Finance and Government Services - Issue No. 4

2001 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 37th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
MINUTES AND HANSARD

Present: Blair Lekstrom, MLA (Chair); Tony Bhullar, MLA (Deputy Chair); Jeff Bray, MLA; Ralph Sultan, MLA; Harry Bloy, MLA; Kevin Krueger, MLA; Barry Penner, MLA; Brian Kerr, MLA; Lorne Mayencourt, MLA; Ida Chong, MLA; Joy MacPhail, MLA

1. The Chair called the meeting to order at 5 p.m.

2. Opening statements by Blair Lekstrom, Chair, Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

3. The Committee heard the following witnesses on the matter of prebudget consultation:

    1) Heather Spicer
    2) University of Northern British Columbia Faculty Association:
            Darwyn Coxson
    3) Central Interior Wood Processing Association:
            Ken Pendergast
    4) Echo Wylie
    5) Linda St. Arnault
    6) Joy Greenley
    7) Northern Interior Regional Health Board:
            Harry Huffy
            Dave Richardson
    8) City of Prince George:
            Mayor Colin Kingsley
    9) Connie Krauseneck
    10) CUPE, Local 3742:
            Marilyn Hannah
    11) District of Fort St. James:
            Councillor Byron Goerz
    12) Ann Krauseneck
    13) Roberta Scarrow
    14) Tom Muirhead
    15) Barbara Watson
    16) Prince George Development Corporation:
            Charles Scott
            Lorne Calder
    17) Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 378:
            Doug MacDonald
    18) Northern B.C. Construction Association
            Rosalind Thorne, President
    19) Bob Scott
    20) Janice Hopkins
    21) Doug Tedford

4. The Committee adjourned to call of the Chair at 9:15 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		63
	H. Spicer	63
	D. Coxson	65
	K. Pendergast	67
	E. Wylie	70
	L. St. Arnault	72
	J. Greenley	73
	H. Hufty	75
	D. Richardson	77
	C. Kinsley	78
	C. Krauseneck	80
	M. Hannah	82
	B. Goerz	84
	A. Krauseneck	87
	R. Scarrow	89
	T. Muirhead	90
	B. Watson	91
	C. Scott	93
	L. Calder	94
	D. MacDonald	94
	R. Thorn	95
	B. Scott	98
	J. Hopkins	99
	D. Tedford	100

Chair:	* Blair Lekstrom (Peace River South L)
Deputy Chair:	* Tony Bhullar (Surrey-Newton L)
Members:	* Harry Bloy (Burquitlam L) * Jeff Bray (Victoria–Beacon Hill L) * Ida Chong (Oak Bay–Gordon Head L) * Brian Kerr (Malahat–Juan de Fuca L) * Kevin Krueger (Kamloops–North Thompson L) * Lorne Mayencourt (Vancouver-Burrard L) * Barry Penner (Chilliwack-Kent L) * Ralph Sultan (West Vancouver–Capilano L) * Joy MacPhail (Vancouver-Hastings NDP) * denotes member present

Witnesses:

Lorne Calder
Darwyn Coxson
Byron Goerz
Joy Greenley
Marilyn Hannah
Janice Hopkins
Harry Hufty (Northern Interior regional health board)
Colin Kinsley (mayor, city of Prince George)
Ann Krauseneck
Connie Krauseneck
Doug MacDonald
Tom Muirhead
Ken Pendergast (CIWPA)
Dave Richardson
Linda St. Arnault
Roberta Scarrow
Bob Scott
Charles Scott
Heather Spicer
Doug Tedford
Rosalind Thorn (Northern B.C. Construction Association — NBCCA)
Barbara Watson
Echo Wylie

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Good evening, everybody. It's 5 p.m., and I would like to call our meeting to order this evening. It's certainly a privilege to be here in Prince George to host our second of 16 prebudget consultation meetings being held around the province.

Before we go to introductions of members of the committee, I would like to just briefly go over our committee's mandate, which is really to examine and inquire into and make recommendations with respect to our prebudget consultation report, which has been prepared by the Minister of Finance, the Hon. Gary Collins. In particular, we are required to host public meetings right across this province and accept full written submissions as well as verbal submissions. Also, for the people that are unable to attend the public consultations, there is the ability for written submissions to be put forward to our committee through the website, of which there is information at the back tables as well as the prebudget consultation paper which is available for all of you to pick up and read.

With us this evening I have some Hansard staff here, Pat Samson and Catherine Schaefer, as well as our committee researcher, Josie Schofield, and to my immediate left is Anne Stokes, our Committee Clerk.

We hope to hear your views as to the financial wishes of what you would like to see for the future of British Columbia. It's our intent to listen to you here this evening, take the information and encompass what we hear through the 16 meetings, as well as all of the written submissions that we receive, into our report which is due to be completed by November 15 and into Gary Collins's hands, and then submit it to the Legislature at the next sitting. This is very important, and we take this job very seriously. There are no issues that are too big or too small to be brought forward, so I would encourage you. We do have a speakers list for people that have registered to make presentations. At the end I would like to let the people know that we will have half an hour of an open-mike session for people who have been here, listened and may have something that has come forward or that they have thought of. Again, for the people who are sitting out there, there are no issues that are too big or too small. The task ahead of us in British Columbia is a very large one, and the 79 people who sit in the Legislature learn a great deal from the people of British Columbia.

With that, we will move to introductions. I will start with my immediate left and Lorne Mayencourt.

L. Mayencourt: My name is Lorne Mayencourt. I'm the MLA for Vancouver-Burrard.

R. Sultan: I'm Ralph Sultan. I represent part of West Vancouver and part of North Vancouver.

K. Krueger: Kevin Krueger, Kamloops–North Thompson. I've lived here in Prince George twice, for three years each. It's good to be back.

I. Chong: Good evening, everyone. My name is Ida Chong, representing the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head in the greater Victoria area.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): My name is Tony Bhullar, and I'm from Surrey-Newton. I'm Deputy Chair of the Finance committee.

J. Bray: Jeff Bray from the riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill, which is the riding that holds the Legislature.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): My name is Blair Lekstrom. I am the MLA for Peace River South. Also, I see that Paul Ramsey is at the back of the room. Welcome, Paul.

With that, we will go to our first presenter this evening, Heather Spicer. Good evening, Heather, and welcome.

H. Spicer: Good evening. I've asked my friend to sit with me. Greetings. My name is Heather Spicer. I'm here to talk on funding for community social services versus tax cuts. An easy solution to the problem of having extra money is to give some back to some of the people of this country. But why take the easy way when there are services that assist many folks to acquire the skills to live in and be part of our community, which are being underfunded?

Since 1966 funding levels have dropped to a point where the community social services are having to service twice as many people with half as much money. Their hours of work have been cut back, but they are expected to service double or more the number of people they did before. How would you like to live semi-independently and only go out once a week because your care worker can only get 49 kilometres a week? That may get you to the grocery store and back, never mind any social activities with anybody else. Heaven help you if you live too far away from the shopping centre; then you would only get out twice a month, as you would have to save your kilometres two weeks at a time.

Do you have the knowledge or can you obtain the training to do your job effectively? How can the folks that need community social services get training and still be an asset to the community if there are no funds for equipment, wages for the trainer or facilities to do

the training in? Many folks have low self-esteem because they cannot work due to lack of training.

Wouldn't it be nicer for your parents to live in their own home in their senior years with the assistance of a caregiver than to be in an impersonal complex where their activities, meals, bedtimes and outings are planned for them as if they were young children?

Speaking of children, it was centuries ago that a child had to grow up with homemade toys. In the twenty-first century there is a big boost to having educational toys available to children. When parents can't afford them, it falls on the community social services to provide them. Are we supposed to take the funds from our own pockets to get these items because of underfunding? I think not.

Kids in crisis is another big issue for many. If you had a child who needed the aid of a community social service department immediately, and you requested such aid but had to be denied because that department had used all the hours allocated for them for that week and there was no money left, how would you feel? Families with young children are having their time cut back with the worker because the worker's time has been cut back. It has a ripple effect. We have no way of knowing how far the ripples go until it's too late.

Day care assistants, teachers' aides, counsellors, life-skill workers and employment-readiness trainers have all been cut back, but the number of folks needing the community social services has increased. In some cases a person is working alone with a potentially violent person because the funds allow for one full-time and one part-time worker. When the part-time worker leaves, the full-time person is on their own. This isn't safe. Has your spouse or child come home lately with a human scratch or, even worse, a human bite? This happens. There should be more than one person working at a time, but the funds are not there to provide the necessary and essential services.

Some troubled teens need a one-on-one ratio in order to become better citizens and to feel they are learning how to do just that. If they feel neglected in a safe haven, they will run to anyone for attention, even to someone who will use them for their own personal gain. Contracts have not been awarded for folks to learn basic living skills such as cooking, budgeting, banking, how to make transportation arrangements and other day-to-day activities that we take for granted — like cleaning our home, buying groceries, washing our clothes and doing our dishes. This is because there are not enough funds for community social services. They are the ones who teach basic living skills as well as social, ethical and employment skills. A 30 to 50 percent cut for the Ministry of Children and Family Development means there will have to be a cut of the same amount for community living.

Folks, the above issues are not something out of a novel. They are facts. I'm asking you as a committee to give a lot of thought to increasing the funding to community social services before giving tax cuts. Sure, some folks would gladly put the extra money in their bank accounts or do something with their family that they haven't done before, but with increased funding to the community social services, many folks would be able to buy more groceries, pay some debts and learn a new skill that could get them paid employment and give them back their self-esteem. It would allow more time for the workers to assist those who need it the most, whether they are teens in crisis, disabled folks, children, unwed mothers or seniors.

We appear to be regressing instead of progressing with each year. Let's get together and turn this around for the good of all citizens, not just a few. Thank you for listening, and I pray you did so with your hearts as well as your minds.

What I would do at this time, if there are any members of the committee that would like to ask questions and certainly if you're willing to answer them….

B. Kerr: I'm just curious. Are you speaking from firsthand knowledge? Are you in the business, or are you just speaking about relatives?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there any other members of the committee that have a question of Heather? Heather, I see no one else with a question.

I will just make a comment. At the end you made a comment that we listen with our hearts. That is the challenge we face in British Columbia, and I would hope that each member of this listens with the issue of looking at this as a business, but we're here to listen to the concerns and the needs of the people. I certainly believe your statements are taken to heart, and we'll do the best we can. The issue is really the balance we're looking for through the consultation that we receive over the next 16 meetings. Thank you for your presentation.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Moving along on our agenda, we do have a full slate of presenters. Our next presentation is coming from Darwyn Coxson from the University of Northern British Columbia Faculty Association. Welcome.

D. Coxson: Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to your committee today. As you outlined at the beginning, your committee will be making recommendations for the immediate budget. You're obviously also trying to frame a long-term direction for B.C. You want to see our economy revitalized and social prosperity.

I joined UNBC as a founding faculty member when our campus was just a moose pasture. I was in Telus cubicles downtown. Since that time I've firmly held the belief that UNBC is a part of that long-term social and economic prosperity. We're part of the solution for B.C. Last Saturday I learned that our enrolment growth over the past year was 5 percent. In fact, I think it was 5.3 percent. This amazes the skeptics, but it follows several years of 3 to 5 percent enrolment growth each year.

This is good news for B.C. Our graduates are starting to bridge the gap for trained professionals. Before we get too warm and fuzzy about that 5 percent growth at UNBC, in B.C. as a whole we're still only at about 80 percent of the national average for degree completion. There's a long list of professional programs: rehabilitation, engineering, medicine, law, education, business. I can keep on going for quite a while. We're below half of the national average. We have a real problem finding graduates for our workforce. If a company wants to locate in Prince George, the first thing they say is: "Well, are there going to be trained people there to meet our needs?" We have to meet that need if we're going to revitalize our economy.

Can UNBC maintain that 5 percent growth rate? Student demand is there, but the capacity will surely be limited. UNBC will probably have to institute course limits, limits on enrolment, or raise marks for admission. If you use the ministry numbers, we're at about 50 percent of their space standard. We have half the space we should have for a campus our size. I don't need their space standards. I can look in the lecture theatre; I can look in my lab.

We have a backlog of students trying to get into our senior year courses. Last summer I offered a new course. It was a third-year science course. I offered it in the summer. I had a lot of students pestering me to do that, so at the last minute I offered this up without much advertising. I just posted a notice on the register. It was full the next day. There is incredible unmet demand for our courses.

Over the last decade the previous government faced some difficult choices. When I first came to UNBC, governments across the country were slashing. The government here was able to hold the line on funding, but unfortunately, as we moved into the more recent years, where other governments have reinvested, our funding has remained relatively flat.

At UNBC the students see those shining new windows and the chrome frames, and they expect a high quality of instruction, but year after year I've had to make decisions I don't like. I've had to cut labs from my courses. The freeze on ancillary fees has really constrained my introduction of new technologies in labs. Sometimes I've been told: "Well, you can't offer another section. We don't have enough money in the budget to do that." Every year I see a decline in quality, and it's the same story around the province. I met with some of my colleagues down in Abbotsford this spring. I heard stories from colleges and universities around the province, again, of labs being dropped, students on wait-lists — where that wait-list doesn't mean they're going to wait for another lab section. It means they're going to wait till next year to take the course.

Also, I've heard stories where universities have increased the number of first-year students in the door. That creates a queue for the college students of third year, because those large classes coming through and up in the more intensive, computer-based…. At least in my area, in the sciences, it's very easy to put another 20 students in the back row in first year, but in third year it takes a lot of TAs, equipment and chemicals to offer that third- or fourth-year course. We do have a backlog in the system. It's sort of a hidden cost.

Where do I want to see us at the end of your mandate or in six years' time? Remember, I said we had a low rate of participation. Just to keep that 80 percent of the national average rate of participation, we need 14,000 new spaces in B.C. universities in the next six years. If we simply say, "Well, we're having a freeze from this day forward," there's going to be 14,000 students and their parents phoning your offices and asking why they can't get into college or university. I don't think that's a solution for our economy. That would be a disaster.

At the same time, 60 percent of my colleagues will have to be replaced in the next six years. UNBC is perhaps the exception — you see more youthful faces — but there's a demographic that will be retiring at the other institutions. You've heard this story in health and other sectors of the economy. This morning when I went to my office, ten minutes after I got there, the first person in the door was another faculty member telling me that he has a job at another institution, and do I know the procedures for handing in a resignation at UNBC. It's a question I've had a lot. It's a very competitive market. It's going to be a task to keep our faculty here, let alone train those 14,000 students. I welcome your new-era policy commitments for doubling the opportunity in selected areas. I think that's a good start, but there is a large challenge beyond that.

If we look across the border at Washington State, it's a state that has many similar configurations to us — a resource and high-technology mix. Their public institutions fund their full-time-equivalent students at about $25,000 (Canadian) and their private at a much higher level. In B.C. we're at half of that. We're at about $12,000 a student. We're already a second-tier system compared to the public system in the U.S., and we're lagging behind the Canadian average by about $40 million if we look at comparable institutions. If I wanted to set a goal for your government, I would like to get back to the Canadian average. I would like to be able to look at my colleague in Ontario and say: "We're at least equal to you." Actually, what I'd like to do is

look him in the eye and say: "We've got the best system in the country." I think that should be our goal.

You may ask me: "Well, how are we going to do that?" I read the newspapers the same as everyone else. I see the financial situation. One solution that people have proposed is tuition; there's an obvious source. To meet that shortfall from tuition, you'd have to raise tuition 30 percent just to catch up to the average. That doesn't do anything for those 14,000 new students that are coming in the door. It's not an easy debate. At UNBC over 65 percent of our students rely on student loans, and that's about 25 percent over the provincial average. A tuition hike would find that money, but it's going to be hard on our students. That reliance on student loans would greatly increase. For many families, when this is the first time one of their kids has gone to school, it's going to put up a large barrier.

There's not an easy answer for your government or the committee today, but I think we have to maintain access in British Columbia. In fact, I think we have to increase access in this province. The students who start this fall are going to graduate at the end of your mandate. I want to plan for success. I want that economic revitalization. I want those students trained at that time. Thanks for listening to me.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. I look to members of the committee for any questions regarding what you've put forward.

R. Sultan: Thank you for your presentation. As a former academician myself, I find it a painful description of what's happened to our vital, vital British Columbia university system — a queue of people trying to get in, inadequate resources and, at the same time, a tuition freeze, which I would suggest is part of the starvation of resources that has occurred in the system. My question to you is: while I would agree that even contemplating something like a 30 percent tuition hike would cause untold hardship, is not some degree of tuition increase part of the solution to this financial dilemma, particularly in the cash-strapped environment we face in Victoria?

D. Coxson: I think it's a shared responsibility. Students have a responsibility, but I think government does as well. If we look at the last decade, the student contribution to their education has risen about 15 percent above inflation. The government contribution to that education has fallen about 15 percent. There've been diverging directions there. I think both have a contribution to make, but I think government has fallen behind in that respect to some degree. If there are large increases in tuition, I think we have to look at mechanisms that buffer students and make sure that people in Prince George and in northern B.C. can still send their kids there.

B. Penner: Just a point of clarification. You said that in B.C. the government contribution towards post-secondary education was declining. Are you talking about Canada as an average?

D. Coxson: In B.C., after inflation, the contribution of government in the last decade has fallen by about 15 percent. In real terms, it declined in the first years of the nineties, then was stagnant for several years and has risen in the last two or three years.

R. Sultan: If I could interject, are you talking in terms of the share of the revenue pie?

D. Coxson: I don't have the numbers in front of me, but if we take the change in funding on a student basis from 1990 to 2000 and factor out inflation, then we're about 15 percent behind where we were ten years ago.

B. Penner: My second question is going to be in terms of the whole student contribution to the cost of their post-secondary education. I believe I've been told in the past that it varies. Between 80 and 85 percent of the total cost of post-secondary education is actually borne by taxpayers in general as opposed to the individual student through their tuition. Is that accurate?

D. Coxson: Those numbers you quote are accurate. It does vary a lot depending on discipline. A student who is an English major will have a lower cost to the university than somebody in medicine. That degree of subsidy varies. It's a public policy debate that you'll have to have as to how much students are paying for the respective cost of their degrees. My concern, with the students facing me in the classroom, is that I want a quality product for them. I want them to get value for the dollars they're spending and value for the dollars you're spending.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Coxson, I'm an opposition member. You have your work cut out for you to explain why UNBC is different from other institutions. UNBC was not a creation of the last government; it was a creation of the government before that. I happen to think that the creation of UNBC actually made sense, even though it was a Social Credit creation.

One of the contributions UNBC makes to British Columbia that was not there before is educating people in their own community, where they'd actually stay in their own community. UNBC took on part of its mandate to train people specifically in areas where there were professional skill shortages for rural and remote regions. You haven't talked about that. I wonder whether you could talk about that in terms of the contribution that UNBC is making toward skill shortages.

Secondly, in the area of tuition, statistics will show that students who attend UNBC have greater reliance on student loans than institutions in other areas of the

province. So the second part of my question is: if there is a tuition hike, does that not adversely impact UNBC specifically?

D. Coxson: I'll address your first question. UNBC has an important presence throughout central and northern B.C. and a lot of small communities. There's often been a barrier to institutions participating because they sort of look at what it's going to cost to build bricks and mortar and maintain programs over time there, but UNBC has developed some very flexible models. We share facilities with the colleges in those communities. We went to a cohort-based approach, so rather than having to have a faculty member teaching education or social work for 20 years, we look at a community and say: "Well, there's a backlog of demand here." We've targeted a lot of professional programs. We bring in faculty for a three- or four-year period, graduate a cohort of students and then target another community. That approach has led to a significant increase in our participation rate in small communities in the last three or four years, and it's really met some critical shortages of trained professionals. The social work program — you just heard a presentation about social workers before mine. The education program, the masters of education — a lot of teachers who would have taken distance courses from Gonzaga or who went out of the province to get that education have been met by these. So we've done a lot of innovative things. These cost more than perhaps just the traditional bricks and mortar on one campus, but it's what people want.

In northern B.C. the participation rate was the lowest in the province, and then that was low against the national average. There hasn't been a tradition of people sending their kids to university. That is just starting to build right now. Our participation rate has gone from about 8 or 9 percent up to about 14 percent, and it still should be closer to 20 percent to match national numbers. The concept of sending your kids to university is a new one, and it's intimidating to think of paying for four years of tuition.

For a lot of families, economic times are hard. I do forestry research. I work with forest contractors looking at how we can have our cake and eat it too, how we can improve harvesting designs and create better wildlife habitat. They're facing layoffs. It's hard for them to send their kids to school. The big tuition hike is going to hurt our institution more than the other ones. That's not something that's easy to get around.

I just have a supplementary, if I could. You have received startling accolades, given it's a new university in Canada. It is startling, the achievements you've made. However, the research grants flowing to your university have not followed yet. Is there not a period when you need bridge funding in order to sustain the substantial academic achievements you had before the research grants come? Are you not in a unique situation, being a new university?

D. Coxson: Well, we are in a unique situation, although if you look at a comparison of small universities, the research grants we hold and our research capacity actually rank near the top of that pool. If you compare us to UBC, then we fall behind, but even on a proportional basis we are closing that gap. I worry more about our ability to maintain that edge right now. That is a people edge. I can go down the hallway from my office, and about one in three have offers from other universities. It's becoming very difficult to retain people here.

The other problem is that research nowadays is a collaborative effort. There's very few sources where somebody just says: "We're going to pay for the whole of that research. You go out and do it now." You're out there lining up partnerships. You're asking the private sector to put money on the table. You're going after the federal government. You're going after the provincial government. We've fallen behind in that regard.

I go to a meeting tomorrow in Vancouver with the Sustainable Forest Management Network. They want to put $4 million into B.C. That's federal funding, but they have to find $500,000 in matching money in B.C. They are looking to get that from the provincial government. I understand that commitment is under review right now. It originally was from FRBC.

Those partnerships lever a lot of federal money. For health research B.C. left close to $30 million on the table last year. That was money that we couldn't get in the province because of the lack of research capacity here. We've taken those federal funds for granted lately, but with the events of September 11 those opportunities are going to be declining. UNBC has done well in terms of research, but as with our faculty complement, I think we're entering a period of real challenge.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions from members of the committee.

Darwyn, I would like to thank you for taking the time to bring your presentation forward. In the development of our report, consideration will be given to what you have given to the committee this evening. Thank you very much.

Our next presenter this evening is with the Central Interior Wood Processors Association, Mr. Ken Pendergast. Welcome, Ken. The microphones that will pick you up are the larger ones. The smaller ones are for Hansard.

K. Pendergast: Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. The Central Interior Wood Processors Association represents the value-added wood products manufacturing sector in northern British Columbia. We have 34 members, and our members manufacture various wood products from remanufacturing through to artisan. This industry represents something in the order of 1,200 employees in the north, with sales in excess of $125 million. Those were November 2000 figures.

The CIWPA is also a member of the B.C. Council of Value-Added Wood Processors and one of six associations that comprise that council. We have been involved in a number of initiatives on behalf of the value-added sector including softwood lumber, forest policy, mountain pine beetle and various other operations like that. Given the time, I thought I would focus my comments specifically on four major areas that are of concern and continue to be of concern to our industry.

One of them is access to fibre. The second one is market and market assistance. The third one is the ability to hire trained workers in the industry, and the fourth one is the kinds of financial assistance that is or isn't available to our industry. On the first topic, fibre access, basically everybody always claims that in British Columbia there is a shortage of fibre. The approach our industry takes is that there isn't really a shortage of fibre. In fact, in many cases there is a surplus of fibre, but there is a really significant shortage of fibre conducive to the needs of the wood products manufacturing industry here in B.C. and specifically in northern B.C.

The reason I say that is because the material that is available to us generally is not of the species that is required for our work. It doesn't meet the grade requirements that are necessary for value-added products manufacturing. It rarely meets the moisture content requirements and is rarely ever available to us in the dimensions that are required for the kinds of manufacturing that we do provide. Interestingly enough, only about 20 percent of the fibre that's available is even conducive to further finished wood products manufacturing. The remaining 80 percent of that should be suited for commodity lumber production. As it stands, those figures are almost exclusively going to the commodity lumber markets at this particular time. In addition to that, rarely is the hardwood supply of wood — species such as aspen, birch, cottonwood or maple — made available to our industry.

I made specific reference to the dimension. Generally, the dimension lumber is cut in metric sizes that are not conducive to our needs. In the secondary manufacturing industry we require wood to be cut in dimensions so that when it's planed and sanded, we still have either one-inch or two-inch dimensions. Otherwise, of course, we're looking at significant falldown in the amount of waste that's left on the shop floor.

In terms of the drying, the remanufacturing and secondary manufacturing industry requires that wood dry down to 7 or 8 percent, whereas traditionally commodity lumber is dried down to 17 or 18 percent. The concern we have in the industry — and we've made representation on a number of occasions, including the small business forest enterprise program review — is that we need the support of government to continue to direct more wood to the secondary manufacturing industry through the means of the 5 percent takeback and continue to improve tenure reform and the stumpage system around both sections 20 and 21 of the Forest Act.

Peter Woodbridge was commissioned by Forest Renewal B.C. to do a report. In that report he basically talks about the commodity lumber industry in North America being, at this point in time, about $35 billion a year and says that by moving more of that wood and the availability of that wood into secondary manufacturing, we can move that into a $200 billion industry. It doesn't take an awful lot of thought to determine where we should be going. In British Columbia and Canada specifically that industry is currently about $12 billion and could be moved into the $20 billion range with that kind of transition. So it makes sense.

In terms of marketing assistance, our industry has historically indicated that it needs assistance in marketing. A lot of these people got into the business because they were very good at working with wood — worked for somebody else and, because of downsizing, may have decided to go into their own industry. Or in fact, it may have been a hobby, and the hobby became a lifestyle that these people moved into. Often it's a labour of love for these people, but once they've started to create a product, they generally have not had any idea of how to market that particular product, no idea of how to package the product, no idea of how to present that particular product, and in many cases they do not have the training to recognize some of the cultural realities in dealing with some of those marketplaces.

Organizations like B.C. Wood Specialties Group have been providing a lot of marketing assistance to this industry in the last five or six years. What our industry is saying is that we need the ability of government to continue to support organizations like B.C. Wood and the various associations in the province to continue to provide that kind of assistance to our industry.

I think it's appropriate, even though it's not on the document I gave you, that we're making a bit of a plug for Forest Expo in 2002 here in Prince George, in that we're creating a value-added marketplace as part of Forest Expo. Forest Expo historically has been a harvesting type of trade show. This year we're taking it into the value-added marketplace, and we would like to continue to have some form of government support and in regard to making that particular venue happen. We had the support and commitment of Forest Renewal to bring their traditional large booth with us, but given the uncertainty around Forest Renewal right now, we're not exactly sure where that's going.

The ability to hire trained workers is a concern of our industry, and that's predicated on the very fact that a lot in our industry are, through demographics, getting to the age where they're going to be retiring and leaving the workforce, and to our knowledge there is no designed strategy to ensure that there are young people emerging with an interest in taking up wood products manufacturing in British Columbia or, for that matter, anywhere else. We have some practical, hands-on experience with that with organizations like Woodlinks, which was designed specifically to assist young people in grades 11 and 12 to make those kinds of determinations and to help move some of those people into that arena.

We feel very strongly that the system is not performing as it might at the K-to-12 levels. We feel there's a need for further assistance in educating young people today in British Columbia around forest resources and what they bring to our province. We feel that programs such as Woodlinks which are aimed at the grade 11 and 12 levels and develop the basic skills in wood products manufacturing are crucial to our industry. We feel that wood products technology courses offered in colleges like the College of New Caledonia, University College of the Cariboo, BCIT, those types of institutions, need continued support in these particular areas.

Another one that is quite a sore spot to us is the fact that the apprenticeship program does not adequately deal with training people in the wood products industry. A number of our industry people have complained that they cannot hire people who have the ability to work with wood the same as graduates from places like Rosenheim institute. Obviously, we have to walk before we can run in this particular industry.

In addition, we feel that the B.C. government should implement tax credits for additional workforce creation in the value-added sector. In reality, the number of jobs is being reduced on the primary side due to higher technology, and the secondary manufacturing is looked at as the industry that will continue to maintain and support jobs in B.C.

We feel that government should also examine ways to provide training and incentives to industry to further promote that. I think it's a bit laudable that these forms of career training should be self-sustainable. That's what we heard in the review that was taking place over Woodlinks — that these kinds of training need to be self-sustaining. I would ask you to point out any education program at this particular point in time that is self-sustaining. If there is one, I'd like to know where it is.

As far as financial assistance is concerned, this industry generally operates with very little financial backing. We have had serious difficulties over the last number of years trying to secure adequate funding for capital for securing equipment and then, in a larger way, the ability to continue to operate until there is a proper flow of money out of the business. We need operating capital assistance, and we've not had the opportunity to get that. We've had a lot of good success from programs, from Community Futures and Prince George Region Development Corp., in being able to start up some of our businesses, but we have not had the ability to garner operating capital. That seems to be one of the larger problems with our industry.

Obviously, our interest is in being able to start new industry and maintain that industry, as well as to continue to grow additional industry. We would like to see our government consider a policy that will allow that further financial assistance. We would like to see the government examine ways to provide tax credits for the secondary industry on new capital investments similar to those recently announced on the primary side. It was a bit of shortfall, in our opinion, on the secondary side.

We would like to see the government consider policy that will allow B.C. municipalities to provide incentives to our industry. I think we can all remember an industry that has moved into our communities and has been provided some benefits that have caused them to want to locate in our communities, and has still continued to grow and thrive in those communities.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I note that we do have some questions from members of the committee.

K. Krueger: The first point you made, Mr. Pendergast, about access to the right fibre. How do you see that ideally being done? We have the same problem with some value-added plants in my constituency. There's one that slices white pine, for example — 32 slices to the inch. It just grieves them to see white pine cut up for dimensional lumber in sawmills. What do you envision as the right way to give value-added manufacturers the chance to select those logs that are the perfect ones for grain and all of that?

K. Pendergast: That is a problem, and it isn't one that we have a quick solution for, but we feel that one of the ways is through log yards. We feel that there needs to be more access. Obviously, the secondary industry does not consume large quantities of wood. We need to be able to go in and access smaller quantities of wood, but we need to be able to go in and select the right species. Even within that right species, as I mentioned earlier, there is still only about 20 percent of the volume that we require.

In an ideal situation we need a much better working relationship with our primary industry to be able to do that, also recognizing that our primary industry mills are very fast. They're pumping commodity lumber through those mills at a high rate of speed, which is part of the problem when it comes to dimension lumber. The dimension they're pumping out is different than what our industry needs. We need to be able either to take further downtime on those mills to supply specific markets or to take some of those primary mills out and make them specific to the secondary manufacturing. Otherwise, we wind up having more small specialty mills created in British Columbia.

I could argue that we don't need any more primary mills. We need to take some of those primary mills that are pumping spaghetti commodity lumber into the United States and create specific value-added dimension lumber for our industry in British Columbia, giving us the opportunity to manufacture it here into finished and semi-finished products before it's sold outside the borders of British Columbia.

K. Krueger: Even if you did have log-yard approaches, it sounds like your members would still need to have at least the first cut done on the logs in order to be able to assess whether they're the quality they need for your product.

K. Pendergast: There's definitely a need for a lot of sorting of that wood to ensure that the right log is going to the right mill. Currently that is not the situation.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Ken, I would like to thank you. I know we could talk on this issue and the issue of forestry in general and what it means to this province and the economy. Unfortunately, our time frames are quite tight, and we're trying to get to as many presenters as we can. I would like to thank you for your presentation, and the information you've put forward will certainly be taken into consideration in the development of our report. Thanks for taking the time.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We're going to move on to our next presenter this evening. With us we have Echo Wylie.

E. Wylie: First, I'd like to thank everyone for the opportunity for the public to voice their opinions. This is very important. I'd like to speak to you about something that actually affects all three of the previous speakers in some way or another as employers, consumers and medical practitioners: the WCB. I know that Allan Hunt is actually doing an inquest into them, but I felt it was important that you folks hear what I have to say. I don't know how this is going to come out.

I'm a 39-year-old single mother. At 25 I was in an accident with CN Rail. Each of us has our own personal reasons for why we want to have a wonderful medical system. Last year we proved it here by having the huge response we did at the multiplex with the need for us to address the problems within the system. I believe WCB to be a main contributor to this, because if you look at the statistics of how many people end up getting into accidents, it's quite astronomical. If you look at the appeal process, you're looking at two years to sit on an appeal.

Our medical system is so envied by everybody. Bill and Hillary Clinton based their whole precept on the fact that they wanted to have a national medical care system. It's far too important to be looked at in a sense that it can be not dealt with properly and have such a vicious mismanagement situation.

There's so much going on in medical research — computers with the stem cell research, things that are happening. The university has a role to play in medical research. WCB has its hand in all of this. It's a funding pocket that pays for our medical system.

I will read this, so bear with me here. I'm not very good at this, as you can see. We're on the brink of exciting things here; we all know that. Our system is threatened, mostly by itself, for being so good and so big and trying to do all for all that it's beginning to be seen as a burden rather than a blessing. In reality, medicine is a business. Our health is not a burden; it's our responsibility as citizens to each other and our children and our futures.

There is no doubt, whether medicine is covered by a private plan or a national or provincial plan, that it is big business, and there's money to be made and spent. How it's managed is what's going to make things change. Business is always good. People are sick, just like death and taxes. It's how the businesses run and who pays whom, how it's paid and how debts are repaid. If one funding pocket is not holding up the responsibility of its burden to the people of this province, then it's drawing from another pocket. Who's going to pay the burden of the reality of what's going on with people's health every day?

Other areas must take up the slack. When the slack is WCB, it's huge. They show absolutely no prejudice, whether it's to the employer in outrageous costs and inept service or the client who is being refused service by the WCB, which doesn't make their illness go away. It just sheds the burden onto the B.C. medical program.

Firstly, when you go to WCB as an injured worker, you are sent to the UIC office, which is stupid, because UIC is a fund that's for employable people who are looking for work, not for people who are injured. I always thought that was rather funny. That's your first waste of time. Then there's the burden that's sloughed off to private insurance companies like Sun Life and things like that. That is a really big move by the employer, because they're facing rates that are so stupidly astronomical.

Anyway, there have been studies. Lois Boone is here. She's one person we've known for years. I have lists. Mr. Hunt will be fully informed of all of this, but I'd like you guys to get a picture of what goes on with the average person when they have to deal with this.

Then the burden's sloughed off to private insurance companies to evade lost-time injuries to employers. The insurance rates increase, and the service they receive…. It's not just the worker; everybody has to jump through hoops. If that doesn't work for the worker, or they feel WCB should be dealing with it — compensation's still not doing it — they're sent to the welfare system, which is where I have been for 15 years because I knocked the disc out of my jaw and hit a semi-truck so hard it shifted all the bones in my head. I don't have an adjudicator who will deal with this.

I'm sitting here, and these people are actually denying a claim that they've already agreed to with four letters of denial and are sending me into a two-year appeal process with a letter, if you would notice, that is actually unsigned. They've denied me my income. I lost my job, and my life's been ruined. I've been on welfare for 14 years based on a letter with no signature on the bottom.

There is no recourse for anybody in this province. The workers' advisers do what they can, but the problems that they have are astronomical. The system is so inherently threatened that it's absolutely ridiculous. Once you've been sent to UIC to begin with, they're denying your medical claims, so your medical benefits are cut off. Sickness doesn't go away, as I've said before. It goes to WCB.

I'm one of hundreds of people who are regularly, on a daily basis, denied medical treatment by their doctors for things pertaining to WCB, because doctors are so freaked out by these guys that they don't even want to file the forms. I have three doctors I've been dealing with who actually refuse. It's their mandated duty by law to file forms with WCB. I'm finding out, as I'm going through my papers, that these guys haven't done that. What's WCB supposed to do? There are inherent problems to do with the adjudication system.

It touches the education system. I've had to default on student loans. I borrowed to get on with my life; I didn't realize this was happening. I ended up with a student loan. I can't go to work. I've had to sign orders for papers to get my welfare cheques. I've been forced into doing things that I can't even describe to you.

These guys at WCB have even lied so much that they've told me that CN was paid relief costs by them because I won my case initially. Now they're refusing to pay my medical treatment that B.C. Medical doesn't cover, which is leaving me stuck on welfare.

What are you supposed to do? I've gone to 13 lawyers and the ombudsman. I'm dealing with them right now. I'm here right now because of Ellen from the office of the MLA here. They asked me to come and speak to you, and obviously I'm not doing a very good job. Do you guys have any questions? This is a very, very big point. I'm sitting here inept, I really feel.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Echo, there are some questions. I think you did a wonderful job of presenting the issue that's before us today.

K. Krueger: When you say you've been inept, that's not true at all. It's a bewildering experience working with the organization. Joy MacPhail was minister and I was critic of the last government, and we agreed that WCB is a real conundrum.

E. Wylie: I was involved with Linda Reid when she did her study as well. Basically, as I said, I have letters here from the Minister of Labour's office. They can't even define these people. There are adjudicators overriding medical decisions by doctors on a daily basis, based on letters with no signatures, and there isn't a thing that a citizen in this province can do about it, literally.

E. Wylie: I understand Mr. Hunt is doing this, but for me being on welfare, just having to give up my son, and I'm homeless…. I'm refusing welfare; I won't take it anymore.

K. Krueger: I'm sorry it's so hard for you. You know, it is for a lot of people too.

E. Wylie: I'm not the only one, like they say. The gentleman in the wood industry probably has to deal with it. It's the largest contributor to the WCB problem, according to him — right? Why can't we start to work some constructive ideas, like we would take the injured forestry workers and put them in value-added? We don't want WCB to go away; it's very important that they stay. They play a major role. They could play major roles in medical research, the law. Do you understand what I'm saying?

E. Wylie: As far as university hospitals and stuff, they could be working in correlation, but it's an adversarial system that seems to be set up completely like there are cleverly concealed booby traps as you go along. I mean, I'm in the adviser's office, and then a gentleman comes in who's a truck driver. He's upset, and he's losing his house. I was in a volunteer organization that literally won over 3,000 cases against CPP and WCB. We have a 300-member base. We were doing something politically motivated. We did studies and everything. They just ran us into the ground. We're just a bunch of injured workers, you know. We're pretty much a sore spot — you know what I mean?

K. Krueger: My question to you is going to be: do you think that you could draw up a list of your recommendations for how WCB could have handled things better for you personally?

E. Wylie: I have managed to do that. I've only had the last month and a half that I've had all of my papers, that I even have this information. If I didn't know that I was supposed to ask for my memos and file notes from the adjudicators, I would not even know this information. I would still be floundering out there without any idea of what's going on. Yes, I am going to do that.

E. Wylie: I'm actually going to be doing the thing for Mr. Hunt, for the constituency office.

This is a very big problem. If you guys are looking for viable solutions as to how to help assist the province, for one I would say our medical dollars. We actually submitted to the royal commission ten back disc operations that were proven work injuries and that B.C. Medical paid for, which were never refunded by WCB. For 15 years — I even have my own medical payments through B.C. Medical — none of it was booked to them. Doctors don't want to deal with them because they're insulted. They're constantly insulted. How can an adjudicator who is a first-year university student deny medical information from a trained, seven-year professional? You wonder why people won't work here, why people want to move away.

E. Wylie: Yes, Mr. Hunt is doing it, but I wanted to bring light to this group here, just because it's something that could be reviewed before that, and it is something to take into consideration.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): It's a huge issue, WCB, and we're certainly conducting a review.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, it's taken some time to develop into the situation that it's in. Hopefully, what we're doing is correcting this.

E. Wylie: We've known this for years. It's been happening for years and years and years now. If you're looking for fiscal responsibility, they are a big lacking, supporting system. They're supposed to be there, and they are not.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Hopefully, it's our goal that we will correct that.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Just prior to moving on to our next presenter, I would like to recognize Lois Boone, the former MLA for Prince George–Mount Robson, who has joined us. Lois, I'd like to welcome you to our meeting.

Our next presenter this evening is Robert Thouw. Hopefully, I have pronounced that right. Is Robert with us this evening? He hasn't checked in.

Is Linda St. Arnault here? Linda, if you would like to take this time, we will continue on with the hearings. Thank you, Linda.

L. St. Arnault: I want, first of all, to thank Echo very much for her presentation. I know how very difficult it is to bare your soul to a group of people that you don't know and that you're hoping to gain empathy from. I hope to be doing that also.

My case is a little different. I'm here on behalf of myself but also on behalf of all people in this province who are on disability 2 benefits. I don't know if you understand what that is, but that is a benefit given out by the provincial government in the amount of $786.68 a month on which to live. That covers your rent, your food, your medications if they're not covered by Pharmacare, your gas, your car — everything you have.

If any of you know what the cost of living is in British Columbia today, it is extremely difficult to do that. It causes some people to become healthy, though. One of the things people can do who are on disability, which a lot of them do, is quit smoking, and they save $150 a month. They become much healthier that way, which is what I did — one of my savings.

I also have other disabilities which you cannot see and which other people find extremely uneasy to handle once I mention it. I will mention it to you, and immediately I can see in your head that your reactions to me are going to change. I suffer from a mental illness. It's called bipolar mood disorder. It used to be called manic depressive. It is a very scary title; it is a very scary illness. But it is one of the easiest mental illnesses to handle and control today. It is simply a chemical imbalance in your body, as diabetes is. They get the right chemicals to work in your brain, and you can be stable. You don't know for how long. You don't know when a breakthrough will occur. You don't know what devastations will occur in your family. I've been the entire route — from divorce to losing my children to losing my teaching career to losing a lot of things that I thought were very, very important to me. But I've learned to go on in various other ways and to change my goals in different directions.

What I'm hoping to do now is speak on behalf of all those people who are on disability benefits in this province and in regard to Pharmacare especially. I have a lot of physical disabilities, from ulcers to psoriasis to circulation problems.

I have a handicapped sticker for my car, and when I get out of my car, a lot of people say: "Hmm, you don't look handicapped to me." I've got to the point where I say: "Are you a physician?" They say: "No." I say: "Well, then you don't know what you're talking about." I say you do not get a handicapped sticker in this province without having a large medical file given to you by your doctor. My physician in the province is an excellent man, a mentor. He is willing to back me on the things I wished to work with to make my life better, my goals better, in this world. One of the things I just wanted was to be able to walk and hike. I have what is called a sacroiliac joint inflammation, which is only relieved by anti-inflammatories.

The one that works best for me is called Celebrex, which Pharmacare will not cover. It costs $137 a month, and $137 out of $768 is a big chunk of money. Now, they'll cover another prescription for $107 a month, but the problem with that one is that it aggravates my ulcers and gives me ulcers. So they want me to have ulcers back again, go through an ulcer operation all over again, and my doctor is saying: "There's something wrong with the system."

The pharmacist is stating to me that he hates being a pharmacist today, because people aren't being helped in this province. There's something wrong with a system where people have to beg and cry and plead to get proper medical care. Do you know what it's like to beg for something? Do you know what it's like to take the pride out of your life? It's very hard, but we learn how to do it. We even learn how not to cry about it anymore.

We also realize that as disabled people we do have a lot to offer this province. We do have skills and training so that we are going to benefit other people. There's a new program hopefully being offered at UNBC in the fall of next year on getting disabled people back in the workforce, which is costing the government of Canada $15 billion a year. It's a master's degree program, which I will hopefully be selected for.

Rather than paying me disability benefits all my life, put me on that program, and I will help people with physical and mental disabilities get on with their lives, become taxpayers and enjoy life again. It's very, very important to have that self-esteem, that pride in your job, that pride in your life, because if that is taken away from you…. Let me tell you, I've been there.

I've been locked in an isolation ward for ten days — it isn't fun — without a bathroom. That's here in Prince George, in hospital. Criminals have it better. They have a toilet; we didn't. We still don't, and I'm going to say that loud and clear because that is a disgrace. If you can do anything — anything at all — get a toilet put in the isolation ward, the psych ward, in Prince George Regional Hospital.

I know I've said a lot of things to you, but in my brief I've given you an e-mail thing. I've just got a computer from my ex–mother-in-law, who passed away. She left it as a little inheritance for me to get a computer, and I did. I thank God every day that she loved me enough to do this.

You'll see a lot of mistakes in it, but from my heart I want to tell you that I'm more than happy to talk to you about anything, to write to you, to meet with you, to e-mail you — anything at all. As a physical and mental disability sufferer, I'm glad to talk anytime. I think you're doing an excellent job. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thanks very much, Linda. There are a couple of questions from members. I will begin with Tony.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Linda, is the Celebrex better than the other anti-inflammatories, or is it just because of the ulcer that it's a better medication for you?

L. St. Arnault: It is a better medication for a lot of people with inflammatory joint disorders, not just me with an ulcer but for a lot of people. I don't know if you know of an organization called CARP. I'm just learning about that. I haven't joined it, but I'm going to. They are fighting to get Celebrex brought in. Ms. Chong is nodding that she recognizes it, so she might be able to tell you a little bit about that.

K. Krueger: There are a couple of initiatives already underway in government that I wanted to tell you about. First, the Premier designated a cabinet minister as a minister of state specifically for the concerns around mental health issues not being dealt with in our province, and I recently toured with him for a day. He speaks to the issues that you've spoken to very clearly: the fact that somehow it's okay to talk about having diabetes but that there's a stigma about having to talk about mental health issues, even though one out of five people in this room and everywhere else in B.C., and probably Canada, is going to have a mental health issue in their own personal circumstances, let alone their family. So we want to encourage you. The stigma issue, I hope, is becoming a problem of the past. Minister Cheema is keenly interested in the types of issues that you raise with us, and we'll give your presentation to him. We'd also like you to write him as you've written us.

K. Krueger: On the other matter of the insufficient funds for disabled persons, I spoke with Minister Murray Coell about that issue this past week. It's under review, and he expects to be making an announcement this month about it.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Linda, I would like to thank you for making your presentation here this evening. Good luck.

L. St. Arnault: I would just like to say one last thing. I am now able to smile at all of you, which I'm very glad to do. For the last five months I had Bell's palsy on my face. It was all drooping. I couldn't smile at all. So I'm very glad to be here and smile.

J. Greenley: Good evening. My name is Joy Greenley, and I've been a resident and a citizen of Prince George since 1949. I attended elementary school, high school and college in this city and observed the growth in the community from the era when running water meant that you ran to an outdoor water tap on the corner of Fifth Avenue and Ullridge Street, and my neighbourhood had privies in the back yards. Now I live in an area where I once picked wild strawberries and have the luxury of indoor plumbing and central heating.

I've also been employed by the provincial government for the past 32 years and have seen a number of governments come and then go again. Some have

placed a greater emphasis on long-range planning, some on the shorter term. Some have had greater concern for certain sectors of the public service than for others. This has of course affected the types of work that we do and how we accomplish it.

After having been displaced by the closure of my old workplace, I have for the past six years worked at the Prince George district office of the Ministry of Forests. In those six years we have seen the number of people employed in the office reduced to align with a reduction in the allowable annual cut. The mountain pine beetle has not cooperated, though. For several years we have been unable to depend upon an early cold winter to provide the desired form of natural control over the beetle population explosion. My co-workers and I have been involved in ensuring that the application of man-made controls is done as accurately and efficiently as possible, because we know that fires fuelled by forests abounding in dead trees is the alternative natural control.

In my workplace and in cooperation with the private sector forest industry, much of our work cycle bears a strong relationship to the life cycle of the mountain pine beetle. Could we accomplish that work with substantially fewer people and less funding? I don't believe so, and without it government revenues would be lost in favour of expenditures to fight massive forest fires with the potential to destroy the livelihoods and homes of citizens in this area and beyond. Of course, that is only a proportion of the work performed by concerned government employees in my workplace. The normal business of the workplace proceeds while accommodating the additional workload imposed by such forest pestilence.

I also want to speak to you about what it means to be a member of the public service. Those of us in the public service have a strong commitment to dealing with the needs of the citizens in this province: the rich and the poor, the angry and the compliant, those who need many services and those who may never need more than a few of the services available, those who know what to expect from government processes and those for whom the processes will never meet their expectations or those who simply don't know what to expect.

In the Prince George area we number just over 2,000. Our wage plus benefits averages approximately $58,000, but consider that there are a goodly number of us who aren't in that range. Much of this is fed into the local economy after we have paid taxes. If you feel that Prince George can afford to lose a substantial proportion of the approximately $116 million which flows directly into its economy, with an added economic impact of at least that much again, I invite you to take a walk through our downtown area just outside this hotel.

Like many communities in this province, the impact stemming from the loss of the softwood lumber agreement has been a blow. Although our community is the largest in the region, the foundation of our economy is still the forest industry in all its aspects. The work of the public service in this area is to ensure that British Columbians receive the services they pay for and expect their provincial government to provide.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Joy, for your presentation this evening. I will look to members of the committee to see if they have any questions for Joy.

J. MacPhail: This is our second stop, Joy. We were in Dawson Creek earlier today. Are discussions going on in the community of Prince George, between the private sector and the public service, about the points that you make?

J. MacPhail: What you've just told us in terms of the contribution of a public service employee or an economic contribution. Is this a discussion that occurs in isolation?

J. Greenley: I don't know that we've had much time to bring this to discussion. It's been within the week, so it certainly hasn't hit in a major portion yet.

R. Sultan: The question I have is perhaps more of a technical one relating to the pine beetle, forest fire — preservation of our forestry resource issue.

R. Sultan: But you do have some awareness of that issue, I suppose. We are told that the pine beetle infestation has really swept all the way from Bella Coola to Mackenzie, and it's wiping out a huge portion of our forestry asset. Does this square with your impression here on the ground in Prince George?

J. Greenley: It's certainly what I'm hearing from people at work. The other part of it is that it places a lot of pressure on the industry for the simple reason that pine isn't always the preferred species to be harvesting, but they've got time lines to meet to be able to harvest it while it's still of any particular value. Consequently, they have to get it out. They also have to get it out before the next year's crop flies.

R. Sultan: What pressures is this putting on your workplace? What's happening in your office?

J. Greenley: There's a lot of salvage going on. There's a tremendous amount of salvage. I worked with the woodlots program. We have 94 woodlot licensees, and there are very few of them that don't have a salvage permit, the majority of it to address beetle problems.

R. Sultan: It seemed to me — I'd be interested in your comment — that many, many British Columbians aren't aware of this crisis.

J. Greenley: No, I think it certainly has hit the media. The thing is that it certainly does provide a lot of pressure on most of the Ministry of Forests workplaces.

I. Chong: Thank you, Joy, for bringing your concern to our attention. You mentioned that you've been a provincial government employee for 33 years. Part of our prebudget consultation is to seek public input, looking as well at priorities and determining which programs and services should be restructured, expanded or terminated. Does a long-term employee like yourself have any thoughts about where there are government programs that perhaps can be expanded, terminated, eliminated or restructured?

J. Greenley: I'm concerned for the people who work in the government service. Those are people I work with every day. They are people with families. They are people with the usual human concerns. I'd like to see that we have a provincial government that recognizes that those are the normal human concerns that everybody has — that you have.

I. Chong: Yes, we're very concerned about those issues, but also in the same context….

J. Greenley: But it's much easier to deal with when you're dealing with it at a distance, and we don't have faces and we don't necessarily have names.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Any other questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, I would like to thank you, Joy, for your presentation.

Just prior to moving on, I would like to indicate that you may see members of the committee from time to time removing themselves from the room. Our schedules do not permit breaks for eating or anything, so if that does take place, they are not being rude and leaving on your presentation; they are taking leave. I will note that everything is recorded in Hansard and that each member reviews each presentation daily. I just wanted to put that forward in case you do see members of this committee coming and going through the next hour or two.

Our next presentation comes from the Northern Interior regional health board, and presenting is Harry Hufty as well as Dave Richardson.

H. Hufty: Good evening. Mr. Lekstrom and members of the committee, first of all, let me thank you for the opportunity to provide the select standing committee with some input. I am, as you know, Harry Hufty. I'm a board member with the Northern Interior regional health board, and with me is Mr. Dave Richardson, who is the chief executive officer of the health board.

Our board is the governing authority which is responsible for the delivery of health care services for an area that covers the central interior region of British Columbia. For those of you who are located in that tiny little corner in the southwest of the province, our region extends a little more than 125 miles north to the community of Mackenzie, about 180 miles to the southeast, just south of Valemount, and about 130 to 140 miles to the west. It covers a huge area. In your notes I've given you some sense. Again, for those of you from the lower mainland, understand that you're dealing with an area that extends from Seattle to Port Hardy and over to Princeton. Then if you take the population of the city of Victoria and disperse that throughout that region, you have a sense of who we are.

Our region has the smallest population of all the regional health authorities but easily its most dispersed population. We like to make the analogy that it's like trying to provide health care to the downtown east side but over thousands of square kilometres.

We're here this evening because we recognize that government in the months ahead has some very difficult decisions to make. We are very pleased that the portfolios of health and education have received the highest priority. We also want you to understand our situation as we are trying to address health and the health care needs of our region in northern British Columbia.

Let me state that we are concerned about, and for, the people who live in this region whose health status is among the worst in the province, indeed among the worst in the entire country. The people who live in our region have a life expectancy two years less than the average British Columbian and five years less than the top-ranked category of those people who live on the North Shore in the Vancouver region. We are very concerned that the aboriginal people in our region have a life expectancy some 17 years less than non-aboriginal citizens of British Columbia. We know that as a health authority, we are very vulnerable to budget decisions that have an impact on the quality and quantity of health services in our region.

Let me give you some background. Our budget is already at a level that is underfunded to serve the needs of our region. I'm going to give you a comparison, and I know this is a dicey thing to do. The Thompson health region, the Kamloops area, has very, very close to the same population, the same services and the same facilities as our region. Last year their budget was $20 million greater than ours. Our budget was $152 million; theirs was $172 million. Our budget included the $10 million that we received as a differential to aid us in recruitment and retention of medical professionals.

Another point. We have already announced an anticipated $6 million deficit for our health region this year. There have been a number of studies that have taken a close look at our region, in particular Prince George Regional Hospital. Those studies have confirmed that Prince George Regional Hospital has a sig-

nificant role to play as the regional referral and trauma centre for all of northern British Columbia.

The joint committee study, which included the Ministry of Health, the Northern Interior regional health board and the medical staff, concluded that the hospital here needed $5.2 million more to its annual base just to fulfil the role as a regional referral and trauma centre. The increase we received in 1999 was $3.6 million.

Prince George is the hub for health care in northern British Columbia. The next similar-sized hospital is a six-hour drive to Kamloops, and that's summer driving conditions. Again, for those of you whose knowledge of winter is wet, ice and snow have a significant impact on how you travel that six hours.

We have been told by government that increases to budgets will be protected at today's level, and we must state that that is a great relief to us. It still, however, does not match our needs. We have been advised, again, that increases to budgets must be linked to economic growth within the province. If there is no growth in the province, the health care system must absorb any inflationary costs.

Those costs include wage settlements with the health care unions. We estimate that in our region that will cost us $14 million over the next three years alone. We also would like to point out — and this is in reference to comments that we will be seeing more of population-based funding in future — that population-based funding works fine in areas of large population. In small population regions with dispersed populations, it works very much against us.

You've probably heard this from every health authority in the province. We are trying to deliver the services in a deficit situation, and much of that is caused by the need to pay high overtime costs because of the critical shortage of health care professionals. We are going to urge you not to make recommendations that will require any remediations to be done in a single fiscal period in the entire spectrum of the budget.

We do want to focus on the unique characteristics of our region. As I suggested to you, the Maclean's report and the health status indicators indicate that the people living in this region are among the most unhealthy people in the entire country. We have the highest death rate due to all causes in this province. We have the highest death rate due to cancer in this province. We have the second-highest rate of death due to pneumonia and influenza. We know that thousands of people in Prince George do not have a family physician. Who do they go to for minor treatments? We know that many of them don't go anywhere. They'll let conditions worsen until they are truly ill. The costs of treatment become much more significant, because it's longer-term.

We know that the cost of doing business in the north and in our region certainly is higher than elsewhere in the province. Basic things like shipping costs, the costs of maintenance, the costs of travel are significantly greater than they are in the southern part of B.C. Not mild at best, the climate in our region, in our health authority, costs us an additional million dollars in natural gas costs alone.

Some of our needs have been addressed. In the summer of 2000 our region received a total of $11 million to assist us in the recruitment and retention of health professionals. Of that, $10 million was specifically targeted towards physicians. Our understanding at the time of the negotiations was that this would be an ongoing differential, that we would continue to expect to see that on an annual basis. We are going to make some suggestions to you there.

Since that fund was created last year, we have been successful in recruiting 17 physicians. We have a number more on our negotiation list of people who we are hoping to bring in. This has been of enormous benefit to the region. Just to allay any concerns that you may hear, if you do, that we are robbing other jurisdictions within British Columbia, 15 of the 17 physicians have been brought here from outside British Columbia. Our need for physicians continues to be very strong.

The fund that was granted recognized that we have some unique challenges, some challenges that are not faced by other regions. We maintain that this must continue. If the same package is offered elsewhere in the province, the advantage — the differential — that we have here will be lost. That contract expires in the spring. Again, we were assured that it would be a recurrent thing; it would occur annually. We are asking your committee to recommend that this be renewed.

The recruitment and retention of health professionals in the north is an extremely challenging task, and it's expensive, but it appears we are having some success. We are going to ask that you assist us in maintaining the momentum to deliver the health care that the citizens of this region deserve as much as the people who are within 30 minutes of a hospital in other parts of the province. We want to continue to build on the momentum, but we are concerned that that momentum is threatened.

We've been very, very lucky. We're proud of what we've been able to accomplish thus far in improving the health care in the region. We've given you a list of some of the things that are underway. The first phase of the redevelopment of Prince George Regional Hospital is underway. That new tower is under construction now and is progressing admirably. The Omineca Lodge in Vanderhoof has been approved, and we anticipate that will proceed as planned. We have recently opened a new detox facility in the city, connected to the Prince George Regional Hospital. We are in the planning phase for a tertiary mental health facility here.

Another area where we do not want to see anything impeding progress is in the establishment of the health centre for the residents on the south side of François Lake, to the west of us. That, we know, has been approved in principle. We feel that we are well on the way to a full complement of health professionals, and we are concerned that that not be jeopardized.

In our region we have developed a three-year plan. We have provided you with copies of the executive summary of that plan. If you wish to use that as a template or as a model, you're more than welcome to do so. We believe it's an excellent product. It deals with the health of the population, our mental health needs, acute care needs and so on — all aspects of health in our region.

We are committed to fulfilling our plan in the most effective and efficient method possible. We are currently generating internal efficiencies, using the comparisons to best practices and benchmarks, and re-engineering the way we do things. We are also highly committed to public accountability for the work that we do within the region, and we use the criteria that were established in previous plans as the basis for assessing our performance and in reporting to the public in the Northern Interior health region.

What are we asking of you? We're asking that the provincial budget reflect the unique needs of the north. I'd like to point out that the University of Northern British Columbia is funded with a northern differential. They receive a 35 percent differential because of the northern factors. We urge that any decisions made on budget amounts and methodology take into account the unique needs of health care in the north.

We'd also ask that government lobby for improvements in the transfer payments from the federal government and that there be some consideration given to tax concessions for northern residents who require care outside of their own communities. As you well appreciate, that includes a significant proportion of people in the region.

We know that government is giving consideration to providing funding envelopes, and we applaud this. We encourage that planning to proceed, because it will certainly allow for better planning for health care services if we have three-year budgets to operate within.

As an additional note, we would request that consideration be given to transferring the ownership of public health buildings to the health authorities. In our region alone this would yield a saving of some $700,000 in annual operating dollars.

In summary, we are asking that as you make your recommendations to the budgetary process, to the Minister of Finance, you choose to invest in the health of northerners and to fully support health care in our region. We strongly urge you to retain the differential that allows us to compete favourably with other regions of British Columbia. Thank you very much.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Harry. [Applause.] We'll always allow a little applause for the north. That'll work well.

I. Chong: I'm looking at your request, what you're asking of us, on page 6 and in the summary. There are two issues that come to mind, and I wonder if you can elaborate. The first is that I'm intrigued by the transfer of ownership of the public health buildings. You say that would amount to a saving of $700,000. What is it that is costing you that $700,000?

D. Richardson: When the region was created, the facilities that were previously health units became part of our organization. However, the buildings are owned by BCBC, and we are paying rents in the amounts that are here. These buildings, in our case, are up to 20 years old. If there's some way that we can gain title to the properties, then there is an immediate injection of operating dollars into the system.

I. Chong: The second issue was because you're lobbying us to make a presentation to the Minister of Finance about the $10 million. You say that that has already amounted to the recruitment of 17 physicians. Have you still a pot of that left? I'm curious as to what the cost has been to get those 17. Have you got half of that money left, or has it taken the entire $10 million to recruit the 17 doctors?

D. Richardson: The way the funds are allocated, they go to a retention benefit to the physicians who are already in the community. They go to supporting continuing medical education for the physicians in the community. They go towards the provision of funds for residents so that we can invest in future physicians coming into the community. There is a $10,000-per-new-physician relocation amount. In the first year of the program we've spent about 75 percent of the total dollars, although the first year wasn't the full fiscal period. So about $750,000 of the $10 million….

D. Richardson: Sorry, $7.5 million. Zeroes — they get bigger in your case than in ours. Anyway, about $7.5 million was spent on all of those elements that we have described. Once we are fully staffed, though, the $10 million means that we'll have to go back inside and look at recalculating the amounts that are available in each of the components. If we had the 35 physicians that we were looking for, which this fund was in place to support, then it would be stretched further than $10 million would cover, given the current formulas for allocation.

L. Mayencourt: I think that of all the communities in British Columbia that have stood up and said, "We need something better in health care," Prince George is a shining example of what a community can do. I really applaud you, as do all of the members of the committee.

You got some more money to recruit some more doctors, and you got a few of them. You still haven't met the need of your community. It doesn't seem that dollars are the only solution. I wonder if programs like those that were introduced by Minister Hawkins on the training and retention of nurses…. If you could comment on what we might be able to do in the other health care professions, that might be helpful for your community and also for the province. I'm just wondering if you can give us some comment about that.

H. Hufty: One comment I would like to make, of course, is that the support given to UNBC for the establishment of the medical training facility is heartily applauded. I think that will eventually have a significant impact on the retention and placement of physicians in our community. The establishment of the additional places in training programs at CNC and at UNBC is certainly going to augment our professional help. At this point we do not have the same kind of access to other types of professionals such as physiotherapists, pharmacists, and so on, because they are trained elsewhere. Perhaps Mr. Richardson can extend that a little bit.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We will have to be brief; we're bringing it to a summation here fairly quickly. I do have one more member with a question, but continue.

D. Richardson: I will be brief. I think that the concept of developing a northern medical program and teaching physicians in northern and rural communities makes a difference. We know that. We also know that applies equally to the other health care professionals, and we know that creating opportunities for people to get back into the fields of profession that they may have been out of for a while — refresher programs — creates opportunities. Then the concept of laddering, particularly in nursing, moving from resident care attendant through to the bachelor's-trained nurse are all beneficial, and we have evidence to reflect that.

B. Penner: Yes, just to follow up on Mr. Hufty, about the provincial government's intention to preserve and protect the current health care budget. That's correct, but I think we are equally determined to try and find some cost-savings to keep costs from continuing to increase. I believe it was about ten years ago that health care spending in B.C. took up about one-third of total provincial spending, and it now amounts to about 40 percent. That level of increase is not sustainable in the long term. I've heard it said that pretty soon we'll only need two ministers in the government: the Minister of Provincial Revenue to collect the money and the Minister of Health to spend it all. We are keenly interested in finding savings within that existing budget so that we can keep costs from continuing to increase year after year.

Regionalization was supposed to be one of those tools to control costs, and I'm wondering if in your view it has helped to accomplish that goal. I noticed a letter to the Deputy Minister of Health dated July 9, 2001, in a package that you just provided us. Mr. Richardson indicates that $750,000 is being invested in human resource and information services. These are the types of things that we're supposed to save money on through regionalization, by centralizing payroll and reducing administrative overlap. Has regionalization accomplished any of those goals?

H. Hufty: I think regionalization is well on the way. Remember that we have been regionalized for only four years. In our region here, thanks very much to the vision of Mr. Richardson and his staff, we have made enormous strides towards consolidating a number of the services across the region. I think those efficiencies are starting to be realized now.

D. Richardson: I'd just like to add that many of the expectations are savings in administration. Administration represents less than 10 percent of the overall spending in our budgets, so it's not likely that the overall savings in supporting the health care system can be found in the economies of scale or pure administrative efficiencies. Definitely they need to be taken and used, but there are other aspects of the system that need addressing far greater than this.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I know that our time frames are short, and to try and cover everything off in the time frame allotted is very difficult. I want to thank you, gentlemen, for coming forward. I think you've put together a very informative package of information that we will certainly look at and utilize in the development of our report that's due out on November 15. Thank you very much.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): At this time I am going to bury the agenda somewhat. His Honour Mayor Colin Kinsley is in attendance, and I know his time frame is very tight. I believe he has a council meeting this evening, so with the indulgence of the committee and the crowd I would welcome Mayor Colin Kinsley. Good evening, Your Worship.

C. Kinsley: Thank you, Chair Lekstrom and committee members, for allowing this. We are right in the middle of a council meeting, and I've just run out. I'll be very brief. I have a copy of my presentation that I'll pass along. Thanks for the indulgence of those who were able to have time to vent. I'll be as quick as possible. We think it's very important that the citizens of Prince George, as they're represented by city council, have this opportunity, because we certainly support the process — applaud it, actually — and want some of our points known to you. They will be brief. There's a larger document on its way.

This opportunity on the Budget 2002 consultation report is a good opportunity. I'd like to highlight some of my thoughts on the report. The B.C. fiscal review panel's forecast indicates that the framework of government revenues and expenses is structurally imbalanced. I agree with the panel that the government must take action quickly to address this issue, and I agree with the government's commitment to balance the budget by 2004-05.

I believe it is imprudent to use debt to finance current operations. The province must make tough decisions that are currently required so that in the future we do not pay excessive debt-servicing costs. The province, I feel, must act now if we're to avoid mortgaging our children's and grandchildren's futures.

Given the serious financial situation facing our province, I agree with the panel's recommendation that rather than looking at an incremental change in expense budgets, the government should conduct a complete budget review. I also agree with the panel that the purpose of the review should not be to introduce across-the-board spending cuts or to reduce key services.

I understand that the government is currently conducting core reviews of ministry and Crown corporation programs. I also applaud that initiative. I also understand that the Minister of Finance has asked each minister, other than those responsible for health care and education, to provide them with three scenarios: reductions of 20, 30 and even 50 percent over the next three years. While I tend to agree with this process, I'm thankful that health care and education have been excluded from it. If health care and education funding were to be reduced, I'd be concerned that the northern interior's health care challenges, including recruiting and retaining medical personnel, would be increased and put at risk.

I am also concerned that reductions of 20, 30 or 50 percent in other ministries will result in large numbers of employees being laid off. I'm concerned for those employees and their families. I'm also concerned that should a large number of provincial government employees who work and live in Prince George be laid off, our unemployment will naturally increase. This will cause even further difficulties for our already struggling economy.

In the consultation report, the fiscal review panel raises the question of whether revenue can contribute to resolving deficit problems. The report asks: "Is there capacity to increase revenues directly by increasing tax rates and user fees, and can economic growth increase revenues?" I agree with the panel's position that increasing taxes is not an option. I believe that to improve British Columbia's economic performance, it must improve its competitiveness and investment climate, and by doing so, it can continue to improve its economic performance and, as a result, its revenues.

I agree with the panel that there may be other untapped revenue sources. However, I would suggest that prior to the implementation of new user fees, extensive analysis and consultation should occur. The pain resulting from the implementation of new user fees should be shared equitably throughout the province and should not affect resource-based communities more than other communities.

I agree with the report's suggestion that British Columbia's economic performance can be improved by reducing the regulatory compliance burden imposed by the government and by resolving the uncertainties related to the softwood lumber dispute and aboriginal land claims.

Finally, I also agree with the panel's recommendation that the government should further emphasize performance targets and measurements. As the consultation report suggests, doing so will assist the government to maintain services, provide needed results and deliver those services as effectively as possible.

In closing, I thank you very much for allowing me to speak to you today. I wish you well during the rest of your prebudget consultation process and look forward to receiving the results and having further consultation as we move forward.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Your Worship. If there are any questions from the rest of the panel…. I know your time frames are very tight.

J. Bray: Thank you for making a very brief presentation on a large number of topics. I guess my question might be a difficult one to answer in a short period. If there's an area where government needs to really look at restructuring programs and perhaps provide for making transfers to the non-profit or private sectors, is there an area of government service in the north, in Prince George in particular, that you think could accommodate that without reducing the actual service that the public receives?

C. Kinsley: Quite honestly, none that comes to mind right now. We have not involved ourselves in looking at the delivery process of the provincial government. Quite frankly, we've been looking at our own delivery model because we have gone through what we called a strategic service delivery program. It's not unlike your core review program. We've looked at how we can best provide the services without reducing them. That will mean looking at what we do in-house, what we may do less of or more of. One, for example — so that people aren't concerned that everything is about downsizing in government today — is an area that I'm sure Chairman Lekstrom would be familiar with: line painting. Very few contractors in the province provide that service. As a result, it's not a matter of how much you pay but when and if you ever get it done. It's my position that we would do that in-house. At the same time there may be an area of garbage collection that you could do outside of government.

I'm hoping that as you go through your core review process, you'll identify those things that would be most efficiently delivered, with the caution — I know Premier Campbell has been very adamant about this — that there will be no off-loading or downloading.

That is just one thing we would have to remind the committee of. Municipalities aren't in a position to do those kinds of things without a corresponding revenue source to do that. We would be opposed to having that revenue source strictly from residential or property owners of any type, because they are pretty much maxed out now. So we would support initiatives that the government would take, which would keep service the same at least or increase it without adding an extra burden of taxation on us.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions. I'd like to thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule, Your Worship, and I wish you all the best in your deliberations with council. Once again, I thank you very much.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): At this time we will move back to the scheduled agenda. Our next presenter is Connie Krauseneck. Welcome, Connie.

C. Krauseneck: Good evening. My name is Connie Krauseneck, and I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to make a short presentation. Let me tell you a bit about myself. I'm a single mother who has worked on a casual or on-call basis. I don't work for the government, but the news I've heard lately concerns me for a lot of reasons.

My son is very healthy now, but just over a year ago that was not the case. He managed to pick up a combination of viruses that left him a very sick little boy. While much has been said about the state of our health care system in Prince George, when Michael was really sick, he got the care and attention he needed. There was a hospital bed for him. Nurses and doctors were there to do their best for him. He spent a week in the hospital and then time after that regaining the weight he'd lost.

It scares me when I hear about cuts to programs. I've heard that there's no intent to cut funding to health care and education. I think that's only a partial step. From one year to the next my phone bill increases, my utility costs increase and food costs go up — to mention just a few things. Hospitals and health care providers face similar increases. Given that, when you say you won't increase funding to health care, you're in effect saying you're going to decrease the amount of money available to look after sick people.

User-pay systems will fix that, you might say, but user-pay systems penalize those children whose parents can't afford to pay. I'm one of those parents right now. I can understand when I hear about parents in the States committing crimes to ensure that their children get medical treatment. I didn't have to do that, and I hope I never have to. I ask that you help ensure that.

Child care programs and the availability of affordable child care spaces are another thing that I have to deal with on an ongoing basis. Education is another program where I hear that the plan is to prevent increases. How can we expect good, qualified people in our education system if we're not prepared to pay them? If we're saying there are no allowances for the increases in fixed costs like heating and building maintenance, how else do we expect to manage except at the expense of the workers and the schools?

I'm one of those people who has to access assistance from the Ministry of Human Resources from time to time, based on my casual employment status. I don't enjoy that, and I will be very happy when the day comes that I no longer need that service. That doesn't mean we should get rid of the service, though. The program means that I can afford prescriptions when I need them for my son. It means that I can provide adequate shelter and food for him even in those months when I don't get very many days' work.

If your question is: am I looking for work? the answer is clearly yes. Work isn't all that easy to find, though. Now that I hear that a lot of government workers are going to be laid off, work will be even harder to find. Not only will I be competing with them initially for jobs; I will also have to deal with the reality that people will be leaving Prince George, and that will mean even fewer jobs and services here.

I've heard that there's no more money and that government can't keep spending more money and taking in less. What seems to be happening, though, is that you're taking in less because of the tax cuts provided to people earning lots of money. Those of us who work part-time or casual don't usually make enough to pay taxes, or if we pay any tax, it's very little. We didn't get a break with the tax cuts, though. The money that you're not collecting from us doesn't amount to nearly as much as what you're not collecting from those who make lots. It seems like those who have lots of income got a real break, and we didn't.

There are more tax cuts planned, I hear. The last time, because I don't make enough money to pay any income tax, I didn't see a penny from the tax cuts. Not only that, but the provincial government decreased the amount it pays in child tax credits, so that the tax cuts that others got — those with well-paying jobs — are coming from my child tax benefit. That means I'm effectively financing those tax cuts that you're speaking of.

That's a shortsighted point of view, of course. Reducing the child tax benefit only means I need to rely on social assistance that much more, and that's too bad. It doesn't save the government any money. In fact, it's costing the government money.

During the election campaign we heard that tax cuts would finance themselves and programs and services would not be cut. In the documents you're circulating now, you're saying that the tax cuts combined with the decline in the economy mean that programs need to be cut. I see that you maintain that spending cuts are the only way to ensure that the budget is financed properly. I don't have a lot of money, and I too have to manage somehow. Managing doesn't mean that you can't take out a loan. Managing means that I don't tell someone who owes me money that they don't

need to pay me. Managing doesn't mean that I can afford to pass up work or other sources of income.

I worry when I hear the people who are supposed to be making sure we remain a civilized society say that we can't afford to look after the poor, the disabled or the otherwise disadvantaged people in our community. I'm poor, but not by choice. I'm not disabled or otherwise disadvantaged. I know people who are, though, and they didn't get into that position by choice either. If we need to balance the budget by 2004-05, then we need to do it in an equitable way. I don't want to be living in a Third World country, and if we get rid of all of our social programs, that's where we'll be.

In B.C. we still have a middle class. That's where I hope to end up when I get a full-time job. If we keep taking away the opportunity for us as younger people to get there, we take away goals and hopes and dreams. Saying we need new businesses in B.C. is okay; it will help economic growth. But if I said I was going to take boarders or renters into my home and then give them subsidies so that they didn't pay any rent, I would not be managing my household budget, particularly if that budget was a deficit budget. If the province attracts new businesses by saying they get tax breaks, that's exactly the same thing.

You have the opportunity to go back to the Minister of Finance. I hope you talk to him about what you've heard and that you reconsider the plans that will make my life and my son's life much more difficult.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Connie, for your presentation. I will look to members of the committee.

J. MacPhail: When you say you want the Minister of Finance to reconsider plans, what do you mean by that?

C. Krauseneck: Well, I've heard that they're talking about laying off government workers and stuff. I don't think that's going to be a lot of help to people in my position, especially, who rely on those government workers for their monthly income.

Connie, I'll touch on that. It is a tough situation we find ourselves in, in British Columbia. I think you've covered a lot of it. Nobody wants to not be employed, and nobody wants to not contribute. A situation that I believe we're in right now and the situation that we're facing is one where the reality appears to be that we may have to downsize. In doing that, there will be some pain, I believe. It's going to affect many of us across British Columbia. If we aren't personally affected, I'm sure our friends may be. I'm just looking to you, if you had considerations as to ideas. I'm hearing that it shouldn't be on the backs of the poor, for instance. The balance is something that government is elected to try and bring to make a better society.

C. Krauseneck: The biggest problem I've had recently is with the tax cuts. I know people who make enough money. When those tax cuts came into effect, my provincial child tax benefit got cut by more than 50 percent. I have yet to understand how that is going to promote our economy. It effectively took away money from me, someone who needs it.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Yeah, does that seem…? We can note that, and we will check into that. It's an interesting point you've raised.

J. MacPhail: I just have one follow-up. Do you use formal child care for your son? Will you have to pay for it?

J. MacPhail: Do you have any alternate sources for child care, or is it just out of your own pocket?

C. Krauseneck: It's out of my own pocket. I don't qualify for subsidy because I don't work enough to qualify for day care subsidy through the government.

J. MacPhail: So whatever you pay for child care comes out of your aftertax earnings?

J. MacPhail: Do you have any other family member who assists you with that, or are you on your own for child care?

C. Krauseneck: When I work, I'm on my own for child care. I don't go out in the evening, because I can't afford child care.

J. MacPhail: No, I meant: do you have another family member who helps you support your child?

C. Krauseneck: Yes, I'm a single mom, and I receive very little child support, if any.

J. Bray: I was just going to note…. Excellent presentation, by the way. You've touched on a number of good points. You've indicated that at times when your work hours diminish, you actually have to access some support through the Ministry of Human Resources. I don't necessarily want you to answer this now if you have to think about it. There are a lot of people who work in the province like yourself who, because of their hours and their earnings, sometimes have to do that, and that in itself creates a whole bunch of problems. You have to get documents, you have to get unemployment, and you have to go in and get an exemp-

tion from going to a seminar. There are a lot of things you have to do every time you go to see your financial assistance worker.

I'm wondering, if not now then over the next couple of weeks, if you could give some thought, as a single working mother when you do have to access that service, to whether there's a better way you could do it that is more efficient for you, more efficient for the taxpayer and actually does a better job of supporting you as a worker in the province. Be very creative in your ideas. If you're off for any period of time, you have a problem with being able to retain some of your earnings because you've been off work. So think about those types of things where the government service could better support you as a worker in the province. You don't have to answer that now. We do have a website. I'd really like you to think about that and mail it to us or submit it to us and to me as well. I'll make sure you get my card.

B. Kerr: Connie, I'd just like to bring up one point. It's tough to sit here and see your personal situation, so I commend you on that. I have to dispel a myth. The problem we're up against and the tough decisions we're up against…. It's not the tax cuts that are causing the problem. The deficit is far greater than what the tax cuts are, and that's what we have to look at. We're up against some tough situations. You and other people are here so that we can try to take some balance when we have to make these tough decisions.

C. Krauseneck: I don't believe the tax cuts helped enough for those of us that require the assistance more. I think they were more geared to those who make more money, and I think that was kind of a lopsided way of doing it.

B. Kerr: The problem is far greater than that. If we take that into consideration, it's still going to be a $3 billion deficit that we have to look at. We're going to have to make some really tough decisions. You and other people are sitting there to help us try to do it, so thank you very much.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Connie, again, thank you very much for your presentation. Have a good evening.

Our next presentation is from CUPE, and representing them is Marilyn Hannah. Good evening, Marilyn. How are you?

First of all, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to address this group. I represent CUPE Local 3742, but I also am a citizen and an environmentalist, and I'm very, very concerned about what is happening in this province.

The province is facing financial problems which the Liberal government created. The huge tax cuts introduced in the spring and the summer, with the majority going to business and the well-off, drove the province into deficit. Premier Gordon Campbell says that he'll downsize government to eliminate a projected $6 billion budget deficit by freezing health and education spending while he cuts up to 50 percent in other ministries. The Liberals' own figures show the cost of tax cuts driving a huge share of the budget deficit. Most of those cuts went to business and the richest 20 percent of British Columbians, those earning over $150,000 a year.

Where was the break for those who didn't pay income tax? These are the very people who live in poverty and often need support, be it job training, home care workers or child protection workers, to name a few. The Liberals should have known their projections were too high when they cut taxes. In six weeks Premier Campbell cut his government's growth projections to 2.2 percent from 3.5 percent, a forecast the Globe and Mail called fantasy. Tax cuts did not revive the B.C. economy. British Columbia lost 39,000 jobs in June, July and August despite the Liberal tax cuts. B.C. retail sales were down during the summer despite the tax cuts. Our economy is fragile. It can't take more hits.

The already weak economy was hammered by the events of September 11. Aviation, tourism and high-tech are all in crisis. This has deeply shaken public confidence. Security and safety, long taken for granted, are under intense scrutiny. Two key sectors, softwood lumber and the film sector, face protectionist challenges from their American counterparts. The softwood lumber battle has cost thousands of forest jobs and could take more.

Prince George has a forestry-based economy. While house sales are up, so is the rise in rental vacancy units. Drive around town. There's a house for sale on almost every street. It's the same story for shopping centres. I'm not aware of one centre that doesn't have a for-lease sign. Enrolment dropped by close to 370 students this year in the school system, a trend that has continued for the last few years.

With the declining population businesses suffer, and we have watched as shop after shop, together with restaurant after restaurant, closed for lack of business. Prince George and district is a very depressed area. When people aren't working, they're not spending. It is true that money makes the world go round. Just look at what is happening here. Our town is falling apart.

Economists are now talking about recession, not about slowing economic growth. Mounting layoffs are beginning to add enormous weakness to economic fundamentals. The government's own fiscal review panel said cuts in key services should not be the solution. Public sector spending cuts will tip us into recession.

The Liberals want to cut government spending by up to 50 percent of the jobs in some ministries, excluding health care and education. This is equivalent to cutting out the following ministries entirely: Children and Family Development, Human Resources, Transportation, Attorney General, Forests, Public Safety, Energy and Mines, and more. What does this mean?

B.C. already has the second-lowest number of provincial government employees per 1,000 population of any province in Canada. Our public sector is already

leaner than Alberta's, according to B.C. Stats. The downsizing of government actually means cutting Forestry offices in rural communities, jail guards, police — the RCMP is short $10 million; will they ignore break and enter calls? — home care workers, child protection workers, environmental protection workers.

It means cuts in services for children and families. How many more reports do we need on the death of children in care before we figure out that it is not a good idea to cut services? Real costs in health and education areas have been rising by 5 percent to 6 percent annually. The government has promised not to cut these services, which means a probable freeze. That means real cuts in health care and education. It means layoffs and fewer services to the public — just last week 82 bed closures at St. Paul's, followed by an announcement of further cuts in the Okanagan.

It means cuts in environmental services. We know what happened in Ontario when the government tried to save money by privatizing water inspections. Companies and shareholders are in business to make money. This philosophy compromises the safety and well-being of Canadian citizens. Do not forget the Walkerton tragedy, where workers did not receive necessary training to do their jobs.

Layoffs and program cuts in British Columbia will not revive the global economy, but they will hurt our B.C. economy. Every dollar cut from government expenditures is money not available to small businesses in the community. There is also the impact of laying off 10,000 to 12,000 — and I just heard 13,000 — government employees. Added to this will be thousands more jobs lost due to funding freezes in health and education. These people live in our communities. They buy their groceries, cars and homes in our towns and cities. All that stops when they lose their jobs, and it is happening at a time when thousands of other people are losing their jobs thanks to issues like softwood lumber.

What happens to families when they are unable to get work, when they lose their livelihood, their cars, their home, their self-respect and sometimes their families? They feel alienated and often suffer breakdowns, turn to alcohol or even commit suicide. These are the people that desperately need the social programs. What kind of a province do we want — a province that turns its back on its citizens, the backbone of our province? Through its choices on cutbacks, the government is driving us deeper into recession.

There are alternatives. Defer the January 1 tax cut for the top 20 percent of British Columbians, those earning over $150,000, and save $269 million in 2002. Defer January 1 business tax cuts and save $633 million in 2002 alone. Postpone the 2005 date to balance the budget. We will be in deficit until then — government's own figures — because our taxpayer-supported debt as a proportion of the GDP and on a per-capita basis is relatively low, second to Alberta. Call together B.C.'s business, labour and community leaders to craft a strategy to build the economy while protecting health, education and public services that meet the challenges of this new time. Failure to do so will ensure a new era of disparity.

I'm going to look to members of the committee, if there are any questions for Marilyn.

R. Sultan: I have a question. In your opinion, do you think a society which is rich is better able to support social programs than a society which is poor?

M. Hannah: If a society was not able to support social programs, they would be poor.

R. Sultan: Well, my point, and I'm sure you anticipated it, is that a poor society — and one only has to look to the Third World, where we have wretched social conditions — is least able to support programs for the disadvantaged, the disabled and those who don't have the advantages in life that some of us have had.

I'm afraid that I find your model of how we will spend our way to social justice in this province flawed in the sense that it rests on the fundamental assumption that we have a thriving economy. In the last ten years we have seen in British Columbia a downward spiral in economic health, about the worst performance in all of Canada. Unfortunately, we find ourselves today, in 2001, trying to support a social infrastructure that we really can't afford. As painful as it is to make adjustments, this is the dilemma we face, and this is the dilemma this government has inherited.

M. Hannah: Well, I have a number of things to say, and I should probably meet you for lunch tomorrow. I could talk to you for a couple of hours. Health care is bad, but there are lots of reasons why health care has suffered. When you say that it has suffered the most in the last ten years, I have to disagree with you.

M. Hannah: Okay. I'd like to say that I had a son who was brain-injured many years ago. When he was in hospital, it was really pathetic. I had to stay there when his IV was dripping, till 8 o'clock at night, before the sheets were changed. Another one of our friends' daughter escaped from the psych ward at 40 below. She wanted to go for a walk, but she did it without a hat and without gloves. She came to see me, and I don't know how she made it.

I also know that the economy is suffering, not because of the previous provincial government but because of the fact that our manufacturing industries in British Columbia are gone. Go shopping and try to find clothes made in Canada. Try and buy a coffee percolator made in Canada. It's the WTO, free trade or whatever. These free trade practices have taken jobs out of the country.

When you're saying that people in Third World countries have deplorable conditions, let's face it: multinational companies are making sure that they do. By buying into this, we are supporting people getting substandard wages. We let the jobs leave the country.

R. Sultan: Well, I think you're making my point for me. When we lose industry in Prince George; when the forest industry is on its knees, as it is; when head offices cannot be found in Vancouver because they've moved to Calgary; when people earning the high incomes choose to report their incomes in Alberta or Ontario, not British Columbia, this is our fate. We have a scarcity of government revenues, and we must somehow turn that around.

I don't think increasing the penalties, as they would view it…. Perhaps that's excessive language. If we increase the cost of doing business in this province, they just leave. That's the unfortunate reality of the world we live in. We have to get the economy back on its feet if we're going to support the sort of programs that both you and I advocate.

When you talk about the bad experiences you had with the health system, I can trump you. My wife was stricken and couldn't find a bed in the hospital. She died. So I'm well aware of the problems in our medical system and the failure to adequately fund our health care system. It's a terrible situation, but we will not solve the funding problems of our health system, let alone the problems of UNBC, by merely raising taxes. That's a very simplified view of how the economy operates. It just doesn't work. I think the record of the last ten years illustrates that.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Marilyn, really what we're trying to do is hear ideas. I know we are facing some challenges in British Columbia. We're here as a committee to hear what the people have to say. What we will do is take the information you've gathered for us. I appreciate the information you've put forward. Regardless of political stripe, we're here to listen to all British Columbians and try and solve what I think are some very serious times in British Columbia rather than sit and debate individual issues such as we just began. I don't think that's productive in the sense of what we're trying to accomplish as a committee.

I would like to thank you for coming this evening, putting what I think is a well-put-forward presentation on behalf of yourself and your members. We will take that into consideration during our development of a report that is due out November 15.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Continue. One question to follow, and then we will carry on. We are falling back in time.

J. MacPhail: It was a fairly rigorously thoughtful presentation. You're a member of CUPE. Are these issues being discussed at the workplace? How is it that you come to us making this presentation? Are you making it on behalf of your fellow workers?

M. Hannah: Yes, I am. I'm making it on behalf of fellow workers. I'd like to point out that while I am seconded to do union work, I am regularly a secretary in a school. I am very much aware of the problems that many parents face in this district, where we had a hot dog sale, for instance, and a parent had come into the school carrying $1 so that their kid could have a hot dog and a chocolate milk. They couldn't take the chance of the kid losing the money on the way to school. I'm aware of the phone calls in the morning when somebody has left the house and abandoned their children. I know about apprehensions of children. I am very familiar with these issues.

I don't like my views on the economy being viewed as simplistic when I know that this government was elected and came in when a balanced budget was in place, and they immediately cut taxes.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I will just speak to all of our committee members to try and stay focused on the issue of what we're here to do: listen to the people of British Columbia and gain input on a report that we were asked to put forward by the Legislature. We will try and do what we're here to do.

We are going to move on to our next presenter, the district of Fort St. John — Fort St. James.

B. Goerz: I'd like to start by thanking you all for coming to Prince George and giving me the opportunity to present to you today. Firstly, many of you don't know me, so I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Byron Goerz. I live in Fort St. James, a beautiful historic community not 200 kilometres from here. In our community I wear a number of hats, as it were. First and foremost, I'm a husband and a father. I have a beautiful son and a wife. My wife and I are expecting another addition in December.

My wife and I are both heavily involved in our community. She is a board member of the Nechako

Valley community services board, a founding board member of the Stuart Lake Community Services board and a founding board member of the Fort St. James women's safe house. I myself am a councillor for the district of Fort St. James. I'm a board member of the Fort St. James fire department. I'm with the RCMP community consultative group, a board member of the Fort St. James TV Society and a board member of the Nechako Watershed Council. On October 13 I'll find out if I'm the new school board trustee for school district 91. I'm in the middle of an election, and you'll have to pardon the spelling mistakes in my speech because I was really rushed to get this done as I was campaigning. These activities take many of my evenings, weekends and probably most of the time I should be sleeping. I spend my days working diligently at the Ministry of Forests in the district office in Fort St. James.

Our forest district is roughly the size of Vancouver Island, and we harvest approximately 3.5 million cubic metres of wood out of our district alone — which, by the way, equates to about $100 million in annual stumpage that goes into the provincial coffers. As a councillor and as a public servant, I support this harvest. However, it must be done properly so as to protect our current resources and markets and not limit future opportunities.

I mentioned that Fort St. James is a historic community. It was established in 1806 and was the capital of New Caledonia before there was even a province of British Columbia. Our community's backbone is logging, and the uncertainty around the forest industry as a whole is taking a toll on our town. Our industry is linked to U.S. policies and its economy. The announcement of extra tariffs being applied to our wood products, exacerbated by the downturn in the North American economy and falling lumber markets, have created real uncertainty in the north. As I speak, our biggest mill in town sits idle. Just today the Ministry of Forests announced a stumpage increase that will inevitably slow our industry to a halt. Coupled with this is an announcement by Minister Mike de Jong that he is currently looking at tenure reform that will address this problem and possibly alleviate some of the concerns expressed by the United States. The ministry must be very careful when dealing with tenure reform to ensure that while we attempt to accomplish our goals, we don't create bigger problems.

Then, on September 27, Premier Gordon Campbell indicated to all local government members that his government is asking every ministry except Health and Education to look at three scenarios, which you've heard over and over again tonight. It is becoming clear that Mr. Campbell will make cuts whether they are necessary services or not. Running a province like a business plays well in the minds of many people. However, business has nothing to do with defining the public good in democracy. Its focus is in the short-term, self-interested, profit-driven world of the marketplace. To paraphrase John Ralston Saul, of course there are always moments when belts must be tightened or when some economic factor such as debt must be concentrated on, but these are details of ongoing management. They aren't meant to be the driving force of civilization. To believe that you can relaunch the Canadian social equilibrium by embracing romantic, universal, economic theories is to undermine precisely what this society is built upon.

What the government needs to do, and I believe has a fiduciary responsibility to do, is instil confidence in the electorate while maintaining a healthy base of human and material assets for the future. Delivering a tax cut while government revenues are dropping through the floor and laying off the very fabric that keeps this province together is a recipe for disaster. Even Norman Spector, a former Socred — he holds a PhD in economics and was the author of the downsizing of the Bennett government — indicated in an article in the Globe and Mail that the Liberal claim that tax cuts will restore prosperity makes no more sense, especially when all of B.C.'s major trading partners are experiencing weak growth.

What we need in the north and in the province is to invest in our future. If everyone kept spending in their own budget like this government is contemplating cutting, then we might as well shut off the lights, lock the door and walk away. With the recent announcement the Premier is not talking about trimming some fat from the public sector; he's contemplating cutting the very heart out of it.

Succession planning isn't just a buzzword; it's reality. Retirement, attrition within the public sector, is going to be huge in the next decade. If the government lays off the very people needed to fill the gaps in the future, it will be a very myopic move. What many people fail to realize is that public sector workers and their wages are a critical component of the economy of the north. Chopping this component out of the economy will cause small business to suffer. Housing markets will fall. Unemployment rates will rise. Student numbers will fall, and all the while government will be telling us that this pain is necessary.

Providing public services doesn't always cost the taxpayers money. Often it generates public money. As an example, check scalers ensure that the public collects the royalties due to us as owners of the wood. In another program in our office, one person — one FTE — provides direct employment to more than 40 people in our community. Talk about a return for your money.

Let me give you a quick example of what cuts have already meant to our community. In 1998 we had our highway repaved after 15 years of lobbying. However, due to the previous gutting of our Transportation and Highways ministry, the contractors did their own quality inspections. Consequently, two years after the highway was repaved it is falling apart and ravelling. Highway workers ensure that the public gets good-quality roads for the money invested. Often the cost isn't in dollars and cents. Take the environment. How can we put a price on clean air, water and adequate habitat for our wildlife?

Premier Campbell has also reassured us that he will not download responsibilities to local government. However, if the province decides to cut program fund-

ing for something that the community believes is a necessity and they have to consider funding, is that not downloading? Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to express the magnitude of what some future decisions may be on my community and the province, as we have yet to know any details of what the cuts will be. Ministries are being asked to prepare these scenarios without input from the very communities they may affect.

Some of you may be thinking that I'm just worried about losing my job. Well, to be honest, I am, because I love what I do. I have worked for 15 years in the bush as a faller, truck driver, equipment operator and forest technician, so I can work. What I'm really concerned about is that I don't know if the community in which I've chosen to invest and represent will survive the next few years and the price it may be asked to pay.

Our Premier indicated in a speech to UBCM that it would be irresponsible not to cut government. Let me tell you, it would be irresponsible to say that you can manage our forest land base in Fort St. James with a handful of public sector workers. It would be irresponsible to cut community services to people who are going through a recession, because that's when people tend to need these services. It would be irresponsible to centralize more government services and rob small communities of the services that they help pay for.

It would be irresponsible to put kids at risk by cutting positions or not filling vacancies at the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It would be irresponsible to cut positions at the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, because they won't have enough people to protect the water cooler, let alone the province. Ask the people who live in Walkerton if the lift in their provincial economy was worth the lives of their children, friends and neighbours.

It would be irresponsible to cut government spending after delivering huge raises to deputy ministers based on the logic that you wanted to attract the best people for the job. It would be irresponsible to cut all programs except health and education, as you may not have any people left in this province to educate and keep healthy. It is irresponsible to commit to balancing a budget no matter what the cost, because the cost might be higher than anyone is prepared to pay. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you, Byron. I would look to members of committee. Are there any questions?

Possibly I could begin and ask one. It is important, and I think everybody out there is looking to the government to see what's going to take place. I don't think it's a secret that there will be some issues that have to be dealt with.

I don't believe — and it's not a political statement — that in the last number of years we were headed in the right direction in this province. We're looking to turn that direction around. I think that's quite a fair statement. I guess I'm asking you if you have any ideas. If you don't bring enough money in to run your household, you realign yourself so that you can sustain what you've got. I find the simplest way to evaluate government is to express it that way. You can't continue to borrow money to buy your groceries, and that's the position we're in, in British Columbia. Are there any ideas you have?

B. Goerz: Well, firstly, when I'm really tight for cash, I don't go ask the boss for a decrease in my pay. I come back to the tax cuts; I do. There's a time and a place to tighten the belt, but you do it at times with efficiencies gained only through a logical process in good consultation with communities and with the people that are affected by them. To announce that you want scenarios, 20 to 50 percent, and that it's going to be decided down in Victoria what happens to Fort St. James — I have concerns about that. With just policy changes — and I won't get into specifics — and one sweep of the pen, with some tenure issues with the Ministry of Forests, the incentives for any industry to stay in Fort St. James are gone. Industry is really good at playing at those kinds of policies.

When you do any belt-tightening, you look at…. We have a huge glut of people, the baby-boomers, in public sector work right now — important people — and they're going to be retiring. They're in key areas of government. You do the 20 to 50 percent cuts, and you're cutting the future of the people you've already put money into training. You've put money into doing the work. They know how to do it. You're weeding out the ones you don't want. You are finding the leadership skills in some, and you're allowing them to advance.

If you're going to do that, if that's the direction you think you have to take to improve the economy, you have to do it in a logical fashion. If that takes running a deficit for a few years till the economy picks up, I say you have to do that. We run a mortgage. I can't go out and afford to buy a house with cash. I buy on mortgage, and I wait for the time I can pay it down quickly. I don't cut my revenues and do everything at once.

In our little community, the government is the fourth-largest employer in town. You take those kind of cuts spread across Fort St. James, and who knows? We had rumours last time we were downsized that maybe the district office would move elsewhere. That's almost 100 people that would leave Fort St. James. Those are people who own houses. Those are parents who have kids in school. That could really affect the community.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Just prior to going to Tony, one thing in your comment on the issue of when the ministries are looking at these scenarios to be put back. They will be discussed. There's a core services review going on right now. All of that will be. It won't just be imposed. There are elected MLAs right across this province who have full voice and full input into that. It isn't one individual or a select group of people within government that will be looking at this and implement-

ing it. There is opportunity, and that's certainly through your elected official. I just wanted to put that forward.

B. Goerz: That's not trickling down to the actual workers or the community members of the core services.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Hi, Byron. Thanks. Those were excellent remarks that you made. I'm not an economist, but they were excellent remarks. Ralph Sultan, who's got a PhD from Harvard in economics and taught at Harvard, wouldn't have discussed those very issues when we're on the road. There were excellent points that you made.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions, Byron. I'd like to thank you for taking the time out of your day to come and make a presentation to this committee. I think it's very important that we hear all sides. Once again, thank you.

We are going to move on to our next presenter this evening. With us we have Ann Krauseneck. Good evening.

I actually made copies of the presentation so you can follow along or read it later, whichever suits you. I do want to talk a little bit about the effect that dramatic cuts to government services would have on my community, and my community is Prince George. I'm a resident of Prince George and have been for a number of years now. I was born and raised here in B.C. and have always been proud of that fact. I did spend a year elsewhere in Canada, and I've travelled extensively.

I found that we are by far the most progressive province in Canada, and in some ways we've taken a leadership role in the world. I live in rural British Columbia by choice, and although there are those who would debate the meaning of rural as it applies to Prince George, it qualifies because it's removed from the lower mainland and not only geographically.

I am active in my community. I sit as a director on the board of the United Way and as a member of their allocations committee. I sit as a member of the city's intercultural committee, looking at diversity and race relations issues. I am part of school district 57's career programs advisory committee, and I am active with the labour council.

I want to make it clear, however, that I am here to speak tonight on my own behalf. As an active member in my community, I know what happens when a large employer makes significant reductions, and that's what we're facing here. There are some 2,094 provincial government employees in the Prince George area. Those employees bring in an annual payroll of some $94,437,875 every year. In addition, they bring an additional $27,386,983 in payroll benefits. That means that the total dollars from the provincial government payroll that we're looking at in the Prince George area is some $121,824,858 every year. That's a lot of money we're talking about that won't be coming back into this community.

I already hear from people, both business people and consumers in this community, that a part of our problem in the north is that all the revenue from our natural resources travels down south. By south, of course, they're talking about Victoria and the lower mainland. People are saying it's a one-way track, that all the revenue from our natural resources goes down south and doesn't come back here. Having the Oil and Gas Commission move to the Peace River area helped a bit. Having the employment standards branch move their call centre to Prince George helped a little bit too.

Now, though, we hear about cuts of 30 percent to 50 percent. Where will that leave us? It will leave us without a whole lot of revenue in this area that we have right now. The economic impact of those cuts will be devastating to the rest of this community. In the Prince George area there are 2,094 provincial government employees, give or take a few, depending on the season and what's happening. If we're talking about 30 percent reductions, that would be 630 positions no longer here. If we speak about 50 percent reductions in staffing, of course, then it's over 1,000 positions that we're talking about — direct government positions that will no longer exist in this area. We're not taking into account the people who work as contractors for the Ministry of Transportation. We're not taking into account the people who work in the health sector or in the community social services sector or the education sector but who are paid by someone other than government but nonetheless funded by government.

If one factors in the multiplier effect on a very conservative basis, I am told that that multiplier effect ranges between 30 percent and 100 percent, depending on the community. If we go conservatively, at 30 percent, we're talking about an additional 189 positions lost. Those are just the positions lost as the result of a 30 percent decrease in provincial government staffing in this area. Very conservatively speaking, we're talking about 819 jobs. If it was a 50 percent reduction, the conservative multiplier at 30 percent would total 1,365 positions lost to this community.

That kind of job loss in this community at this time would be devastating. We're not only talking of staffing cuts. We're also talking about program cuts, because we know that if you cut all of the staff in government services, you're not going to meet that kind of percentage decrease in your budgets.

What programs are going to be cut? What will the impact of those cuts be on my life? I don't know, because we haven't got enough information yet to access what kinds of programs are being discussed and what's going to be cut. Some goods and services obviously simply won't be available. Others are going to increase in price, because there won't be sufficient demand to ensure an adequate supply. Air service will decrease even further. Hotels, grocery stores, drug stores, department stores are all going to suffer. Of necessity

they're going to have to downsize, or they too will cease to exist. Hospital and medical services that are already taxed to the max up here will also be negatively impacted.

All of those stressors mean the people will need more access to medical services, more access to mental health services and more access to community social services. But we're talking about decreasing those services.

I was fortunate last year to be able to take part in the Governor General's study conference. The theme for the conference last year was "Building Stronger Communities." The group I was with did a tour of southeastern Ontario. We spoke with businesses, we spoke with community groups, and we spoke with municipal officials and provincial government leaders. They all told us that the biggest obstacles they faced were as a result of services not being available as a result of the cuts made by the Harris government.

The provincial government told us that they simply turned over the responsibility for services to businesses and to the communities. Business people, of course, laughed at us when we suggested that the provincial government had told us that they would take over those responsibilities. They said very clearly that services to the people were the responsibility of government. That's what governments were for. The municipalities told us that they got responsibility for programs, but they didn't get the funding or other resources that they needed. As a result, by failing to act, they effectively turned the responsibility for many of those services over to the community.

It took us a while to discover what everybody meant by "community." We finally discovered that it was made up of the non-profit and volunteer sector. Those organizations don't have the capacity to deal with the problems of their society, so many people fall between the cracks. People are homeless, or they're mentally ill without adequate services.

An example of what happens when government walks away from its responsibility to the people is the Walkerton tragedy. You've heard it referred to a couple of times here. The deaths from water in Walkerton happened at the time when we were in Ontario. Being that much closer to the events left a lasting impression, although I imagine that anybody who drinks water hopes that the testing to ensure that it's potable has been done. I don't want to see something like Walkerton happen here in B.C., particularly while we still have a chance to prevent it.

Your fiscal review panel indicated that cuts in government create a negative impact on those who can least look after themselves. That was the government's fiscal review panel. Further, they indicated that they wanted to see a made-in-B.C. solution that didn't repeat the errors made elsewhere in this country. I know from my position with the United Way that the community here — again, by community, I'm speaking of the voluntary and non-profit sector — does not have the capacity to take over the role that government has and should continue to have.

Is there a need to balance the budget? That would depend on how you define balance. When you add significant reductions in revenue by way of tax cuts to the wealthy and to businesses, to increased contingency funds, it's easy to make the deficit look much larger than it actually is.

I'd ask that you take back the message: if tax cuts were necessary and will fund themselves in the next four years as was promised, then let's do some deficit financing until we break even. That way you won't have to cut programs and services and jobs, and we'll have what we were promised. Government will remain in the business of being government. If we need to do deficit financing to fund the tax cuts, then let's not implement any further tax cuts. It seems silly to deliberately reduce revenues at a time when things are really tight.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there any questions for Ann from members of the committee this evening?

Possibly I'll ask a question, Ann. You put forward some interesting topics here. The issue of the tax cuts — I believe one of the members had previously talked about it — is not the only issue facing the issue of deficit for the province of British Columbia. It's a much greater problem than that. Looking at what's taken place in the last number of years in trying to gain private sector investment to help create the jobs and stimulate the economy, it hasn't worked. So we're trying something different as a government in British Columbia.

I know that we hear — and we hear it a lot: "Don't cut. Please don't cut." I think that's human instinct; it doesn't matter what political party you believe in. Sometimes the reality is that hard decisions have to be made about the challenges we face. I guess I'm looking to you. From what I've heard in a well-thought-out presentation, what would you see if the tax cuts weren't there and didn't take place, for instance? I'm speaking hypothetically. We would still be facing a deficit situation in British Columbia. Any recommendations on what would turn that portion of it around?

A. Krauseneck: Part of the reason we'd still be facing a deficit situation is that the economy hinges on the economies of other nations. Our economy isn't independent. It hinges on the economies of other nations. Some of the events that happened in the United States over the last month certainly impact to a greater degree now on what the economic certainty or uncertainty is than it would have two months ago, for example.

I don't believe we need to race towards the bottom. I don't believe we need to be trying to provide conditions to attract employers that would duplicate the conditions that exist in Mexico, in the maquiladoras zone, for example. There's no need to do that kind of attracting business here in Canada. That means that if we want to attract business to British Columbia — and we're speaking specifically of British Columbia now, not the country overall — we need to look long and hard at what kind of things we can offer businesses

A piece of the discussions that we had while we were in Ontario, particularly with some of the software and computer companies in Silicon Valley North, as it's called, in the Ottawa area…. They are now able to attract people back because their social programs still were better than what they were south of the border. On that same basis, with access to medicare for everyone, with access to social programs, we would be in a position to attract people back to British Columbia. If fact, if you read the papers over the last number of years, there were articles where people very clearly outlined why they returned with their businesses from south of the border.

L. Mayencourt: I've got a couple of questions. First, you're with the United Way. How much do you guys raise in a year for this community?

A. Krauseneck: Half a million dollars, roughly. Actually, I had to forgo my duties with the United Way at their kick-off tonight in order to be here.

L. Mayencourt: Well, it's very kind of you to be here. I appreciate it. We have a United Way down in my neighbourhood as well. One of the goals that the United Way has down there is to help the community build capacity for community groups to become more sustainable and able to provide services to the community. I'm wondering if that's one of the roles of the United Way up here.

A. Krauseneck: Here the United Way clearly works on trying to ensure that there are programs in place where they currently don't exist through government funding, to try and patch the holes that already exist in the social safety net. With a $500,000 campaign, quite frankly, we are not going to be able to replace what government does. When you speak to those charitable groups in Ontario, including the United Way, they will tell you very clearly that they can't replace the social programs that government was providing. It's impossible for them to do that. They don't have the financial resources. They don't have the capacity to hire and adequately train the staff that's required for those positions. There's no capacity to replace the work that government does by non-profit or charitable agencies.

L. Mayencourt: I started a little non-profit myself in Vancouver, which didn't have any capacity, and I certainly had never run a non-profit before. Because the community was really intent on doing something about the problem which that non-profit was wanting to address, we were very, very successful. When I look at Prince George, I look at your experience last year when this community was really being savaged by the way the health care dollars were being allocated for your doctors. I saw a community that banded together and did some stuff that was very, very impressive. I really wonder if it's true that Prince George does not have the capacity to help its community.

A. Krauseneck: To take over the roles of the community social services that are currently provided by government? There's not a chance. The potential to build might be there, but you're looking at a long-term building process. I would guess that at the minimum, you're looking at ten years to get any kind of infrastructure in place for the community organizations to be able to pick up those pieces.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Ann, once again I would like to thank you for coming out and putting your presentation forward. Thanks very much.

Our next presenter this evening is Roberta Scarrow. Is Roberta with us? Roberta, good evening. Welcome.

R. Scarrow: My name is Roberta Scarrow, and I am a bit nervous, as I've never spoken to a committee such as this before. I feel this issue is very important, though, and that I need to be here to speak, so bear with me if I mess up a bit.

I was born and raised in B.C. and would choose no other place to live. I think B.C. has it all. Since the election in May and especially since the speech at the UBCM, my co-workers and I have been living in a lot of fear, not knowing for sure if we still have jobs or how long these jobs will be for. It seems as if the public was being told one thing about the core review, while something else was being designed. The core review, I think, is supposed to identify areas which could be reworked for cost-effectiveness. That report has not been released yet, but already the ministries have been directed to work through other scenarios regarding cuts to the public sector.

As you've heard, there are approximately 2,100 government employees in our area, which includes Mackenzie, Valemount, McBride, Prince George, Fort St. James, Vanderhoof and the smaller communities in between. Most of the people prefer to spend their money within the region they live in. They're concerned about the economics of their local area. That is what they live; that's their reality. It's our reality; it's mine.

I fail to see how, by laying off up to 50 percent of the government workers in our region, these people will have any money to spend anywhere. On Saturday I was especially concerned when I heard on the news that British Columbians were being encouraged to travel by air. How can we, when so many of us have an uncertain future? I just have a block, I guess.

Already in Prince George there has been an increase in demand for mental health services to deal with the tragic events of September 11. Will our health care system be boosted to deal with the increase in mental health problems of the public and unemployed government workers which is likely to arise with the proposed cuts to the public service? What about abuse to spouses and children? Will the Ministry of Human

Resources budgets and staffing be increased to deal with the ex–government employees who are now desperate enough to come and ask their ex–co-workers for assistance, as they cannot afford to live?

I worked for the Ministry of Forests in Fort St. James for ten years, and in Prince George I have worked for B.C. Parks for five years, Advanced Education for five years and Human Resources for the last couple of years. I have always tried to defend the decisions of the government of the day to the people of the province that I know, including co-workers, family and the general public. It's been difficult sometimes, but I don't know how to defend the decisions pending at this time.

My dad, who died a few years ago, in particular felt that I was truly capable of stopping all clearcut logging. He didn't understand it, and he really thought that I, when I was working at the Forest Service, could do that.

Right now I feel like we're on the road to a depression, not economic recovery. I cannot see how cutting the public service by up to 50 percent will help the economy recover. There are some areas that can be made to work more effectively by having discussions with those staff that deliver the services. Through all of the reorganizations I have been in — and there have been many; in fact, I feel like it's one continual reorganization — I've always asked for and offered suggestions for things we can do in the administrative area. But what can we stop doing? You tell me what I need to do some more of in order to help out, but what can I stop doing? That is the hardest question to get answered.

Some of the things that we do right now are keeping track of miscellaneous details like work flow, phone calls, mail in and out, etc. To me that never seems to make a difference. At times no one even knows that we're keeping track of those things. In my current job I do keep track of some statistics, but I have a supervisor whom I feel I can talk with. We've got a pretty good rapport. If we don't need it, why do it? If there is a need for information, I'm pleased to keep track of what is wanted, but keeping track of many things just in case it's wanted seems unproductive. Let's identify key areas and work together to produce information that is meaningful. All the people I work with, past and present, I believe, want to be proud of what they do and feel as if they have contributed to make B.C. a better place. Let's help them do that.

I'm asking this government to rethink their plans and make decisions which all British Columbians can live with and prosper by. Listen and take to heart the impact these proposed cuts will have on taxpaying citizens of B.C.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I will look to members of our committee, if they have any questions for Roberta at this time. I see no questions, just a brief comment. I do have a question. Joy, I didn't see you there.

J. MacPhail: Roberta, you're the fourth or fifth person who has come forward as a citizen of Prince George with some fairly telling evidence of what may happen in Prince George. I don't know whether you were here when the mayor was speaking, and the regional health board as well. If you weren't, they had some issues about change. Are there any discussions as a city going on in Prince George between working people of the United Way…? I'm sorry; I should have asked this question of the previous speaker, and I didn't. I'm just wondering whether there's any forum for it. Are your local MLAs meeting with you to discuss the core services review?

R. Scarrow: Not that I've heard. I don't have time to read the paper. I do listen to the news, and I do try to watch the news. I have a condition where stress is not a good thing, and I just don't have the time to read it. I fatigue easily. I don't keep up with the paper. I do listen to the radio and television, but I haven't heard of anything.

J. MacPhail: I should have asked the mayor that question. Everybody from Prince George is sort of bringing forward the same presentation, so I wondered whether there was a community dialogue.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Have you tried to seek out your local MLA and discuss these issues?

R. Scarrow: I really became aware of this just last Thursday. I've got my in-laws at my home right now. I've had the weekend. I'm sorry; I haven't had time to seek out any other MLA or anything. I haven't been involved. I know the core review has been going on, but even in my workplace it doesn't really seem to be coming down to that level yet. It's still management or Victoria that's looking at the core review. I don't know who's doing it.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Do you plan to discuss the core review with your local MLA?

R. Scarrow: I can, if I get up enough courage. It's not an easy thing for me to do, to come forward.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions. Roberta, you did a great job. I thank you for presenting your case.

We will move to our next presenter at this time, Tom Muirhead. Is Tom with us this evening? Good evening, Tom.

T. Muirhead: Good evening, members of the Legislature. As I was introduced, my name is Tom Muirhead. I've been a Prince George resident for the last 22 years, currently employed by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, the water management group. If I do the job effectively, as I'm trained to do, a

lot of things don't have to be done in our group. One of the things we do is a matter of dispute resolution between rural water users. You've had rumours of cuts to staff, which cause a great deal of unease in our office. We need the people that do the basic paperwork. I'm also the shop steward for the BCGEU in that ministry group. The disclosure of 10, 20, 40 or 50 percent cuts causes a tremendous amount of worry amongst the people who work in that building. I spend an hour or two a day reminding my colleagues that these aren't 10 to 40 percent cuts tomorrow. They're supposed to be spread out over three years. I find it very disturbing the way that messages are getting delivered to the people. I think they're causing unnecessary anxiety.

I've seen some dramatic changes, also, in some of the things that I do in the community here. I'm one of the directors of the Prince George Gymnastics Society. The city has been faced with a number of changes in expenses last year. They're very uncertain about revenues that were going to be coming to them this year. As a non-profit organization with a fixed budget for the year, we've suddenly seen a different rental arrangement for our facility presented to us. We now don't know what the bill for next year is going to be. We know what the basic rent is — it's minimal — but we're now being told that the utilities are ours. The city is not going to make up the difference for changes in things like the gas price.

When we hear of cuts, which are going to mean fewer jobs in the community, it makes the people who run this volunteer organization very nervous, because they realize they're not going to have the same numbers of athletes coming in the door to work the budget with. That sort of makes your board of directors even more nervous. It makes it even more difficult to keep the numbers up so you can make the organization function. They just literally freak out about halfway through the year, because they don't see how the finances are going to work. If anything, I hope you will urge the senior public servants to figure out how they're going to deal with the cuts and tell the people as quickly as possible.

J. Bray: Hi, Tom. I'm a 13-year BCGEU member down in Victoria, and I couldn't concur stronger with your last statement. I have Victoria–Beacon Hill, which probably has almost half of all the civil servants in the Victoria area in my riding. I think that is certainly a message that needs to be raised a bit. It's not just what may happen, as you said, two or three years down the line. It's the uncertainty that it puts on everybody in the civil service. I just think that is an important message. Here in Prince George you need to send that to your regional staff, and you need to encourage stewards in other centres to do the same thing. The other thing is to provide suggestions for ways in which some of those positions can be absorbed through attrition, vacancies, other options so that the actual number of layoffs may be minimized. I think that's very important, but certainly information is key.

Do you have a suggestion — not to put you on the spot — for the way in which the, as you put it, messaging might from now on be done better or more effectively or be more useful for communities as well as for public servants themselves?

T. Muirhead: Well, I have to give credit to our deputy minister. He's worked with us for a long time. He was just in the office a couple of weeks ago and handled a staff meeting. He said: "Well, the way the numbers and things look to me now, I've got enough money to run this group of people until the end of March." Then he said: "I hope to deal with the cuts after that through attrition." I'm not sure the membership really believes it, but it's a start.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there any other questions? If not, Tom, I'd like to thank you for coming forward this evening. Again, I think messaging and communicating are key. I mean, whether it's a good message or a poor message, I think people have to be up front. Hopefully, that's the way the business will be able to continue. Thanks very much.

B. Watson: Good evening, and thank you. I beg for your patience. I finally worked up the courage to do this. My name is Barbara Watson. I live in Prince George, and I work at the employment standards branch in Prince George. I will be impacted by the proposed massive job cuts that are being talked about.

Approximately two years ago the employment standards branch had a backlog of eight months for anyone working on non-union wage complaints. Our branch had to hire two extra people in our area to work on the backlog, and we are finally caught up. That happened in June 2001. This means approximately three to six weeks of waiting now. Cuts would mean accumulation of massive ongoing backlogs and workloads for our remaining staff.

The clients would receive poor service. The clients include businesses needing variances and licences such as child employment permits, employment agency licences, etc. Our clients in the past have quite clearly let us know that eight months' wait is not acceptable. With us the majority of clients would have to go to the courts and/or lawyers.

Most can't afford to do that. Most haven't been paid correctly by their employer, and some haven't been paid at all for work performed. A lot of them feel hopeless. They have a major struggle to get assistance when wages are owed to them, and the employer should pay so that they don't need assistance.

Personally, loss of employment means a move to my home province, away from this city and the wonderful people in it. I won't be paying my mortgage

here, buying a car in three years as planned, paying any level of taxes, volunteering for my favourite charities and the organizations such as the Special Olympics — which I just did, and I loved it.

I really urge the government to seek input from employees on how and where to trim expenses. Talk to the people on the front lines for ideas on how to trim back. Is now the time to further endanger the B.C. economy already shaken by the September 11 events and the local economy hit particularly hard by the softwood lumber problem?

I urge the decision-makers to take more time and seek input from current front-line employees. We've already heard, apparently, from deputy ministers that are fairly new, who may not know us and what we really do. If they would come and get some input from us, we'd be glad to give it to them, because we may have some ideas that might really work. We would really urge you to listen to the public input, such as you're hearing tonight. That's all. Thank you.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Can you elaborate a little bit, Barbara, on what you said — that there are employers withholding wages and that it's taken eight months to collect those wages?

B. Watson: It has taken eight months before we can even open the file to start an investigation. We were eight months behind before we even looked at it.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): I'm just trying to wrap my mind around how it could take eight months. If an former employee comes in to you, don't you look at the case and then issue a determination?

B. Watson: Eventually. It's first-come, first-served service, and we can't drop the others that we're currently working on to look at the ones coming in the door. That's why we had an eight-month backlog. We are very proud of the fact that we're within three weeks now.

B. Watson: I'm not exactly clear on the number of complaints we had per year. We have a staff of ten, plus another ten, that give information on the legislation. Eight of the people work directly with files — wage complaints — and each one of them has an approximate ongoing caseload of about 35 active files — non-union files only.

I. Chong: Thank you, Barbara, for mustering up the courage to come. You did very well, and I'm encouraged by the comments you made about the importance of seeking employee input and of looking for ideas. That is exactly what we're trying to do, and if that hasn't been communicated well, then we apologize, because we do want to see input from front-line workers. I know you have the ideas, and we need to hear them. I also appreciate that you acknowledged that downsizing is not next week; it's not next month. It will be over time, which will allow employee input to us and to this committee.

Earlier tonight there was another presenter that I asked a question of. I think she was a 33-year employee. I said: "What do you see that we could obtain from you in looking at ways to find cost-savings?" I didn't get that response. I wasn't sure whether employees were wanting to be involved in this process as much, and you're saying definitely.

B. Watson: Very much so. I know that where I work, I see us as being as lean as we could possibly be. I can't picture functioning with less staff.

I. Chong: I appreciate that. I would encourage you to send any ideas you have in the employee groups that you work with to our website or to the Clerk of Committees, because we could then include them in our final deliberations and our report to the Minister of Finance.

J. Bray: Actually, my learned colleague raised the exact same thing. I would also encourage front-line staff. In fact, you have a better understanding of the business than almost anybody else in the organization, by the very nature of it. I was a front-line worker myself. I would encourage your colleagues in other ministries to actually take up that challenge and present some scenarios that match what ministers have been asked and see whether or not you can find better solutions that might come from outside the organization.

B. Watson: Thank you. I'd be delighted, and in the short term I'd be delighted to give back my tax cut.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you, Barbara. I see no further questions from members of the committee. Again, I will go with what my colleagues have said. I think you put together a very good presentation. I thank you for coming forward this evening.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): That has concluded our registered presenters. We have committed to an open-mike session for people who have listened throughout the evening and want to add to what we have. We do have a list already of people for that. I will begin with Charles Scott from the Prince George Development Corporation. Charles, you're up. Good timing.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I have six on here. Our schedule is until 9 p.m., so we're not talking about 15-minute presentations; we're talking about a few minutes in order to put questions or ideas forward.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay, if we do have time at the end for anyone in the crowd as well….

C. Scott: Good evening, and thank you very much for this opportunity. I will be brief. I know you've had a long evening. The Prince George Development Corporation applauds the province's strategy of reducing the tax burden, especially in the areas of personal taxation. We share the view that British Columbia must be competitive in order to ensure its long-term prosperity. With the current economic downturn undoubtedly adding to the pressure to restore some of your revenue, we strongly encourage the province to maintain its current policy of providing a tax regime that is competitive with other North American jurisdictions.

We agree with the government's position of protecting funding for health and education. In the midst of the delaying of capital projects, we remind the government of the critical importance of the PGRH expansion and the northern medical school at UNBC, given the additional challenges facing health care delivery in the north. We ask you to ensure that these projects are not delayed.

Forestry is another area worthy of protection. Forestry is a vital sector to communities in the interior and the north, so measures that will enhance or maintain this sector will have the greatest possible benefits for these people in these regions. Also, the forestry sector is currently facing huge challenges: the pine beetle epidemic, the softwood lumber tariff, the switch to market-based pricing, tenure reform and the development of the value-added wood sector, to name but a few. Given all of these challenges facing the system, reducing the capacity within the Ministry of Forests would be particularly ill-timed.

In the election campaign the government cited the experiences of Ontario and Alberta, where cutting taxes led to substantial gains in revenue. Those governments faced significantly more favourable economic environments when they made those cuts. Given the current economic downturn, we suggest that the government focus its resources on revenue-generating measures wherever possible. Economic development offers among the best financial returns on investment to the public. While the government may choose to reorganize its ministries and agencies, we recommend that programs with proven track records for results be preserved, even if that occurs within a different delivery body than currently.

We also note the challenges facing economic development initiatives. Gaps between federal and provincial agencies have caused and are causing problems for potential diversification including call centres, the film industry, value-added forestry and tourism. Addressing these gaps will put us on an even footing with Alberta or other parts of the province.

Another opportunity is the delivery of services by the private sector. There are several examples where service delivery by the private sector may well be more cost-efficient and effective than the government can achieve by directly delivering the services. For example, we encourage the government to consider the resource management technology of Canfor's Genus initiative as a way of allowing the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management to fulfil their regulatory roles more cost effectively and reduce the regulatory burden on wood harvesters without sacrificing environmental standards.

We'd be pleased to discuss any of these suggestions in more detail as your time allows, and we thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback.

B. Penner: I'm very interested in your comments about enhancing economic activity as a way of closing the gap in the government's fiscal deficit. Even if we are into a period of global slowdown, there still will be investments being made, albeit perhaps at a lower rate than before. Businesses around the world will still be making investment decisions. I think it's our objective to get a bigger slice of that investment pie into British Columbia over the next couple of years to employ more British Columbians and provide more revenues into government.

If you have specific suggestions about how reducing the regulatory burden can encourage an economic climate that's favourable to investment, please don't hesitate to forward those ideas either to this committee and/or to the Minister of State for Deregulation, Kevin Falcon. Make those suggestions as specific as possible,

because we — and I think I can speak for all of us here — are serious about trying to make some changes.

C. Scott: We in fact will be making a written submission just as soon as we've had a chance for board ratification. We simply have verbal comment. But yes, indeed.

L. Calder: One of the challenges, though, in the north is that private investors tend to look for bigger centres. They tend to rely more on the urban sort of fields like Vancouver and Victoria. They very seldom look beyond that, unless it's getting closer to the resource. There are some challenges with regard to that sort of initiative. Ultimately, we still require some government backing, if possible, to try and attract some of those types of larger investment initiatives to the north.

I. Chong: In the prebudget consultation document that you received, one of the specific questions…. You've addressed this in your presentation about revenue. The question is: "What steps should government take to ensure there are sufficient revenues to fund British Columbia's priority social programs?" I'm wondering whether your development corporation has considered specific revenue programs that should be restructured, expanded or terminated. Will that be coming through in your written submission? Do you have specific revenue programs you think you could provide us with?

C. Scott: Protocol would involve the board having a review and discussion and all that sort of thing. But yes, we'd certainly be able to make some suggestions.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Charles, the other gentleman with you…. Could I ask you to just introduce yourself?

L. Calder: My name is Lorne Calder. I'm the first vice-president of the Prince George Development Corporation.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you. That will be recorded in Hansard, and it will help us a great deal. Thanks very much, gentlemen, for coming out and making your presentation this evening.

B. Penner: He's a former resident of Chilliwack and lived just down the street from me.

D. MacDonald: Good evening. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for having me speak here this evening. I'd like to make a note that I'm not representing ICBC, even though I work for ICBC. I'm representing the union that I'm employed through. The OPEIU, union 378, represents unionized workers at ICBC. There are over 5,400 ICBC employees throughout B.C.. Of them, 277 are here in the northern part of British Columbia.

OPEIU 378 members at ICBC are concerned about the negative financial and social impacts of the provincial government's plans to allow private insurers to sell basic auto insurance. We believe there are a large number of reasons why the government should not wreck the public auto insurance. The impacts of wrecking public auto insurance would, in our view, be devastating to our community and to the province as a whole and would very much affect our provincial economy, which is why we have taken up your invitation today.

We would like to make the following points about privatization of ICBC for your consideration. The problems that led to the creation of ICBC in 1974 were clear, and they are problems that are still hurting drivers in provinces without public auto insurance. Here are some of the results we have seen, and here are some of the results we would see if ICBC privatization takes place.

Extreme rate increases, especially for young drivers, families with young drivers and seniors. The Consumers Association of Canada reported last week that rate shock would hit these drivers as ICBC's non-discrimination rate policy was eliminated and insurance rates were unfairly based on age, gender and marital status. Some of these drivers would see their insurance rates double, triple or even go to five times the current ICBC rate.

There would be a loss of jobs and investment in British Columbia and in each community. As mentioned, ICBC does employ over 5,400 people across the province. We'd see a loss of regional benefits from ICBC including city taxes and the end of road safety programs as we have them right now. Over the last number of years ICBC has invested heavily in road safety to prevent crashes before they actually take place. ICBC currently spends 30 times more on road safety than all the private insurance companies in Ontario combined, even though Ontario has three times the population of B.C. We'd also see a large number of uninsured drivers on the road. In Ontario police estimate that between 15 percent and 25 percent of drivers currently have no insurance at all. We'd also see a loss of health care contributions from ICBC.

Due to NAFTA, one of the biggest challenges that faces us if ICBC is removed or taken apart is that it can never be put back together again. In conclusion, our union and ICBC workers in the Prince George area strongly urge you to do two things. First, think about the many reasons why public auto insurance is important to British Columbians, and reconsider your plans for privatization. Second, regardless of your opinion of public auto insurance, please allow British Columbians to have their say on the future of public auto insurance and ICBC before making any decision that can never be undone. We firmly believe that if you listen to British Columbians, you'll hear a clear message not to wreck

K. Krueger: This government has never suggested that it would privatize ICBC, let alone wreck it. There's no such intention. This government was elected on a promise to provide the choice to the public and the opportunity for private sector insurers to compete from the first dollar of their automobile coverage. That being said, the government has every intention to live up to every one of its promises. That is going to happen.

I think it would be useful if the OPEIU presented to government its concept of how that could be done without doing damage in the various areas that you have described. Those concerns are being expressed by a lot of knowledgable people about genuine competition, about how private sector carriers would pick up their share of unidentified motorists and uninsured motorists and part 7 coverages, about young drivers and families with young drivers at a time when we really want to encourage youth employment.

Those are all very legitimate points to be raised. Since your organization represents people who work with these issues on the ground every day, I think you're ideally positioned to make really solid recommendations about how the promise can be kept without doing any of that damage.

The bottom line is that this government believes that choice ought to be available to people and has promised to deliver it. It's a popular promise with a lot of driving members of the public who, for whatever reason, either have determined already that they want to purchase their coverage privately or at least want to have that choice.

I wonder if you'd be willing to take that back to the OPEIU. Even if they don't agree with the government having made that promise or taken that course of action, they have tremendous resources to make recommendations about how it could be done without doing damage.

B. Penner: Just a brief comment. I also share the concerns of cabinet about ICBC. As a lawyer who practised dealing with ICBC matters, there's lots that can be said that is favourable about ICBC. So we will take your concerns to heart, and I'll certainly be forwarding those on as well.

R. Sultan: I too would like to second Mr. Krueger's comments. We have a wonderful institution here, the fifth-largest corporation in British Columbia with 2,000 head office jobs. Many of them happen to be my constituents, and believe me, this is an important issue for all of us, particularly in my riding. I would urge you to bring forward your suggestions as to how we can, as Mr. Krueger has reiterated, live up to our election promise without doing substantial harm to ICBC. That is not the hoped-for outcome.

Having said that, I also am startled by your statistic that in Ontario perhaps the uninsured motorist pool could be as high as 15 to 25 percent. Is that sort of a guesstimate, or do you think there are some solid numbers to back up that rather startling figure?

D. MacDonald: I believe there are numbers to back that up, statistics-wise, from the local police in that area in the province. As Mr. Krueger would probably remember from the history of ICBC, the challenge, why we brought ICBC in, is that at the time, back in 1968 when we did the Wootton Commission that was issued by government at that time, they estimated between 30 and 35 percent of British Columbians back in the late sixties had no coverage on their vehicles as well. So it's an opportunity for us to make sure that we have public insurance and to keep it healthy and provide it not based on age or gender discrimination at all.

R. Sultan: I'd appreciate any references you might feed in on those very important points.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Doug, I'd like to thank you for coming forward. I'm very glad that we had the opportunity to have the open-mike session to hear you. You've heard a number of comments from the people on the committee. I think it's important information you put forward, so thank you for your presentation.

Moving along, we have Rosalind Thorn, who will be speaking on behalf of the Northern B.C. Construction Association. Good evening.

R. Thorn: Chair Lekstrom and committee members, thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in your government's prebudget consultation. I'd just like to take a brief moment to introduce our association to you. As Blair mentioned, my name is Rosalind Thorn, and I'm the president of the Northern B.C. Construction Association, which is an umbrella organization of eight local construction associations that operate in northern British Columbia. Those associations operate in Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince Rupert, Terrace, Kitimat, Smithers, Williams Lake, Quesnel and Prince George. Geographically we represent two-thirds of the province of British Columbia.

Through this affiliation we represent some 300 firms from both the union and the non-union sectors which operate as general and trade-specific contractors as well as manufacturers, suppliers and allied service firms. These member firms, having involvement primarily in the industrial, commercial and institutional sectors of the industry, are responsible for putting in place and servicing the material infrastructure required

by all segments of our society. In more detail we build and service bridges, highways, mills, mines, office buildings, retail and commercial buildings, manufacturing facilities, ports, airports, schools and hospitals and to some extent family housing.

The Northern B.C. Construction Association is one of four regional associations comprising our provincial organization. Together we represent provincewide viewpoints. Collectively we took a position earlier this year to focus on five key areas that in our view, are imperative to get B.C. building. These are private investment, quality, efficiency, infrastructure and Workers Compensation Board.

Private investment. An increase here is paramount in driving our economy, and government needs to focus on initiatives to facilitate this. We believe that in order to increase business activity and business health in the province, serious streamlining of regulations and reducing red tape is required. We are pleased that a full review of government's core services and a regulatory review are currently underway. We are confident that this process will provide a variety of areas where costs may be reduced and our tax base may be increased.

We applaud government's quick action in reducing personal and corporate income tax rates and the corporate capital tax, exempting production material and equipment from provincial sales tax and increasing the threshold for the passenger vehicle surtax. It is our belief that putting more disposable income in the pockets of British Columbians will help stimulate the economy as well as assist business in attracting and retaining the best personnel possible. Being competitive with our neighbours is absolutely necessary in order to keep business in this province and to encourage new investment.

Efficiency. Your government's stated commitment to return to open, public tendering is heartening to our industry and is a key area where government will be able to trim costs. The need for increased government accountability and efficiency in the purchase of construction is demonstrated to us daily. Over the past decade policies and procedures for tendering and contracting have been eroded significantly. A strong, established and reliable construction industry is the result of using strong, established and reliable construction practices.

The industry strongly recommends that government significantly reduce the use by public bodies of own forces in construction, including the current trend of public agencies providing project management services to other public agencies, all in competition with the private sector. This type of activity not only erodes the existence of a competitive private sector but also drives up the cost of construction and wastes taxpayers' dollars. While on the face of it the use of own forces can often be made to look competitive with the private sector, the reality is that they can easily bury costs and obtain subsidies unavailable to others, all at the expense of the public purse. Reducing this type of activity would go a long way towards reducing government spending.

Not only is the buildup of own forces evident in provincial government ministries and agencies, but the practice of own forces construction on the part of municipalities is a growing concern. It is often difficult for the industry to accurately identify the extent of the work being performed in this manner, as accurate information is often challenging to obtain. Nevertheless, we know that millions of dollars in public sector capital projects and maintenance services are spent annually without competition. The public tendering system by private sector companies is simply not applied.

Public bodies must consider a number of factors when making a decision on whether to use own forces rather than private enterprise. Accountability is a major factor that is of great interest to the taxpayer. Own forces construction work is often defended on the basis that public bodies can do the job more cheaply, as company profits are not involved. We do not believe this to be true. Because of the highly competitive nature of the construction industry, profits are made as a result of expertise and efficiency. This therefore provides a very strong motivation for efficiency and quality. Where own forces are used, there is no such motivation.

We question whether the true total costs are in fact recorded or known. Proper accounting for true overhead and other operational costs will, we believe, clearly identify the value of private enterprise. Profits made by private sector companies provide all levels of government with tax revenues, and to deny the private sector's opportunity to make a profit would certainly adversely affect the government's ability to collect taxes.

If a project being carried out by own forces takes longer to complete than anticipated or runs over budget, the government body will complete it with the taxpayers picking up the extra cost. If, however, the project is performed by a private construction company on a fixed-price tender, the company would be responsible for covering those extra costs, not the taxpayer. When a contracting firm carries out a construction project, its work is subject to quality inspection by independent agents. On the other hand, when own forces are used to construct its own project, the public agency often provides its own inspections. We suggest that this does not provide the accountability required.

When performing its own work, the government body may require the purchase of construction tools and/or equipment and the carrying of inventory, and it will incur the cost of repairs, maintenance and replacement of such items. With a private construction company, a public body is paying for the cost of operating the equipment for that specific project. If a contractor's equipment is idle, he carries the cost. If the public body's equipment is idle, the taxpayer then carries the cost.

A frequently given reason for the use of own forces is that there is a need to keep a certain-sized staff for winter work, maintenance and emergency work. In order to fully utilize manpower and equipment during slack periods, it is argued that own forces have to be

used for construction projects. All this does is expand the public sector on a continuous basis. Once that particular project is complete, the public agency then has to find ways and means to utilize this manpower and equipment, and the expansion can go on and on.

We believe that government's business is not to be in business in the performance of construction projects and major maintenance and upgrading work. This association advocates the use of responsible contractors to quote on, administer, supervise and coordinate all phases of construction projects. We urge all levels of government to use to the fullest extent the capacity, skill, experience and resources of our industry and to avoid the practice with own forces. It is our recommendation that provincial government establish a policy that whenever funds are to be expended, including when there is a contribution of provincial government funds to a municipal project, the provincial government agency, municipality or regional district utilize the public tendering system to contract out the work.

Additionally, we encourage government to look at other services undertaken by own forces within the public sector. Government has stated on many occasions that you do not intend to reduce the budgets of health and education. We think it is important, though, that the costs of health and education delivery are pursued closely to ensure that the maximum dollars actually go towards patient care and educating our students. Just as in construction services, we feel that there may be real savings realized by contracting out various other services to the private sector.

In regards to infrastructure, an efficient and well-maintained infrastructure is essential to any viable economy and is a primary concern for a responsible government. Roads, bridges, water supply and sewerage are necessary backbones to sustaining existing industries and attracting new business to our province. The ability to run any commercial activity is severely impeded if infrastructure is permitted to deteriorate. Our provincial economy relies heavily on trade, and well-maintained roads and bridges are important elements to the equation if we expect to compete effectively. Our transportation system is crucial. It is our recommendation that government work with industry to develop a strategic plan to seek appropriate federal funding for our province.

Schools and hospitals throughout the province need to be maintained and upgraded. Infrastructure planning should be done in consultation with the industry to develop a long-term solution to the problems. Such processes will result in cost-effective scheduling that will ensure proper maintenance and upkeep, which in turn can extend the life of current infrastructure and make the most of taxpayers' dollars. While we appreciate and support your government reviewing the capital projects to ensure that they are not just politically motivated, we caution against putting a halt to capital expenditures altogether. Those projects that are needed should proceed.

Construction volumes in the north are at approximately 50 percent of four years ago. We're hurting. Consequently, we are experiencing quite a major outflow of workers and suggest that it is in government's best interest to retain a skilled and experienced workforce. It is also in government's best interest to maintain contracting, manufacturing and supply businesses which will be poised to undertake the projects of the future. We accept that capital spending must meet the test of being fiscally responsible and support public consultation to ensure the best use of taxpayers' dollars.

Quality. The construction industry relies on a strong, effective apprenticeship and trades training system to ensure that we can meet the demands of private industry and also government in the future. We do encourage government to work with us to strengthen our apprenticeship system. As stated previously, we cannot afford to lose our skilled workforce to other jurisdictions, nor do we wish to have workers sitting idle on employment insurance or social assistance. All of this has a dramatic negative impact on government revenue and expenditure. We therefore recommend that government retain an active and focused capital works and maintenance program.

There have been others speaking tonight on WCB. We fully support the core review that's looking at WCB. Until such time as that review is complete, we urge government to direct the WCB to freeze its assessment rates at the current rates. This major cost escalation — up to 20 percent — to employer assessment rates for 2002, at a time when the B.C. government is striving to make B.C. more competitive and improve the business climate, will act as a disincentive to investment in our province and an added tax burden for employers.

We believe there are a number of specific actions which government can take to reduce WCB costs and improve service. Many of these actions have been identified by our organization, BCCA-COCA. We have encouraged Minister Bruce to have ministry staff consult with our vice-president, Brad MacMillan, to understand the industry's ideas to help make the WCB more cost-effective and more responsive to the needs of workers as well as employers.

In conclusion, I reiterate this association's support for your government's review and consultation process. Our highest priority is to assist in any way we can to return the province of British Columbia to a vibrant economy that is competitive with other jurisdictions and a place where business is clamouring to invest. We believe that our recommendations will help move us in that direction. We know that together we can get B.C. building.

My topic is on health care and how it relates to drug and alcohol issues. I'm a Prince George businessman, and I've been involved with drug and alcohol addictions for the past ten years. In 1994 I had input into Chief Coroner Vince Cain's task force on illicit drug overdose deaths in B.C. Later I was involved in a number of steering committees in relation to drug and alcohol issues. In 1999 I chaired the regional health board task force on drug and alcohol issues in this community.

For the main part these issues showed up, as we prioritized, as being in part transferable. Just by way of qualifying myself, there's some other stuff, but I'll just get through this. From my experience and my involvement in the past ten years, I'd like to identify a serious gap in providing the service for drug and alcohol. This gap is the need for a continuum of care when treating substance abuse. There's a serious imbalance between facilities and community care. The drug and alcohol treatment system seems to be terribly facility-bound. To compound the drug and alcohol problem, there's a new term out now called concurrent disorders, which is drug addiction coupled with mental illness.

Things are a little different even in the past ten years. Ten years ago you could sober up an alcoholic or clean up a drug addict, and perhaps in a lot of the cases they would just get back on track and away they'd go. It's a little different now, because you're dealing with a set of concurrent disorders. So things aren't quite as simple as they were even ten years ago. This really highlights the need for an aftercare component in treating drug addictions, drug addicts. Aftercare will address the issues within the context of everyday lives.

To clarify what I mean by aftercare, some of the things that you and I may take for granted, such as securing employment and housing, establishing social support and community networking, are not quite that simple for people who haven't completed, for instance, a drug treatment program.

The Liberals talk in terms of business, and it makes very, very good business sense to keep in recovery a person who is in recovery. It's being made clearer and clearer all the time that this will take a continuity of care. Otherwise, the scenario that is played out year after year sort of goes like this: a hospital admission, often ICU or emergency; then detox and then treatment. In some cases it's even all of the three or four put together. It's very, very expensive to have this revolving-door syndrome that ends at treatment. Often if there's not that aftercare component after treatment, people will come out and, in the case of people that have gone to prison, relapse and reoffend. Money is always an issue when you're dealing with these types of things. I don't, for my part, believe that we're short of money in that particular system, although if there are any health care workers here, they'll argue that with me perhaps.

When Vince Cain came through with his task force, one of the things he said was that what was evident when referring to this whole shemozzle of drug addiction was that there were so many agencies and departments involved in all of these activities that one is led to conclude that this is an industry with many who are perceived as living off the avails of misery. Maybe it's just a matter of shuffling the chairs around a bit or revisiting it and filling in that gap, like I've suggested, to address the need for a continuum of care.

K. Krueger: Mr. Scott, I've been really interested for years now in these issues of addiction and cross-addiction, and I was the opposition's gaming critic when the previous government launched a massive expansion of gambling in British Columbia. I was shocked, looking at the Internet, to see how cross-addictions work with gaming addictions and drug and alcohol and other addictions and the devastating effects that gaming addictions have on people's lives and the way it affects their spouses and so on. It kills addicts far quicker than any other type of addiction because they can blow their family fortune so much quicker.

Have you seen those effects here in Prince George since slot machines were introduced into your community and the betting limits were increased by thousands of percent and all those things that have happened? Have you seen gambling addictions emerge as a part of the addiction picture locally?

B. Scott: Well, what the previous government did was give our local alcohol and drug services $80,000 to address the issues of gambling, so now you've got alcohol and drugs and gambling. I don't know. The whole thing gets really confusing when you start developing all of these addictions. I'm honestly not familiar because I don't gamble. What really concerned me is when the whole focus moved towards harm reduction. If you asked me if I want people to harm themselves, of course I don't. I heard our previous Health minister saying that we've got 6,000 people on methadone, and by the end of the year we want 7,000 on methadone, like that was good thing. That disturbs me.

J. Bray: Bob, as somebody who's worked the front lines, you're often in the best position to make what are, for you, commonsense suggestions that maybe others in Victoria or in the headquarters of various ministries can't see. You mentioned the fact that maybe we don't need more money, but there seems to be so many people who have a piece and they're not inte-

grated with each other. Could you give some thought to ways in which you can see, here in Prince George, your community agency linking up with employees of the Ministry of Human Resources which may have clients who have substance abuse issues, with people in probation and Corrections who may be dealing…? Can you see if there's a way in which you can integrate those services from the standpoint of both finding some efficiency but also actually providing better service to persons who are living daily with addictions, from the Prince George perspective? As you know, it doesn't stop. I think that'd be very helpful for members of this committee if you can, not now but later, submit some suggestions on ways to integrate services. I think that'd be excellent.

B. Scott: That may be fairly simple. As part of the task force that I chaired, we came up with a report, and part of what was revealed in the report was that need for integration. There's actually even a rivalry, if you can believe it, when it comes to the treatment of addictions.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I'll entertain one further question, Barry, and then we'll try and move on. We have a number of speakers. We're going to have a difficult time getting to all of them.

B. Penner: I'd like to thank Mr. Scott for his important presentation. Some people might have thought at the outset: what does a presentation about drug and alcohol addiction have to do with provincial finances? I, for one, am convinced that it has a lot to do with it.

I chair our Caucus Committee on Communities and Safety, and in the last few weeks we've had presentations from the Vancouver Persons with AIDS Society talking about, as you put it, the concurrent disorders. A significant number of new HIV cases are among people who are intravenous drug users. Of course, that then has a huge impact on the health care budget. Most recently we had a presentation from the Salvation Army about their various projects in British Columbia that focus on a continuum-of-care approach.

Take people who have drug and alcohol addiction into a program and get them so that they're sober, but then give them some very basic training to get them a job rating and put them into a job. Instead of just turning people loose onto the street and saying, "Good luck; God be with you," give them some tangible tools so that they can maintain steady employment.

On your comment about competition. The clear message we received was that the Salvation Army finds, even in British Columbia, institutional barriers to providing the continuum of care because some colleges and technical schools see them as competition. They'd like to not have, for example, chef training or cook's training provided by the Salvation Army but by educational institutions.

We have a long way to go, I think, to break down all those barriers and move to a kind of seamless approach or a continuum of care, as you put it, to help people with drug and alcohol disorders. Really, it's in all of our best interests to do that, because ultimately we're better off having these people being productive members of society rather than relying on social services and driving up our costs.

It is 9 p.m., and we do have a number of speakers. Unfortunately, we won't be able to get to them all. I will entertain Janice Hopkins. Are you here, Janice?

J. Hopkins: Yeah, I'm here. I will be brief. This letter is actually a copy of one that I sent to the Minister of Human Resources through Shirley Bond's office on August 25 of this year re the $300 increase for people with wasting illnesses.

I am a sufferer of Crohn's disease. For 20 years I've been on government pensions of one kind or another. The Canada Pension is actually deducted from my B.C. GAIN. I came back here from Alberta; this is home. I went out there in the eighties, got very sick and spent 12 years in and out of the Royal Alexandra. I was told I could no longer work again, so I came home. This is home; I'd like to stay. It's become increasingly difficult for me to survive here.

Although I don't look very disabled, I literally waste away before people's eyes. I shrink. It has taken me almost two years since I was 106 pounds to get back to 120, and Lord knows if I'll be able to hang onto it for two more days. I don't know.

Anyway, the reason I'm here is to lobby for the increase to be taken off hold. This is one that was announced just as the NDP were on their way out, and I realize you have to re-examine it. It is cheaper to maintain me. I am primarily a hospital patient maintaining outside the hospital on what is now $820 a month on the GAIN program. That's $780 plus a $40 dietary allowance extra — whatever. I've been doing this for some 20 years now, after I finished raising my child. For the last ten years I've been by myself, trying to survive on this in some kind of way with any kind of grace and dignity. The letter will make very clear the situation I am in.

It's cheaper because I don't have to take up a hospital bed at a cost of — what is it? — $1,000 a day or some such nonsense these days, when I'm perfectly capable of looking after myself at home with very little care and just a little more cash to keep going so I can eat and live like everybody else, except that I don't have a car. I don't have any resources. I have no one to help me in any way, shape or form. Getting to the store to buy milk or bread requires a walk to the store to fill up the pack, put it on my back and walk home. If I get up in the middle of the night because I'm feeling sick and full of pain and whatever and need to go to the hospital, if I'm not bad enough for an ambulance, I have to walk. I will bite my upper lip, and I will go.

Half the time it's only because I haven't got $5 for a taxi. All that aside, it means that I have to live close to a hospital that has some kind of facilities.

Now, I have some suggestions as to restructuring, one or two of which…. I won't bother getting into what's happening in the rest of my situation; you can read the letter for yourself. The case is well documented of the problems I have had in housing, finding a suitable place to live on $325 rent, which is all I'm really supposed to spend on it, and I can't really afford more. I currently spend $575 on a house because I must live alone. I cannot have a roommate. It's too embarrassing and disgusting a disease to share with anyone.

There's a fellow who comes by my door every once in a while. He just seems to know when. He tells me that if I sleep with him, he'll make my life easier. Personally, I find that morally reprehensible, but it's the only kind of offer I ever get. I can't do it any more. It's killing me. To be quite honest with you, I don't know if I'll be able to stay in the house much longer. It's for sale now because the landlord knows I can't afford it. It has a garden. I manage to raise enough vegetables for a couple of months, which are things that I normally don't have at all. I'm paying 120 percent out right now for housing, hydro, gas, cable, phone, and I don't spend one dime that I don't absolutely have to.

To that end, there are some suggestions. BCHMC at one time had a housing program. I have been on that housing list for a long time. The problem with the program is that it is on specific houses rather than on specific people. I will never work again. Why can't I have the subsidy given to these places rather than forcing me to go into the homes that have the subsidy on them? Why not just give me the extra subsidy, and let whoever I'm paying the rent to have that extra subsidy? My own landlord is Italian and doesn't really…English. The guy gets lost, whatever. It's much easier for him to sign the intent-to-rent form like welfare has, and all the landlord has to do is fill it out. It's really quite quick. Well, what about one more question on the bottom? Does this recipient have — I don't know; I'll make up a name — a B.C. housing grant? Instead of me paying just the one-third…. What is it? One-third of the income would go to BCHMC, and the other two-thirds or however much of the rent is subsidized up to the amount of the rent. I pay one-third of my total income on rent, and the rest is subsidized by the government. That's how it works.

The only two places here in town are Alward Place, which is an old-age home — I'm sorry; I'm not ready for that — and the other one is right across from a pub in a very bad area of town, in a basement across from a day care — stress, stress, stress. Man, I'd be sick in no time. I can't do it. Keeping me out of the hospital, and people like me, is a high priority. I'm not doing anything I shouldn't be doing. I just want to maintain some grace and dignity. If you restructured, that would be one idea anyway — to allow me to have the subsidy because I'm going to move from time to time, no matter where. Why not just let me have that, whatever it is? I don't have to see the money, but make it easy for my landlord to get that difference, and give me the one-third subsidy so that that's all I'm paying. You could look up the program yourself. I believe it's still in operation.

I have a friend who frequently is sent to Vancouver with an escort because we don't have…. Is it laparoscopy for kidney stones? They laser it. Well, he's gone to Edmonton and Vancouver several times, and because he can't work, of course he ends up in the system himself with very little. Welfare pays for those two plane tickets there and back, plus all the hotel and dinner and everything else. With all the money it costs to do that in one year, couldn't you buy the silly machine and keep it here — seriously, folks?

What about, let's see, one more? It escapes me at the moment, but those were two good ideas where I thought that restructuring within the system, money already available for these different things…. And this $300 increase. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I know our time frames are very short, but thank you for taking the time and sitting through this.

All right. It is now ten after nine. I will entertain one further speaker, Doug Tedford, if Doug is here. If you can be very quick in your presentation, Doug, there is a….

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Not that, actually. The schedule as far as getting to our next location, Williams Lake…. This evening is becoming later.

D. Tedford: I'll be very brief. Thank you very much. I wasn't sure I'd get on. I appreciate that. My name is Doug Tedford. I'm Chair of the board of Active Support Against Poverty Society. We're an organization serving the financially poor here in the Prince George area. I'd like to thank the Legislature and this committee for valuing the input of the average community person and taking into consideration our input in this budget process.

I have two areas of concern. The first is income assistance for those British Columbians who need it. I see one of the primary roles of government to be fulfilling the needs of the disadvantaged in our communities. Not only should that support not be cut, it should in fact be increased. The example of the federal government in retiring their budget deficit on the backs of the poor and the unemployed should not be repeated in this province.

I don't know if it has been mentioned, but to me the decrease in the transfer payments from the federal government is one reason why I think we're here today. I know that as a province, we're going after the federal government for getting some of that money

back, but I don't see why we can't get it. It seems like, from my pocket as a taxpayer, I'm a supply and surplus on the federal level, and in the province it's a deficit. There's no question in my mind that that surplus came as a result of tens of billions a year now in terms of cuts to the unemployment insurance program. As an organization, I know that had a very big impact on the people that we received, and that became a provincial concern.

The other problem, and Bob got into it, is the idea of concurrence or whatever. I guess the point was made by him, and I'm glad you're familiar with it. The issue I was addressing with it was the social housing issue, and I heard a bit about it a minute ago. My concern is social housing. In effect, giving safe, affordable housing makes a big difference in the long run for health and policing costs. In terms of the budget process, we have to look at those other issues as well as a line through an item on a page. That's basically all I had to say, and I appreciate it.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you. I note I do have one committee member who wished to ask a very quick question.

J. Bray: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that. The previous speaker actually had a suggestion. It's something I've been thinking about for a long time, which is the concept of the subsidy following the person rather than the person following the building. Do you have some comments on whether or not you see that as a way of expanding the service within the existing budget?

D. Tedford: For the clientele that we deal with, there's a big difference between the medical reasons and poverty reasons for the subsidies for housing. What we're dealing with in Prince George is providing safe, secure, affordable housing. In a lot of areas of town, that's not possible through the private system. That's part of the problem, not the solution. Giving money to particular buildings through the clientele isn't a solution for us. We had a new building built here just very recently. It's not quite up and running yet. That's through our organization, and I think it's going to make a big different to downtown Prince George.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, thanks very much, Doug, for your presentation this evening.

Just in wrapping things up, for the people we were unable to listen to this evening, I would encourage you to put a written submission together and forward it to us. They receive our full attention and full consideration in the development of our report, which is due out November 15 to the minister. Please, I encourage you to take the time and jot it down.

For all of you who have participated this evening and sat through, I thank you for coming out. It's a very serious situation that we are dealing with in British Columbia and one that we hope to learn about from the people we are listening to right across this province. In closing, I wish you all the best. Thank you very much for coming out. Good night.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES