore, you voted against all the measures contained in it.” Perhaps as we go further in the legislative process, at the committee stage, there’s an opportunity for voting individually, section by section. We perhaps, subject to the leadership of the House Leader and the critic, will express our support in that way — just so that it’s clear, or clearer, on the record, although I would expect it, frankly, to be ignored.

With those comments, I conclude my remarks and thank the Legislature for its attention.

[Madame Speaker in the chair.]

G. Holman: We’ve saved the best for the last today, I think.

I’m pleased to rise and speak to Bill 10.

Interjections.

G. Holman: Well, sorry. The second best. My apologies.

I’m pleased to make some comments on this bill and the context in which it’s being brought forward. My colleagues from this side of the House have mentioned their dissatisfaction at these boutique tax credits, which are really more about photo ops than anything else. They don’t really have a substantive impact on the supposed beneficiaries. They don’t really have a substantive impact on our economy. They don’t have a substantive impact on the large range of unmet needs in this province.

[1805]

Comments have been made before about the children’s fitness equipment tax credit and the education coaching tax credit, which really are so trivial that they do border on being an insult to the folks that are supposed to benefit from these tax credits.

There are some other measures in Bill 10 which are good things — the training tax credit, the B.C. mining flow-through tax credit. There are some of these tax credits that do make sense and that will have a substantive impact in terms of the stakeholders — the industries, the beneficiaries — but also in terms of the economy at large. They do actually address a real need in the economy.

But so many of these tax credits are really just about a label and a photo op for government to claim that it’s doing something for various sectors of society.

I did want to talk a little bit about the context in which Bill 10 is being presented and, of course, contrast it with some of the things that Bill 10 could have done and does not do.

A number of my colleagues have mentioned the single most significant aspect of the budget, which was the $230 million tax cut to the top 2 percent of income earners in British Columbia — $230 million a year. The economic impact, again, of that cut will be marginal compared to a number of other things government could have decided to do with those tax credits.

My colleague from Nanaimo was talking about the dire need at the lower part of the income scale, the thousands of people living day to day, hand to mouth — including their kids — in this province who could have benefited so greatly from some consideration in Bill 10, some consideration in the budget. Instead, the top priority for government was a $230 million tax break for folks earning more than $150,000 a year.

I find it unconscionable, actually. I really do. Add to that the fact that we do have a supposed budget surplus of about $800 million a year — $800 million plus. One can quibble and argue with how real that surplus is. Much of it was predicated on huge increases in regressive user fees, from MSP premiums to hydro rates to ICBC rates — all of which are regressive and affect lower-income earners disproportionately compared to, say, the top 2 percent.

This latest budget is added to the list of a long history of budgets that this government has come up with since it’s been in power, well over a decade, which has seen a huge shift in taxation based on ability to pay in British Columbia, a shift from taxation based on ability to pay to a user-fee regime, which hits lower-income earners the hardest.

The thing about that is it’s not just an issue of fairness. It clearly is an issue of fairness. It clearly is an issue of ability to pay. Some folks just don’t have the ability to pay these huge increases in regressive fees. But beyond that, beyond the fairness issue, there’s a very significant economic impact that this shift in taxation has.

Again, my colleague from Nanaimo was getting at it earlier, talking about lower-income residents of British Columbia and the proportion of their income that they spend. Economists call that marginal propensity to consume. At the low end of the income scale the marginal propensity to consume…. Every additional dollar you give to those low-income households is spent. The MPC is one.

The marginal propensity to consume for folks earning over $150,000 a year is a fraction of that. What happens is that those dollars essentially will be leaking out of circulation in the British Columbia economy. So it has a very significant….
[ Page 6907 ]

[1810]

Over the long term, as you shift from a taxation regime based on ability to pay to one based on regressive user fees, you’re taking away spending power in your economy. That’s one of the reasons why our economy has been growing so slowly. So it has a real, substantive economic impact. It’s not just about fairness, this shift in taxation. There are so many unmet needs in this province that could have been addressed rather than giving away $230 million to higher-income folks.

My colleagues are looking at me here, and you can give me some suggestion about when perhaps my remarks can end.

There are a whole number of needs in British Columbia that could have been met. Let’s just talk about some of them. Climate action. Our most significant environmental threat in the world today, in British Columbia, is climate change and the need to act on that. The LiveSmart program has been done away with. In order to save energy, that’s an investment that would have reaped not only economic benefits but would have addressed that serious need.

Ferry fares. I’ve got a bit of a conflict here, but even some small respite in ferry fares that have more than doubled over the last decade.

Support for special needs students — again, government paying lip service to this.

These are the kinds of investments that would have been not only a fairer way for government to approach this budget, but it would have generated economic returns both in the short term, in terms of economic growth and in terms of investing in folks that are going to earn more money, be more productive and cost less to society going forward. Those are the kinds of investments, those are the kinds of priorities that British Columbia needs, not a $230 million tax break for people earning $150,000 or more.

Noting the time, I will stop my remarks at this point and propose that we….

Interjection.

G. Holman: Thank you for the coaching.

I’ll leave it to wiser heads to do what they will with the rest of the session.

Madame Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: To those who engaged in the debate and offered their views, I am, as always, obliged. It’s not generally my habit to spend a lot of time at this stage in the debate, because on bills of this sort that are quite technical in nature, a lot of the discussion follows, and I will follow the practice again today. But there are a few moments available to me, and I hope members won’t be offended if I take those few moments and offer some summary remarks on the basis of what we’ve heard thus far.

The question I ask of some of the members opposite, sort of posed rhetorically, is: well, what have we learned? They ask: what have we learned from the bill? What have we learned from the budget? I ask myself: what did we learn from the discussion that took place around this bill today?

Well, we’ve learned that members of the opposition continue to have a lot to say about the budget generally. Nothing wrong with that. That’s appropriate. As one of the members said, a fundamental aspect of what this chamber exists to do is to vote spending authority to the Crown via the executive branch.

I will take this moment, however, to point out that whilst I sense in some of the members an almost tortuous attempt to try and distinguish what they say in their commentary from the support they articulated, quite generously in many cases, for a number of the aspects contained within the bill, it should not be interpreted incorrectly.

[1815]

More to the point, I think what they were saying is that they’re not going to vote for the bill. Well, that’s interesting, because in the way that oppositions historically do — and I understand this, having spent six or seven years in opposition — they have articulated their opposition to the budget and many of the choices that we’ve made. They voted against the budget in a formal vote.

This is a specific bill that includes specific provisions. The vote that will take place in a few moments is not about what’s not in here. It’s not about what else might…. It’s what is before the chamber, choices that have been made that members have articulated their views around. What did we learn from that exchange here in the last few moments?

Well, we learned this. I will give some members credit for this. What I often detect when dealing with my friends within the New Democratic Party in the many electoral contests that we have engaged in, in the time that I’ve been around here, is that the message tends to be influenced by how close we are to an election campaign.

Two years ago it was awfully difficult to get a member of the NDP to say anything about taxation policy. When asked direct questions about where those inevitable tax increases would occur, the leadership at the time — to be fair, the leadership at the time, like many of the members who now sit in the opposition benches — denied vociferously any intention to raise taxes whatsoever.

We know today…. We’ve had confirmed for us just how anxious the opposition is to again embark down that path, that destructive path of tax uncompetitiveness that was the hallmark of their time in office. We learned something there.

I can’t say I was particularly surprised. I can’t say that we had much in the way of additional information or de-
[ Page 6908 ]
tail. But we have again learned of the zeal and the enthusiasm with which the NDP, given the opportunity, would embark yet again upon a path of tax increase for all sorts of British Columbians.

What else did we learn? Well, we learned…. This too, I understand, is a trait of being in opposition. It’s a trait I say, respectfully, that the NDP possesses in abundance: a desire to spend a whole lot more.

Member after member stood up and made cases — I will say this, and I hope members opposite will accept that I say this sincerely — and, in some cases, passionate cases for causes that they believe in that are worthy, that are deserving of attention. But what you never get — what you didn’t get two years ago, what you don’t get today, what you never get — is an indication collectively from the opposition about how much more, collectively, they want to spend on behalf of taxpayers.

It’s that approach that got the NDP in British Columbia into so much trouble 14 years ago. Actually, it was longer, 20 years ago. It’s that approach that has gotten other provinces in Canada in difficulty.

[1820]

We’re going to see the result of that over the next couple of weeks as province after province begins to table budgets that are laced with deficits that impose obligations on future generations, that dig a hole that future generations will have to contend with.

I acknowledge, I respect the submissions made by members around issues of public policy that they care about and desire to see more resources spent on. But those submissions make no attempt to address the fundamental question of how much. How much more is the opposition advocating be spent? How much more than we are in a position to afford, than taxpayers are in a position to afford, should be spent? It’s a piece of the puzzle that the opposition is historically reluctant, refuses to provide to British Columbians. They have refused again today to do that.

What else did we learn? We learned this. When the government introduces benefits that are, in some cases, very modest…. And I say, if you go back to the day the budget was tabled, I think on a number of occasions I used that term. Members did the math in some cases, and they reduced it down to amounts of $2 or $3 or $4 per month. They’re entitled to do that. Some of these benefits are quite modest.

It’s fascinating, isn’t it? When a benefit is developed to begin to recognize or try to recognize some of the contributions that British Columbians make — in one case, that teachers make — that benefit of $2, $3 or $4 a month is described in one case as insulting. When a fee, a measure like MSP, is increased to account for ever-increasing health care costs to the same amount, the description we get from the opposition is very different.

Where is the consistency there? Why is it that when the funds are flowing in one direction, it’s an insult, and when the funds are flowing in another direction, it’s described another way? The members opposite can get together and try to square that with the remarks that they have made. What I didn’t hear from any of them, because I think they dared not, was to dismiss the significance of the $1,200 that a child of six will begin to receive, or the hundreds of dollars per year that the early childhood tax credit represents — not once this afternoon.

In making the point that what they wanted to do was convey their true feelings about the choices represented in this budget, not once did a member opposite…. I should qualify this, because I stepped out twice, so if it occurred in my absence, I apologize. I don’t believe that once a member of the opposition, who purported to want to convey the sincerity of their concern — which I actually, by the way, think is sincere…. Not once did they acknowledge that there were measures in the budget that go beyond the admittedly modest measures that were talked about today. That’s unfortunate.

We’re going to have a vote in a couple of minutes. In that vote I will watch, because aside from all of the other rhetoric we heard today, the measure before the House is a credit that will amend the Income Tax Act to ensure that the threshold for paying provincial income tax goes from $18,327 to $19,000. That’s what’s before the House today. In a few moments we’ll vote on that new child fitness equipment credit — admittedly a modest amount. That measure is before the House.

[1825]

The B.C. education coaching tax credit — again, a modest measure. But I heard some members, in fairness, describe it as being better than nothing. That is before the House for a vote.

An amendment to the Income Tax Act to extend the B.C. mining flow-through tax share credit is before the House. An amendment to the Income Tax Act to extend the interactive digital media credit for three years, which I heard members opposite profess support for. That specific measure is before the House.

Support for B.C.’s film industry. The Income Tax Act is amended to expand the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to include post-production activities. That measure is before the House. In a moment members will register whether they are supportive of that or opposed to it.

Bill 10 includes the admittedly modest increase to the small business venture capital tax credit budget. Those are the concrete measures that are before the House that, to be fair, I heard many members opposite, if not all, speak in support of. Let’s find out just how sincere that support is. Let’s find out via the only democratic instrument we actually have.

Let’s find out if the opposition is true to their word, when it comes time to support specific measures that are designed to provide specific benefits to British Columbians and help this economy grow — in the con-
[ Page 6909 ]
text of a balanced budget and a triple-A credit rating — and whether or not this opposition is prepared to support those actual measures.

With that, I move second reading.

[1830]

Second reading of Bill 10 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. M. de Jong: In glorious unanimity, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2015, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. M. de Jong moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Madame Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 6:35 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); M. Morris in the chair.

The committee met at 1:36 p.m.

On Vote 13: ministry operations, $1,923,282,000.

The Chair: Did you want to make opening statements, Minister?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Happily. It’s my great pleasure to present these estimates for the pending fiscal year, 2015-16. We have some staff with us: the deputy minister, Sandra Carroll; the assistant deputy ministers, Ramona Soares, Claire Avison and Bobbi Plecas, who are hopefully familiar to many people in the room.

This is a sector which, of course, is designed to lead to a great deal of satisfaction and happiness amongst all of our population as they seek the skills they obtain.

There’s the indispensable financial officer and assistant deputy minister Kevin Brewster, who was, of course, going to come up with the next item on the stated speech here.

We provide operating grants to public post-secondary institutions, and that will be increasing to $1.785 billion in 2015-16. Over the next three years government will invest more than $831 million in capital expenditures in the post-secondary sector.

That will include a new campus for the Emily Carr University of Art and Design, a new centre for trades education and innovation at Camosun College, a new trades training complex at Okanagan College, a new trades training facility at Nicola Valley Institute of Technology. This adds up to a physical plant that provides for a total of 430,000 students who are enrolled in our post-secondary education system in the public sector. There is, of course, an additional private sector that provides a significantly smaller number of spaces for students.

On average, our B.C. students pay less than had a third of the cost of their public post-secondary education. We introduced a policy in September 2005 to limit tuition increases to 2 percent per year, the net effect being that British Columbia students at the undergraduate level pay the fourth-lowest average tuition in Canada, at $5,118.

Since 2001 we’ve also funded more than 32,000 new student spaces and established seven new universities in the public post-secondary system. In the recent past more than 3,000 credentials were awarded to aboriginal students, in 2012-13, which is a significant rise over earlier years.

We’ve also taken the approach that students should be able to learn at a manageable cost, so we’ve tried to reduce the cost of textbooks, which have become a serious expense for students. We’ve put on line more than 70 open textbooks available for students studying subjects in arts, health, business and science. That’s resulted in savings for students of about $600,000. We’re now also in the process of putting another 20 additional open textbooks on line in skills, training and technology subjects later this year.

[1340]

We’ve more than doubled the number of nursing spaces to 7,500 FTEs in 2014, and of course, many of us are familiar with the more than doubling of the number of medical school spaces from 128 to 288.

Gladly, in 2014-15 the ministry added more than 1,400 new trades training seats, and we increased the number of international students by 20 percent from 2009-10 to close to 113,000 in 2012-13.

That is a summary of some highlights of the key components of this sector. It’s a sector that we are proud and privileged to be a part of, and it’s one where we intend to continue to deliver to students an affordable, good-quality education.
[ Page 6910 ]

K. Corrigan: I wanted to thank Derrick Harder, from the research department of the official opposition, and intern Matthew Chan, who helped me in preparing for these estimates.

I’m going to go right to the B.C. skills-for-jobs blueprint and ask a number of questions about that. One of the key principles of the blueprint is that there is…. The ministry has said that it’s going to require that, essentially, 25 percent of funding over the next few years in the post-secondary sector is going to have to go to those programs that would make students ready for the top 60 jobs, according to labour market information.

One of the basic starting points is the number of jobs. The blueprint was done, I think, about a year ago. My first question to the minister: have there been any adjustments to the market forecast and the expectation for jobs since the blueprint was introduced about a year ago?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer lies with the Ministry of Jobs and Skills Training, as they are the authors of the report. We understand that it’s going to go through iterations and be modernized, as time goes by, to deal with the developments in the world and in the labour markets. We work with the report in its current format in terms of the number of jobs, which is quoted in speeches as roughly one million jobs in the next number of years. About 68 percent of them are due to retirements, the remainder due to growth of the economy and changes in the economy. The iterations and new information are left with the Ministry of Jobs and Skill Training.

K. Corrigan: Part of the reason it’s important for me to ask these questions is that because there’s the Minister of Advanced Education, the Minister of Jobs and the Minister of Education involved in the blueprint, my assumption is that the three ministries are going to work very closely together. Over the next three years the information that comes on the projection of jobs is going to directly be translated into the number of seats that there are in our colleges and universities. I guess the question to the minister is, then: how closely are you working with the Minister of Jobs in order to make the system nimble?

In the first year, 2015-16, I think it is, we have already a transference of — what is it? — $160 million starting off. Is that already happening in this budget year of ’15-16?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In the current fiscal year there has been a direction of $40 million toward the specific top 60 occupations in line with the blueprint. Next year that will rise to $90 million, and the year after that, a further $90 million.

[1345]

The working premise, of course, is that we take the indicator information, the demand information, from the blueprint updates, and we will feed that back into the post-secondary system. Adjustments will be made over time. One never knows if there will be some fabulous new technological development that will make some line of expertise passé, or at least less popular. We’ll adjust to that as time goes by.

K. Corrigan: That $40 million. Just for clarity, in the blueprint it says that this year government will be re-engineering an additional $40 million in the operating grants. Re-engineering means that there is no new money, that money is going to be moved from one part of the post-secondary institutions. Some institutions are going to lose money, and some institutions or programs are going to gain money. That $40 million — was that referring to 2014-15, or was that referring to 2015-16?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The $40 million refers to the current fiscal year ending next week, March 31. That is money that is specifically to be earmarked within the institutions to make sure that they’re allocating it to the blueprint.

K. Corrigan: Is there any expectation that for the year 2014-15, money is actually being removed from any institutions in this province because some institutions are not meeting the requirement for that transfer? Is there any for 2014? Is there any expected for 2015-16 where schools actually will lose some of their funding and other schools will get additional funding as a result of this re-engineering?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working proposition is that the money will be earmarked within institutions. They will not be in any way penalized or have their funding reduced in pursuit of this plan. Rather, it’s to make sure that they are allocating within their own budget the appropriate sums to make sure that the skills gaps are being addressed within those institutions. Of course, in future years one has to approach this carefully, because things can change. But the working proposition is that it will be within the existing institutional budget envelopes.

K. Corrigan: For this year that is going to end in another week, then, $40 million needs to be demonstrated as meeting particular targets. Is the minister expecting…? Well, $40 million is available to be redistributed. I’m wondering if the minister could give me a report on what that accountability and what that reporting mechanism is back to the ministry. What I’m hearing from a lot of institutions — through some of the leadership, through the instructors, from the students, various sources — is that there is real confusion about exactly what the accountability is.

I’m wondering if I could get an explanation about how it is that the ministry is going to sort all that out. How is it being documented?

[1350]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The way this gets measured is that the institutions have a budget in dollars, and they have a seat count by discipline. Institutions, when they’re asked to make sure that they are aligned with the jobs plan, will report a certain alignments of seats with the jobs plan, and they may have some new seats as well.

Each of those seats has a dollar amount attached to it. So the dollar amount for nursing is significantly higher than it is for general arts. Both in dollars and in seats there’s a metric — a measure or report — in terms of the alignment with the jobs plan.

The assurance that the $40 million in this current fiscal is being met is done by taking the seats, multiplying them by the dollar allocation per seat type and coming up with the overall amount.

K. Corrigan: One of the concerns that was expressed by some of the stakeholders that I talked to was not only that institutions would have to demonstrate that they were meeting those targets of the blueprint but that they had to demonstrate, to some degree, where they were removing seats that were not in the blueprint.

I don’t suspect that that is the case, but just to put those people that are concerned about that at ease, could the minister confirm that there are no reporting requirements or accountability requirements that would require institutions to demonstrate where they have reduced programs that do not fit within the target areas?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The way this works is that as an institution reports in, it will state that a number of seats are aligned with the jobs plan in programs that are already fully subscribed and, therefore, that they’re looking for more capacity. That may come in the form of new seats in a program, or it may come in the form of seats which have been effectively transferred from an underutilized program.

If there are empty seats in a particular program or institution, the institution will be asked to align them to the jobs plan by putting them into high-demand occupational training. For instance, if an institution were offering shoe repair that was undersubscribed and there were ten empty positions, they may say: “Well, we’re going to reduce the shoe repair allocation by eight, and we’ll move that over to power engineering and create more seats there.”

[1355]

K. Corrigan: I want to get this straight. The individual institutions — do they not all have an equal target amount that they have to have seats? Or are they starting at a baseline and they have to…?

Even if they were already doing very well in all of those target areas, are they being required to up the target areas, or is it that everybody is required to have the same percentage of target seats in their institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The way this works is that the institutions vary enormously in size from 1,000 students to 50,000 students. When an institution is asked to align positions to the jobs plan, they will, within their own framework, decide where to move seats around.

There is no quota. They’re simply asked to contribute to the jobs plan by stating where they could realign a seat — as I say, perhaps from shoe repair to power engineering — and then they report back to us. We have an iterative approach to them in terms of sorting out exactly what their allocation would be, because they vary so much in terms of the student programs within an institution, the size of the institution and the number of underutilized seats.

K. Corrigan: Is the minister then saying that the targets of percentage of seats for that institution will vary from institution to institution? If that is the case, will some institutions that already have a large percentage of programs that would fall under the target jobs under the blueprint…? Would they not be penalized?

I’m trying to get a sense of where these numbers are coming from. Are there different expectations for different institutions? It sounds like there are.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The way this is done in managerial terms by the ministry is to talk to the institutions about dollars rather than seats. The institutions then decide what to do in terms of the seats.

Where an institution has an undersubscribed program, as I described earlier, they may take the money that was allocated to them in that undersubscribed program and allocate it to an oversubscribed program that is in line with the jobs plan. That means the students have, effectively, more opportunities available to them, because the students weren’t going into the underutilized program in the first place.

If the institution decides that they have a program that they don’t see as being aligned with the jobs plan, then they will ensure that the incumbent students can complete their programs, however long they may be, and prospectively they may say: “Well, we’ll shrink that program by a couple of seats and increase it in a jobs plan in-demand program.”

That is all coming back to the ministry in terms of budgetary allocations. We will say to a particular institution with a budget that is in the tens of millions that we expect a few million dollars to be aligned in their institution, and they will decide where to move those seats around.

K. Corrigan: What it sounds like the minister is saying is that there is not an absolute percentage at each institution that needs to be aligned to the jobs plan.

[1400]

What the minister is saying is that it is an expectation that there will be change so that, whatever the baseline
[ Page 6912 ]
is, there’s expectation of further realignment towards the jobs plan. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The approach taken by the ministry is that institutions are approached about a certain dollar allocation. That varies between institutions both in absolute dollars, obviously, and as a percentage of their budget. It varies significantly.

That dollar allocation is to be directed toward these in-demand programs. As I said earlier, it’s up to the institution to determine whether they’re going to migrate seats that are not being utilized at all or whether they will use a combination of those unutilized seats and some seats in a program that will be curtailed into the future or whether they’re obliged to take them entirely out of programs that are fully subscribed but are not in alignment with the jobs plan.

The working premise is that no incumbent students are displaced. The incumbent students are allowed to complete their program and would never know the difference.

K. Corrigan: So there is a different dollar amount for each institution. Would that dollar amount represent the same percentage of the total budget for each institution? In other words, if it was $50 million for Kwantlen out of their total budget, would that be the same as whatever the percentage would be for UBC? Is it the same magnitude of expectation for each of the institutions in terms of how they’re going to meet those targets?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I perhaps didn’t make myself completely clear in my earlier answer that this is not a percentage across the board. The dollar amount varies by institution. They vary in their size and complexity, so the dollar amounts are tailored to the institutions. The percentage of the total grant to each institution affected by this will vary widely between institutions.

K. Corrigan: Can we get a copy of what those expectations are for each institution?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’ll be happy to provide that in due course.

K. Corrigan: I would assume that for each of those, there would be a budget over the next several years. I would assume that we can get those targets, because the amount is rising. If that’s available, I’d like that as well.

Also, perhaps an explanation from the minister. If this is an institution-by-institution target calculation, then I’m wondering if the minister could explain how it was decided what the allocation was for each institution.

[1405]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The rollout of this is that the dollars to be realigned in each institution vary for a number of reasons. First of all, there is the baseline, in that some institutions already had an extensive allocation or profiling of funds because of their health programs. Historically, there’s been a 10 percent allocation of the grant to health-related programs, so an institution that operates a lot of these programs already had used 10 percent of their allocated grant toward health programs. Others would have zero in that category.

Now, once we talk about expanding that allocation, it comes in a dollars request of the institution so that they can decide where they’re going to reallocate these seats. That is to say that it depends on the profile of the institution, the program mix they offer — some of them being highly career-oriented, others being more purely academic.

It depends on the historical baseline they were at, because some of them were already there and others needed to do significant re-profiling, and it depends upon a wide variety of demographic issues around the students such as their age, their interests, where they are in the degree program, etc.

K. Corrigan: So it’s going to vary by institution. I’m wondering, just as a general comment. Is it the aim of this reallocation that all institutions eventually offer about the same percentage of programs that are targeted to those in-demand jobs?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The answer, in brief, is no, but it requires some explanation, in that the profile of institutions varies greatly. Their expectation is expressed in dollar terms, which then is divided up by the institution into seat allocations. As I said earlier, the price tag per seat varies widely. The institution will decide how it’s going to take that dollar expectation to be allocated to the jobs plan and allocated within their existing framework.

The idea is, of course, that there are 60 occupations in the top-60 list, and if they’re in pursuit of those occupations and the training required for them, the institution can decide how it’s going to allocate seats and move budget allocations around within their organization. This will have varying effects between institutions, as I said earlier, because of where they started on the baseline, the available seats within their programs and the profile of the students.

S. Simpson: Following up on the issue of the blueprint and the role that Advanced Education plays in that, obviously this is relatively new — the notion of the blueprint, the skills-training emphasis, the reallocation of funds and the targeting within the ministry to make sure that the foundational skills are being provided to lead to apprenticeships or to whatever the next step is when this moves on.

Could the minister tell us a little bit about how the ministry is going to be tracking and evaluating the suc-
[ Page 6913 ]
cess of this initiative, the blueprint initiative, from the perspective of Advanced Education and the role that the ministry plays in the coordinated picture?

[1410]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This initiative is being tracked and measured on the basis of both what we can call inputs — that is, positions made available and filled by students in the newly aligned world — and, secondly, by completion of those particular programs. We’re still in early days, so some of the programs will not have been around…. These new seats will not have been around long enough for a student to have completed them.

Of course, we know that there is, for whatever reason, a cohort of students who will start a program and elect not to finish it, whether that’s due to illness or family developments or a change of heart. We’ll be tracking both — those who sign up for the new seats and those who complete the new seats.

S. Simpson: Can the minister maybe talk a little bit more about what the tools are that the ministry is going to use to be able to do that evaluation and the role the ministry plays in determining the success of the skills training project in its entirety? Some of this discussion I’ll have with the Jobs Minister when her estimates come up and her responsibilities for another aspect, obviously, of the bigger picture.

We know the challenges that the ITA is having. We know the challenges kind of on the jobs end of this for a lot of this, particularly when you get to some of the Red Seal and some of those areas. That’s very problematic. I’m trying to determine here, on the end that the ministry has, what tools you are going to use to measure this. How are you going to involve students in that? How are you going to involve employers in that discussion, potentially some of the other legitimate stakeholders, in determining whether this is working and how it moves forward?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The ministry is working with the institutions to manage four basic parameters of the success of the program. The first is the capacity in these in-demand programs at the institutions. The second is wait-list times for those who are applying to oversubscribed programs. The third is the attrition rate or the non-completion rate, what colloquially could be called the dropout rate. The fourth is student outcomes in terms of completing the programs.

Once they move into the workforce, those metrics and measures will be handled by others and not by this ministry.

S. Simpson: Part of the challenge around that…. I’ve had the opportunity to have this discussion with the deputy for the Jobs Ministry. I know that there is the deputies’ committee that looks at the different trades, skills and the potential job demands and where, in fact, those 60-odd…. I think the minister mentioned 60. I know that number is flexible, depending on the work that the deputies’ committee does on that.

What input do the institutions have into that process to be able to influence the addition or changes in that mix of approved trades programs so that they may actually have some opportunity to come forward? What’s their role as institutions in influencing that committee, the deputies’ committee, or the ministry to talk about what fits the bill for the blueprint?

[1415]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The beauty of the approach of using the institutions is that, of course, they’re aware of local market demand. A simple example is dentistry. There is one program in the province. It has highly selective entry. They’re aware of the market demand in the province in that profession, so they let it be known to us what the desires are for seats. We will, of course, work with them to figure out the appropriate number of seats, because we don’t want to have 1,000 dentists graduating every year if we need 45.

Of course, this is manifested around the province. Dentistry is a good example because there’s one program. It’s small, it’s selective entry, and it covers the whole province.

There are other programs that are offered throughout the province like heavy-duty-mechanic programs, which are offered in, I would guess, close to a dozen places. They are aware of local market demand. They also get a sense of whether their students travel farther away to work, so they aggregate their market expectations amongst them.

We report all of that to the Jobs and Skills Training Ministry, and they aggregate this into the jobs plan.

S. Simpson: I’ve had some discussions. We know that when the blueprint was initially established, it was established not entirely but, I would say, as a response to expectations that may have come out of aspirations around LNG and what happens there and around health — around health and around LNG. The initial set of programs seemed to reflect those two areas primarily — traditional or conventional trades and, obviously, a wide range of things in health care.

We know that as we talk…. I know the minister, in a previous incarnation, had responsibility for technology. There’s a whole lot of growth in the technology sector and other sectors that have not necessarily made the grade of the 60 trades. Some of those are a little more unique. They’re not kind of as apparent as dentistry might be, for example.

How do they get on the list so that institutions, when they’re looking at their allocation, hopefully can say: “We’re going to expand our programs in those given areas” or “We’re going to establish programs there and be com-
[ Page 6914 ]
fortable that we’re meeting our mandate from the ministry around the broader jobs plan”? How does that work, and what’s the role of the ministries to be able do that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a rather complicated answer, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the member has further questions.

The described top 60 occupations are in categories which sometimes encompass more than one occupational classification. Similarly, the training programs in the institutions don’t often go by a category that matches an occupational classification. Dentistry would be a real anomaly. We see programs like mathematics and physics from which many people go into the technology space because of the informal education they acquire along the way, because of their interests.

The member made reference to the technology sector, which is, from my moderately extensive experience, full of people who have gone through math and physics training and then developed themselves, through interest or necessity, into someone who fulfils an occupation in the technology space that is almost difficult to describe. Nonetheless, their training was entirely appropriate to work in the technology space, because they worked with concepts and they worked with programs and systems that led them to have an expertise by the time they graduated.

[1420]

It may not fall into a defined profession like dentistry, but it may readily fall into four or five different categories of described technology roles such as a programmer, systems analyst, brand manager, technical sales. That individual may find themselves doing all or some of those tasks within a couple of years of graduation.

The programs that are aligned…. The jobs plan and the post-secondary institutions often have titles that vary from something that’s in the top 60 list of occupations. As I’ve said, this may lead the member to further questions.

We, of course, have to reconcile the fairly broad-brush descriptions in the 60 top occupations, which are generally in the language of laypeople used on the street, through the occupational classifications lens and into the actual program descriptions, such as a diploma in agricultural technology, which we all know could lead to someone becoming a systems analyst, a programmer, a farmer or someone in technical sales.

S. Simpson: A couple more questions, and then I’ll let this go. I know the minister, to my colleague, said that there’s not a hard and fast rule that every institution is dealt with in the same way in terms of budget allocation. But we know that the broad parameter was roughly 25 percent of the grant being targeted in these areas and that every institution will be a little bit different and that the programs and the offerings within that area needed to fit within the plan. If they fit within the plan, then that was all good.

Is the minister saying, then, that it would be possible for institutions to put math and physics into that percentage? Those are fundamental programs for a whole lot of things you might do, including the trades these days. Math’s a pretty big part of getting into the trades. They can fit those in there, and that’s going to fit within the allocation — what have been more conventional math and physics programs — and that might be good. I’m good with that, but I just want to know whether that’s the case.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member mentioned the 25 percent figure. That is a figure that is directed toward the ministry to come up with that aggregate allocation. Of course, it will vary amongst institutions. Some of them will be able to put in more than others. It’s done in dollar terms, as mentioned earlier.

The premise is that the institutions are then asked to align to occupationally specific programs. To use the member’s example, an individual may go through math, for instance, and end up in a career as an auditor or some kind of accounting role, but that wouldn’t be falling within the rubric of what we expect institutions to do.

If the individuals were in engineering or in accounting, that would count toward the goal, but a broad-brushed math and physics training would not be part of this goal.

S. Simpson: I understand that it’s complicated. Some of it is still, I have a suspicion, a bit of a work in progress. I know I had the opportunity to visit a number of institutions over the past period of time and to speak to leadership at the institutions.

In many cases, they were kind of getting on with doing the job that they had a responsibility to do. But there seemed to be some levels of uncertainty about exactly what that was — how they develop their strategy and their business plan — because they lacked some clarity on some of those questions. I’m just trying to get a better sense of that.

What kind of information is the ministry providing to those institutions, how much specifics about what the expectations are in each institution as to what they will and won’t do to meet their obligations in the mandate under the plan?

[1425]

Are you providing specific letters of expectation to those institutions saying: “Here are your choices, but this is what you do now” or “Here’s what we anticipate you’re going to continue to do” or “You need to do more in other areas because we’ve deemed 12 percent of what you deliver, give or take, falls within the mandate, and we expect you to do a little better than that” — whatever that number might be — or “You’re doing great”?

As the minister said, if you have a lot of health programs to start with, you start way ahead of the game. You’re already meeting much of the mandate by what you’re delivering in terms of a program already.
[ Page 6915 ]

How is the communication with the individual institutions, and what form does that take in terms of mandate? Is it a letter? Is it a specific program? Is it a sit down with ministry staff? How does that get resolved?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The machinery for this is that there is a sector working group consisting of ministry representatives, representatives from the institutions and what are called the sector associations, including the research universities of B.C. and the other groupings of colleges and universities.

They jointly worked through a process to address this, and then each institution will receive guidance in terms of dollars for that institution which are expected to be allocated toward in-demand occupations. Each institution will then sort out what the local market demand is and what their opportunities are within the institution and come back with their proposal for realignment of positions to ensure employability at the end of the program.

This is, obviously, an iterative process in that the institutions have been involved from the very start. Once they report back about their opportunities and realignment, the ministry then aggregates all this information to get up to the 25 percent goal for the ministry. But the individual institutions have the flexibility to choose their own goals, expectations and set their own plans.

S. Simpson: One more question for the minister. This committee that the minister has spoken about, a combination of ministry officials and institution officials and others….

[D. Plecas in the chair.]

Do I understand correctly, then, that what happens is that committee makes some decisions for individual institutions, saying: “Here’s the percentage, the dollarwise, of your grant that we expect you will need to allocate to programs or initiatives that fall within the plan”?

[1430]

Then the institution takes that number and goes away and makes its own determination about what that looks like for the institution and then brings back a response saying, “Okay, you said we needed to allocate X millions of dollars, so here we are, and here’s what this looks like in seats or program changes or whatever,” so that we get to the number that this committee has given it. Then the committee signs off and says: “We’re good to go with that.”

The Chair: Minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So good to see your fresh face here.

What the sector group does is sort out the process for this, so they’re involved from the very start in making this entirely workable. Then that process is worked with by ministry staff so that the ministry staff can allocate a dollar amount to a specific institution.

That institution was involved with the sector working group in sorting out the process. It comes back to the ministry with the process plan. The ministry allocates the dollars for a particular institution.

The institution then says: “Aha, we now have a specific dollar amount to fit into the process that we all agreed upon, and we are now going to come back to the ministry with a report about the particular plans to allocate those dollars in an entirely functional and meaningful way within our institution that will lead to happy employment by the graduates, so the ministry will accomplish its goals in a timely fashion.”

K. Corrigan: I’m going to carry on in this line of questioning. The minister has said that there are certain jobs in the 60 that will be fairly easily aligned with the jobs plan but that there are some that aren’t.

What I’m wondering about is: how is it, then, that we avoid a focusing and, really, an inappropriate emphasis on those programs that can be aligned in the jobs plan, which could mean that some of those 60 jobs that can’t be so easily aligned with programs end up getting ignored and not having an appropriate number of graduates? How do we avoid that, then?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Now, reviewing the list of the top 60 occupations, one can see that there are varying levels of training required. Some are a bit long and intensive, and others may be in more life skills than in actual fixed programs.

What happens as part of that sector working group is that there’s understanding amongst institutions that not every institution should stampede into the same program, resulting in others being neglected. Once the institutions come back in that second round after the first round of setting the process, we then send them a dollar proposal for them to do some realignment, and they come back with their initial proposal.

[1435]

It’s up to the ministry to reconcile those proposals so that there isn’t a rush into a particular field and neglect of another field, and that has all worked out nicely. The institutions are now re-profiling in ways that will suit the demands of the marketplace and lead to a fuller state of employment.

K. Corrigan: I’m not sure I exactly got an answer. I thank you. There’s more information there, so I’m learning about how this is going to work.

Let’s take No. 1 and No. 2 on the list. This is the list of the top 60 occupations that require training. Maybe I should get confirmation. When we’re talking about the realignment in the institutions, we’re not talking about the top 60 jobs that would require post-secondary training. Is that what we’re talking about?
[ Page 6916 ]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The list that has been published that is titled “Top 60 occupations that require training — post-secondary training only” range from administrative assistant through lawyer and concrete finisher to firefighter.

Obviously, there are highly specific training programs for firefighters and lawyers. There are less specific training programs for administrative assistants and a variety of these others, including authors and writers.

I think we all know that an author or writer can have no formal training and turn out to be brilliant, like Alice Munro, or they can take creative writing courses and go through an English program and perhaps have become a PhD in a field and then become an author or writer.

There is a wide variation here in terms of specificity of training. These are the ones that we seek to match to the market in terms of the training opportunities in our institutions.

K. Corrigan: That’s exactly why I was asking that question. In the labour market outlook, which is the source of the top 60 occupations, there are, in fact, two lists.

List 1 is “Top 60 occupations that require training — post-secondary training only”; and List 2, which is on page 27, right next to it, is “Top 60 occupations that require training.”

The top 60 occupations that require training include retail salesperson as No. 1; then transport truck drivers, No. 2; and then administrative assistants, No. 3. Whereas on the ones that require post-secondary training, administrative assistants is on the top of the list.

I’m assuming that the post-secondary system, therefore, is not concerning itself with list 2 at all. The realignment deals with list 1. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The second list the member refers to, “Top 60 occupations that require training” — entitled “List 2,” I think, for both of us — does have retail salesperson at the top. Obviously, that requires some degree of training. It tends to be done by the employer, it tends to be shorter term, and it tends to be more accessible without paying tuition or buying books.

[1440]

We have taken a subset of a longer list and come up with list 1, which are jobs requiring post-secondary training. In a much longer list, list 2, all of the occupations in list 1 would appear. But list 2 is really from statistical information about changes in the workforce.

I think the member opposite knows that about two-thirds of these positions are expected to become open because of retirement and about one-third because of changes in the economy. But the list 1 of post-secondary training programs and the related employment is a different list than list 2.

K. Corrigan: I take that as confirmation of my question, as well, which is that the ministry is working off list 1, right? Yeah, okay.

The point of just clarifying that first is that I want to go back to some of those positions that are at the top. The occupation that is at the top of the list, in other words, where there are expected to be more job openings by 2022 than any other type of job, is administrative assistant, and No. 2 is administrative officer — 17,500 roughly for each of those positions.

It would be my understanding from what the minister has said today that there is no program in the post-secondary system that could possibly be aligned with those two most in-demand types of position.

There is no program that could be aligned. In other words, if we’re looking at a 25 percent alignment, we’re going to be leaving out probably a good — I haven’t counted, but I would expect — 20 or 25 percent of the jobs on the list. It’s why I’m asking the question: are we not skewing the system to focus on those jobs that are in demand and can be aligned, whereas there’s a whole bunch of other jobs that are even more in demand, but somehow we can’t align them? They’re going to get ignored, and the training is not going to go there, when maybe it should.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The working premise here is that one has to be cautious in saying that one can become an administrative officer with no particular training, when in fact most of them have substantial post-secondary training.

I’m sure the member opposite will recall from her own legal experience that there is a tendency for people with arts degrees in particular to find themselves moving into administrative roles that may not have had a formal training program but nonetheless require their degree of acumen and writing skills.

This is a ubiquitous phenomenon in our society, which is reflected in items 1 and 2 on list 1 — that is, administrative assistants and administrative officers. There are specific training programs for these in our college system, but many people migrate into those roles in life after going through a more generalist education.

K. Corrigan: That’s exactly my point. The vast majority or…. I don’t know the number, but a large number of administrative officers and, even more so, administrative assistants could not be pegged into the programs that institutions are getting credit for, even though it is very likely that somebody who does an undergraduate degree or a graduate degree in general in humanities, a general science degree or an advanced….

Those people are the ones that are going to be gaining the qualifications, the broad base of education, the skills, the critical thinking — all of those kinds of things. They are the most in demand, but there is no way of identifying programs that are going to fit within this framework
[ Page 6917 ]
that is being set up that is going to have accountability and numbers attached to it. Is that correct?

[1445]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am always reluctant to differ with the very learned member opposite because her questions are always thoughtful and insightful and usually very crisp. This time I do have to disagree, in that there are training programs that are in our college system for these two titles.

In addition, we have to remember that a lot of people in our society these days will go through a generalist education. They may or may not complete a degree or an associate degree program. Then they’ll find themselves thinking: “I could do one of these administrative, white-collar jobs, so I will go and take a top-up course at a college or institute of technology in administration or accounting or basic business practices so that I can be career-ready.”

Those tend to be shorter courses, but nonetheless, they are offered by our institutions. They help those individuals to make themselves entirely job-ready after a more generalist education. So I would have to differ with the member opposite on this point.

K. Corrigan: What I’m trying to get at, though, is that if it’s a four-year general arts program, say, and then either no training or specialist training — a short program, the four-year general arts program — there’s no way in the world that that program, which perhaps was the one that gave a student the critical-thinking skills, the writing skills and some of the other skills that you need for a management position…. There is no way that those types of programs are going to qualify under this framework. That’s the part….

I understand there might be other programs later which would be shorter, but we have a whole bunch of types of education. Even though it might be exactly the right preparation for somebody who was going to fit into the top 60, it’s not going to qualify. That’s the acknowledgment that I’m seeking.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just to clarify the picture, the 25 percent targeted goal for the ministry, of course, leaves 75 percent for generalist education. An individual, as they pursue their career and the autonomy they seek and the skills that they want, may find themselves in generalist education with 75 percent of the budget allocation initially. Then they may migrate into this targeted education.

The top 60 occupations on list 1 are the ones tailored to fit into that 25 percent target. The member opposite suggests things like a four-year degree in an arts program. That would be covered by the 75 percent of the budget that is left for those generalist programs.

K. Corrigan: My point is, I guess, that there is going to be a number of these types of positions, of these 60 positions. It’s going to be difficult to find an alignment. Really, what it is doing is…. It’s not really 60 positions, because some of them just simply will not have any specific preparation, or may have a small amount of preparation of the total educational career of the student. But they’re not going be specific and aligned with a job, which means it’s going to be skewing towards those jobs that do have a specific education.

I have a better understanding, so I appreciate that. But I do think it’s a danger. I’ve certainly heard from stakeholders — professors, teachers, instructors and administrators — who are very concerned that despite the fact that 75 percent of the funding will not be targeted, this emphasis on these 60 top jobs is going to mean the devaluing of some types of training that happen in our post-secondary system that are very valuable.

[1450]

I’ve mentioned it very quickly: the world view, the thinking about the world, the critical thinking, becoming good citizens and all of those things.

I’m wondering if the minister has any concern whatsoever that, by rerouting 25 percent of the system, we’re going to be losing or devaluing some of the very important types of skills that make this world a more thinking, more capable, more literate society, as well as better citizens.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, that is part of the rationale for leaving 75 percent of the budget for generalist education — so that all of us can pursue our hopes and dreams and interests and things that we might want to study one day. Then we have allocated 25 percent of the budget so that individuals can either form their impressions early or change their minds later on and pursue specific career training through one of these top 60 occupations which are more career-oriented so that they can have an expectation of ready employment at the end of the program.

Of course, we see our students vote with their feet on this issue. It’s not uncommon to do a bachelor of arts in a generalist field or a bachelor of science in a more esoteric field and then to realize in one’s early 20s that it’s time to “get a job” and to seek out more specific skills in one of these occupations or in another occupation which may not appear on the list.

That’s why we’ve allocated 75 percent of our budget to that generalist education — to improve the level of learning and life experience in our society — and left 25 percent available for specific, job-oriented career training.

K. Conroy: I just want to ask a real specific question around the blueprint. Nowhere in the blueprint is there anything about the training of pilots in this province, and it’s not on the list.

Studies have been done that show there’s going to be, actually, a real need. Thousands of pilots are going to be needed in this country in the coming years. And there
[ Page 6918 ]
is not any commitment to training pilots, in the blueprint or….

In our area, at Selkirk College, we had one of the best flight schools in the country — well recognized. Unfortunately, the college has had to close that program. They’re training the last of the pilots right now. It has been quite devastating to the college and to the community. It’s a program that has been around since when I went to school there. I think it has been around since the ’70s. It’s one of the longest-standing programs out there, I think.

To have to close it down has created some issues within the community — a real sense of loss. I know there are many pilots who fly for Air Canada and other major airlines that got their starts or alumni from Selkirk College. One of the issues with the college is that this was not on the blueprint, and they were unable to fund it because of the concerns of funding for the college as it is, but it’s not on the blueprint.

I’m wondering how this list was made up. Are pilots not…? I mean, for those of us that fly regularly, we want to make sure that our pilots are well trained. Is it this ministry’s intention to have all pilot schools that are private or private-public partnerships with universities in the province…? Is the idea of having a pilot school solely within a university or college not an issue that can happen in this province anymore? Is there no funding for that? I just would like to get some input from the minister on why the blueprint doesn’t cover this profession.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think most of us have gathered the impression over time that becoming a pilot is a variable path. Some of them, of course, go for military training, whether that’s right out of high school or otherwise. Others learn in a more informal setting. There’s a lot of private training of pilots. Whether the public sector educational institutions should be involved in pilot training has been an evolving picture.

[1455]

More specifically, at Selkirk College there is very low demand for the program, and of course, it’s extremely costly to deliver. Given that there is an abundance of training opportunities in the private training institutions across North America, the conclusion was that this was not going to be a program that would be sustainable in the public institutions.

It has actually declined in public institutions across the country over the decades. It’s now largely delivered privately, and that’s where our ministry and the various institutions we work with have landed. In terms of it being on the list, we refer the question to the Jobs Ministry because, again, we don’t go into the labour markets. We provide the training.

K. Corrigan: That leads nicely into my next question. How do expensive programs fit into the blueprint? The reason I’m asking is that there are some programs that are very expensive, and they may or may not be on the top 60 list. I’m thinking of the dental hygienist program that is going to be decided, I think, this week — whether or not that program at the College of New Caledonia is going to be shut down.

If a program fits within the top 60 jobs and it is also a very expensive program, what is going to be done to ensure…? Given that colleges and universities and institutes are very, very squeezed financially and are making cuts, what is going to be the incentive to ensure that those programs that are high demand, at least in an area, but are also very costly to deliver, are going to be preserved?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member makes a valid point — that training in some fields is expensive. One can think of aviation. Dentistry is another great example. Welding has come up as an issue recently because, of course, the training in welding consumes metal, which is not as cheap as it once was. Some programs incur higher costs to deliver than others.

This is always a balancing act in terms of making sure that we don’t inflict those costs on an individual, or we probably wouldn’t have any pilots in our society — or any dentists. Those costs tend to be absorbed by employers or otherwise, with the equivalent of on-the-job training.

Pilots, for instance, acquire their hours on smaller aircraft, and then they move into larger aircraft once they’ve got that fully paid experience, rather than having to pay as a student to learn on small aircraft and then moving up to jets. It would simply be totally uneconomical for an individual to say: “I will pay my own way to learn how to fly a Boeing 787.” Obviously, the employer has to anticipate that and train accordingly, whether it happens in civil aviation or military aviation.

In terms of our top 60 occupations, they vary in terms of the cost of delivery. Mechanical engineering is obviously going to be more expensive to deliver than administrative officers. Nonetheless, the programs here are largely part of the public sector training regime. We have understood them to be in demand, and we are making the necessary adjustments in our post-secondary institutions to make sure that the capacity exists to deliver those programs, whether they’re in law or in culinary arts, civil engineering or gas fitters.

The costs vary, and to some extent, our society absorbs them. To some extent, the student pays for them, and in some situations the employer will pay for them, as in the example of pilots.

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying that if the training programs are for occupations that very clearly fall in the top 60, then there is a possibility that not only will there be an expectation that the colleges and universities and institutes will provide those, according to whatever the agreement is with that particular institution, but that there will also possibly be recognition of the extra costs,
[ Page 6919 ]
in terms of extra funding for those programs that fall within the target job areas. Is that correct?

[1500]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As these institutions are approached and participate in the sector working group process, they are expected to work within their existing budgets.

A mid-sized institution, like the University of the Fraser Valley, may re-profile ten or 15 positions into other positions. If they find that the cost of those new positions is higher, they will sort that out themselves. They do not come back to us with a markup on these new positions.

Larger institutions have a great opportunity, of course, to amortize the costs across the whole institution, so this tends to be less of a problem. But there is no budgetary adjustment from us. We look to the institutions to make those budgetary adjustments internally.

G. Heyman: I’m going to ask some questions that actually relate to this portfolio, but the minister will be familiar with some of the reports I’m referencing because he’d know them well from his previous portfolio as the Minister of Technology.

I spent some time looking at the 2014 British Columbia Technology Report Card done by KPMG in cooperation with the B.C. Technology Industry Association. I’m sure the minister is familiar with much of the information contained within the report, as well as the positive rating of the technology industries in relation to other industries in B.C. and the not as positive as we would like rating of both the present and future of the technology industries with respect to other provinces in Canada that have substantial technology industries or with states south of the border.

The report did go on to identify a number of measures that could assist with this — measures that would be taken to address some of the obstacles. In particular, talent availability was one of the issues that was raised. I’m sure the minister is familiar with this. The report indicates that industry leaders almost universally agreed that access to talent has become the most significant issue facing their firms.

Again, to put it in context, the industry was projecting a gradual slope or increase in share of GDP and jobs if we continued the way we were going in a number of metrics, a tapering off if we weren’t able to continue at that current baseline, but a substantial slope up if we were able to meet some of the challenges. It’s in that spirit — and I’m sure the minister reviewed it in the same spirit — that I’m asking the questions.

They talked about the need to expand the available talent pool in areas such as industrial technologies and sales and marketing. B.C. lags other provinces in granting engineering and sciences degrees at both the undergraduate and graduate levels and is below the OECD average in technical doctoral degrees.

They noted an improvement in the granting of degrees in math and computer science in B.C. relative to other provinces — which had been a problem, but on which we’re doing better — but B.C. is continuing to lag in the granting of degrees in other technical fields, faring particularly poorly in the architecture and engineering fields and underperforming the Canadian average in life sciences.

To sum up, for both undergraduate and graduate degrees, according to the report, B.C. is well behind the Canadian average and the degree rates of other provinces in the fields of architecture and engineering. The other points I’ve mentioned.

[1505]

My question to the minister is…. I’m wondering if the minister — again, with a nod to his previous portfolio — would be able to provide me and my colleagues, without having to go through a freedom-of-information request, with any records of discussions that took place within the ministry with respect to this most recent report and the previous report card — discussions internally in the ministry about any steps that could be taken within the post-secondary education system to meet some of the needs that were identified and, therefore, help grow this very substantial part of B.C.’s economy.

The report card indicated that there was the potential to double the percentage of GDP from 8 to 16 and to add to a sector that already has about 84,000 jobs and is projected to grow to 111,000, if we don’t do much — an additional 31,000 jobs. Discussions with industry about the report? Discussions within the ministry about the report and how to address it? Any analysis that might have been done about the report, including any cost-benefit analysis of additional targeted actions that might be able to be taken within the ministry to meet some of the talent availability needs within B.C. without resorting to the need for temporary foreign workers, versus the cost-benefit of not doing anything?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: While the member is very flattering in his reference to my prior ministry and my ability to remember everything that passed under my eyes there, I will not flatter myself that way and will try to provide an answer circumscribed to this ministry, informed by prior life experience but not knowledgable of everything I ever learned in that ministry.

The jobs plan, as the member knows, does provide for increased emphasis on fields of engineering. We’ve already seen some efforts paying off at institutions like BCIT, which has developed an undergraduate program in data analytics. Our institutions do respond to the market in a reasonably prompt fashion.

Part of the issue with the technology sector is some of the jobs that they seek to fill, such as brand manager, tend to be done by people after about 15 or 20 years experience in the field. There is no formal training program.
[ Page 6920 ]
These are tasks that are always difficult to fill no matter where the industry is in the world. We’re acutely aware of the need for more of those people here, as more of our companies become of the scale to be successful enough to need those individuals.

About 15 years ago the clamour was for CFOs and CEOs in technology companies. That is now past, as we’ve had a generation move up the ladder in experience and training who can now happily fulfil those tasks. These other roles are emerging as being in demand and unsatisfied.

Now, more specifically, in terms of the contact between the ministries and this point, the deputy minister from my prior Ministry of Technology and Innovation does participate in the labour market planning board and is aware of the expectations and needs that are developed there, in light of his learning and experience in the technology sector — which, as the member opposite probably knows, comes from about 25 years of experience in the tech sector as an employee manager and owner.

We have a good level of information within the ministry, and that is reflected in terms of the training expectations. What this ministry does not do is the actual labour market surveys. That’s done by the Ministry of Jobs and Skills Training.

The shorter answer to the member’s question is that, yes, this ministry is aware of the needs and expectations of the tech sector, and yes, we are doing our best to respond. It may be that some of it takes a bit of time. The sector, obviously, would like to hire these people tomorrow. They are, in some sense, obliged to cast their net wider, which is what we see them doing in trying to recruit in other provinces and across borders, because of the success of the local tech sector, which the member opposite has witnessed, just as I have.

G. Heyman: Obviously, we can’t create the skilled people overnight that the sector seeks, but I think we would agree that this sector will be around for a long time. With jobs that pay, I believe, on average 66 percent above the average industrial wage in B.C., it’s a sector that we want to see continue to create employment opportunities, which means, of course, it’s to everyone’s advantage to see young British Columbians trained to take their place in this sector.

[1510]

Let me zero in a bit more specifically. The minister has said, generally, that they are taking some steps to try to meet the needs that are identified. I’m wondering if he can be a bit more specific, either today or in writing, as well as to indicate if this is a zero-sum game and that’s going to come at the expense of training in other fields to which people may also have an interest in British Columbia, or if there’s a longer-range plan to add capacity in other ways.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member asks a somewhat detailed and very substantial question. I’m going to suggest we provide an answer in writing about the opportunities that are being developed in our colleges and universities to address a demand in the tech sector. We don’t have at our fingertips the number of positions that have changed in fields like data processing and electrical engineering in the last ten years, and this calls for a substantive answer.

G. Heyman: Just to finish this line of questioning on this aspect before I go to my final question, perhaps the minister could tell me and my colleague whether he will be able to provide the records of discussions to which I referred in my first question, as well as any analysis of the content of Technology Report Card: 2014 and any cost-benefit analyses that were done, or whether I need to look to other mechanisms to get that information or other ministries for that information.

He may well say: “You have to go to a different minister for that,” or “I’m not just going to hand it over without you going through the system.” It’d save a bit of time if he lets me know.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, the member asks a somewhat detailed and substantive question, and my learned deputy has indicated a preference to work with her counterpart in the Technology Ministry and sort out an answer for the member on this point.

G. Heyman: My last question is very specifically about the animation industry, which I’ve had the pleasure of learning a little bit about, observing some of the industrious young people who are working in the industry and talking to some of the company entrepreneurs in this sector about the rapid growth they are experiencing.

I know discussions have taken place with a number of people in the ministry around capacity for training, which is somewhat limited in British Columbia. I think Cap College has recently doubled their capacity from 24 graduates per year to 48 per year, which the industry thinks is good news but still thinks it falls short.

I understand that you don’t have a fairly exponential growth of skills needs every year continually, but the industry says that they have an anticipated need for 300 to 400 skilled workers in the next 12 to 18 months, and that’s simply in animation, not in visual effects.

I’m wondering if the minister could inform us whether any additional measures are being taken by the ministry to seek to meet the desire of the industry to see increased training capacity in animation in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There are a number of programs the member may be familiar with at Okanagan College, Emily Carr, Great Northern Way Campus and Capilano University.

This is a field where, interestingly, the training takes the student to the point of being job-ready, and then the students tend to, once they’ve graduated, morph out into
[ Page 6921 ]
other fields such as post-production work and the movie business. Once they have those skills of developing and manipulating images, they can use that in a wide variety of fields.

This is a field that we have taken seriously and developed training programs in, and whether it is satisfying demand is something we’re constantly taking feedback on.

G. Heyman: To sum up, I think if the people who have been successfully trained go on to post-production work and visual effects, that’s also a good thing for the economy, and we expect to see more post-production with the extension of the digital animation or visual effects tax credit to post-production. That should be an area that continues to grow in British Columbia.

[1515]

Just to be a bit more clear and specific, given the shortage of skilled workers that the industry faces as well as its significant growth, is there actually a unified strategy in place across post-secondary institutions to address the shortfall, or is it institution by institution? Is the ministry playing a role in trying to coordinate capacity and activity?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The ministry, of course, keeps tabs on the allocation of seats to these various programs. We’re acutely aware of labour market expectations and attempt not to rush into fields that may become less attractive over time.

However, this is a field that has been developing over a decade and more, actually more like two decades, hence this government’s move into developing the Great Northern Way Campus specifically for the master’s programs in visual digital work.

The institutions largely determine their own destiny in this field. As the member opposite points out, Capilano University developed a program basically from nothing and then doubled it with the benefit of some philanthropy and some local focus on the issues. It is heavily market-driven at the institutional level, and we work with the institutions to determine overall demand so that there isn’t a gold rush in terms of a dozen programs being opened up at once.

It’s largely driven by local market demand with the institutions, hence the development of the program at Okanagan College to support the burgeoning digital effects and animation industry in the Okanagan.

G. Heyman: I just seek some clarification from the minister about whether that was a qualified yes or a qualified no.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Having been through two sets of estimates with the member opposite before, subtlety, of course, is our mutual virtue.

Rather than elaborate my answer again, it’s really a matter of sorting out at the local market level what the local demand is so that institutions can be responsive. When we have an opportunity in the Okanagan for a durable industry rather than one that was required by a multinational and may have disappeared, once it turns out to be durable, we do our best to respond to that market demand. Hence the program at Okanagan College.

K. Corrigan: I want to go back to a few more questions on the blueprint. On page 12 of the blueprint it says that the B.C. access grant…. Sorry, before that. It says: “We will re-engineer our student financial aid programs to target $40 million per year in student aid grants to support occupations that are in high demand.”

I guess my first question is — forgive me; I don’t have it in front of me today: how large are those financial aid programs? What’s the total?

[1520]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The aggregate figures for student financial assistance in 2013-14 are that $645 million was provided in student financial aid. Of that, the B.C. student loan program, administered by the Ministry of Finance, is just over $214 million. Then the remainder is made up largely of Canada student loans and a variety of grants, both provincial and federal.

K. Corrigan: So $40 million of that total of $645 million is going to be targeted to programs that lead to occupations that are in high demand. Has that re-engineering started yet?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think we’re talking at cross-purposes here in that the $40 million that was spent in this fiscal toward the targeted programs was actually out of the grant to the institutions, not out of the student loan portfolio.

Perhaps the member could maybe refer us to a specific page item in the blueprint so that we can get back onto the same page, quite literally.

K. Corrigan: I think I did mention the page — page 12. “We will re-engineer our student financial aid programs to target $40 million per year in student aid grants to support occupations that are in high demand.” The question is: has that re-engineering started, and if so, how much has been re-engineered this year?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member is, of course, correct about the page 12 reference, and I apologize for the mixup on our side of the table. This is a program that will roll out during the rest of this calendar year dealing with loan forgiveness, loan reduction and student grants. This will be, as I say, rolled out later this year so that we can anticipate supporting these students as they seek to find their place in the labour force.
[ Page 6922 ]

K. Corrigan: I’m trying to get a sense. Does this mean that there will be less student financial aid available to those students that are not within the programs that lead to the 60 occupations?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To specifically answer the member’s question, of course, as we allocate seats to the 25 percent of targeted positions, leaving 75 percent generalist, then obviously some of the student loan portfolio will migrate with that allocation to the 25 percent.

[1525]

It remains to be seen how much student demand will call upon loans, grants and so forth as students make their way into that 25 percent of targeted funded positions at our various universities. The envelope for the student financial aid is not expected to change dramatically, but the students, of course, vote with their feet. We’ll find out where they end up and whether there’ll have to be any reallocation within that budget to account for this $40 million that is being attributed to the targeted funded positions.

K. Corrigan: The minister is saying not that this is a firm $40 million. The minister is saying that as a natural result of the movement to the 25 percent over the next few years, it’s expected that this amount of money will get there.

It just makes me wonder why there would have to have something in a document that says we’re going to be targeting $40 million in student aid and grants if, in fact, it’s just a natural process. I’m trying to get a sense. Is there something deliberate being done or is there not with regard to student aid?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a very thoughtful and relevant question. Once we have determined the natural progression of students into this space of their own accord, we will then determine what remainder of the $40 million needs to be allocated to top that up and to support occupations in high demand by student grants in that space.

First of all, we have to see what the students do by themselves, and secondly, we have to provide those dollars to incent their behaviour to head in that direction.

K. Corrigan: I just want to clarify, then. The minister is saying that at some point, if not this year, there will be targeted activity, there will be policies put in place that will provide preferential treatment for students who are in those target areas. Is that correct?

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

The Chair: : Minister.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Thank you, Mr. Chair, in your new format here.

The premise, as I said, is that if the students don’t take the financial aid with them by migrating into the programs, the remainder that the students haven’t taken with them will be made available to those in-demand programs.

That re-profiling and re-engineering will be intentional. The first part will be passive. The second part will be active. It remains to be seen how much of it will happen passively by the students taking it with them and how much will be active allocation of the latter portion.

With that thought, Mr. Chair, I’m going to suggest we take a ten-minute break.

The Chair: We’ll just recess for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:28 p.m. to 3:41 p.m.

[D. Ashton in the chair.]

K. Corrigan: I just have a few more questions about the blueprint. I wanted to go to page 15, where at the bottom of the page it says…. It’s about infrastructure. “Up-to-date training facilities with the latest technology and equipment are critical to making sure students have the right skills for high-demand jobs. Over the next three years government will spend $750 million for infrastructure and equipment at our post-secondary institutions, including $185 million targeted towards…training infrastructure and equipment.”

I’m just wondering how much of that $750 million for infrastructure and equipment is in the 2015-16 budget.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I am advised that this is somewhat dependent on cash flow, and so we want to give an accurate answer rather than an aspirational answer. We’re hoping we can do that in the near future rather than right now.

K. Corrigan: Well, I think it’s possible because we do have a 2015-16 budget. How much in the 2015-16 budget is allocated to that aspirational or accurate number of $750 million for infrastructure and equipment? How much this year?

[1545-1550]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: We’ve assembled the number for 2014-15. Given that these are capital spends, we have to be careful that we’re actually reporting accurate numbers. The total for 2014-15 is $41 million. The staffer is in the process of assembling the number for 2015-16. We are in the member opposite’s hands as to whether we wait for that number now, or if she wants to move on with another question, we can come back to this.

K. Corrigan: Yeah. I’m happy to move on. I thank you for that number.
[ Page 6923 ]

I am interested. It says “over the next three years.” This document was done about a year ago. I’m not sure whether it was including ’14-15 as part of those three years. Maybe just ’14-15, ’15-16, ’16-17 and expectations in ’17-18, and we’ll be clear about covering that amount.

I’m also concerned that government produced a document, to much fanfare, in which it was said that over the next three years government will spend $750 million for infrastructure and equipment at our post-secondary institutions, including $185 million targeted towards trades-training infrastructure and equipment.

The minister’s response included the word “aspirational.” I just want to make it clear. Is this a commitment that was made, or is it not? Will there be $750 million spent in a three-year period on capital infrastructure?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The reference to aspirational goals in terms of investment was in the current fiscal due to the issues of our ability to actually make the capital investments.

The $750 million is our three-year capital plan: ’14-15 through 2016-17. One can see that this is the capital plan and the actual spending, which it may differ from, because of the cash flow issues.

As I said, we’re keen to be very accurate in estimates, so I have given the member the number for 2014-15. The number for 2015-16 can be in two forms. One is the anticipation, the aspirational goal for those investments. The other would be the actual accounting number, probably in estimates a year from now, as to how much was actually spent.

K. Corrigan: I think if a member of the public was to read this document, and I think many members of the public or many people may have read at least parts of this document…. When one reads that the government is going to spend $750 million in a three-year period, from ’14-15 to ’16-17, on infrastructure, what the government means is that it is going to spend $750 million, not that it’s going to spend $750 million aspirationally, that it’s aspiring to do that, and not that it’s going to depend on the financial framework.

We’re only talking a year ago, so I’m not sure what has particularly gone downhill in the last year, other than, perhaps, the LNG future that was promised by this government. I think most people would be a little taken aback if they were to read this document and take the government at its word that $750 million was going to be spent on infrastructure, only to be told that really, that’s not a commitment of any means.

So far, we’ve spent $41 million, and the other $709 million may or may not get spent over the next couple of years. I’m concerned. I don’t know if the minister wants to respond.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I should, perhaps, correct my choice of adjectives there and change “aspirational” to “approved” or “intended.” We have a $750 million capital envelope approved by Treasury Board for these three fiscal years, including a $185 million investment in the blueprint, trades-training infrastructure and equipment, as stated in the document.

The document is completely accurate, and I’m sorry to have used a less-than-perfect adjective to describe the approved, intended, planned and budgeted capital plan.

[1555]

K. Corrigan: Well, that’s good to hear, then. So the minister is saying that although there’s $41 million in the capital plan for post-secondary infrastructure for ’14-15, there is, in fact, another $700 million in the approved capital plan for ’15-16 and ’16-17?

If that’s the case, how much of that is in ’15-16? Or are we waiting for that? It must be somewhere in the range — I would assume, if it’s evenly distributed — of $350 million plus a few. If you can’t answer that now, that’s fine, but I would like to get those numbers back.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Just for clarity, of the $185 million targeted towards trades training and infrastructure, there are approved projects that are actually underway totalling $72 million in provincial funding already, out of that $185 million. We do expect to be on target with this three-year commitment.

If the member is keen, I can go into the specific projects that have been approved within that $72 million. The rest of it is for projects that are in the planning stages.

K. Corrigan: That’s fine. Thank you. I would like the breakdown of the approved capital plan for $750 million for the three years. I don’t need it right now, but I would appreciate that, since apparently it has been approved. I would appreciate seeing exactly what years and how much it is for each year.

I’m going to go on to page 41, which is appendix 1 of the blueprint. It says under 5(a):

“Government should no longer independently direct training funding to post-secondary institutions or other organizations but instead empower accountability within the ITA” — industry training — “for both decisions and outcomes. This will require transferring existing base and discretionary funding from Advanced Education so overall funding levels are not reduced.”

I’m wondering if I could get an idea of what reductions there are going to be and what the planning is with regard to that transfer of funding from Advanced Education.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This refers to the conclusion of roughly a year ago that involved the development of the labour market priorities board and the allocation of funding within that envelope.

[1600]

The reference here to the Advanced Education budget has meant that there has been no change in the Advanced Education budget, but that the involved ministries work
[ Page 6924 ]
on a coordinated basis and deploy these funds in the fashion indicated.

K. Corrigan: The blueprint says: “This will require transferring existing base and discretionary funding from Advanced Education so overall funding levels are not reduced.” The ITA is in the Labour and Jobs Ministry. That’s not what the document says. It says there will be transfer, but the decision has been made to not transfer that money, so it’s still going to be allocated the same way. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The upshot of this is that the Industry Training Authority is, as the member notes, in the Jobs and Skills Training Ministry, and that body works closely with Advanced Education because Advanced Education has most of the capital facilities used to deliver the programs, many of the faculty and the registration recruitment tools at these institutions.

This actually has been implemented, but the budget has been left with Advanced Education. So that reference to transferring existing base and discretionary budgeting from Advanced Education should be probably ignored, as the program has been implemented through the labour market priorities board without transferring those funds out of Advanced Education.

K. Corrigan: I guess my last area of questioning harkens back to where I was at the beginning, and it has to do with trying to look forward and planning in a way that does truly reflect the demands of the market. It’s a question about…. What is the expectation of the minister in terms of the reliability or the usefulness of the re-evaluations that are going to happen — I would assume yearly or more often — and that are going to be included in the labour market outlook that is being provided to government?

The reason I’m asking about this is that at the time the blueprint was put out there were still promises we were going to have several LNG plants. I know this is not the ministerial area of this minister. However, this minister is relying on those predictions. A large part of the forecast was dependent on a KPMG report that made the assumption that there would be five LNG plants up and running by around 2022. We know, of course, that the promise was that there was going to be one up and running by this year, 2015, and that’s not happening.

I’m wondering whether or not the minister has concerns about re-engineering 25 percent of our post-secondary spaces on the basis of predictions which may have been aspirational — to use the minister’s previous word — and which may not play out at all. How concerned the minister is about at least partially re-engineering our post-secondary system for something that…. We have no idea whether it’s going to happen or to what degree it’s going to happen.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the state of the economy in British Columbia and the world in the next 40 years of the working life of a young person entering post-secondary education is completely unpredictable. What we do is do our best to invest in their skills and ability so that they will have the flexibility to work wherever they see fit.

[1605]

Some of them may go abroad for a while. Some of them may decide to set up their own small business. Some of them may remain as employees. Some may work for a utility for 35 years. Our task is to make them fully employable and functional, and they will find the employment that they see fit.

The record in this space has been, of course, very successful in that British Columbia has been a net importer of skills in most of the 20th century, whether it was physicians — up till 1954, because we didn’t train any — or air traffic controllers or anyone else.

We’re now in a position where there’s a large enough and diverse enough economy that we can train our own people to meet domestic demand. The sources of that demand, whether it is LNG or some other kind of development or the burgeoning tech sector that the member for Vancouver-Fairview earlier referred to, are somewhat inscrutable at this point in a 40-year time frame, but we intend to equip our people so that they can have the fulfilling and satisfying careers that they will benefit from.

In terms of projecting specific careers, that is going to be an adjusted story. We expect that it’ll be revised annually to determine the state of play in the marketplace because, of course, we want to train people for work that is going to be available.

K. Corrigan: Well, I appreciate the minister’s answer. The minister is appropriate to say that when somebody is looking at a career, they’re looking at as much as 40 years — God help us if we have 40-year careers, but when you’re looking 40 years hence — and that’s fair enough. But what is being contemplated here is a re-engineering of the post-secondary system over a period of three years, and a large part of that is based on a guess or a projection, which is risky, very risky, with regard to LNG.

Again, I guess I repeat my concern to the minister — the minister doesn’t need to answer — that we have put our eggs in that basket. We’ve received assurances. Those assurances so far have not panned out.

Is it appropriate for us to be re-engineering for LNG? I know it’s not just LNG. It’s a blended forecast. That’s what the blueprint report says, and that’s what the labour market outlook report says. It’s a combination of labour market analysis and guesses. It doesn’t use the word “guesses,” but it says five LNG plants by 2022.

Again, I guess it’s just a comment that if we are going to be re-engineering within three years, and we’re looking at reaching these targets of 25 percent, it seems to me it’s a
[ Page 6925 ]
pretty risky thing to be doing. I wonder whether part of it — the minister probably can’t answer this — probably has to do with commitments that this province was trying to make, trying to get companies to invest in LNG plants and saying we will retool our post-secondary sector.

It is a pretty risky gamble to play with the most important system that we have, the most important thing that we do in this province, which I believe is K-to-12 and post-secondary education. To me, that’s risking the futures of not only our kids but also our economy.

I don’t know if the minister wants to respond.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I cannot allow that rather rash statement to go unchallenged. As I said in my previous answer, we seek to invest in our people so that they have the skills to prosper over a 40-year working life, and they will find their way. Just as probably very few of the people in this room expected to be sitting in this room as their form of employment 25 years ago, life changes. Skills are developed, and skills are flexible and can be deployed in different places.

This jobs plan — which is, as I say, primarily a function of the Jobs and Skills Training Ministry — anticipates a million job openings in the next decade or so, and 68 percent of those, by my understanding, are related to retirements because the cohort that’s in this room won’t be working 20 years from now — unless they have made serious financial errors.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I see one of the members opposite purports to want to be working in his late seventies, but we’ll see.

[1610]

In any case, we anticipate that there’ll be a large cohort of retirements. Those need to be replaced. We’ll have a skills-based economy. We have a changing economy with the development of the technology sector. We have opportunities with LNG. We intend to make sure that our people have the necessary skills to be flexible in the workplace and do all kinds of different things so they have the kinds of opportunities for prosperity that all of us have enjoyed.

K. Corrigan: Well, we’ll see whether it’s appropriate to have retooled. The minister talks about flexibility, but the system change is not about flexibility. It’s about targeting post-secondary training to jobs that are predicted to be there in the future. I do believe that many types of post-secondary training are important, and I certainly believe that trades training and many of the skills that are in the top 60 are ones that we absolutely should be training for.

I’m going to go on to something that the minister just triggered in talking about the aging population. One of the statements in the Labour Market Outlook, which was the basis of the prioritization in the blueprint, was:

“Given the aging population challenge facing B.C. and the decreasing number of new entrants to the labour market over the forecast period, B.C. will rely more on migrants as a source of new labour supply. Migrants to B.C. that arrive during the forecast period are expected to fill one-third of the total projected job openings in the province to 2022.”

So one-third. That’s the Labour Market Outlook, which is supposed to be the expert advice that we’re receiving about where we’re going to be going. That’s apart from the predictions about LNG.

My question to the minister, and I’ll get into this area later, is how is that prediction that we are going to expect that one-third of the projected job openings in the province are going to filled by migrants to B.C. from other parts of Canada but also to a great extent from overseas…? Why does it make sense to be significantly cutting the funding to ESL and adult basic education, given the fact that we recognize that we need to find migrants and also other sources of workers over the next several years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the member is, I think, making a fundamental error in confusing migrants with people who don’t speak English. I immigrated to this country at the age of four speaking rudimentary English, and other people in this room immigrated to this country speaking English. “Migrants” also, of course, anticipates people from other provinces in Canada — who’ve shown a very strong proclivity to move to B.C. because it’s such a great place to live and has such a great government in recent years.

There are all kinds of opportunities for people who already speak English to come here from other places. We see substantial in-migration of people who are as fluent, or more so, in English than the rest of us from countries such as Britain, parts of Europe, the Australians in my neighbourhood and South Africans. There’s a whole range of migrants who already speak English.

In addition to those, we have some people who arrive in Canada with more limited English skills and take ESL. English as a second language is offered in a number of institutions around the province of British Columbia. There’s been a change in the funding profile because the federal government, in its wisdom, decided to cancel the $17 million funding for this roughly a year ago. We are accommodating to that because we recognize the need for this training.

K. Corrigan: I had planned to get into ESL and the cuts to the funding of ESL a little bit later, but I’ll touch on it now, and I may or may not get back to it. Yes, I recognize that the funding from the federal government was cut, but my feeling is that there was transitional funding provided. I believe that actually, as it turned out, was provided by the federal government as well.

[1615]

Does the minister not feel that there is an obligation to provide support for people who are taking English
[ Page 6926 ]
language courses in British Columbia? That there needs to be support for those people who often just have small hurdles that they need to overcome in order to become productive. It can be students, particularly in our post-secondary system, who have training from their home….

I’m talking now about migrants from other countries. I recognize that migrants…. And I think I said it when I was asking the original question. I think I made that distinction and said that migrants can come from other provinces. Many, many migrants, to this province particularly, come from other countries, and many of those migrants have challenges with speaking English or French.

Does the government not feel that it’s a smart investment? Does the minister not feel that it’s a smart investment and also that there is a responsibility to ensure that…? For the good of our province, for the good of our economic well-being, does the minister not feel that it would be a good investment in the future of this province to help people get over that small hurdle of language, particularly those that already have other skills that they could take to the workplace, often including in the health care area, which is an area of high demand?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member points out the need for English-as-a-second-language training in this province, which we fully understand and agree to. Because of the federal government’s unilateral decision roughly a year ago, this government put $17 million into transitional funding so that our institutions could accommodate to this unexpected decision by the federal government.

It remains to be seen where the federal government is going to redeploy those funds. In the meantime, we have provided for a $7.6 million grant program for those students who find themselves in need and want to pursue ESL.

K. Corrigan: I just want to read an excerpt from one of many, many letters and e-mails. I’ve had hundreds and hundreds of students and teachers and organizations saying this is a bad decision. This letter comes from B.C. TEAL. It’s the Association of B.C. Teachers of English as an Additional Language, signed by Shawna Williams, the president of that association. She says, among other things:

“Language training is a critical pathway for citizens and newcomers as they engage, integrate and contribute to our communities. We believe the looming funding shortfalls and cuts to post-secondary ESL programs will have serious social and economic repercussions for B.C., and we hope you share our concerns.

“Students in post-secondary ESL programs want to upgrade their language skills and transition seamlessly into a wide range of academic, career, vocational and trade programs. They want to find work and build their lives in B.C., and we believe it is in the interest of all British Columbians that we continue to provide quality public post-secondary ESL education.”

That’s an excerpt from the letter from Shawna Williams.

I appreciate that the minister has said that the funding assistance from the federal government is gone. But to me, that is not an answer — and to the thousands of students who are going to be losing their programming, which were ladders of opportunity, in many cases: (1) getting them into the post-secondary system and (2) providing a ladder from those language programs into other post-secondary courses.

We do know, I believe, that somewhere in the range of two-thirds to 75 percent of students who take English language courses in the post-secondary system actually go on to further training in the post-secondary system, which seems to me a benefit to all of us.

[1620]

I would say that we do have a responsibility. Whether or not the federal government funded this for a time, we do have a responsibility for basic adult education. I would say this falls under that category. It’s a short-sighted decision by this province to essentially shut down, and that’s really what it’s doing.

Perhaps my question to the minister is: what analysis has the ministry done of the impact of the lack of funding for ESL? What is that actually doing to the number of students who are accessing, or will be accessing, ESL courses at post-secondary schools in British Columbia?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: To date, of course, the answer is that the funding has remained stable because of the provincial intervention to completely replace that federal funding.

The note the member read out is certainly very timely and well-addressed to the federal government. We do wonder where they are going with this. They have indicated that they’ll be funding a non-profit agency, such as SUCCESS, to provide this kind of training and funding. That remains to be seen. But we jumped into the breach and funded this with $17 million that we had taken away from us by the federal government. Those programs are still in place, and it will remain to be seen what the demand is and how it is supplied by the federal government as they roll out their new program.

In the meantime, we have, as I said, made a fairly abundant grant program available for students who are facing challenges in this area, but it remains to be seen what the gap will be, if any, after the federal government has made their plans clear.

K. Corrigan: Well, the effects are already being felt at Vancouver Community College, which is the largest provider of English language training in the province and has been doing so for decades. Programs are already being shut down. Pink slips are already out there.

There was a small reprieve, a little bit of funding, but the reality is that many courses were planned to be gone. Large portions of that programming were going to be gone as of December. Some of it remains, but the reality is that the impact is already being felt at VCC and, at other institutions, will be within a very short period of time.
[ Page 6927 ]

I wanted to just clarify that, whether or not the province agreed to the cuts of these programs…. Here’s what the federal Minister of Immigration, Chris Alexander, said: “We’ve actually done it with the agreement of the provincial government. I’ve been working very closely with the Minister of Jobs and Skills” — I won’t say the name — “on this transition. She supports it. The Premier supports it. The government endorses it.” That was on December 12, 2013.

I’m wondering if the minister has any comment on what was said by the then federal Minister of Immigration, Chris Alexander.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This point that is made by the member opposite arose 16 months ago as part of a broader negotiation with the federal government on the labour market agreements. I suspect it would be far more productive to raise this with the Jobs minister when her estimates come up.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m happy to do that, and I will do that, or my colleague, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, may raise that.

The minister has taken this opportunity to characterize the decision as a decision of the federal government and that it’s their fault and it’s up to them. When the minister raises that, then I feel it’s important to raise the perspective of what the federal government said about that.

[1625]

At that point then, of course, the minister says: “Well, it’s got nothing to do with me,” but the minister was the one that raised the fact that it’s a federal government decision. The point is that the federal government says it was all done by agreement.

The provincial government, by the way, while it was taking that federal money for those years that there was federal support, took credit for the programs and spoke often about how pleased it was to fund ESL programs and said they were important, just like they said adult basic education was important. But then, when the money is no longer there, suddenly the programs are not as important.

Again, I think it’s a terrible shame. I think we are not developing. We are not providing opportunities that we should for our economy. When you talk about a jobs plan, one way to reach that, to make sure that everybody can get a job and everybody can be a functioning citizen and be productive, is to make sure that everybody has a chance to take part.

To me, it’s a very short-sighted approach. Whether or not the federal government was involved or whatever the deal was, I think it’s unfortunate that we are taking away opportunity and taking away access — and taking away access from those that have less opportunity for access. I don’t know if the minister wants to respond to that.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Once again, I suggest that this question is better addressed to the Minister of Jobs and Skills Training because this 16-month-old exchange was managed by her ministry, not mine.

K. Corrigan: Well, I would encourage the minister to go back and have the discussion with his colleagues because it’s his ministry where the cuts are happening and the institutions that he is responsible for overseeing.

I want to turn more generally back to some questions about per-capita funding, student debt and some other matters of a more general nature than particular programming. My first question has to do with funding per full-time-equivalent in B.C. public post-secondary institutions.

We’ve done a rough calculation. We’ve simply — and I know this is slightly rough because of the number of FTEs — done a rough calculation using the operating grant for each post-secondary institution in the province and the number of FTEs and then getting a funding per FTE.

I’m wondering if the minister could explain why it is that we have a variation. I won’t include the Justice Institute of B.C. because it’s a little bit different, but from Langara College up to Northern Lights College we have a disparity of $6,000 per student up to $21,000 per student.

[J. Martin in the chair.]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the member opposite has pointed out that the denominator of FTEs may be appropriate and the numerator of gross funding may seem appropriate. Nonetheless, these programs are truly apples and oranges so that Langara College — near my own neighbourhood and a fine institution — does not have the high-intensity capital programs like mechanical shops, power engineering and advanced systems the way a BCIT does.

BCIT is much more capital-intensive. It’s also much more equipment-intensive, involving consumables — programs like welding, auto mechanics and so forth.

We don’t fund by FTE. There is, obviously, variation by FTE, and that is a factor of the variability in the cost and the consumptivity of these programs.

[1630]

K. Corrigan: The minister mentioned BCIT. BCIT, in fact, falls slightly below the median FTE funding of $8,872 at $8,604. So it falls below the median and a couple of thousand dollars less than the mean or average.

I’m not questioning that there’s a disparity in the types of programs and so on. I’m hearing it from several institutions that are feeling like the funding formula was essentially kind of frozen at a certain level several years ago. It seems like there are some institutions that have been locked into low funding, and there’s no way for
[ Page 6928 ]
them to catch up — I think Langara College, some others. Capilano University, I know, has been concerned because it’s a university now.

I’m wondering if the minister is considering taking a look at the funding formula and trying to make it (1) more equitable and (2) more transparent.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: I think this goes back to the, perhaps, faulty premise that we fund by FTE. That’s not the case. We fund by programs and have an arrangement whereby we adjust the funding depending on the program mix at the institution.

As the member opposite noticed, BCIT may have a very efficient delivery model because it has high volume in programs. They operate two shifts a day in their power engineering program, which makes very good use of their capital assets and means that their unit delivery cost for a student in power engineering is lower than it is at Northern Lights College, with a much smaller facility with a smaller cohort of students.

Given that this is a very, very complex arrangement involving 430,000 students, a simple FTE calculation does really not inform us very much at all. As I say, we adjust these funding arrangements over time depending on the shift in the programming and the program costs and the student interest in the program.

K. Corrigan: I’m not going to go into that too much more. I wanted to raise that because it’s an issue that has been raised with me and raised with many of my colleagues over time. There are some institutions that feel like that they are more underfunded than others, which brings me to another question that’s sort of a global question in a sense.

I wanted to point out that the grants to institutions has been falling over the last several years. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, it went up slightly for a couple of years. Over the last few years it’s actually fallen.

I’m wondering how it is that the minister feels like we can be providing an adequate post-secondary education to students when the funding for the system has actually fallen over the last few years.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, our budgets reflect reduced costs. When the alternative service delivery program is looking forward to tens of millions of dollars in savings in things like the cost of natural gas or data storage or purchasing, then that is a net bonus to the universities.

[1635]

In complete contrast to that, over the next three years our budget goes up to $2.002 billion from the current $1.911 billion. That’s a $91 million increase. The net effect of all of this is a $92 million increase over the fiscal period.

K. Corrigan: There has been a change. According to the budget, we are moving from actual cuts up to getting back to where we were a few years ago over the next few years.

The budget for 2012-13 was $1.845 billion. This is the operating grants to the institutions, not the total budget. The 2013 operating grants were $1.845 billion — virtually no change. For 2014-15 it’s $1.847 billion, and then 2015-16 it’s down to $1.832 billion. Not only is this ministry not being given increases that keep up with inflation; in fact, the budget has actually declined over the last couple of years, actually gone down.

When one considers that these institutions are paying the same fee hikes that the Liberal government has imposed on the rest of the province — paying those same fee hikes of increased hydro costs, increased MSP and other increases, carbon tax and so on — then the result is cuts.

Does the minister acknowledge that the freezing and then even lowering of the budget over the last few years has meant that programs have been cut in colleges and universities across this province?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: In response to that rather broad-brushed, politicized statement, I can only say that the grants to the universities and colleges anticipate the cost savings that have been realized through joint purchasing, meaning that their net grant has remained the same or increased. The colleges and universities have a multiplicity of revenue sources, one of which is the grant which we provide. The cost of living, as the member opposite notes, has gone up by about 2 percent, and that’s what we have capped tuition growth at.

The overall picture is that our institutions are healthy and appropriately funded and that our student body of 430,000 people learning new things is getting what they need.

K. Corrigan: I just want to be clear. I’d like the minister just to clarify that the so-called administrative savings through shared services are going to cover enough costs so that there will be no cuts at colleges and universities and institutes across this province. Is that what the minister is saying?

[1640-1645]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps to correct the record, the fiscal plan that is elaborated in the budget and in our ministry budget provides for a $26 million increase from the original plan in 2016-17 and a $53.794 million increase in the operating budgets for the fiscal plan 2017-18. The concept of there being cuts in this space is simply not borne out by the facts.

K. Corrigan: There have been cuts in the last couple of years. It’s in the budget. I’m not going to go through it year by year. I’m talking about cuts to programs now and the impact that the freezing or cutting of budgets is having.
[ Page 6929 ]

Has the minister, or his staff, done an analysis on the cost increases at colleges and universities and institutes across this province that are attributable to increased expenses caused by government and the increases that are associated with labour settlements? Has the ministry done that work to try to figure out how much costs are going up? Does it do this work?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Those projections are exactly what was taken into account in the answers I just gave about the anticipated increases in the next two fiscal years.

K. Corrigan: Will the minister acknowledge that there have been decreases over the last two years?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The only differences in the funding envelope for the operating grants is that which occurred because of the reduction in costs in things such as natural gas, data storage, systems management and purchasing.

K. Corrigan: Has the minister taken into account the increased costs as a result of MSP increases, the increased costs as a result of B.C. Hydro increases and the increased costs due to the natural cost of inflations associated with running an institution, like labour costs? Has the minister taken that into account?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the ministry is aware of these ongoing cost factors that go into operating a higher educational institution. I must also point out, of course, that the institutions have their own other sources of income.

The common scenario is that students pay about a third of the cost of their education. The state pays a large sum of it, which varies from roughly one-third to up to 75 percent, depending on the institution.

K. Corrigan: Well, I’m going to give you some examples of some of the programs that have been cut, just a few — this is few of many — over the last few years or are facing cuts right now.

Right now the College of New Caledonia announced that it’s going to cut its dental program to address its $2.8 million deficit. The decision was going to be made, I think, this week, but it may have been delayed until next month. It’s a $2.8 million deficit this year, and last year the college faced a $1.2 million deficit.

The result is that programs like the dental hygienist course, which is highly regarded, which is valuable, which dentists have stood up and said is important to communities…. That program is going to be cut.

[1650]

The College of New Caledonia has been facing deficits of $1 million or $2 million, in that range, as far back as 2007. That is because costs have increased, and funding has not increased in any way to keep up with it. The dental hygienist program as well as, I think, some counselling and a child care program are about to be cut at College of New Caledonia.

At Capilano College a $1.3 million shortfall, 2013-14, saw 200 courses from about ten programs, including the studio art, textiles, software design, computer science and commerce courses, getting cut.

At Camosun College a few years ago a $2.5 million shortfall meant that programs had to be cut there as well.

This is not just one or two colleges and universities around the province. It is a chronic problem, and from the perspectives of those hard-working board members, the staff that work there and the teachers, the instructors, at those institutions, they are simply not receiving enough funding. And the result is that programs are being cut. Would the minister have anything to say about that?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: College of New Caledonia is actually a good example to elaborate some of the issues, in that it’s been running for a few years under 64 percent occupancy. It’s now heading below 60 percent utilization. This is partly because of the strong economy in northern British Columbia, where unemployment is now around 4.4 percent, at historic lows. Students tend to go out and find work when they can, and if they are in a situation where they find themselves out of work, then they tend to go back to post-secondary education.

College of New Caledonia, of course, finds itself having to manage this. Because demand has shrunk, they have excess capacity. They have to deal with this. They have to make accommodations to sort this out, to make themselves financially viable in the long run. What they are doing, of course, is that their able board and their able management are sorting out which programs they’ll have to make some changes to and which programs are exceptionally costly and could be perhaps delivered in another way. That is the explanation behind the changes going on there.

K. Corrigan: So the minister is saying that the $2.8 million deficit is because the numbers at that institution are not high enough? That’s the reason for the deficit?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: When students don’t appear, they don’t pay tuition.

K. Corrigan: When we had a discussion earlier about the per-capita funding per FTE, what the minister said was that the disparity of per-capita funding from one institution to the next was reflective of the fact that some places — and, particularly, Northern Lights College was pointed out — don’t have the large enrolment and that that is the reason for it.
[ Page 6930 ]

The minister has acknowledged that there are expenses that are associated with being in rural communities, and I guess the point is that this is a question of accessibility to our post-secondary system. Is the minister saying that if a college is not fully enrolled, it is going to, therefore, then have a cut in the funding that it receives, and it is not going to be able to continue to offer programming to those rural communities?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Actually, the fact of the matter is that our institutions tend to be in rural areas, including Selkirk College, North Island College, Northern Lights College, Northwest Community College and College of New Caledonia. They have excess capacity. There is more than enough capacity there to serve the rural areas.

[1655]

When that capacity goes below a certain viability point, then they have to make management changes, because one cannot operate empty classrooms. One cannot operate and heat a facility when there are no students to teach in a particular program, so they have to make those adjustments as time goes by. Our rural colleges are, in fact, in good shape, because they have a slight excess capacity. When it becomes excessive capacity, it has to be managed.

K. Corrigan: I’m sure that’s going to be comforting to the people of the College of New Caledonia, who are going to be losing their dental hygienist program, their child care program and their counselling programs as a result of continued deficit.

This is not the only institution that is facing deficits. It’s all over the province. It’s institutions that are in the Lower Mainland. It’s institutions that are in Prince George, in the Interior and on Vancouver Island. They’re all facing the same thing. It doesn’t seem that the suggestion that it’s falling enrolment would certainly cover all those different situations, where there have been deficits and where there have been cuts of programs.

I’m going to move on to another issue now. I’m going to ask a couple questions about student debt. I’m wondering if the minister will acknowledge that the student debt in British Columbia is the highest in Canada.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, this field is fraught with misinformation, partly based on a very faulty and selective Bank of Montreal survey a few years ago. The fact of the matter is that based on our 430,000 students and the 45,000 students amongst them who’ve relied upon provincial student aid, the median debt for students completing diploma programs is $10,000, and for those completing baccalaureate programs, it’s $20,000.

That affects the small percentage of students who actually turn to the provincial government for financial aid. Large chunks of the student population rely upon family and other sources and don’t actually turn to the province for financial aid at all. Roughly 75 percent of eligible students do not turn to the province for financial aid.

K. Corrigan: I just want to drill down into that a little bit. The question was: do…? Even taking it not as total debt, because the Bank of Montreal survey that surveyed students…. I’m not sure who was faulty — the students or the bank — in the survey. But the survey did find that the debt….

I appreciate that it’s not just student loan debt, but debt was reported as the highest in British Columbia at $35,000, and that would include credit card debt and other debts. But how does the student loan debt, if we just want to look at that, compare in British Columbia with other provinces?

[1700-1705]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, the data sets available on this topic tend to be variable in their source. But a recently reported set of data was for average graduate debt, student loan debt, three years after graduation. It ranges from a low of $6,300 in Quebec, which has a completely anomalous system of funding because they have CEGEP, they have shortened university courses, and they have a low tuition policy, which has not served them well. The next is Ontario at $8,800, and it ranges up to $21,200 in New Brunswick. British Columbia is right in there with a few other provinces at $16,700.

K. Corrigan: I would be interested in seeing that, because there have been many discussions. The data, unfortunately…. I’ve been personally having chats with StatsCan trying to understand exactly what the numbers are. They’ve been very helpful, but sometimes the data just isn’t available, actually — they’re not even keeping track of some of the information — depending on what it is that you ask.

Given that student loan debt three years after is $16,000, which is significant — BMO says the highest…. There is a suggestion from the ministry itself that after a baccalaureate it’s $20,000 per student. These are very significant numbers.

I think the reason I’m raising it is that it is having an impact again — I’ve used this word before — on accessibility of the post-secondary system. I think it’s important to mention, as a contributing factor, the fact that the provincial interest rate on student loans at prime plus 2½ percent is the highest in the country. Perhaps the minister could just acknowledge that that is the case.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: On the contrary. The Bank of Montreal survey we have, to start out with — 602 students surveyed across Canada, 74 students in British Columbia — is meaningless. We have a data set from 45,000 students who borrow, out of a total student body of 430,000.

Those who borrow from the province are a minority, quite a small minority of students in our system. The
[ Page 6931 ]
data we have on them is that their borrowing, as was mentioned earlier, is $10,000 for a diploma program and $20,000 for a baccalaureate program. So we can discard the Bank of Montreal information out of hand. It is of no value because of a tiny sample size and a completely groundless approach to how this was assessed.

Given the data we have from a totally comprehensive, large data set, we can say with some confidence that our student debt levels are, we believe, manageable, and we have a system wherein 75 percent of full-time eligible students don’t turn to the province for financial aid.

K. Corrigan: I didn’t get a confirmation, but I didn’t get a denial either that the provincial interest rate on student loans at prime plus 2.5 percent is, in fact, the highest in the country.

With regard to the level of debt, the minister has more than once said that 75 percent of students do not get student loans. I just want to clarify that. My understanding is that in any given year only 25 percent of students access student loans.

[1710]

But that doesn’t mean that only 25 percent of students come out of university with a debt, because we’re talking about over the life of a university, college or diploma career. Can the minister confirm that that is what the minister was talking about when he said 75 percent of students don’t get student loans — in any given year, that that’s the case?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: At the risk of being repetitive, we have 430,000 students in the system; and 180,000 of them are eligible for student aid from the provincial government. Of those 180,000 eligible students, 45,000 actually apply for and receive financial aid.

They may be taking funds from their parents, which may or may not be repayable. They may have a credit card. They may have a car loan. We do not have that information. The information set that we have is that the students who turn to the province for a zero-interest loan while they are students, which would seem to be an attractive proposition, form only one-quarter of the eligible population who could get that loan.

K. Corrigan: Well, I would love to go on with this discussion, but unfortunately, time is marching on.

We may get a chance tomorrow to continue on, but I want to turn very briefly to the issue of adult basic education. The offering of free adult basic education has ended in British Columbia for students who are going to post-secondary institutions. It’s also no longer available for students who are in high school and want to upgrade their courses so that they can go on and take other courses.

I’m wondering, just as a general comment, if the minister could explain why it is that the minister thought it was a good idea to end the offering of free adult basic education to adults in British Columbia.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Adult basic education, of course, is still available for those who haven’t finished high school at no charge in the K-to-12 system. For those who have finished high school and are carrying on and seek to do some upgrading, there is a regime now where they pay $320 per course, which is manageable for most of them. The number of institutions offering the program has remained essentially the same.

Of course, we run a $7 million grant program which provides that a single individual, if they have an income below $23,647, gets the course for free because of the grant program. If they are in a family of three, they get it if they have an income level below $36,192. This provides for those who are unable to pay for the basics of life. They get this program at no charge.

V. Huntington: I’d just like to pursue this issue a moment longer with the minister.

I have a young great-nephew, who is at Cap College. He works full-time to get through it. Into his second year, he decided: “Okay. My interests have shifted. I know what I want. I now have to go back to high school and upgrade my science and math.” He stays at Cap, he works full-time, and he’s going back. When that cut came through, I have never seen a young person as angry and upset as he was. So $900 broke his entire budgeting.

I looked back to a report from the government. I think it’s your Campus 2020 report. It states that “the public interest in eliminating barriers to participation in post-secondary education requires that no tuition be charged to any adult learner seeking to upgrade their education by completing high school courses.”

[1715]

Why does the minister and his ministry feel that students who are really struggling, who really are trying to get through school and earn every penny to put them through school, can manage this type of sudden change in their financial situation? It’s extremely difficult for them. I just would like an understanding of what a student like this can do, other than come to his great-aunt and say, “Can you help me?” which I will do. Is that what you’re driving the students to do — look for funds from people other than their immediate families?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As stated in my previous answer, we have a $7 million grant program which provides fairly generous thresholds for income exemption. It allows a student to have a $320 course for free if their income is $23,647 or less. That is net income. We also, of course, provide a partial grant for incomes 10 percent above those levels.

We feel this is an appropriate balance in the system. If a student wants to invest in their future and seek a signifi-
[ Page 6932 ]
cantly higher lifetime income, then if they have to take two courses to get there, that will cost them $640. If their income is below the threshold stated, then they will get that course for free.

K. Corrigan: When adult basic education was offered for free back in 2007 by this government, it was heralded as an important tool to making education more accessible to individuals. It was said that it would be accessible, that there was an equity issue, that there was a fairness issue and that it was good for the economy. In fact, the Minister of Jobs and Skills Training said — this had to do with the announcement — “We talk about literacy all the time, and then we put that information into print. We have to think differently about how we reach out to those people.”

Murray Coell said: “What we are trying to do with literacy in British Columbia is to encourage more people to become better educated. In order to get into the post-secondary system you need to have your Dogwood. You need your grade 12.”

It was a move that was done by this government in recognition, correctly, that providing more access to adults to completion of their high school or upgrading was a good investment in the future of the province for the well-being of those people. I’ve heard so many stories. My colleague from the Legislature who has talked about her great-nephew is just one of hundreds of stories of people that I’ve heard that are not going to be eligible for the grants. They believe that it is going to make school less accessible for them.

We’re talking about a few million dollars. I know that a few million dollars can add up. But when you’re talking about such a small amount of money, and you’re talking about such a possibly major impact on people’s lives and a barrier to people, why was it that the minister chose this particular mechanism? Why was this chosen as an area to cut when the potential impact on individuals was so severe?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I have stated at least two or three times now, this is a program in which an individual can invest in their future to the tune of $320, and it will come at no charge if they’re below the income threshold of $23,647 for an individual or of $36,192 for a family of three. That is 1 percent of their net income that would have to be invested in their future.

K. Corrigan: Does the minister recognize that the vast majority of people who are taking adult basic education in our colleges and our post-secondary institutions are low-income earners? Has this analysis of who is taking these courses and what the impact of starting to charge is going to have in terms of attendance…?

[1720]

Has that analysis been done? If so, could the minister share it with me?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Of course, when a course is free, our registration tends to be — as it is for any free good — and a data set was not acquired dealing with that approach. Now that we’re in a regime where there is paid registration, except when the income thresholds are met and the individual has a lower income, we’re collecting that information. We’ll have more knowledge of that in the future.

K. Corrigan: I’m sorry. I was talking to a colleague. I have colleagues going to be coming in. Actually, I should let the minister know that for the next hour, or until we break, all of the questions after me will…. This particular questioner and the next couple will be my colleagues from around the province.

I’m sorry. I missed the answer. Was the answer that analysis has been done or work has been done to try to figure out what the impact is going to be? Sorry, I just missed the answer.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Perhaps just before we take a break, I’ll reiterate the answer, which is: when the course was provided for free, very limited data was acquired around that. Now that we have a program where the course is free below the income thresholds of $23,647 for an individual or $36,192 for a family of three, and now that there is a fee of $320, or less than 1 percent of that latter income number, we are acquiring the data set. We’ll have more knowledge in the future.

Perhaps after the member’s next question, we could take a ten-minute break.

The Chair: We’ll take a break for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 5:22 p.m. to 5:41 p.m.

[S. Sullivan in the chair.]

C. Trevena: I’ve got a couple of questions. I think it’s just going to be two or maybe three questions about North Island College.

One is following on from my colleague about the adult basic education and the funding there. North Island College has lost $372,000 in adult basic education funding, which is 2 percent of their total grant. I’d like to just put on the record that North Island College is an extraordinarily good college for the community, but it’s very underfunded. It serves the communities of the west coast — out to Tofino, Alberni and down the Comox Valley, Campbell River area, all the way up to the central coast, in fact.

It has about 160,000 people for whom it is offering further education, and the grant it gets equates to $139 per person. The average for a B.C. rural college is $200 per person. If North Island College just got the average, it still would need a $12 million lift in its funding. Instead,
[ Page 6933 ]
it is seeing a decline in its funding, particularly because of the loss of adult basic education funding.

It is going to affect the overall budget and affect the adult basic education in the community. Apparently, 20 to 25 percent of enrolment is in adult basic education.

So I ask the minister two questions on this. One is: is there any consideration of bringing back funding for adult basic education, for the actual service, for those students who need it? As I say, it’s a large part of the college’s enrolment. Secondly, is there any plan of increasing North Island College’s level of funding, seeing as it is so low on the average of funding?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: North Island College is, of course, a valued institution. They have some very nice new physical plant there, and we’ve invested fairly heavily in the trades program there. Nonetheless, it’s running at about an 89 percent utilization rate, so it has excess capacity which is unsatisfied by the local population — who, apparently, have decided not to utilize the facilities that we have made available.

On the adult basic education side, the grants for this past year remained in place, and the budget was kept whole. The issue of per-capita funding was perhaps canvassed when the member for North Island wasn’t here. We do not fund on a per-capita or per-population or per-student basis. It depends on the program mix at the institution.

C. Trevena: I’d like to just respond to the minister on the underutilization. North Island College serves a very diverse population and a very large area. It needs to be able to get out to the communities.

[1745]

To be honest, it started in Alert Bay. It’s pulled out of its really rural communities. It’s now got, in my constituency, Campbell River and a location in Port Hardy. It’s also got some service in McNeill. But it has pulled out of all its small communities. That makes it very hard to reach people. This is often a base of people who prefer to go to college close to home. We have many First Nations who prefer to go to college close to home and need those programs being brought to them.

While I’m not saying that we have a per-capita funding, for the area that it is covering — the diverse population it is covering and the numbers of students that it is covering — it is severely underfunded compared to other rural colleges. I’d ask the minister to look at it on a basis of needs for the communities and the need for a well-educated population, rather than in, literally, the dollars per program.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It’s interesting to note that North Island College has campuses at Campbell River, Comox, Port Alberni and Port Hardy, a learning centre and an out-of-region program. Nonetheless, with all of these good efforts on the part of the institution to fill up six different pools of students, they’re still running under capacity. There are still unused spaces in the institution.

C. Trevena: I think it’s a philosophical difference we have here on this. We’re not looking at filling the institutions. As I say, we need to get the institution back into the community. That’s been the philosophy of North Island College — to basically take the classes to the community, to go to the places where the students are. This is how North Island College started. This is the fundamental part of a community college — to actually ensure that students get the education that they are entitled to as residents of B.C., as citizens of B.C., wherever they live.

Many of these students don’t travel. They don’t like leaving home. They need the access closer to them. This is how North Island College was founded. It is a philosophical difference. I’m not going to belabour the point with the minister.

I have another question, which I think is, hopefully, a little bit more straightforward for the minister. The North Island College in Campbell River is working on its capital plan. I want to confirm that it will still be receiving funds for its capital plans to reconfigure the Campbell River site to include the Vigar Road facility within the Timberline site and be able to separate the institution from Timberline High School.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member’s question is an interesting one, and we’re fully aware of this issue. The approach to it is in the planning stages, and we’d encourage the member to stay tuned.

C. Trevena: I would like to ask the minister: in the planning stages, is this something that we need to keep talking to the minister about, the college needs to keep talking to the minister about, to keep it beyond the planning stages and get to the delivery? It is something that we are, obviously, hoping is going happen, because it will encourage more people to come to the Campbell River campus, encourage more students to come to the Campbell River campus.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As a former resident of Campbell River, I’d like to put the member’s mind at ease and suggest that she need do no more.

K. Corrigan: I don’t think I’m going to go back to adult basic education questions at this point. I may in the future, but I’m going to ask a variety of questions in various areas now.

I wanted to ask about the issue of deferred maintenance and whether or not the minister is aware that many institutions…. I know, for example, that Simon Fraser University and BCIT — and there are others — are saying that some of their buildings, some of their equipment,
[ Page 6934 ]
particularly their buildings…. They’re to the point at Simon Fraser that some of them are falling down around them. Of course, we know that there’s a student residence that is about to be closed.

[1750]

I’m wondering if the minister can explain why it is that institutions are in this situation — that they have buildings that are falling apart and even dangerous.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The interesting issue of routine capital comes up because this is what is used to refurbish facilities that are existing. We have allocated $313 million for that over the next three fiscal years. That breaks down into a number of categories, including major maintenance rehabilitation, upgrades and renovations, and the more quotidian category of minor maintenance.

K. Corrigan: Well, just as an example, for Simon Fraser University the capital allowance for 2014 — that’s the most recent number I have — was $2.1 million, down from $2.2 million in 2013. I know that the students and faculty at BCIT have said that aging buildings are a real challenge to them in terms of not only the safety of the building and the performance but the equipment as well.

I actually more want to get that on the record, because I’ve heard it from a number of institutions that they’re very concerned. Of course, the Louis Riel House at Simon Fraser University is about to be closed simply because it can’t be maintained anymore.

I guess, to the minister, one question is: does the maintenance, the capital allowance, include reinvestment in equipment at places like BCIT?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There is a bit of a need for clarification in terms of talking about heating and ventilation systems, boilers and the like that are required to operate the facility. That falls into the routine capital budget in most circumstances. In some circumstances it may fall into other capital budgets. Then we have situations in a place like BCIT where they have a teaching boiler, which is a completely separate thing and falls in to a separate line item.

S. Sullivan (Chair): The hon. member from North Burnaby.

K. Corrigan: Burnaby–Deer Lake. We’d love to have somebody from the official opposition in North Burnaby, but thank you very much.

Will the minister acknowledge that there are issues with maintenance of buildings, which have been raised by a number of institutions around this province?

[1755]

Of course, that will depend to some degree on how new the institutions themselves are, but I’ve heard it from a number of institutions that there’s real concern. Will the minister acknowledge that the budgets do not seem to be adequate to pay for the preventive maintenance that’s needed for these institutions?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: There is a system of project prioritization. The highest priority is health and safety, and after that, we have ones such as operational cost reduction. There are a number of others, finishing up with infrastructure sustainability.

The facilities management process requires these facilities to be assessed on a regular basis. They, in some cases, have very new physical plants such as a good chunk of UBCO, relatively new at UNBC, and buildings that we’ve recently opened. For instance, NVIT in Merritt has fabulous new buildings. Others have older buildings. We’re all aware of the original founding buildings at a place like UBC, which are close to 100 years old.

K. Corrigan: I’m going to ask a couple of questions about a number of subjects now. Some of them are issues that have been raised by various constituents or stakeholders or people working in the system — students, teachers and so on.

The first one is a concern about the Pathways program. The Pathways program is a program that allows private language schools to provide education to international students. The international students go through the Pathways program through the language programs at these private language schools. Many of them do a very good job. That then provides the entree for them to transfer over to public universities.

I’m wondering if the minister has comments or concerns about the Pathways program. What my concerns are…. What I’ve been told is a concern of some teachers in private language schools, as well as others, is that the Pathways programs, in some cases, are — or are certainly in danger of — allowing students to get access to our public universities and colleges without an appropriate level of English.

That’s the danger. There’s a sense that there’s a tremendous pressure on these private language schools sometimes to pass students, give them the credentials that they need in order that they can enter the public institutions. The public institutions that have agreements with the private language schools also want the students.

I know that the minister has mentioned here, a few times today, about schools, post-secondary colleges and other institutions, which are not full, so this is a way to fill up the ranks. I’m wondering if the minister has any concerns or would respond to the concerns that have been raised about the Pathways program.

[1800]

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The conclusion here is that our universities pretty much uniformly require a prospective student to pass an English proficiency test. It used to be
[ Page 6935 ]
called the TOEFL. Then it was changed to TOESL. There are a number of these now in the marketplace. Those are fairly demanding tests of proficiency of English as a secondary or other language.

Students, of course, can come to Canada before meeting that standard and take upgrading courses at these private language schools. That is, of course, their choice. If they seek to acquire proficiency there to make it easier for them to pass the test, then that is, of course, their option.

K. Corrigan: I just want confirmation that students are required to pass the IELTS or the TOEFL exam. My understanding was that when students go through the private language schools, that then negates the requirement that they write those exams, the standardized tests, and they can get into the programs at public universities or colleges without having written those exams. I heard this from numerous people. It could be misinformation, but I just wanted to check on that particular point.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: As I think the member is aware, there are 11 different universities in the province, and their admission criteria vary. But a good example is the University of Victoria website, which states entrance requirements — academic requirements, first of all, and secondly, that students must demonstrate an English language proficiency level of one of the following: IELTS 5.5, with no section less than 5.0, or IBT TOEFL 71, with no section less than 15. This is typical, that objective testing is required, and for obvious reasons.

K. Corrigan: I’m sure there are some institutions, but perhaps what I’m looking for is an assurance from the minister that those exams are required at all of our public post-secondary institutions. If that can’t be given today, I’m certainly happy to get that at some point in the future.

We can’t get confirmation on that right now, but I just flag it as an issue. It has been raised with me from more than one quarter, from more than one place, so it’s a concern that I wanted to raise.

I’m going to let a colleague ask a few questions now.

[1805]

H. Bains: I want to talk about the availability of opportunities in post-secondary education south of the Fraser region, obviously. When you look at the data available, the south of Fraser region has received funding of about half the seats compared to the rest of British Columbia, when you compare the regional post-secondary education facilities relative to the population it serves.

Perhaps that’s the reason…. There’s one study that was conducted a while ago showing that the participation rate in that region is about half of what the rest of the Lower Mainland and the rest of B.C. is. For example, I think it was about 11 percent compared to 24 percent of the Lower Mainland and even the rest of B.C. At the same time, when you look at the seats available in those particularly, compared to other regions, it’s about half.

Perhaps the minister could answer: what message do you have for people south of the Fraser, the students that are coming out of high schools, who are looking to upgrade their skills? As we know, 80 percent of all future jobs will require some sort of post-secondary education credentials or training. I think it’s critical for that area, so perhaps the minister can talk about how we could expand in that particular area so that they have those opportunities just like others.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: The member opposite represents one of the growing ridings in Surrey, and he has a very valid point, that the population of Surrey has grown quickly in the last 20 years. Of course, being a rapid growth area, there’s going to be a lot of young people, and those young people are now coming through the high school system and graduating and looking for their further education opportunities.

Now, we do offer, of course, some fine institutions in the neighbourhood: University of the Fraser Valley, in Langley and in Abbottsford; and Kwantlen Polytechnic University, right at the corner of 72nd Avenue and 128th Street; and Simon Fraser’s north Surrey campus; and of course, the transit connections we hope to see improved through to places like Douglas College and Simon Fraser University.

The member points out a valid point, though, that our population is not completely reconciled with the location of our institutions. We see this at UVic, which is in a suburban, almost semi-rural location, and UBC, which is in a sub-optimal location at the tip of Point Grey. If we were redesigning the whole system, we would put them in very different locations. But we don’t have that option because of the availability of land.

We’re very much aware of the member’s interest in this issue. His question is understood, and we are working to resolve it.

H. Bains: I think what adds to the complexity of the problem that I want to bring to the minister’s attention is that we are short, compared to all the other regions, in post-secondary education seats as of today. Like I said, they are about half of what the rest of the region, the Lower Mainland, has — even compared to B.C. is concerned.

We are also looking at another 1 million people moving into the Lower Mainland by 2040, and most of them, I’m told — about 350,000 to 400,000 of them — will be coming south of the Fraser. We don’t have those services now, and I think this is the time to be proactive so that we could actually have the facilities and have the opportunities for those students coming out of high school so that we can have the skill level that is needed for future economic growth.
[ Page 6936 ]

If those opportunities aren’t there, then those students will miss out on those opportunities. But I think…. What is the short-term, medium-term or long-term plan in order to fill that need that is needed even today?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: Again, the member opposite points out a valid concern in that our population doesn’t always match where the institutions are. Of course, we saw that 20 years ago with hospitals in the Kootenays, where the population had moved on, and medical care had changed, and we had to reconcile supply with demand as the population changed — more in the west and southern Kootenays, I must note. Most certainly not in Golden or Revelstoke.

[1810]

This also applies in advanced education, where we have a more or less balanced system provincewide. But we have excess capacity at North Island College, Northwest Community College, Northern Lights College, College of New Caledonia, Selkirk College and a couple of other institutions, where we find that the local demographics are no longer supplying the pool of school leavers, as the English would call them, and other students who intend to come back to school at a later stage. So the enrolments are actually shrinking in some of these institutions that are in more far-flung areas.

The member, of course, represents an area where the population of these school leavers is growing, not shrinking. We are doing our best to anticipate that demand. One step that was taken was, of course, opening the SFU north Surrey campus in 2002. That has been a great success. The member, of course, can take a lot of credit for sending first-class graduates to that fine institution. We are aware of this issue and are hoping to address it in the foreseeable future.

H. Bains: The minister talked about SFU. I know my colleague will specifically talk about SFU and the promises made to deal with the growing demand in the area. I’ll leave that up to him.

I’ll just move onto the other area; that is, deficiency, when it comes to the student seats available. On the ESL side it’s even worse than the overall issue that we have just talked about. Of all the college regions, Kwantlen has the largest population of adults who don’t speak English at home — over 330,000. These are 2010 numbers. Vancouver has 300,000, and Douglas has 220,000.

Kwantlen received funding for only seven seats in its ESL program for every 10,000 adults in the region who need ESL, while in other B.C. regions, post-secondary institutions receive five times that — 36 ESL student seats for every 10,000 population. So I think, again, you can see the gaps here. This is a region that has a large population of those who require assistance in ESL and ESL training, but it is, again, the lowest funded when it comes to population and seats allocation to Kwantlen, compared to all of the others.

Again, to the minister: what plans does the minister have for this population to take advantage, to upgrade their skills so that they can be productive to the best of their potential — and not only individually successful but can also participate in the success of our economy?

Hon. A. Wilkinson: It turns out that this is an evolving picture with layers of complexity to it.

The first stage in this, of course, is the federal government terminating the funding of the British Columbia advanced education delivery vehicle for English as a second language. It’s not yet clear what the federal government is doing in communities like Surrey to use vehicles such as SUCCESS and other non-profit agencies to deliver that training.

Secondly, like many things, English-as-a-second-language training has layers of complexity to it in that some students come with basically no English and some come from countries like India, where English is the lingua franca across the country, and so their training needs will be quite different and subtle compared to those that speak no English whatsoever.

[1815]

Now, Kwantlen is continuing to offer some English-as-a-second-language training, but they are waiting to see what SUCCESS and other delivery agencies do in the neighbourhood before sorting out exactly what their role is in this evolving scheme. The member has a valid point, and we’re monitoring this carefully and expect to address it in the foreseeable future.

J. Shin: Thanks to the member for Burnaby–Deer Lake for the time that she’s allowing me, during these Advanced Education estimates, so that I can raise some critical issues to the minister’s attention on behalf of my community.

As the minister is aware, Simon Fraser University in my constituency is being forced to close its 60-unit family residence this coming August. Louis Riel House is specifically designated for low-income, mature students and families. Given that it was only built in the ’70s, it’s disturbing, and I would imagine that the minister would agree with me, to see this kind of asset go under, way too short of its shelf life.

I’ve been calling on the ministry for action since my first visit to the facility two years ago, having seen then for myself that the units were being closed one after another due to uninhabitable conditions. It has come to pulling the plug on the entire building now.

Obviously, this is just one example of many more to come, I’m sure, given that a report in 2011 found over half of SFU’s buildings to be in a poor condition — that’s over half. To think that SFU is one of many institutions across B.C. facing the exact same kind of challenge, I would imagine this issue to be the minister’s top priority.

I can anticipate that the minister perhaps would answer by stating that the ministry has provided SFU with
[ Page 6937 ]
$2.2 million for capital maintenance projects. But, of course, I would argue that the cost of infrastructure upkeep is at least $12 million annually. The government until 2008 provided only half of that at about $6 million, and that was already a severe underfunding at that point, but it was driven further in the 2010-2011 period when the amount further dropped to just $500,000.

That’s like asking one to do $100 worth of work with a $4 budget. Clearly, that was inexcusable. The funding has come up since then to the current level of $2.2 million. Even so, it provides only 18 percent of the funding that we need to do the necessary upkeep.

There are outstanding accumulated upkeep issues at hand here. I was hoping to get the minister’s comments today on what the ministry’s plans are to address this issue, because the $2.2 million just isn’t going to cut it when we have halls and rooms and now the entire building that’s forced to close.

Hon. A. Wilkinson: This is a rather complicated question with a complicated answer, and I’ll attempt to be brief.

There was an article that came up in the Vancouver Sun on March 11 that said, as the headline, that after years of neglect, the residence was to close. It pointed out that the Louis Riel building was 50 years old. The vice-president responsible said of Louis Riel House that it had “reached the end of its useful life but acknowledged that was because the university had failed to properly maintain it.”

There are two angles on this. First is the capital budget, which we provide, which includes capital maintenance and overhaul, and Simon Fraser University has received $295.4 million since 2001 under that heading. We turned to the institutions and asked them to manage their affairs as they saw fit. They’re autonomous. We do not micromanage their budgets.

At one level, one has to ask where the money was going in light of the need to maintain a building like Louis Riel House.

On the other hand, we are aware that the capital stock of buildings around the province is very variable. Some are almost new and require no maintenance. Some are in very good condition. Others have deteriorated. Others are much, much older than Simon Fraser University but were built in such way that they’re more durable. This is an issue we’re aware of, and we continue to work with the institutions to address the issue.

Now, Mr. Chair, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:20 p.m.

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

Copyright © 2015: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada