Finance and Government Services - Issue No. 10

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; Harry Bloy, MLA; Kevin Krueger, MLA; Barry Penner, MLA; Brian Kerr, MLA; Lorne Mayencourt, MLA; Ida Chong, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Joy MacPhail, MLA; Ralph Sultan, MLA

1. The Chair called the meeting to order at 9 a.m.

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

3. The Committee heard the following witnesses on the matter of prebudget consultation:
    1) Okanagan University College:
        Ken Burt
        Ryan Lilburn
    2) Scott Koch
    3) Donna Schommer
    4) Vernon and District Women’s Shelter:
        Deborah Critchley
    5) Wanda Klassen-Roth
    6) Shawna Klassen-Roth
    7) B.C. Probation Officers Association:
        Blair Peden
    8) Dolly Zawaduk
    9) Family Resource Centre for the North Okanagan:
        Michele Blais
    10) North Okanagan Labour Council:
          David Doran
    11) Council of Canadians, Kelowna and Vernon Chapter:
          Alice Brown
    12) Southern Interior Construction Association:
          Debra Hicks
    13) Desert Rose Society — People with Disabilities Network:
          Lesley Tannen
    14) City of Vernon:
          Mayor Sean Harvey
          Councillor Barry Beardsell
    15) Social Planning Council for the North Okanagan:
          Eric Kowalski
    16) Okanagan District Council of Carpenters:
          Tony Heisterkamp

4. The Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair at 1 p.m.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		309
	K. Burt	309
	R. Lilburn	312
	S. Koch	312
	D. Schommer	314
	D. Critchley	316
	W. Klassen-Roth	319
	S. Klassen-Roth	321
	B. Peden	322
	D. Zawaduk	325
	M. Blais	327
	D. Doran	331
	A. Brown	333
	D. Hicks	336
	L. Tannen	339
	S. Harvey	342
	B. Beardsell	343
	E. Kowalski	344
	T. Heisterkamp	346

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

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Good morning. My name is Blair Lekstrom. I am the MLA for Peace River South and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I would like to welcome everyone in attendance here today to address the committee or just to listen and hear what has to be said.

Our committee was struck by the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Its mandate is to inquire into and make recommendations through public sessions, where oral presentations can be made, as well as accepting written submissions on our prebudget consultation paper that was put out by our Minister of Finance.

With regard to the issues we're looking for, I believe it's no secret to say that there are some large challenges ahead of us in British Columbia. Certainly the financial picture is one that we are looking to work on with British Columbians right across this province, to gain their priorities and to look forward to the changes that have to be made if we are going to go back to a sustainable economic environment for the province.

Just prior to asking the other members of the committee to introduce themselves, I would like to introduce a couple of people that are working with us and our staff. Everything that is said will be recorded and transcribed by the Hansard services of Pat Samson and Amanda Heffelfinger. They are working to my right. At the back table is our researcher, Josie Schofield, and to my left is Anne Stokes, our Committee Clerk.

We look forward to the presentations we will receive today and throughout the coming weeks. We conclude our tour near the end of this month. Written submissions will be accepted until October 31, and the information for filing those written submissions can be received at the back of the table where Josie is sitting.

Without carrying on too long, I will move to my right, begin introductions and ask Mr. Penner to begin.

B. Penner: Good morning. My name is Barry Penner. I'm the MLA for Chilliwack-Kent, and it's great to see MLA Tom Christensen here.

K. Krueger: I'm Kevin Krueger from Kamloops–North Thompson and a former Vernon resident.

I. Chong: Good morning, everyone. I'm Ida Chong, representing the riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head in the greater Victoria area.

J. Bray: Good morning. I'm Jeff Bray from the riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill.

H. Bloy: Good morning. I'm Harry Bloy from the new riding of Burquitlam in the lower mainland.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you. Having been scooped, I also would like to welcome Tom to our meeting today. [Laughter.]

Without further ado, we will move on. We do have a very booked agenda today. Our first presenter is Ken Burt with the Okanagan University College. Good morning, and welcome.

I'd like to first introduce a couple of people with me at the podium today. To my right is Ryan Lilburn, who is our student vice-president of education of the Kal student association. To my left is Jim Hamilton, who is the principal of the Vernon campus.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to talk to your committee. I know the pressures your government faces are immense and that you'll require a lot of wisdom and tenacity to stay the course that has been laid down for you by policy and circumstance. I wish you luck.

As a father of two, I'm here to tell you that the government and individuals must invest in education if they're looking for long-term change in the provincial economy and in their own lives.

The other message I'll deliver this morning is that you need to revisit the policies and practices of the past in order to provide institutions such as ours the flexibility they need to respond to current market conditions, regional needs and evolving opportunities. We need to be thinking creatively, looking to make the most of the opportunities and the financial situation we find ourselves in.

The first message is: invest. The government is already doing that, and it's looking for answers about how it can make the most of its investments. B.C.'s five university colleges, as a group, have responded to the core services review and have outlined how we qualify as a market-tested success in terms of delivering post-secondary education in the regions we serve. We have also outlined some of the ways that we think we can better serve the province. I know Roger Barnsley has delivered a copy of that response to you, so I won't spend a lot of time repeating the messages found there. But I do feel obligated to drive home the message about how entrepreneurial and responsive we are and what an important community resource we are.

You've heard much about the skills shortages facing our country. That fact was brought home re-

cently to one of our region's largest employers, Northside Industries of Kelowna, when it went looking for qualified welders to help fill a contract with an Alberta company. Despite weeks of advertising, the welders weren't to be found. That was millions of dollars of work that we were at risk of losing in a region that has felt only too sharply the pinch of the downturn in the forest industry and other economic blows. OUC stepped in and came up with a tailored program to train the welders that Northside needed, while Northside guaranteed the jobs on the other end. That's what an institution like ours is capable of doing. We answer very real needs and contribute to the economic well-being in our region in very real ways.

We've given you a study that details, very conservatively, a $118 million impact that OUC has on our region. We've taken this a step further and put together some numbers that project what could happen to the income in this region if our population achieved the provincial average in terms of educational attainment. StatsCan has some very solid numbers relating education to income. Put all these together and the income in this region could jump by $741 million a year — that's almost three-quarters of a billion dollars — if the educational attainment level moved to the provincial average. Sitting on your side of the committee table, faced with a legislative mandate to balance the budget in the near future, that kind of bump in pay ought to get your interest. It translates into substantial tax revenue, even after you take into account the reductions in the tax rate.

Of course, you need to realize that improving a population's level of educational attainment means education, and that means investing in institutions like our own. Remember, too, that returns on investment in higher education mean returns in many other ways. The money and resources spent today on education pay benefits tomorrow in health care, economic and social development. Clearly, both governments and individuals benefit from the advantages of post-secondary education.

We're in the sixth year of a tuition freeze that has seen British Columbia's tuition rates fall below the national average, in conjunction with the funding formula for post-secondary education that has been reduced and not kept pace with inflation over the last six years. This has put tremendous pressure on institutions such as ours in terms of their ability to provide much-needed access.

Let me put this in some real terms for you. A third-year student pursuing a bachelor degree at OUC will pay about $1,136 a term for tuition. The average university tuition in Ontario is $3,971; in Alberta it's $3,841. Students here are paying less than a third of what they would pay in other provinces. It's a perceived deal for students, but it's a real problem for us.

The government has to look at a tuition policy in conjunction with its commitment to post-secondary education. It must consider the need to provide access to affordable education, while at the same time determining the proper balance between government and individual responsibility for post-secondary education.

While the government ponders that, we'll be working with students, faculty and staff to identify ways to mitigate the impact of the tuition increase through bursaries, work-study programs, etc. Also, there is an opportunity here to undertake a broad-based examination of alternative tuition and student-aid programs, such as those undertaken in the U.K. and Australia.

We're also seeing that the current funding formula doesn't work. Through no fault of our own, over recent years we've been left with some very substantive costs that have not been covered by the funding formulas that have further eroded our capacity to offer access to education. I could spend the rest of these ten minutes listing all of those unfunded costs, but suffice it to say they add up to millions of dollars each year — money that we have not been able to put into the classroom or to support student services.

If the government is to invest — and it ought to — it needs to invest wisely through realistic funding formulas, creating balanced access to post-secondary education throughout the province. It needs to look beyond the exigencies of the moment to the long-term paybacks. The government needs to invest with an eye on the entire provincial context and with the perspective on the learning needs of all citizens in the knowledge economy.

The second message I'm delivering is critical to your deliberations. You don't have the money to answer everyone's call for the scarce public resources, but as a government what you do have is the ability to give institutions such as ours the flexibility to respond to the market demands and opportunities that come our way. As economic engines for our regions and the province, we need the flexibility to be able to partner, to attract new research dollars and to grow into what our regions expect and deserve. You can invest today, in terms of public policy and vision, in ways that will set the groundwork for the future and that will allow institutions like OUC to invest the dollars they have to maximize the return and accountability.

The university colleges have asked the provincial government to consider legislative change in some very important areas. The first is in terms of our ability to offer graduate programs. We've already partnered with the University of Calgary to offer a master's in education program, and we're looking at partnerships with other institutions to offer other programs.

The point is that there is a need for such programs in this region. We have much of the expertise among our existing faculty to offer these programs, but our mandate doesn't recognize that ability. Instead we see our teachers going to Gonzaga every summer and our bright young minds heading elsewhere for their MBAs.

Does offering a graduate program mean more money expected of the provincial government? It doesn't need to. Certainly many institutions that are building graduate programming are looking at these areas as cost recovery, and that is what our intention is as well. OUC has been very successful in building its research profile, despite the fact that the College and

We have done this while building our reputation as an institution of teaching excellence. When you have faculty with the academic qualifications and interests that we have, you can't prevent research. It's part of who they are and what they do.

That research has an economic impact, but it also has more important impacts. Consider one project currently underway by Dr. Marvin Krank, OUC's associate vice-president of academic, who is conducting a $500,000 three-year study into what leads adolescents into risky behaviour — the drug taking, alcohol abuse and smoking kinds of behaviours that cost our society millions and millions of dollars as these kids get older and start calling on health and social services.

Dr. Krank's study is not only looking at what leads kids to these behaviours but also looking at what can stop them. Saving a small percentage of young people from risky behaviours is going to have a huge impact in the long term. That's federal money that OUC and Dr. Krank have been able to attract to the region that will have a significant payback both to the region and to the province.

We have also qualified for federal funding for four Canada research chairs. That works out to a direct federal investment of $4 million over the next decade. This is money that will help move our agenda forward and provide students with more learning opportunities and build the credibility of our institution in the academic community.

I could spend another ten minutes telling you about all the other research projects and funding that OUC is attracting to the region from sources other than the provincial government. Instead, I will tell you that we need our research mandate recognized to make the task of attracting more research money easier and to ensure that the province is ready to support the research we do.

I guess the message I want to leave you with today is that as part of the university college group and as an individual institution, we see immense opportunities to work with the provincial government to create solutions. Thank you again for taking the time to hear this presentation.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I believe we will have a couple of questions from members of the panel, if you would like to answer those.

I. Chong: Clearly, we do agree that the benefits of post-secondary education are significant through those who receive post-secondary education contributing to their local economies in terms of lifetime earnings. Again, that is contingent in part on the fact that a local economy is strong and is in fact vibrant. One of the questions in our budget consultation document is: what steps should the government undertake to ensure British Columbia has the leading economy in Canada? — again, back to ensuring that there's a good local economy here for your students to have jobs.

I'm wondering if you can answer this: how do you see the Okanagan University College contributing towards building your local economy? I know you're going to educate and graduate the students, but how will we keep them in this area? Is there something the university college is able to do in that regard and help our government as well?

K. Burt: That's a very good question. We have spent a lot of time working with the community leaders, both with the economic development commission and with the various chambers up and down the valley. One of the things that is inhibiting economic development of this region is the overall level of educational attainment of the citizens. This region is substantially below the provincial average. I think what's preventing the economic development is the fact that businesses will not relocate to areas where there is not a trained workforce. I think the university colleges, which are regional in nature, can contribute most to the economic development of the regions by providing an educational base that will help increase those educational attainment levels and allow businesses to have a skilled workforce when they choose to relocate or grow in a particular region.

J. Bray: Thank you for the presentation. It was a very thorough presentation. I have two questions. You made some reference to a lack of flexibility that you have as an institution, given current regulatory regimes. I wonder if you can give a specific example of where our current regulations make it difficult for you to meet the needs of the valley.

The second question is: have you given some consideration to public-private partnerships within OUC to further meet the needs of employers and emerging businesses in the valley?

K. Burt: Again, good questions. On the issue of flexibility, the Tuition Fee Freeze Act came into effect six years ago. Part of it prohibited cost recovery programming — that is, programming costs that are covered entirely by tuition fees. Prior to '93, OUC offered a summer school for fifth-year bachelor of education students. They would come in and pay 100 percent of the costs of delivery of that program. The tuition freeze policy enacted in '93-94 prevented institutions from charging for cost recovery programs and mounting them. In a region such as ours, where there is a huge pent-up demand for post-secondary education, it reduced our flexibility in terms of being able to offer a service to the community. So I think that's one way in which the flexibility will come back to the institutions, if they have the ability to creatively solve problems. It may be through cost recovery exercises, but if there's a market out there that's willing to pay it, we should explore it.

J. Bray: The second question was: has OUC explored — you gave one partial example where you've met a demand — and looked at some public-private partnerships in the valley to further meet the goal of actually meeting the educational needs of the valley?

K. Burt: We have partnerships. For the committee members, we have five campuses spread throughout four communities in the Okanagan and seven that we call continuing storefront operations. Through all of those centres, we offer partnerships. A lot are in conjunction with the federal government through HRDC, where an industry partner, the federal government and OUC will work together to deliver programs for individuals.

The one that I like, which is quite interesting, occurs down in Oliver. We have a partnership with HRDC to offer English-language training to fruit-pickers. So what we do is go into the orchards, and during their breaks we give them English lessons to help them. That's just an example of what an institution like ours can do in terms of partnerships.

L. Mayencourt: My question is to Ryan. Mr. Burk has talked a little bit about the tuition freeze. Obviously, there are some positive spinoffs from that, and there are perhaps some negative ones. I wonder if you could comment on that and then if you could also let us know how your fellow students would react to an increase and to what level.

R. Lilburn: That's a good question. The tuition freeze is good because it's cheaper, so more people can go to school. But if you go to school and your education isn't as good, you're not as competitive, so it can be more difficult to get a job, I suppose. Coming to the students, obviously they don't want to pay more, but sometimes you have to pay more to get more. I think it would be a good idea to let the freeze go.

L. Mayencourt: Do you have any idea of what the capacity of students is? I guess you could address it by getting more student loans or what have you. How do you think people would react to that?

R. Lilburn: Well, I guess the capacity for OUC students to pay would probably be lower than other institutions. Most of my friends who had the capacity to pay more would go to other institutions.

L. Mayencourt: If I could just ask one more question of Mr. Burt. You talked a little about the possibility of changing some legislation to allow you to offer a master's program.

L. Mayencourt: What is entailed in that? Do we need a new act? Is that what you're suggesting?

K. Burt: I'm not sure of the technical issues around the legislative piece. The current legislation that the university colleges find themselves under is the College and Institute Act. That act specifically prohibits master's-level training. In fact, when the university colleges were first formed back in '89, they modified the College and Institute Act to allow them to do baccalaureate-level training. At the time it was really an add-on in years 3 and 4 in terms of program offering, and it really isn't meeting the entire scope of operations that the institutions are currently doing.

I mentioned research as an example. All of those parts are well beyond the College and Institute Act. There needs to be a piece of legislation that will allow us to embrace both graduate programming and the research to attract the federal resources to the regions.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, gentle-men, for taking the time out of your schedule to come and present to our committee today. We can assure you that all of the information we gather through this process will be given due consideration in the development of our report, which is due out by November 15.

S. Koch: Good morning. I reside in Kelowna. I'm not an accountant, an economist or a member of the Legislature. I am, however, a friend and co-worker who socializes and works with a diverse group of proud British Columbians.

This government appears to be recklessly travelling down a path of confrontational and harmful actions against those friends and co-workers. They, like I, do not control the province. We are not big business and we are not the government; we are simply workers — workers and friends who are afraid and demoralized. We are afraid for our jobs, our families and our communities. The only agreement I expect to get from you this morning is that those three things — job, family and community — are important.

Where we obviously differ is that you don't believe they are important to maintain for my friends and co-workers — hard-working British Columbians that would be adversely impacted by the government's agenda to make cuts as deep as 50 percent, hard-working health care workers that first heard health would be protected and then heard the health budget would be frozen for the next three years. What can they expect to hear next? The health budget freeze, in simple terms, means doing less with less. That freeze does not take into account increased supply costs or utility costs, for example — hence, doing less with less.

Then there are those who are funded by social service dollars and who care for those who can't care for themselves. Is the vision of this government to see those workers walking the streets jobless alongside their former clients? That's not my vision of what our province is about. This government is not protecting

our social services. That means there will be a horrific impact on services to seniors, our youth and those who can't care for themselves.

My friends at Western Star in Kelowna have just been told the plant is closing next fall. Some 800 workers, their spouses and partners will be adversely impacted, as will those who work for the suppliers of equipment and parts, the grocery store clerk, the fast food worker and many, many others.

What does Rick Thorpe, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, reportedly say? "We ran on a platform of not providing subsidies to private business." And the headline reads: "Don't look to the provincial Liberals for any help." Economist Michael Campbell — and you'll probably recognize that name — said yesterday on Global news: "It is a huge blow to the local economy." But his brother and his followers won't be there to help the local economy. Is it that they don't care, or are they too busy blindly travelling down the road of cuts, cuts and more cuts? I don't see how that will stimulate a vibrant economy.

I'll leave you with one thought on behalf of my friends and co-workers: take only appropriate actions to protect British Columbians' jobs, families and communities. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Koch. I will look to members of our committee if there are any questions.

K. Krueger: Mr. Koch, what do you advocate in the face of a debt that was more than doubled by the previous ten years of administration, carrying charges on that debt that are almost $3 billion a year — which is more money than we can budget for post-secondary education — and the looming prospect of a very significant deficit whether or not we had done tax cuts? Incidentally, those tax cuts were not a gift to anyone. They were to allow people to keep more of their own money to spend in the private sector economy, which will create a stronger private sector economy. What do you advocate, other than the status quo, which obviously is not going to help us with this situation?

S. Koch: Well, the first thing I advocate, from what I just said, is obviously some vital services in the province that protect the needs of seniors, youth and those who can't care for themselves. That doesn't seem to be part of the government's agenda. The second part is simply this: while you made tax cuts, the reports I've been hearing are that it hasn't made any difference to the economy of the province. People are squirreling away those small amounts that they've managed to get back as tax cuts. As we progress down the road into the future, as I understand it, it is big business that will benefit from tax cuts.

K. Krueger: So what are your answers? You're essentially saying that taxes should have stayed the same, all the programs should stay the same, all government jobs should stay the same — in other words, continue down the same disastrous course that took us from the best-performing economy in Canada to the worst-performing economy in Canada. You've offered nothing new, other than criticism of what you think the government is going to do. Do you have any solutions?

S. Koch: The reason I say that I think I know what the government is going to do is because there's no clear mandate that they're producing for the people of British Columbia. As I said about health, originally it was going to be maintained; then it was going to be frozen. There are two significant things there. What are we going to get next?

K. Krueger: The commitment was that health care and education funding would be preserved. They will also be increased as the private sector economy grows. Sir, you've done nothing but criticize, and you haven't offered any solutions. I'll ask you for a third and last time: do you have any suggestions other than your criticisms?

H. Bloy: I just wanted to thank you for your presentation. I don't have a question, but I have a comment to make, and I guess it's for everybody in the room.

As a member of this committee, I personally came to hear positive suggestions on how we can do more with what we have in the budget today. We're not here to debate every presenter's cause, whether we agree or not, but I do strongly disagree with all the criticism that comes forward. The election was over with on May 17, and if you want to participate in British Columbia, I suggest you come up with positive suggestions and leave the rhetoric somewhere else.

B. Penner: I also just wanted to address the comment regarding business subsidies. The whole issue of business subsidies has been proven to be just a disastrous economic course, no matter what country you take a look at, from the Soviet Union to Cuba to North Korea to the eastern bloc in general and western countries under socialist governments that have pursued business subsidies. The ultimate end was encouraging uneconomic businesses at huge costs by diverting scarce resources away from key services like health care and education. We ran on an explicit campaign platform that stated that we would end business subsidies, and that's something we're following through on because we got a public mandate to do that.

Maybe just one clarification on the issue of health care and education where we had committed to main-

taining that funding and growing it. We've actually had to increase our health care budget by $200 million from $9.3 billion to $9.5 billion. That's more for information for yourself. Many times many of the numbers we deal with in government get overlooked or misunderstood. There has been more money put into health care.

The bottom line is that you're dealing with people. I know you speak from compassion, and it comes through in your voice. You're dealing with a committee that shares that compassion. Our job is to try and bring the fiscal house of the province back in order by listening to the people and gaining their priorities as to what we can provide as government, but at the end of the day we cannot continuously spend more than we have the ability to do. I think the toughest job of any government is to bring that balance to the picture. We will do the best we can, I can assure you. Thank you very much for your presentation.

D. Schommer: Well, I'm going to do my best. I've never spoken before in front of a committee such as yourselves. I am 26, but most people still tend to call me a youth, so I'll take it.

I'm going to briefly talk about where I'm coming from in terms of a little bit of history, and maybe that will help bring across the message that I'd like to tell you. When I was younger, in my teenage years, I was involved with the B.C. Youth in Care Network, because I was in the care of the ministry due to a death in my family. My family wasn't able to look after me; therefore, I was in the care of the ministry. My experience was a positive one with a few bumps here and there. My social worker encouraged me to be proactive and get involved with Youth in Care.

I'm not sure if you guys are aware of the B.C. Youth in Care Network, but it's a network for youth to meet other youth who are in care and to network with each other for the betterment of the youth in care. Many of the youth I met at these conferences had similar reasons for being in care, or they had different ones. Some of them were a lot worse than where I came from. A lot of them were there because either they were abused by family members or they were on the streets and involved with gangs or prostitution.

They were using the corrections system, the Ministry of Children and Families and hospitals to try and help them get on a better path. Through the Youth in Care Network, they were able to connect with other youth and realize that they weren't the only ones. I was a lucky one, and I was able to go in a positive direction. Others weren't able to go on that path. A lot of the youth, if they weren't able to gain help from these services, relied on what the community could provide, what their families — the positive ones — were able to provide. Those who weren't able to get these services because of the increased demand on them went back to the streets or back into corrections or health care. There was an increased pressure on these services.

They continued on a cycle of negativity in where they were going. They went from broken and abusive families to the streets to the ministry to the health care system to the corrections system to education and then the welfare system. Our community already provides extra services either by volunteer charity or by minimal funding from the community. Most of the extra funding comes from government.

I was watching the news last week, and they were asking youth who were participating in the Open Learning Agency, because they couldn't go through the normal education system, what they would be doing if this type of facility weren't there for them. A lot of them said they would be back on the street, or they wouldn't be completing their grade 12, therefore relying on social programs such as welfare, etc., later on.

Our community was involved in recent years in the Matthew Vaudreuil case and the Gove inquiry. I'm sure you all remember what Matthew's story was about and what the Gove inquiry came up with. I was able to participate in that, and it was positive in a way that I was able to contribute, but it was not on a good note that we were doing this.

I felt there was a glimmer of hope and a chance to learn how we could all contribute to help make sure another similar situation would not happen again. Along with the recurring vicious cycle that I mentioned, I would like to just point out that the story of Matthew may be a more common occurrence and outcome of those who would be affected if there were a decrease in funding to the already limited services that we provide.

I would just like to strongly caution and ask that we all make a very, very conscientious effort to not contribute to more of this cycle and to have other stories like Matthew Vaudreuil. It is important to hold ministries and families and communities accountable for what is provided. However, when we have been working on this with what limits we already have, how can we continue to provide essential services with more limitations?

Overall, there is a poem that says children learn what they live, and there is a song that says the children are our future. I'd just like consideration to be made for that. Not only are youth and children affected but also those with developmental disabilities. This system is similar, with increasing demands, with less funding being available, and the quality of life and safety of those who rely on this care will be affected.

Our community has a very large population of adults with developmental disabilities. Their families, if they have any, and their communities already provide as much as possible. For example, there are a lot of free activities that associations have. The Downtown Vernon Association holds concerts in the summertime in parks where we can bring these people to, so they have some form of entertainment. The GVPRD provides decreased admission to services for these people. We have the Kiwanis Club providing funds for an ac-

tion club, where these people can go and play bingo and meet with their friends. The Winter Carnival puts on a party by the women's auxiliary, where they can come and participate in that community effort. There are other programs funded by the ministry as well as church groups and volunteers who help out with these, but it's very difficult as it is.

With the focus being on normalcy, choice, community and family involvement, the expense of limited funds already will shift the focus to more limitations due to decreased funds and decreased staff. I've heard families say that there's more workload and increased pressure on the staff than there is already. This affects the quality and the safety of their loved ones being looked after by the system.

It was very rewarding when I was a young woman watching my mother participate in helping to look after and provide services with these people, and seeing the smiles on their faces when they were able to accomplish small goals and participate in new and unsegregated activities that they weren't able to do in the larger institutions from which they came. To go from this and then back to limiting these choices will have an effect on their understanding, behaviour and the expression on their faces when they will be told that things they used to enjoy will have to stop because there will not be enough staff or money to do these things.

I hope we can please consider that these people also learn what they live. Any more cuts to what services we already have will contribute to the vicious cycle of one ministry putting pressure on the other and the other, and so on.

I could go on and on, and I'm nervous already as it is, which I'm sure you can tell. Thank you for taking the time to listen to my presentation. I hope we can all contribute to making difficult issues better by listening to and learning from those who need and already use these services, not just listening to those who think they know how to make it better. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Donna, and I think you did a terrific job in presenting what you had to say to the committee here today. We do have some questions.

I. Chong: Thank you, Ms. Schommer, for your very personal story. I was encouraged to hear that you had a positive experience as a child in care.

One of the questions that we're asking in this prebudget document is about looking to British Columbians for ideas and suggestions to help the government in establishing priorities and in determining which programs or services should be restructured, expanded or terminated. I want to just clarify. We are looking for perhaps restructuring or even expanding or enhancing programs. Clearly, you believe the social services area needs that. So my question to you is: with your years of experience through the system, are there suggestions you have so that we can make the system work better?

In the Matthew Vaudreuil case, of which everyone is aware, he fell through the cracks because there were many, many layers of bureaucracy. We want to see our front-line workers, our social workers, have more opportunities to better serve their client base. I'm just wondering if you agree that the system now in place is functioning well. Is there an opportunity to restructure so that the dollars can get down to the front-line workers?

D. Schommer: Because I've been out of care for awhile, I haven't really been in touch with youth currently. When I was in care, I found that it was functioning for me as best it could. There are cracks in all associations, I'm sure, which are hard to overlook. With the Gove inquiry, I found it was beneficial that everybody participated — those who were using the services as well as those who were providing them. I think that's a good way to get suggestions: by asking youth in care, as well as social workers and community volunteers who are helping to provide services, and taking ideas from them.

I happened to be on the Internet and just came across the core services review on the government website. I briefly read that over. I didn't know that was on there, so maybe when there is a review of services it could be more publicized so that people could get a chance to review it and come up with ideas and suggestions. If I hadn't stumbled on to this, I would not have known, and therefore I might have missed the deadline of October 31 to get in a written submission.

J. Bray: Donna, let me just say that you are probably the best advocate for youth and for adults with mental and physical disabilities that the committee has heard so far in the last couple of weeks, so I congratulate you on that.

Given that you've got experience as a youth in care, but it also sounded like your mom has provided services for adults with mental and physical disabilities…. One of the things we've heard before — and I've worked with the Ministry of Human Resources for 13 years — was that parents, especially parents of adults with mental and physical disabilities, either had to do everything or, in essence, quasi-institutionalize their child — in other words, group home. There was no bridging between the two.

Recognizing the financial burden that parents have, one of the suggestions is that rather than spending all the money in institutional care, maybe caregivers who are also family members could be remunerated — in other words, be paid to provide that service — even though they might be mom and dad or brother or sister or aunt or uncle. Is that something you think might benefit the client but also help keep the family in the community together? Do you think that's a possible solution?

D. Schommer: I think it is for those families that are younger and don't have as much family themselves to be able to look after their son or daughter who has a high need. I don't think it would be a good idea to totally put the responsibility on them without having

other areas to go to for support. Some of the people that my mom encountered either didn't have any family — they didn't know who their birth parents were — or they were too old to look after them. So I think for some, yes, but for most they're already aged. Their families are gone, or they didn't ever know them, or they're too old to take on that responsibility.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We do have time for one more question. I'll go to Barry.

B. Penner: Yes, a question for Donna. I was interested in your comments about the Open Learning Agency, because in a previous lifetime I worked as a teaching assistant and tutor for that agency. You strike me as a very articulate, bright young person. Have you gone to Okanagan University College or pursued other education? I'm not sure if I heard what you're doing currently.

D. Schommer: Actually, when I was in care I was given the opportunity after graduating high school to go on to post-secondary education. I was able to do that because of the post-majority service that the ministry provided. At that time it was very good. I'm not sure what it is right now, but there were at times shifts in policies and such that were very confusing to me and my worker. It evidently hindered the goal that I wanted to reach, and I was forced to sort of restructure what I wanted to do and settle for taking courses that were more local to go into a job that I wasn't really wanting to go into. What I do now is some volunteering. I provide support to some of those people that my mom looked after when I was younger. That's all I can say for that.

B. Penner: I'd just encourage you not to ever say "never." Education is there for people throughout their lives. Certainly at the time I went through university I often saw much older people than yourself starting off at university for the very first time — a lot of opportunities.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Donna, I would like to thank you as well. Your presentation was done very well and very professionally. Certainly speaking from experience, it carries the weight that I know the committee has listened to. I thank you again for your presentation.

Moving along, our next presenter this morning is with the Vernon Women's Centre, and it is Deborah Critchley. Good morning.

D. Critchley: Good morning. The Vernon Women's Centre is a not-for-profit organization in Vernon that has been operating here for about 25 years. We receive a portion of our funding from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

It's not acceptable for tax cuts to be happening while social safety nets are being ripped away from the most vulnerable in our society. Our current government is committed to balancing the budget. We challenge the wisdom of that. A balanced budget at what cost? Women and children in this province have already been paying the price for profit margins and fiscal responsibility — specifically, poverty.

It's no surprise to any of you that the poverty gap is widening and that the majority of the poor in the province are women and their children. On average, low-income families would need an additional $9,395 just to get to the poverty line. In the year 2001, we all know the economic, social, personal and political impacts of poverty. Women and children will pay the price for the government's need to balance the budget. There is no prize for further oppressing or marginalizing the people in our province. Income assistance rates must be increased, not cut back. Your mandate is not to widen the poverty gap in this province or balance the budget on the backs of women and children. This government is engaging in poor-bashing which does nothing to deal with the real issues of poverty.

One recent example of this was when Minister Coell, on the Vaughn Palmer show, referred to B.C. as an entitlement-based province. He defines an entitlement as something you get but don't have to do anything to get it. We actually pay taxes so people can get income assistance when they need it. People in poverty in this province deserve better than that, and any changes to the income assistance rates cannot be permitted to be made from such an emotional place. The facts speak of a very different story in B.C. We have 131,000 children in B.C. living in poverty, and that's a very conservative estimation.

Pay equity legislation. Women do not work in one world and live in another. The lack of pay equity legislation in this province, and the way in which it impacts women's lives, is very real. Access to health services, housing, child care and support services are all connected in one way or another to income levels. The practice of legally permitting employers to discriminate against women in the workplace is damaging to women, communities and the economy. The repeal of the pay equity legislation on August 8 happened without consultation and demonstrated a blatant disregard for women's economic equality issues. Again, the tax cuts have happened at the expense of women in this province.

Child care. Affordable quality child care is a precondition for many parents to enter or remain in the labour market. The child care enhancement plan was developed because it's needed and now has been cancelled. There is a direct connection between access to child care and economic equality. The lack of child care spaces, prior to May 16, was a problem. Now we have a crisis in child care in this province. A parent's ability to pay often determines not only the type of child care but the availability of it. The working poor in this province, who are mostly women, have had the rug pulled out from under them. The already stretched resources in our communities are being further tasked, and the potential for children to be at risk because of this situation has increased. The budget must honestly reflect

Housing. B.C. still has much work to do in the area of housing. We have the highest rental costs in the country. Since 1994 the province has built 4,000 units of social housing. The need for housing continues to grow, and in the minibudget the 1 percent of budget spending set aside for housing was taken away. The momentum in the province has now been halted. In an Ipsos-Reid poll, 83 percent of British Columbians support government funding for social housing; 83 percent of British Columbians know that social housing is good for communities and for the economy. In this budget, social housing commitments must be restored. In 1949 Canada signed the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Like food, clothing and medical care, housing is a basic human right. It's this government's responsibility to ensure access to safe, affordable housing in this province.

Health. We have all heard, in the last number of weeks, that health care and education will remain untouched. A freeze is the same as a cut, and this translation has not been lost on most British Columbians.

The issue of health determinants, which may fall outside the realm of the ministries of Health, are indeed part of health funding in the real world. Health, or lack of it, does not happen in a vacuum. Poverty, access to child care, pay equity, protection of human rights, housing, economic equality, safety and having a sense of community are all very important health determinants. We know that people in poverty get sick more often, that children who are raised in unsafe housing experience more stress and stress-related illnesses, that battered women see their doctors more often and that hopelessness fuels depression. While you may not be directly cutting health, you are creating the environment for a very unhealthy population in this province.

Women already bear the burden of caring for elderly parents and adult children with disabilities in our lives. Any and all supports in place must be enhanced, not taken away.

Given the current economic climate, the revenue shortfalls and the rise in the joblessness rate, it's irresponsible to be implementing spending cuts. We need more money in the system, not less. In fact, this government has created a climate of workers whose consumer confidence has been destroyed. In the past there has been sharp criticism of the business investment climate in B.C., that it was too pro-labour and that there weren't enough tax incentives for investment. Now we have a climate of fear, cutbacks and downsizing. No one's interested in investing in the next Newfoundland of Canada. Even the Vancouver Board of Trade is telling you that the plan for a balanced budget, along with tax cuts, is moving too fast and won't work.

In closing, the many issues we have pointed out are critical to people's well-being and quality of life and in some cases are critical to survival. We will not accept taking steps backwards in providing for and caring for the most vulnerable people in our communities. Do the right thing. Repeal the balanced-budget legislation, cancel the tax cuts, stop the spending freeze and start investing in the province. There are no other options. We want a budget with balance, not a balanced budget. Thank you.

Just prior to going to questions, if I could ask the members of the audience with the placards or posters…. This is a committee meeting of the Legislature; this is not a meeting of the Liberal government. We are an all-party committee. Although Joy is unable to attend here today, she has been participating. It is inappropriate within our committee hearings to use placards or posters. I would ask, with all due respect, that you please put them away instead of waving them. I guess that talk did well for you guys. I would ask that with all due respect.

We will carry on, and I will look to members of committee if there are any questions.

I. Chong: Thank you, Ms. Critchley. You've made some comments and quoted the Vancouver Board of Trade. We did hear from them last week when we were in Vancouver, and I appreciate that. They did indicate that there should be a plan in the event that the economic circumstances were to change and that we should look at the balanced budget in a different light. Again, we are looking for those kinds of suggestions, and that will be included in our report.

What they did say, though — and I'm just wanting your reaction to this — is that regardless, we should proceed with the tax measures and plans of January 1, 2002, which is to again make a reduction in personal income taxes. There seems to be a bit of a contradiction. How would you respond to that or help us put a different light on what they've said there?

D. Critchley: You know, I can speak both from the women's centres perspective and my own personal view. The last round of tax cuts meant that I brought home $64 a month more to my family. I would gladly give you that $64 a month back if I knew that my 78-year-old neighbour who needs prescription drugs was going to get them at the least amount of cost to her or that the young mom who lives across the street is going to get day care when she needs it.

It's not a surprise to any of you that women's groups in this province are opposed to tax cuts, and it's not a surprise to any of you that the people who are benefiting the most from tax cuts are not working-class people and are absolutely not the poor people in this province. Unless you can implement a tax system that benefits the people who need it, we're opposed to what's happening now.

I. Chong: Just a supplementary. About three years ago, as an opposition member, I was on a tour of parts of the province specifically to meet with women's groups and women-serving agencies and senior-

serving agencies throughout the province. At that time there were some severe changes in our economy. We had local economies absolutely devastated because of not being able to have a vibrant and diverse economy.

The women-serving groups were saying that the stresses on them were that much greater because people were losing jobs. Families were being torn apart. There was just more abuse happening, and the agencies couldn't deal with it. That directly related to a poor economy not functioning well enough to provide jobs for people and for families, and most need them to support their families.

My question to you is: if you don't see tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy, what other measure do you see that we as a government could implement to stimulate the economy so that we don't have communities devastated and that we don't put all these stresses on the women-serving agencies?

D. Critchley: I think one of the direct things is pay equity legislation. I'm not convinced that the government currently makes the connection between individual people's levels of income and the impact that has on the economy. You're sitting in probably the minimum-wage capital of Canada right now. We in the Okanagan know what personal wage levels do or don't do for an economy.

I don't think there's an easy answer, and I'm not going to sit here and profess to have it. Helping the top three income brackets of our province isn't helping any of us who are working class and working with people in poverty. Cutting back income assistance rates is not a way to fuel any economy. It's absolutely a way to tax community services and organizations that are in communities assisting people in poverty. That's one of our huge concerns: as joblessness rates go up, then the need for our organization and many like us in our community is going to be very taxed. We're also concerned about not having the funding in our own organization to be able to do the work that needs to be happening now.

I. Chong: Thank you for your answers. We too are very concerned about the jobless rates. Thank you for your honesty.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Deborah, thank you for your presentation. If I could just follow through with one question again. The issue of the tax cuts. If we take those out of the picture for the moment, we're still facing a $3.8 billion deficit by 2004-05 if we don't change anything as far as delivery of service and what we do in government. Excluding the tax cuts, which I certainly understand you're opposed to — that's very clear — if we take those out of the picture, do you have any recommendations? One of your comments was to increase income assistance funding. We can't continue to dig a hole to the tune of $3.8 billion that we spend more every year than we bring in.

You can compare it to a household. If a household borrows money to purchase a car and a home, I think that's acceptable because very few people have the ability to pay cash. But very few households have the ability to continually borrow money to buy the groceries. That's the situation we're in, in British Columbia.

I'm just curious to see if you have any ideas, outside of the tax cuts, of what the government could look at. We do have to get things back in order. I think that's a very fair statement.

D. Critchley: The first thing that comes to mind is to repeal the balanced-budget legislation. I'm not sure — and many British Columbians aren't sure — why there is such a rush to get to a balanced budget if in fact what we're being told about the economy and the revenue shortfalls is true. It's not the time to be balancing the budget.

At the end of the day, we know that the budget is going to balanced off the poor in this province, off the working class in this province. There's going to be huge losses to communities and to families, because for some reason we need a balanced budget. We don't panic about deficits. I think there needs to be a priority about what's important. If the economy is so bad right now, why look at balancing the budget? It doesn't make any sense; it doesn't. People in this province are going to get poorer because of it.

B. Kerr: I'd like to make one comment again, following up on Blair's comment about the difficult decisions we have to make. If we allow health care as an example, which is at $10 billion right now, to go unfettered at 8 percent or 7 percent a year, that means in 20 years' time we'll be spending $40 billion in health care. There's no money in the world that's going to make us able to pay $40 billion in health care without cutting back on something else, or we'd be borrowing that. Then we're up to $100 billion in debt. I got involved, I guess, because of my grandchildren. I wanted to leave them a legacy. The legacy I want to leave them isn't $100 billion in debt in 20 years' time.

We've got these really difficult decisions to make, which we're just going to have to make. That's why we're looking for help on this issue. It's just a fact of life that we can't carry on the way we're carrying on. I guess my comment is that we can't measure inputs, because people are saying: "Well, you're cutting health care." Well, that's cutting the input in health care. We can correct things on the outputs. When people are facing tough decisions, particularly in large businesses where things have gone unfettered for a long period of time, they look at ways of doing things better. They look at ways of doing things more efficiently, and they provide the same output, the same goals and objectives with far less money. This is what we're going to be trying to do.

D. Critchley: Well, the first thing that comes to mind with those comments is that Gordon Campbell's office budget of $48,000 is more than we get from the Ministry of State for Women's Equality for an entire year. There's some fat to trim in government. I don't think government should be looking at community-

based services, health care or education to trim fat when they haven't trimmed their own.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Deborah, I would like to thank you for coming out this morning and making your presentation to the committee. We will carry on.

W. Klassen-Roth: Good morning. First and foremost, I am not a public speaker, but your proposed budget cuts have made me come out and speak against them to let you know the harm they will do to people like me. I am not a new resident of B.C. As a child, I followed my parents to this wonderful province. It was their new chosen home, and now it's mine. I come from a family that has always been involved in the community and its local organizations. We are proud to call B.C. our home.

My name is Wanda Klassen-Roth, and I am a single mother of three children. When my marital status changed in 1986, I was forced to go on social services. I had to provide for three small children aged three and under. Before my first intake visit I cried for three days because I was put in a moral and personal dilemma of going on welfare, something that never in my wildest dreams I thought I would have to do. But my children were my priority, not my pride.

I was able to use government-funded programs to enrich my children's lives. I used the day care system for my sanity and the opportunity to look for work. I was fortunate to find a job that paid a living wage, and it did take me a few years to become self-sufficient. The point is that I became self-sufficient. For the last 15 years I have served the public in the retail sector.

Today I am speaking to you about the possibility of a loss of jobs, drastic cutbacks in government and the domino effect it will have in small business, communities and our families. I love my job, my co-workers and the public. I'm very happy where I work, and I'm asking you not to hurt the people who need and like to work.

When you look at social services, you're not looking at the ones who are trying to better themselves; you're looking at the worst-case scenario. I am a success story, and there are lots of us. Why have you forgotten? I haven't. I remember those years. You should be looking at the good the system has done, but all you see is the drain on finances and wasted money. Removing opportunities for improvement, independence and self-confidence, you, the government, become the problem.

I don't think you realize how hard people work to become self-sufficient. I don't hear people boasting: "Hey, I'm on welfare." I know I didn't tell anyone, not even my children. It's not really fun to juggle work, finances, family and day care, and yet we all do it. We do it for ourselves and our children, not for you. If you're not giving positive reinforcement to the less fortunate who have already been beaten down, you will be part of the problem, not the solution.

Give positively and not negatively. We need to give opportunity, not restraint. We are not a drain on the system; the system is letting many people down. How can we work if there are no jobs? How do you expect single-income and even double-income families to survive on minimum wage? How are we to provide food and shelter, let alone heat our homes? Who will look after the children — day care or the courts?

I was lucky enough to have been given the tools to move out of the system, and had these not been available I would not have survived. Having financial systems to top up my income, day care supplemented and medical until I was able to support my own family enabled me to move forward. There are many of us who may not be totally self-sufficient, but there are working welfare recipients. Do not punish the ones who are trying — encourage, not discourage.

We are now looking at unemployment because of budget cutbacks. They will cause a domino effect. You are threatening my livelihood and my children's future. Somehow you think the proposed cutbacks are going to improve our economic future. We the people are looking forward to poverty and demoralization. You are putting despair into all of us who are only trying to survive. You and your cutbacks — how will they help us? What was your promise to us? What are your intentions?

I strongly recommend that you look at your advisers. I believe you are listening to underqualified people with little or no common sense. I don't think a person with a silver spoon in their mouth is going to understand someone who has a plastic one. If you've never walked a mile in those shoes, how are you to know they are too tight? Quit picking on the weak and less fortunate, and listen to the workers and the families. I am one voice, but I am a representative of the people who have worked hard to achieve a supporting income for our families. We cannot do it alone. Do not take away our hopes, our dreams and our future. These cutbacks will only hurt us, not help us.

Yes, circumstances have changed in our world, but you're using that as an excuse to suppress the working people of B.C. Surely even you realize that if people are not working, you have fewer tax dollars. It will force B.C. into a huge recession. If we are not working, we cannot spend our hard-earned dollars in our community. It will be EI or social services for many of us. Where is the win-win theory?

We as parents teach our children responsibility and respect. We instil morals and good work ethics. We teach and are taught to problem-solve and not to run away. Yet in our government, they are showing us that they are unable to problem-solve. Their solution is to cut back, remove the problem, sell off and privatize. You need to show the people of British Columbia respect and good ethics. You were elected by the people, and now it appears that you are trying to destroy the people in our province. You say you are cutting back in all ministries by whatever percentage pops into your minds and not doing cutbacks in education or health care. You did freeze them for three years.

This government needs to be looking ahead and thinking of the future — of revitalization, inflation, aging population and repopulation. Why is it that you

are not looking forward? Is it your inability to think in a positive and forward motion? You gave tax breaks to the people. Thank you. We needed that extra $20, and I'm sure the deputy ministers really needed a 30 percent raise of $50,000 and an incentive of another $20,000. You did not do your homework. It is your error. Now you're expecting the people of B.C. to pay for your blunder. It is my advice that if there is any problem, you should be looking at generating, not reducing, employment.

If cutbacks are required, start at the top of the pile, not at the bottom. Quit protecting your buddies and quit harassing us. Let us work and give our children an education and a bright future. We live in British Columbia, not Alberta; we're Canadian, not American. If this government's interests are in the province of British Columbia and its people, this committee will advise the government to rethink the cuts they are planning to do over the next three years.

J. Bray: Wanda, thank you very much for giving us a microcosm of things by sharing your personal experience, because I know that's not easy. I actually worked in the Ministry of Human Resources by its various names in the last 13 years, often as a front-line financial assistance worker. I was very pleased to hear you mention some of the supports that helped leverage your own personal fortitude to move forward.

I'm wondering if you could actually speak to some of the things that helped you go forward once you came on to income assistance, some of the actual programs that you took. I think that's very helpful for people to hear.

W. Klassen-Roth: In reality, I found that I was forced onto social services. They were very secretive about the things I was entitled to. I didn't realize that I was allowed to have day care, to have respite for my children and to go out and look for work. Before going on social services, I was actually on maternity leave. I never did get my job back, because I was a single mother with three kids, and my employer felt that, in a nutshell, I wouldn't be a good risk. I was not allowed an educational opportunity because I was a so-called skilled worker. I could run a cash machine.

In actual fact, the only thing that enabled me to go forward was that they did provide day care after I found out that I was entitled, I did get my income supplemented when I got back to work, and I did have medical for a year.

J. Bray: One of the things that was most helpful, once you found out what you were entitled to under at that time NEED, was the ability to retain some of your earnings before it was removed. In other words, the earnings exemption that you were allowed to keep helped you make the bridge and cover some of the costs of going to work. Is that correct?

W. Klassen-Roth: Yes and no. I was receiving child support. At that time I was only allowed to keep $100. The other X amount of dollars went back to Social Services, and I got to keep 25 percent of my earned income, which was very little at that time.

H. Bloy: I wanted to thank you for your presentation, but I wanted to compliment you. You're part of the majority of the people that go on social assistance. The majority of them go off after a short period of time with assistance from government.

H. Bloy: It's really a comment. The majority of people that go on social assistance come off of social assistance within six months to a year.

W. Klassen-Roth: If they are coming off in six months to a year, it's their own personal fortitude that makes them go forward. The reality is that they have gone to a minimum-wage job, and it's very, very difficult to make ends meet.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions. Just possibly one. You asked a question, somewhat, of what our intentions are when we're looking at the balance as to what takes place. If I could sum that up, it's to try and create a balance economically in this province so we can sustain programs for people most in need, as you've touched on, and to try and increase them and make them grow as our ability as a government grows. It's certainly not the intent to take these wide-sweeping cuts that some people seem to think are going to take place so that we can't rebuild. The reality is that if we continue to dig the hole we're digging at the rate we're digging it, with our deficit financing, we won't be able to afford any programs to help any of the people of British Columbia. I don't think that's the direction any of us want to head.

The question was asked: what are our intentions? To build a healthy economy so that we can sustain good-quality services to deliver to the people of British Columbia. I can tell you that's the goal of all of the colleagues I work with on both parties in the Legislature. We will do that.

W. Klassen-Roth: I really admire that we want to do a balanced budget, but I don't think we should be doing a balanced budget at the expense of other people. Even in our own personal lives, we know that when we have X amount of dollars and Peter needs most of it, you go out there slowly and make the improvements and wise decisions. I just don't feel that this government is making decisions in the best interest of the people.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay. I'll just close on this. Had we not experienced eight of the last ten years in the deficit-financing situation that we've experienced, that may work. The reality is that we had a decade that many areas around British Columbia and North America were thriving and growing to help sustain the poor times. Unfortunately, we didn't achieve that in British Columbia, and now we're faced, I would say, with a double problem.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Certainly. I always keep taking the last one — go ahead.

W. Klassen-Roth: Thank you. It's just I feel that, watching politics and whenever a new government comes in, it's always the fault of the last guy. I just don't think that's right.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, I agree with you. There is some reality, and if you open the books and take politics and put it to the side and just look at it as a business and a business that isn't in it to make money but to provide services.…

B. Lekstrom (Chair): If you'd hear me out, you would understand that. We're not in a position that we make money; that's the bottom line. Our bottom line in government is delivered in services, and we will do the best we can. You're right. May 16 is over; we're here to look forward. As tough as it is, we have to approach it with a positive attitude if we think we can ever change it around. A negative attitude is going to breed negative results.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Our next presenter this morning is Shawna Klassen-Roth. Good morning.

S. Klassen-Roth: Good morning. First of all, I'd like to say that I am 18. I am, quite frankly, unprepared this morning. I made the decision to speak here just last week, and between working two part-time jobs and my family and personal obligations, I honestly haven't had time to prepare this speech. I didn't withdraw my name because I felt it was important that I spoke to you this morning.

As I mentioned, I am 18. I recently graduated. I may not know as much as any of you on the panel, but I do feel that I know something — enough to have to stay. I did graduate in June. I plan on continuing my post-secondary education in January. I did take the first semester off to save for it. The institution I chose to attend is $750 a semester. I'm not complaining, because I do agree with the tuition freeze. I do believe it should be lower, but $750 is going to have to do for now. I would like to continue my education by getting my degree in international relations, focusing on political science and sociology, so maybe one day I'll be up there instead of you guys.

Even with both jobs being minimum-wage, I am finding it very difficult to make ends meet. Even living with my parents, I still have bills to pay. One of my employers happens to be one that relies on minimum-wage employees, so with this increase the prices of our product will be going up. While I think that minimum wage should be increased even more, I do believe that large corporations relying on people like me should not be so incredibly greedy by increasing their profit.

How am I supposed to be able to afford a post-secondary education? It takes five courses a semester to complete a degree in four years. With the tuition freeze, which I mentioned I'm not complaining about, at my institution of choice it will be $750 a semester. If tuition does not change over the next four years, that's still $6,000. Adding in books and reading material, there's another $6,000-plus. Also, if I'm not going to be 22 and living at home, I will have to live on my own. If I choose to live in residence at the university, there's another $10,000.

If I could work every day, every moment I had, at the most wage an employer would pay me, I still would not be able to afford my college education. I am not one to rely on my parents; I'm quite self-sufficient and do not think it's fair that my mother should have to pay for everything of mine. If I will not be able to afford the $25,000 for my education, what makes you think that anyone else will be able to? That means that more individuals without a university education are going to need income assistance, costing the government more money in the end. Let's not forget that in addition to a four-year degree, many need an extra four years of a specialty education such as law school.

I believe that the minimum wage in British Columbia should be increased to keep the majority of the citizens above the poverty line, a goal which every province has set for itself. I also feel that the cost of education should be dramatically less. More incentives from the government, such as a passport to education and more bursaries, would ideally help all individuals continue. It is not my mother's responsibility to pay for everything in my life. I know firsthand that she, too, cannot afford to put me through college as well as my two younger brothers.

I would love to have a well-paying job when I'm older, but I may not be able to afford to have that job. I may be one voice, but I represent thousands of individuals who, like me, fear for their future and pray that they will be able to make a good life for themselves and their families.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Shawna, for the work that you've put in. I think you did an excellent job in your presentation. I will look to members of the committee.

B. Penner: Thank you for your presentation. You reminded me a lot of myself when I was your age. To

me it doesn't seem that long ago, but it was a while ago. I finished high school right in the middle of the big recession — and for B.C. it was a depression — in the early 1980s. It was not a very bright time. Like you, I chose to attend my local college while living at home, and I worked several part-time jobs. That was a very wise move, in hindsight.

As you know, the tuition at your local college is about half of what it would be at other B.C. universities, and I think you get excellent value for your dollar. I know it's a struggle to come up with the tuition, but it's also true that that represents about 15 percent of the actual cost of providing that education, so it really is a tremendous bargain. I encourage you to persevere. I was reluctant to do it, but if need be, take on student loans, because in the long run it really is a good investment; it will pay off in the long run.

I. Chong: Thank you, Shawna, for your presentation. At the risk of sharing too many personal stories up here, I do know what you're going through. I started out of high school and got my degree in accountancy, working all day and studying all night. I know the difficulty. At the time I was fortunate enough to get a job and, after obtaining a degree, to get a better-paying job, because there were jobs around.

You said in your presentation that you want a well-paid job, and we all want that for you too. But if we have an economy that doesn't attract businesses, whether small, large or medium-sized, to create those jobs for you here in British Columbia — let's fast-forward four years from now when you finish your degree and we don't have those jobs here — would you move to another province, or would you still stay at a lower-paying job here in British Columbia? I know it's a hard choice, but these are the things we have to look at five and ten years ahead. Are you seeing that we need to get jobs and opportunities here, or are you prepared to move to find one elsewhere?

S. Klassen-Roth: I honestly would love to stay in British Columbia. I think that we have the best of both worlds here, and I don't ever want to leave. If it did come to the dramatic decision where I was forced to leave, I'm afraid I'd have to. If I was happy in a lower-paying job where I knew there was room for promotion, I would stay there. I'm not one to just leap into certain jobs because they pay more. As I mentioned, I have two jobs right now. I've been offered more, but I like where I work.

I. Chong: In speaking with your friends in your age group, are they finding that they're in the same situation where they're not able to find higher-paying jobs, even if they're working part-time? Are they really quite limited here and depressed in this area right now?

S. Klassen-Roth: Most of my friends are actually attending university this semester, so they honestly do not have time for a job, which is making it difficult for them to afford to stay in university. I know that many colleges and universities offer a practicum or a co-op where they can go away for six months, but that prolongs their education; then they have to pay more for it. They are all finding it difficult, I think. Some of my friends rely on their parents, which I don't agree with, but if it has to be done, it has to be done.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Shawna, I would like to thank you for your presentation this morning. It's a difficult job to put across your information, or anybody's, in ten minutes in the time frame allotted. I think you've done a very effective job. Thank you.

Our next presenter this morning, Mr. Blair Peden, is with the B.C. Probation Officers Association. Good morning.

B. Peden: Good morning. My name is Blair Peden. I'm a probation officer with 26 years of service in B.C. I speak to you today on behalf of our members who are youth and adult probation officers, parole officers, bail supervisors and family justice counsellors within your provincial civil service.

In ten minutes it might be difficult to explain the age-old question of what the difference between a probation officer and a parole officer is , let alone expound on the effective work we do in fulfilling our organizational goal of protecting communities and assisting families, but I'll try. I'll have to speak quickly.

Probation services have a unique role within our justice system and social service delivery systems and almost 60 years of distinguished and sometimes entertaining history to reflect on. The association I represent is a volunteer organization devoted almost solely to engendering a sense of pride and family among the almost 500 dedicated people who perform these duties throughout B.C.

Probation officers — and I'll use the term generically to describe all the people who perform the different functions — supervise adults and youths on probation, adults on parole who have been released from provincial correctional institutions and the very important pretrial service of bail supervision. Family justice counsellors perform the often stressful and always delicate service of mediating parental custody in access disputes — mediated settlements that have the focus of the best interests of the children so often caught in the middle.

Probation officers spend a significant percentage of time writing pre-sentence reports and other reports for the court to assist judges in their decision-making in a variety of different applications, such as sentencings, bail hearings, custody reviews and others. No other function, perhaps, is more important and sacrosanct than this responsibility to report fully, accurately and objectively the social circumstances of accused persons and the feelings of their victims to the judiciary who on a daily basis must make informed decisions that can significantly impact lives. There can be no shortcuts of time or credentials necessary to present and prepare

these reports. Judges in B.C. have come to expect excellence in the quality of the reports they receive. As a profession, we are determined to maintain that highest-possible standard.

Supervision of offenders consumes the majority of a probation officer's time. At any given time, B.C.'s probation officers are supervising 1,000 sex offenders, 4,000 people convicted of domestic assaults, many more generic violent offenders, gang members, drug dealers, addicts and increasing numbers of mentally disordered offenders who require a unique blend of medical/correctional monitoring within both the community and our jails.

Highly specialized and cost-effective programs, policies and procedures have been developed to address the challenges presented by these different offending populations. All that's needed is enough probation officers to properly implement them, and currently that's a problem. According to government's own statistics, between 1990 and 1999 probation caseloads increased by 84 percent, while bail supervision caseloads registered a 225 percent increase with only a corresponding 24 percent overall increase in staffing resources.

To accommodate that overload, a succession of creative initiatives have been implemented in an effort to maintain our viability and credibility. Five years ago a politically directed reorganization of our service delivery systems amplified the existing stress. These factors necessitated the extraction of every last drop of efficiency to be wrung out to the point that I seriously doubt you could find a leaner, more efficient operation anywhere in the public or private sector. In speaking about the above measures taken, the SG's own website concludes: "These responses, however, are not sustainable, and new strategies are required."

These are the duties in part of a probation officer, and now you are also aware of the severe workload issues that impact those responsibilities. But what does probation service delivery look like in real life? I have a little story.

A few years ago, a few days before Christmas, I was called to the front counter late in the day to be faced with three guys with goofy grins in their mid-twenties wanting to see me. It probably took longer than it should have to recognize three of Vernon's most infamous young offenders of ten years past. These three, who had created their own distinct property crime wave spanning several years, were back in town visiting their respective families over the holidays and decided to get together. After a short while at the pub, they decided that their reunion could not be complete without the probation officer who had made their lives so miserable — and vice versa — for so long. So they trudged up the hill to make the invitation in person. Feeling both honoured and obliged, I joined them — upon completion of my 7.78-hour workday, I should add. I thoroughly enjoyed the time catching up, reminiscing and philosophically debating all aspects of crime and punishment.

The bottom line: all three were employed and living crime-free lives. I checked that out on CPIC before I joined them. One had a young family, and the other two appeared to be living reasonably responsible lives. We had been through a lot together in those three or four years, and we had a definite bond. I remember leaving that reunion feeling exhilarated, sensing that these troubled and difficult teens had developed into responsible and enjoyable young men and feeling proud that I had contributed to that metamorphosis.

My point in sharing this story is to illustrate that these relationships are hard-fought and labour-intensive. Winning the hearts, minds and respect of offenders is every probation officer's goal. It's often a long process, and it's never easy. Having respect for the law and the rights of others cannot be ordered or demanded. It must be mentored, role-modeled and made attractive, and at the end it must be earned. Court orders provide guidelines for expected conduct. It is the probation officer's job to make offenders want to behave that way.

Probation officers deal with a large variety of offenders. These boys would fit my yahoo category — hell-bent for leather, somewhat self-destructive and always a challenge to keep up with. Then there are the ventilators. They're usually mad at everybody and have an opinion on everything as long as it's unreasonable and unrealistic. As MLAs you probably know the type. They are demanding and exhausting but are usually manageable time bombs as long as they are treated with dignity, respect and firm but fair play. When supervising a ventilator, one hopes that with time and osmosis, some common sense and problem-solving skills will wear off. Lots of time is needed with these folks. As long as they have somebody in authority they view as an ally, their dangerousness is significantly diluted.

The cons and the predators are a different breed. Often engaging, usually smart and always manipulative, their stories and perceptions need to be challenged and double-checked on a regular basis. This is particularly so if they are sex and/or violent offenders. It's very dangerous to take shortcuts with these guys.

The mentally disordered offender ranges from sad, distant and spooky to wild, histrionic and palpably vibrating. Their unique needs and high potential for unpredictability make them very high maintenance.

While young offenders come in all of the above categories and many more, one universally tested tenet of social sciences, whatever you do or don't do with kids, is to get to them early. The supervision of difficult young offenders demands the extraction of every trick, social and professional skill in one's reserve. Most of all, they require patience and consistent discipline, no matter how time-consuming that may be.

Adult or youth, it's sad to say there's another category of offenders who are in conflict with the law primarily because they're simply not too bright. They may be nice and may be well meaning, but at the end of the day they make poor choices. By their very nature, they require extra time to register life's necessary lessons.

Lastly, the scariest probationers of all are teen girls, way too complex and disturbing a topic to discuss here.

The not-so-subliminal message that I've tried to implant across these offender groups is that to practise probation effectively, you must be willing and, more to the point, able to expend at least an adequate amount of time on each. The one certainty in probation is that there is no certainty. Chaos usually rules. The easygoing, minimum-risk offender who is doing well today can blow the top off the high-risk scale tomorrow when he has a personal crisis, stops taking his meds and starts to drink excessively.

Probation officers are constantly forced to change priorities and reassign energy in the direction of clients who are posing the greatest risk to our community's safety at any given time. On some days that may require the dropping of everything else as you work with police or mental health staff, social workers or family, schools or Crown counsel — everybody — while you try to rein in this potential threat.

Simply stated, probation supervision done properly is a very hands-on, labour-intensive exercise. Shortcuts can be counterproductive and at times dangerous. In the coming months our provincial government will have to make some very difficult fiscal decisions. Like every other service, government will look to probation services in both the Solicitor General's ministry and the Ministry of Children and Family Development to realize savings by cutting fat and improving efficiency.

We respectfully suggest that years of inadequate funding of our apparently invisible service has already forced that accomplishment upon us. It is critically important here to note that correctional services, both institutional and community, are one of the very few services in government that have absolutely no control of their intake. We have no discretion as to who we will or won't incarcerate or supervise on bail or probation. Those decisions are made by others in the justice system. Unless the government is prepared to impose pro rata cuts on the police that arrest offenders, the Crown counsel that prosecute them and the judges who sentence them, cuts to probation services in isolation will create a bottleneck in our small end of the justice system funnel and a disproportionate ballooning of already excessive caseloads.

This will inevitably and directly result in the reduction of our report writing and supervision capacity and overall ability to protect the safety of the communities in which we serve. With minimum-risk caseloads already in the 200 range in many areas, the only room to further dilute service will be in the medium- and high-risk categories.

To exacerbate matters significantly, such reductions could hasten a priority shift within individual probation officers from pride of service to simple emotional and physical survival. An active sense of dedication can make up for a lot of organizational and budgetary shortcomings. The sad fact is that many probation officers are hovering around that demarcation line as it is. As a professional association, that worries us greatly.

In conclusion, may we respectfully recommend that great care, thought and planning go into decisions that would impact our services. The age-old adages of penny-wise and pound foolish and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure may sound corny but may be appropriate benchmarks from which to approach these very difficult decisions. When it comes to community safety, pounds of cure entail much more than simple dollars and cents.

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

J. Bray: Thank you, Blair. An excellent presentation. Having worked as a financial assistance worker, I recognize the issue of…. We couldn't control who had been applying, so you sort of have to deal with what you get.

The first question is: do you connect to community resources when you're providing referrals for your clients?

B. Peden: Yes. As you're aware, the network that you develop in each of your communities can be very extensive. The time-saving that can be realized from having an effective social service network is immense. It's easier in smaller communities than bigger, obviously.

J. Bray: That's what I suspected. We were in Williams Lake earlier, a community of about 10,000 that has some very significant socioeconomic issues to deal with and therefore has a significant burden on some of their social services. I asked a question of a director of a child care development centre how many contracts he had with government. He had about six or seven to provide the various services, each with about 0.4 of an FTE — in other words, almost a half-time person — just to administer the contract. I asked how many other agencies have similar-sized contracts with government, and he said about ten. In a community of 10,000 there were 66 contracts to provide social services.

He did agree that perhaps, without reducing the amount of money going to services, there might be a different way to organize the contracting side of it to provide more efficiencies that didn't actually impact the services to clients and maybe even reduce some of the duplications. Do you see here in the valley a similar opportunity — not to cut the services going to clients but to find a better way of delivering the funds from government to the social services agencies so that (a) they're not spending time contracting and filling out reports, and (b) the social service agencies better ensure that they're not overlapping services or competing to get services?

J. Bray: No. It might be contracts to the Kelowna child care resource centre, to the drug and alcohol counselling services, to native friendship centres — these types of contracts. They're primarily non-profit.

B. Peden: The non-profit and the non-mandated civil service positions. I'm not the best person to ask that question. I know that's an incredibly complex issue. I know the government went through that exercise a couple of years ago and then allowed for a moratorium on it. There was discussion about putting a bunch of services together and cutting out some smaller non-profits and asking that they form into bigger ones to reduce that administration percentage. That's a very difficult question. It created a lot of problems. I don't envy you the job of having to sort that one out.

I know that we deal with some very small contractors, and it's very cost-efficient. I know that we deal with some large non-profits, and they are too. It's a very difficult issue. I haven't put my mind to it, to be honest with you.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Blair. I have some experience in the youth court system. I was a prosecutor in youth court. That was a great story you had about these individuals who turned around. Unfortunately, there is the other side. I remember a few brothers that would constantly be in trouble. One of them, as soon as he turned legal age — in the sense of adult — went and shot another kid, and he was constantly in youth court.

My experience from youth court was that I'd constantly see the same faces over and over again. At the same time my job, being the prosecutor in the youth court, was also…. I would say 50 percent of the time I was doing social work and liaising with the probation officer. I don't know if keeping your funding where it is or increasing it is going to do much. From my experience, it seems like these youth were just constantly in trouble.

B. Peden: Yes. I think it's age old that a small percentage of people take up a rather significant percentage of court time — the recidivist factor. I think we've made some impact on that.

One of the interesting facts is that for the last ten years in Canada, youth crime has actually been steadily decreasing. Every year there's been a steady decrease in the total amount of youth crime, although there's been a fairly significant increase in violent crime. Of course, now we're facing a new federal piece of legislation, the Criminal Youth Justice Act, which I think will be brought in, in April of 2002. That'll throw our whole system into turmoil again, as we try to adapt to that. I know that management is spending a lot of time on that. Of course, the hope is that the new act will improve things. I know that in the new act, there's going to be a fairly significant emphasis on diversion out of the court process. That's going to involve more community supervision and responsibilities.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We do have time for one more question. I will go to Mr. Penner, and then we will have to move on.

B. Penner: That last comment of yours was a nice segue to what I was going to ask you about. Like Tony, I've spent some time in youth court dealing with clients, and I also often saw the "frequent flyers" coming through the system. In Chilliwack there's now a community restorative justice program. I believe you may have one in this community. Are you in a position to comment on the efficacy of these diversion programs? Do you, as a probation office, get involved when young people are routed through these community restorative justice programs, or do they simply bypass your office altogether and thereby reduce your caseload?

B. Peden: They can do either. There are some police-based diversion programs that go straight to such a town. Some go through Crown counsel; some involve probation officers. It depends. There are various hybrids of the same program. We don't have one in Vernon, interestingly enough. We have a very small one in Lumby. It was the decision of that community and the RCMP detachment that they wanted us to be involved in that as part of a prescreening process and to assist them. So they vary throughout the province.

We have traditionally done that service over the years. It's called a pretrial inquiry, where Crown refers the matters to us. We speak with the kids, their parents and related others, and report back to Crown as to the appropriateness of whether this youth should be diverted or sent to court. I think that's still part of that process. If it's viewed that they're a good candidate for diversion, then they can sometimes go to these community panels and dispose of the cases there.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Blair, I would like to thank you for making your presentation to our committee this morning. As I've indicated to other presenters, all of the presentations we receive, as well as the written submissions, will be given due consideration in the development of our report. You've touched on something very important and certainly exercised some common sense, from what I read into your comments, in proceeding with what we have to do budget-wise. I thank you for your comments.

D. Zawaduk: Good morning. My name is Dolly Zawaduk. Before I begin, I'd like to let you know that I've never spoken in front of a committee such as this before. I'm very nervous. I'm shaking inside, actually. I apologize in advance for my stammering and quivering voice.

To begin, I would like to tell you a little bit about my community and myself. I live in Kelowna, which is approximately 50 kilometres south of Vernon. Our community has experienced a wave of bad news lately. The new jail scheduled to be built has been cancelled. A new bridge crossing to the west side is again on hold

or perhaps permanently cancelled. And on October 12 an announcement was made that one of the largest employers in our city, Western Star Trucks, is closing and moving to the U.S.A.

Approximately 800 jobs will be lost, and many others will be indirectly affected, including some small businesses — and perhaps some small business closures. On September 27 our Premier, Gordon Campbell, announced plans to cut the public service by up to 50 percent. I'm not sure of the amount of direct government employees in Kelowna and area, but I do know that I am one of them.

I and my family are very concerned about our future. Since the day of the announcement that my job may be in jeopardy, we have adjusted our financial plans. We're no longer considering the purchase of a new vehicle, where only in the previous week we'd decided it was time to sign on the dotted line and make the purchase. Our spending for Christmas will definitely be less than half of what it was at this time last year, and other purchases we were considering have now gone down the drain.

My community will be affected by our change in finances too. I'm a regular shopper at many businesses in Kelowna. We've always joked about owning shares in such places as London Drugs, IGA and Safeway. These are only some of the places we regularly spend our money. I remind you that I am only one of hundreds of government employees in the Kelowna area who have re-evaluated our financial plans. The businesses where we shop are starting to feel the effects of less spending and will continue to do so as layoffs become reality. The morale at our work sites has never been lower than it is now. We're afraid for our futures and our families.

Why has our government decided to make these cuts now? The core review process is needed but not at the expense of those who provide necessary services to British Columbians. Our country and our province, along with the rest of the world, are experiencing very negative, unsure economic forecasts. Have our elected officials in British Columbia not taken into consideration what these threats of 50 percent layoffs in the public service are going to do to our local economies? I use Kelowna as an example, because that's where I live. What about other smaller communities around the province? These layoffs could devastate their economies too.

My fellow workers are all concerned for their families. Some are single-income earners and can't survive without a regular paycheque coming in, and welfare is not an option. Communities in the Okanagan already have high unemployment. Jobs are few and far between. For every position advertised, hundreds of applications are received. I don't want to be part of those statistics.

I have a job as a government employee. I work in an area that's been under constant reorganization for the past five or more years. Throughout that time there's been a freeze on new hiring, vacancies have not been filled and budgets have been continuously cut. I've been very loyal to my employer, working with less and serving the public with pride and a commitment to service quality. Why is this government threatening us with 50 percent layoffs? Is my job at risk, or is it my neighbour's job? What are my prospects of finding other work after I'm laid off? Although skilled, I'm in an age group where prospects can be limited. It is said there is no age discrimination when applying for work, but I truly question that.

In closing, I want to ask this committee to re-evaluate the decision to cut the public service. Allow us front-line workers, members of the public service, to offer suggestions on where savings can be made so people such as myself can continue to work and spend in our communities. Public service layoffs aren't necessary. There are other options that should be considered first. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak before this committee.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Dolly. I do have a couple of members of the committee. I will begin with Ms. Chong.

I. Chong: Thank you, Dolly. I appreciate your presentation because it does give us some positives in there. I want to thank you for indicating that you agree that the core review is needed. I want to also highlight that the core review is designed to find out where programs should be restructured and where better service can be provided for the taxpayers and the public.

Your comments about the 50 percent layoffs — I just wanted to be clear on that. I think there's been a misconception that there's a 50 percent layoff in positions. That's not what has been said. The direction has been to find up to 50 percent savings in the ministry over the course of three years. Just as an example, the Ministry of Finance found 100 percent savings in a program that was costing taxpayers money, which is the issuing of B.C. bonds. By cutting that program, it didn't cut 100 percent of the ministry, as an example.

What I wanted to share with you is that the options you've given here for consideration are all under consideration, just to give you some reassurance. They will be looking at things like attrition and early retirement options. Those are all definitely on the table and are being looked at. To leave you with a positive, because I feel you've been positive in your presentation, there is also a waste-buster website. That will be ongoing as opposed to this committee, which just meets prebudget. That waste-buster website is an opportunity for those working as front-line workers to share suggestions with us as to how they may see that savings can be found and to better spend the money with our front-line workers so our patients have the care they need and our students get the education they need as well. If you have those ideas and you're not able to present them now, I encourage you to take advantage of that website. We are really looking for solutions to find out how we can make our government serve the people of this province better.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you very much for your presentation. I just acknowledge that you've said core review is not such a bad thing, just that we have to move kind of cautiously with it. You also mention in there that public service layoffs aren't the only way to achieve this. You said there are other options. I wonder: have you any suggestions that you could give to us now? I don't know what department you're with, but within your department are there places where we could make cuts to something that we require you guys to do and that really doesn't fulfil a good function in government?

D. Zawaduk: Well, in the particular area of government where I work, we have been under reorganization. We are cut to the bone. I don't know where else we can cut, but at the bottom of my presentation I have a few things that I think should be considered for option. Perhaps over the next five years things can really be looked at with a fine-tooth comb. I think our management should be listening to people at the front line — right down to the amount of paper we use in our offices, simple things like that. Rather than having to lose my job, I would like to be able to offer some suggestions, and I know my co-workers would like to as well.

L. Mayencourt: I hope the management of your local office will encourage you to do that and let you participate in that whole process. Can you tell me: technologically, do you have good computers? Do you have a good information-processing system? Are we doing everything on paper? Are you connected to the Web? Those sorts of things….

D. Zawaduk: Yes, we are connected to the Web. No, we don't have the proper equipment to use every day. As for our computers, I have a better one at home, which is sad to say. Yes, our area of government has offered e-commerce to our clients, and it has been fairly successful. Many other things…. My mind has gone blank; I'm sorry. We are working in a positive way every day to try and streamline things, to utilize the technological things that we have available in our office. I can foresee the future being even more so. But when our jobs are threatened, it just hits the morale of the people in the workplace so badly that all they can see is the negative, and there are actually a lot of positives.

L. Mayencourt: I'm really sympathetic to what that means, for someone to say that that's there. As Ida has said, we're really trying very hard to find a way to do that without hurting a lot of people and still deliver the much-needed services in the community.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Dolly, I know there are more questions, but our time schedule is tight. You've done a terrific job on your presentation. I would like to thank you for coming out. The key message that you touched on is one that I concur with wholeheartedly. We have to listen to our front-line workers. They're the people on the ground delivering the service, and we can learn a great deal from them. Thank you for your presentation.

Moving along, our next presenter this morning is with the Family Resource Centre: Michele Blais.

M. Blais: Welcome to Vernon. The area I would like to discuss is the role of the provincial government's contracted services within the community services voluntary sector, the high dollar-value received and the strength of our services within smaller communities.

The Family Resource Centre provides counselling, therapy and support services to families and individuals. We are a registered non-profit society with funding through contracts with the Ministry of Health Services, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and Health Canada. In addition, we receive funding through the United Way, B.C. Gaming, foundations, community groups and private donations from clients and others, as well as fundraising.

Our services are provided by professional staff with the assistance of trained volunteers. We have 20 full- and part-time staff, 35 lay counsellors and 35 other volunteers. We are part of the community services voluntary sector of the province.

There has been discussion of cuts of up to 50 percent to the ministries that fund programs such as ours. How they will affect the contracted services, we are left to speculate. Recent information has suggested that the government would like to reduce the budget by 11.3 percent over the next three years. Recently the private sector has had to take the brunt of the poor economic conditions, and now it is the public sector's turn.

Community services, through non-profit contractors, receive funding from the public sector, and we provide support to the private sector. For example, our agency provides free counselling and support services to the employees and families of the private sector. Our services can in many ways assist employees to stay at work. We do so by providing counselling to individuals and families who may be experiencing stress. This stress, if unchecked, can result in increased absenteeism at work, less productivity, conflict problems between staff and increased health costs as the stress works its way through the body and appears through migraines, ulcers and other health problems.

Some individuals will turn to alcohol, drugs and gambling as methods of escaping. Others turn their stress into acts of violence and can turn on their spouses and children. These actions can result in increased medical needs, Attorney General services and family breakup. All of these outcomes have a greater cost than the initial service we can provide.

Depression is affecting more and more of our population, including youth and adults. Studies have shown that a combination of talk therapy, exercise and, for some, medication is the most successful for treating clinical depression. For those who are depressed from life experiences, talk therapy, exercise and learning new coping skills are the most effective. We provide

the talk therapy and the teaching of new coping skills. Increasingly, physicians are referring their patients for counselling. Counselling can assist individuals in dealing with depression, gaining control and learning new life skills, communication skills and conflict resolution skills. These can enhance their self-esteem so that they can better cope with life.

More and more community services work closely with health services. In our agency we get referrals for counselling services and addiction programs for drugs and alcohol and, more recently, gambling.

Having a role within our society is very important to individuals' feelings of self-worth and identity. For the majority, this comes through employment or their family status, such as a mom at home. Unemployment is very hard on people. Employment provides financial benefits, social connections and a feeling of importance, control and a contribution to society. Sometimes the trauma in an individual's life makes it literally impossible to work. However, it is possible for many to be able to regain the skills and coping mechanisms they need so that they can return to work or school. Therapy has been a successful mechanism for that transition to the workplace.

Our services support those individuals in the community who do not have employee assistance plans or the financial resources to seek private counselling. As well, we provide specialized services such as counselling to children who have been sexually abused. The majority of our adult clients are employed, and all of our clients represent a cross-section of our community. In B.C. 80 percent of all businesses are small businesses employing less than four people. Small businesses often do not have employee benefit plans, so agencies like ours support those businesses and their employees.

Counselling is a service that more and more people are recognizing as valuable to the whole health of individuals. Counselling is recommended when marriages are in trouble, for parenting, self-esteem, employment transition, anger management, grief and loss, drug and alcohol treatment, problem gambling and trauma. It is recommended because it works.

When a company is looking at establishing themselves in a new community, they will assess what the community has to offer their employees in the form of services such as health, recreation, education, and social and community support. In addition, many see themselves as corporate citizens who are connected to the community and look for ways to give back as a corporation or volunteers. We are partners working together to support our citizens and make our communities great.

In these difficult times on the local, provincial and international scale, it is a challenging task to know what the right route to take is. Recent tax cuts and cancelling of revenue-generating programs and now the huge government spending cuts are going to affect our province in a powerful way. Is it possible to operate on the principle of "do no harm"? These economic decisions have the greatest impact on the poor, the working poor and the middle class, who are the majority of this province.

It seems that we want to compete with the other provinces of Canada and that there's a race on. British Columbia has always been a leader in this country. At this time when we need leadership, it is important that we be focusing on our own strengths and not comparing ourselves to Alberta and Ontario, who have their own unique features and economic strengths such as the oil and gas and manufacturing industries.

In this sector there have been no increases to the contract since 1992 other than the recent wage increases through the Munroe agreement. The Family Resource Centre for the North Okanagan is a non-union organization by choice. We did benefit from the wage increases delivered through CSSEA. It was our understanding that there was an agreement of wage increases to the non-union sector at the same time union agencies received increases. Only union agencies are receiving wage increases. This government, like the former, is favouring union agencies and continues in the practice of a two-tiered model of providing contracting dollars.

Two and a half years ago we had reductions of 1.5 percent for our provincial contracts. Non-profit agencies tend to already operate on very lean budgets. The province gets top-dollar value in this sector because of a combination of reasons including wage and benefits, operating costs and use of volunteers.

If I can use the Family Resource Centre as a model, we have large wait-lists for our services, in some cases up to six months. We provide counselling in the areas of family counselling; grief and loss; conflict; sexual abuse counselling for children and men and women survivors; drug and alcohol; problem gambling; family support; a therapeutic program for children; a healthy families project; PRIME, a pre-marriage program; and a community lay counselling program as well as a lending library.

We are constantly assessing our wait-lists to see how we can provide services with the greatest impact quickly and efficiently. Our community lay counselling program supports our professional staff. Thus, instead of having two therapists facilitating groups, which in themselves are powerful healing forces and financially prudent as more people receive service at one time, we have one therapist and at least one CLC. We use groups where possible and one-to-one counselling. The lay counsellors also provide one-to-one counselling for clients through us and support to other local agencies.

Volunteers can be a great complement to professional services. However, they come at a cost. Volunteers need training, supervision, recognition and support. In our agency, our volunteer services require 150 hours of training over eight months. Once they begin their volunteer service, they are matched with clients, groups and agencies. They also require ongoing support, training and supervision. This works best when professional staff oversees the volunteers so they have consistency and the professional support of trained therapists and counsellors.

Our program is currently funded by MCFD, United Way and gaming. However, our funding from the province is under jeopardy in the core review, because it is a volunteer program providing more than child protection services. It is a contradiction that the province wants us to use volunteers, be cost efficient and practise economies of scale, and then does not continue with the financial support that enables us to do that. Your contribution has been 50 percent of the cost of this program, or about $30,000. The dollar value is fantastic as we provide over 2,000 hours of client service to the community. The government as a partner also makes it easier to get funding from other sources such as the United Way, foundations or B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming.

Societies such as ours often have the flexibility to be quick to respond to community need. We are able to do more prevention and early intervention work because of the lack of formal structure with agencies. Our size and makeup allow us to be more creative in our service delivery. Many studies have shown that early intervention with addictions, family conflict, trauma and abuse have a greater chance for success than if people wait and wait before they seek help. It is very important for children who have been sexually abused to get help as soon as possible after they disclose. If the children live with the shame and guilt of abuse for years, it has a greater impact in all areas of their lives than if they can get help as children. Sexual abuse robs children of their childhood. Counselling can assist them in getting back on track.

A dollar spent now in prevention can save seven dollars spent years later in treatment. Historically, it has been difficult to get politicians to fund prevention programs, because they may not get to see the results during their term of office.

Another aspect of leaner costs is that the contracted service does not receive the wages and benefits that the public sector does. We do work for less, so reducing our budgets even more in this area is unreasonable. Our agency staff are at master's levels and receive a lower hourly rate than many working within the public sector with less demanding jobs and a lower level of responsibility. However, these are choices we make, yet we do not need to be constantly reminded and taken advantage of because of our commitment to do the valuable work that we do.

The other area is capital and operating cost. Visit non-profit agencies, and you will see used furniture that is of a plucked mix, most of it coming from government auctions when offices are remodelled every few years. Our buildings are often built by donations from the community. Agencies do not tend to be administratively top-heavy. Again, using our agency as an example, we have a clear division of duties to keep management — myself — doing administration and a direct staff doing client work and clerical support. This way, we believe we get the best value for our dollars. Amalgamating community services under one large agency in communities will not necessarily mean cost savings or improved value of service. Large does not necessarily mean cheaper or better. Going with the least expensive runs the risk of low standards, untrained staff and lower safety measures.

In smaller communities such as Vernon, the agencies have close working relationships. We meet regularly through development meetings, case consultation and administrative networks. Many agencies consult regularly with each other to discuss program development and current issues. There is collaborating and cooperation with training, service delivery, shared space and community development. We see each other more and tend to stay either with our agency or within the field so that there is an ability to develop solid working relationships. These connections enable us to be effective and supportive to the needs of our community members. The agencies also fundraise for needed services and equipment that our contracts do not fund. These include raising dollars from the community for computers, library books or to build walls when we renovate. We also seek funding for services that are not funded appropriately to community need. An example of this from our agency is the counselling for women who have been sexually abused. The money through the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is used for one-to-one counselling, and the United Way funds the cost of providing the groups.

There has been discussion that communities will have to do more. We are doing this work already and working cooperatively within our sector to provide the services our citizens need. We do not meet the community need either. However, we are working diligently to do our best.

It will be important that blanket decisions are not made that assume that the coast operates the same as the interior or the north. There are different approaches in the rural areas, the interior and the coast. These communities need to be considered on their own merit.

Contracted services are to proceed with accrediting their agencies with a set of standards and performance measures. The ideas ensure that there is good value for the money, and this is important. Combining performance measures with drastic cuts to budgets, though, is setting us up for failure.

In times of economic uncertainty and layoffs, there is an increase in demand for our services. This is when there is a trend towards more stress, violence and abuse. These are confusing times for many. We've progressed in many ways to be a much more compassionate, caring society. We are better parents, more accepting of diversity, better educated and trained. In addition, we are also more accepting of violence, are more abusive and have more children and families living in poverty than ever before.

We cannot lose our trust to be a better society or give up on those that need us most because they are poor and unable to make a financial contribution to the provincial coffers. For a long time people have discussed government as if they are not a part of it — a them-and-us mentality. We are the government — we the people. It is time for us to get back to believing in

I would like to comment that my personal experience has always been positive with the public sector employees I've been in contact with through the various ministries. Our agency and staff have experienced firsthand the tremendous dedication, commitment and quality service from the workers to other professionals and the clients they serve.

An example of distrust and the lack of respect is the name of "ministry of the oppressed" or the "ministry of lost causes" that the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has from both within and out of government service. This grouping does not generate a feeling of confidence. There is a lack of trust that undermines the government.

The people need to trust in the government and the services they provide. Help us to believe that we, as the people, are more important than the dollars we provide. We were citizens before we became the bottom line. We will still be citizens after this round of cuts and decisions. We need to trust that the government will look after us if we need the support and services.

I would encourage the province to look outside of Victoria and Vancouver when it comes to finding solutions for contracting services within the community service sector. Many of us within smaller communities have had to work for less for years and have developed a strong foundation of service delivery in cooperation with the community.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Michele, for your presentation. That is a big job to get all that in, in 15 minutes, and you did a terrific job.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I will look to members of the committee if there are any.

J. Bray: Thank you very much, Ms. Blais, for the great detail in your submission. This is a question I've asked before, because I do see a differentiation between the funds that go to administer…. For a year before coming here, I was in the ministry involved in skills development and skills training programs in the capital regional district in Victoria. We had dozens of contracts that all had a component to just make the agency fill out a bunch of forms to report the inputs to government. In other words, how many people sat in this program? How many seats were filled? There was nothing about measuring any outputs, by the way, which is a whole other issue.

Do you see the opportunity that if you have established yourself as an umbrella agency within the community that has already been delivering effective service — rather than having to apply for so many different contracts to come up with your annual budget — and you were actually able to receive a core amount of funding and then were asked to measure the outputs, that might be a way to ensure that not only do you have the funds but you actually have more funds for client service and can demonstrate the value in a better way that ensures that you have long-term funding from government and also United Way and the corporate sector? Do you think there is an opportunity to look to core funding and outcome measurements, rather than individual funding and input measures?

M. Blais: I do. I think that's sort of the children's aid model in Ontario. I think that's what you're talking about. That could work because we see what the community need is, based on what people are letting us know, and then to be able to handle that responsibility for the funding could be really effective.

B. Penner: I'd like to say that all of us share your view that the volunteer agencies that are providing community services are extremely important. I know there is a considerable level of concern amongst government MLAs about the Munroe agreement. That was an agreement signed by the previous government, which, as you pointed out, guarantees higher wages for those employees that are unionized, putting the non-unionized employees at a disadvantage. Our government's commitment has been that we want to respect contracts that have been signed, but as you pointed out, that particular agreement seems to work, in particular, injustice on the volunteer agencies in the province. That is something that we're alive to and we're looking at.

M. Blais: I have a question. If you're going to follow through with the agreement that you made with the unionized…. There was an agreement with CSSEA around continuing to offer the non-union sector wage increases over the next two years as well, and from discussions with CSSEA you're not following through with that. Why is it all right to follow through with the union agreement and not the agreement with the non-union, because we're non-union?

B. Penner: I'm not intimately familiar with that other agreement you just mentioned, but that is a good question. We can probably take that up with the minister responsible for that ministry.

M. Blais: It might just help if people have to get laid off for a couple of years.

B. Penner: My other comment was about the remark you made that we shouldn't be comparing ourselves to Alberta and Ontario. Unfortunately, even if we don't, other people do, particularly the bond-rating agencies. It's been pointed out that our provincial debt has more than doubled in the past ten years, which really limits our own ability to make decisions independently of what other people think of us. As Tommy Douglas used to say in Saskatchewan, he didn't want to go into debt because then he became beholden to the banks. Unfortunately, the previous government has really put us behind the eight ball in that regard, and it's not just Alberta and Ontario, of course. It's Washington

State, Oregon, Idaho and Montana where other businesses can go and invest in great jobs. They don't feel that British Columbia has a positive, long-term future. Those are all the factors that we're struggling with.

M. Blais: Having lived in all three provinces, I've always looked at B.C. as having its own unique set of strengths and abilities. It seems at this time, though, that we're looking too much toward the others. I've always felt that we were a leader in our own rights and that we have our own strengths. I think we need to be reminded of that.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Michele, thank you very much. You mentioned something that I think is very important. For far too long, I think, we've gone to the polls — and this goes for any government, whether it's federal, provincial or municipal — and cast our votes, and then we stepped back for four years and weren't involved. You've hit a very key component. We have to be. The government is for the people.

The people of British Columbia have instilled their confidence in 79 people across this province to go and provide good government, and it takes a good ability of us listening to the people to be able to do that. So I thank you for putting that forward. Have a great day.

We're going to move on to our 11:15 a.m. presenter, who is David Doran with the North Okanagan Labour Council. Good morning, David.

D. Doran: Thank you for this opportunity to address the panel. I am the president of the North Okanagan Labour Council and the affiliates. We represent about 10,000 members in this area. I'm also president of the Vernon Carpenters Union, and I should mention that both of these positions are voluntary.

The provincial government has been moving at an extremely fast pace to complete its list of commitments spelled out in the new-era agenda. In the short period of time from June to August this year, we've seen in excess of 40,000 jobs lost in British Columbia. Recent announcements underscore the government's intent to have their ministries cut a further 40 percent from their budgets, which could put as many as 8,000 to 10,000 people out of work. The provincial deficit for the year ending March 31, 2002, is now expected to hit $1.9 billion. Although the Liberals haven't quite said that it's the fault of September 11, Finance minister Gary Collins noticed at a recent press conference that there is too much uncertainty these days for their previous budget projections to hold. I will remind the panel that during the election campaign, we were told that tax cuts would lead to a booming economy, no matter what.

The "no matter what" has happened, and the only sign many British Columbians see is a black hole into which their lives have fallen. As noted previously, Collins and now-Premier Gordon Campbell didn't just insist that economic stimuli resulting from tax cuts will, without exception, mean more money for the government immediately….

This has not happened. The debt is close to $2 billion and climbing. Even economists have said that while there would be some return from cutting income taxes, it would take up to ten years for all of it to come back, and even that isn't guaranteed.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. warned that there is little if any empirical support for the claim that tax cuts are free. The favourite example of how tax cuts work has been Ontario, where annual revenue from personal income taxes has grown by $3.3 billion since 1996 while the income tax rate was cut by 20 percentage points, according to A New Era. When experts noted that there were other causes for revenue growth, notably a booming U.S. export market for Ontario goods, the Premier dismissed these explanations and said that external factors were irrelevant. I take that to mean that September 11 and the lumber tariffs are also irrelevant. He also said there won't be a shortfall. The evidence from across the country and around the world is that when you cut income tax, revenues increase. The growing deficit is mostly the result of these same Liberal tax cuts. The shortfall adds new urgency to the rush to slash the public service.

In summary, Premier Campbell has said he's going to downsize government to eliminate a projected $6 billion budget deficit by freezing health and education. I was pleased to be informed this morning that there was also $200 million added to the Health budget. Unfortunately, good news is never made known to anybody, so I thank you for that. Education has been brought up already. The Vancouver Sun reported on September 14, 2001: "Most of the deficit is the result of the Liberals' tax cuts." I am confused at the moment, and maybe the panel can explain it. We talk about a $3.8 billion deficit that was inherited, I assume. Does that mean that the projection of another $2 billion, in round figures, by March 31 means that we'll be $5.8 billion in debt?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): The $3.8 billion is without the tax cuts being factored in there. It is just that if we were to continue delivering service as the government has over the last number of years, we would face a deficit by 2004-05 of $3.8 billion.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Which is accrued up to that and then forevermore. So the tax cuts could be put on top of that if they don't generate any further revenue.

I think it's safe to say that the tax cuts have not revived the B.C. economy. With a loss in the jobs, retail sales are down. We already heard a speaker say that the uncertainty of whether we were going to be working or not is going to keep people's hands in their pockets, which is also going to contribute to any type of recession. The governments on both sides of the border are already talking recession. It's very difficult for any economy to pick up while we talk that way.

This morning I think Minister Abbott announced that there's a freeze on B.C. housing, so seniors housing is no longer going to be built or won't be built for some time. Low-income housing won't be done. The construction trade, which I am a great part of, will not be employed. All these things don't service the economy very well, anyway.

There's no doubt that our economy is fragile. In this area, we're greatly a tourist-based industry, and without tourists — American tourists or any kind of tourists — we're going to take some hits. I think Ms. Critchley mentioned earlier that the Okanagan is perhaps the minimum-wage capital of British Columbia. I'll use our MLA's name here if I may, Tom, who'll understand when I say that we live in an area where we pay a sunshine tax. It's a beautiful place to live, but our wages are kept abysmally low because people want to live here. It gets pretty tough.

If we do see public sector spending cuts, there's no doubt that it's not going to help the economy at all. I don't know which ministries are going to be cut. I really have no answers. The pink slips and program cuts in B.C. 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 business in the community.

What does downsizing government mean? It probably means the closure of some forestry offices in rural communities and a reduction in jail guards. We all know the RCMP budget is going to be $10 million short. Home care workers, child protection workers, environmental protection — they could all be on the line.

Some of the alternatives. Defer the tax cut for the top 20 percent of British Columbians, those earning over $150,000. That would save $269 million in 2002. Defer January 1 business tax cuts and save $633 million in 2002 alone. That's $900 million — not quite a billion, but it's almost there. Postpone the 2005 date to balance the budget. We'll be in deficit until then, and that's the government's own figures. From the fiscal review panel, the taxpayer-supported debt as a portion of our GDP and, on a per-capita basis, is relatively low. It's second only to Alberta.

What I'd like to recommend is that we take some time before we just jump into doing some of these things. I think every British Columbian knows that we have some financial problems. We could convene a conference of B.C.'s economic, labour and community leaders and maybe develop a strategy to protect jobs, the economy and public services in the face of these new challenges. As I said before, no one has the perfect answer. No one's going to be the enemy, because we all need each other, and that includes our government and labour together.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): David, I thank you for your presentation this morning. I will look to members of the committee.

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): David, my father was a strong union guy. In fact, he was shop steward with the IWA and was probably responsible for more than one wildcat strike. He used to have a common complaint, and that was that the union leaders weren't always polling their membership. Have you polled your membership regarding the comments that you've made here today?

D. Doran: Yes, I have polled some of them, and that has encouraged it. Which members do you mean — the carpenter members or the…?

T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Have you polled all your membership or just some?

D. Doran: That's an impossible thing to do, as it is for this panel to poll every member of British Columbia. We talk about these things, certainly, and we get direction from our membership. I would dispel the myth that union bosses dictate the terms. They do not. I will point out that the reason the Liberal government has such a majority is because many of our members voted for you. We do not control their vote.

L. Mayencourt: David, you mentioned deferring the tax cuts that are scheduled for 2002, which are roughly about $900 million, which helps if we chose to take that tack, but it still doesn't address the problem of $2.8 billion this year and perhaps even more next year. I think your suggestion of getting a thing with the labour movement and the business community and perhaps the social service community organizations together is a really constructive idea. Do you have any other ideas of how we can get better bang for our buck in terms of providing government services?

D. Doran: Again, I guess it's a consultation process. I would like to say, speaking for labour, that we're not unreasonable people, as anybody else is not unreasonable. We have a problem. Let's deal with it, but we have to deal with it together. As regards solutions, no, I don't have a solution.

I. Chong: Thank you, David. I'm sorry; I missed a few minutes of your opening remarks. I just quickly

read through it. My question to you is regarding the issue of tax cuts. We've heard from other presenters about business tax cuts and things. Maybe you can address this. My concern is that if we don't create a vibrant economy where businesses — whether small, medium or large — come here and invest and feel that they're going to be able to generate a profit, regardless of how we feel about what size that profit is, they're going to take their business elsewhere, and we're going to lose those job opportunities. As you represent a large group of people who work for business, would you not say that they would prefer us moving ahead to get an investment and business climate in British Columbia to ensure that those businesses stay here and don't move?

I don't know if you're aware, but in the last couple of years 469 British Columbia charters left to go to Alberta, which meant they packed up their whole corporate business and moved to Alberta. We lost many, many jobs. We're trying to get those back, believe me, and get jobs for the people you represent. Do you not think that moving ahead on those kinds of initiatives would help us?

D. Doran: I don't know what you mean by moving ahead. In the Okanagan, we have no real industry. We have some aviation things which were doing quite well, and I'm not quite sure where it is. We have provided — and again, I refer to the sunshine tax — a low wage. Even our union plants are not at the $20- or $30-an-hour stuff. Many of our plants that we represent are barely above minimum wage. I'm talking about $8.60 an hour.

The economic climate is there. If people wish to invest in this province, they will. When it comes to business taxes, I'm not familiar with them at all or what their problems are. All I have to concern myself with at the moment is that we do have those businesses in the province and that we have people working. I have great concern for the 40,000 people who are laid off right now. What are they going to do?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): David, I see no further questions at this time. I would like to thank you for coming out this morning and making your presentation. Certainly, the key issue here is that we have to do this together. As you indicated, every British Columbian realizes that the way we have been doing business over the last number of years has to change if we're truly going to have a sustainable society. The only way to do that is by working together, so I thank you for your presentation.

Our next presenter this morning is with the Council of Canadians, Kelowna chapter — Ms. Alice Brown. Good morning, Alice.

A. Brown: I'm actually with the Vernon chapter of the Council of Canadians. The Vernon and the Kelowna chapters are going together on this.

I want to talk about deregulation on B.C. Hydro today. In the mid-1950s, W.A.C. Bennett couldn't get the private interests of B.C. Electric to cooperate for the common good of British Columbians, so he expropriated B.C. Electric and formed B.C. Hydro.

To this day, publicly owned B.C. Hydro still provides prosperity to the B.C. government and communities. To this day, publicly owned B.C. Hydro still does and will provide electricity for the benefit of B.C. citizens, private and corporate businesses. The most reasonable electricity rates in North America, price stability, wealth creation and money circulation through the multiplier effect have big dividends.

A. Brown: In 1995 the Alberta government followed the example of Margaret Thatcher in Britain and began to deregulate Alberta's electricity industry. Defying critics, the government promised Albertans lowered electricity prices and more stable suppliers once electricity was subjected to the competitive pressure of the marketplace.

Six years later this study seeks to evaluate these claims and draw out lessons for British Columbia, another province moving down the deregulatory path. Have Albertans benefited from deregulation? What would be the likely results if British Columbia followed in its neighbour's footsteps?

Although the distinctive features of the electricity industries in each province must be taken into account, the Alberta case makes some powerful suggestions about the potential outcome of electricity deregulation in British Columbia. Millions of dollars are at stake, either in the form of potential savings or additional costs for consumers and potential profits for the corporate producers of electricity.

The first lesson taken from this research is that Albertans have not experienced lower prices or a more stable supply of electricity under a deregulated electricity regime. In contrast, Albertans are paying a premium price for their deregulated electricity. Between June and October of 2000, the price of electricity rose from 5 cents to 25 cents per kilowatt-hour. Without the $2.3 billion rebate program for households and

businesses, which is more than what Alberta spends on education, Albertans would have seen their residential electric rate go up by 500 percent in the same time period.

Price hikes are especially harmful for small businesses, residential and low-income customers. Large industrial interests are more likely to be aggressively solicited by power producers and to secure deals on the rising cost of electricity. To counter vocal criticism of rising electricity prices, the Alberta government claimed that rising electricity prices simply reflected the higher price of natural gas and the corresponding higher cost of producing electricity.

To evaluate these claims, we calculated the cost of producing power in Alberta, compared it to the selling price and found that higher production costs cannot explain skyrocketing electricity prices. Taking into account increases in natural gas prices, the average cost of generating electricity should not have gone over 6.38 cents per kilowatt-hour in December 2000, yet the average pool price was 18.99 cents — almost three times the estimated cost. Contrary to the government's optimistic claims about competition and market efficiency, deregulation has introduced a complex system of buying and selling that can allow collusion between sellers and enable producers to sell electricity at prices well above the cost of production.

What would happen if B.C. had followed the same route as Alberta? Although we cannot rewrite history, we can cull some important lessons from the Alberta experience. If British Columbians had paid the same price for electricity as Albertans, their electricity bills would have been substantially higher — almost $4 billion higher. In 2000, B.C. Hydro produced 46,442 gigawatts per hour, which they sold for $2.3 billion. If this power had been sold at the average pool price in Alberta, the total revenue would have been $6.1 billion. This would have meant an additional cost to power consumers of approximately $3.8 billion. This figure would rise to $4.1 billion if non–B.C. Hydro power — the other 7.74 percent not produced by B.C. Hydro — was factored into this calculation.

Even with the price caps on residential electricity rates, Albertans are paying 1.9 times as much as their counterparts in B.C. If these subsidies were removed and the power pool price was used, Albertans would pay 2.3 times as much as British Columbians. If the March 2001 Alberta power pool price was in effect in Vancouver today, a home that was using 750 kilowatts of electricity would see its electric bill jump from $46.73 per month to $106.08 per month, or from $560 per year to $1,273.

In addition, this study cautions that deregulated electrical industry is open to challenges under the North American Free Trade Agreement. If Canadian electric companies were to try and supply local customers at preferential rates, they would be open to a challenge under NAFTA. Enforcing the public good for a critical resource like electricity was relatively straightforward when the industry was a regulated monopoly. Under a deregulated system, it is far more challenging to ensure that the needs of electricity consumers for low prices and stable supplies are met. This was excerpted from The British Columbia Advantage – Lessons from Alberta on the De-regulation of the Electricity Industry.

I have relatives in Alberta — not real relatives, just in-laws. I phoned them this morning and asked them for some information on the Alberta advantage. They gave me the number of Epcor. I wanted to ask them myself how much of a difference it has made. The price per kilowatt-hour in Alberta before deregulation was 6.8 cents. Today it's 11 cents, because the government stepped back in and regulated it — put a cap on it — not because corporations would put a cap on it themselves.

The other real disadvantage is that right now in Alberta you can sign up for a three- or five-year contract and get your rates dropped back down to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. But if you move, if your job takes you to Manitoba or something, you're still going to pay Epcor for those three years — even if you've only paid a couple of months into your contract — plus a $150 penalty. Here in B.C. today we pay 5.7 cents per kilowatt-hour. We don't have to sign a contract. We don't have to commit to a time period to get this kind of rate.

During the leaders' debate, Gordon Campbell promised not to deregulate B.C. Hydro. I would like a commitment from this government that if they intend to deregulate Hydro, they will take the matter to referendum to see if they have a mandate to do this.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I know there are some questions going to come for you, Alice, if that's acceptable.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Ms. Brown, for the presentation. I think it's obvious that it was drafted from a concern that government may be contemplating deregulation of Hydro.

K. Krueger: I'd like to state the commitment that the Premier made while he was in opposition, throughout the election campaign and since his successful election as Premier in the election of this government. That is that B.C. Hydro is not for sale. Its lines aren't for sale, its dams aren't for sale, and its distribution system is not for sale.

In fact, the previous government moved some distance toward deregulation by removing the authority from the B.C. Utilities Commission to oversee B.C. Hydro rates. We are committed to giving that authority back, which is re-regulation. That's our position.

I share your admiration for what W.A.C. Bennett did and the legacy of wealth that he left British Columbians. It's a tremendous advantage that we have economically. The market is huge throughout North America, as you know, and B.C. Liberals have no intention of relinquishing that asset that British Columbians treasure.

A. Brown: Yet this morning when I was talking to a person here at B.C. Hydro, I was told that bids are going out for call centres to privatize parts.

K. Krueger: There are certainly portions of government operations that can probably be done better by the private sector, and we have an obligation to explore cost-saving measures. If B.C. Hydro is generating those profits for British Columbians because of the resource itself, don't you agree that it makes sense that its expenditures should be the most reasonable possible expenditures? Maybe I'll just add that we do want to encourage independent power producers to add power to the grid. I want to be upfront about that as well.

A. Brown: I do not agree that taking some well-paid union jobs and putting them into low-paid call centres is any real advantage to you or me on our hydro bill. In this consumer-oriented energy province, we need people to be able to consume stuff. If you're going to consume stuff, you have to make a decent wage. If you don't make a decent wage…. You can't work for minimum wage. I can't see any advantage to privatizing small bits and pieces or taking 200, 300 or 400 decent jobs and making them a little less really reflecting in my hydro rates.

K. Krueger: Well, we do have a commitment across the activities of government — Crown corporations and government itself — to have a really hard look at how we're spending the public's money. Whether we would be establishing those programs and processes in government if they weren't already in place…if it is a necessary function, determining whether it can be done more efficiently in the private sector…. But that in no way equates to deregulation of Hydro. I wanted to reassure you on that.

A. Brown: Okay. So this government will commit to not proceeding with deregulation without first going to a referendum?

A. Brown: But if you did sort of discuss it somewhere down the road — say, in a week or so — would you perhaps commit to going to a referendum before you proceed with any type of deregulation?

K. Krueger: I can't make commitments for the government, especially on something that isn't even under discussion now.

I wanted to comment and get your views on independent power production. There is a company called McDonald Ranch and Lumber in the southeast corner of the province which runs its ranch, a sawmill and two planer mills and provides power to all of its neighbours. It still sells power into the B.C. Hydro grid by virtue of a small dam way up the mountainside behind the ranch house, which creates about a three-foot-deep pool of water. It drives a generating station and puts the same water back into the same creek at the base of the mountain so the same fish can use the same volumes, and so on. It produces that kind of wealth for the family and for the province, really.

There are hundreds of potential sites for that type of power generation around the province, if it can be done in a way that's entirely environmentally friendly. What do you think of that as a way to add to British Columbia's wealth?

A. Brown: I don't have a problem with that as long as the regulations are in there and the government is controlling the price. Right now I'm under the impression that B.C. Hydro is cost plus 15 percent. That's all they're allowed to charge. In Alberta it went from cost to 500 percent, because there's nobody there to say how much greed they can have. If West Kootenay Power or other small people want to put into our grid at our regulated price, more power to them as long as the environment doesn't suffer. I don't think that has any bearing on what I'm talking about.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right, Alice. Just in closing, the issue you brought up is near and dear to all British Columbians — B.C. Hydro. The commitment we can give you here today, as Mr. Krueger has stated, is that the issue of privatization of Hydro is not on the table, although we still hear much speculation that it is. The production facilities, the transmission facilities, the distribution facilities, all of which were talked about in the election and leading up to it, are not on the table for privatization.

A. Brown: But this government is not prepared to commit to a referendum before they would to bring it on the table, if economic circumstances were to get worse and they were to decide that they needed the huge cash cow that would happen if they could sell Hydro. They won't commit to a referendum on whether or not the people, you and me, would support this type of….

B. Lekstrom (Chair): As far as being able to answer that, we're a committee of the Legislature, not a committee of government per se. Your question would be better directed at a Liberal caucus, for instance. We are non-partisan on this committee.

A. Brown: You could bring this back to the Liberal caucus on my behalf, then.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Certainly, and I can tell you where I stand. I don't stand in support of privatizing the issues we just talked about. That's where I come from.

The other issue is that we are going to restore an independent B.C. Utilities Commission to re-regulate B.C. Hydro, which I think will go a long way towards addressing some of the concerns you've put forward.

A. Brown: Just one last thing in closing. During the election campaign I did hear from Tom Christensen and other people that this would mean lower rates. What do you base that kind of thing on? I can't see that rates actually are going to go down below our 5.7 cents. I would like to see that, but I don't know what you'd base that kind of thing on — that you could say that if we re-regulated, it would be even less.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): That I couldn't say. That would be dictating to the independence of a utilities commission to deal with this. They would have to take the facts. Similarly, I've sat through a number of presentations on the natural gas issues with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

If I could answer the questions, I would certainly answer them, but some are not appropriate for the Finance committee of the Legislature to deal with. Thank you, Alice.

Our next presenter today is with the Southern Interior Construction Association, Ms. Debra Hicks. Good morning, Debra.

D. Hicks: I guess it's still morning. You're about ready for lunch, I'm sure.

D. Hicks: My name is Debra Hicks. I'm the president, so I'm the chief staff person for the Southern Interior Construction Association. We appreciate the opportunity to participate in the government of British Columbia's prebudget consultation. I wish to take a brief moment to introduce our association to you, for those who don't know. Kevin and Ida, I think, do know.

The Southern Interior Construction Association is a non-profit association that covers the area east of Hope to the Alberta border and south of Williams Lake to the U.S. border. We represent 450 firms, both union and non-union, who operate as general and trade-specific contractors, manufacturers, suppliers and associate firms. These member firms have an involvement primarily in the industrial, commercial and institutional — the ICI — sectors of industry and are responsible for putting in place and servicing the infrastructure required by all segments of society.

To be more specific, 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 multifamily housing. Our association is funded entirely from membership dues and fees-for-services.

As with all private businesses today, we must continually strive to provide value for these contractors to want to voluntarily pay their dues. SICA is one of the four regional associations representing the British Columbia Construction Association. Together we represent provincewide viewpoints.

As I'm sure you've heard from my associates at the Northern British Columbia Construction Association and the Vancouver Regional Construction Association, provincially we have focused our attention with the Liberal government on five key areas that in our view are imperative to get B.C. going. These are private investment, quality, efficiency, infrastructure and Workers Compensation Board. I'm confident that my colleagues have done a great job discussing all these points in detail, which are supported by our association as well.

I've been thinking about what I should come here and say today. Ideally that would be: we need to spend more money in construction. However, the issue before us as a province is not about what additional resources can go to the sector I represent, or any sector of the economy for that matter, but rather how we are going to use our existing dollars more efficiently. To that end, I believe my job today is to give you some specific areas in our sector that should be explored for more efficient and cost-effective measures.

Consultation with the industry. In the southern interior we have been very proactive in a couple of initiatives to save money. In our monthly meetings with school districts, health regions, regional districts and municipalities throughout our region we're discussing issues and trends in the industry. These meetings are clear evidence that communication of potential areas of concern is the best way to avoid the costs of having them occur. One of the areas of concern during these meetings has been the frequency of projects coming in over budget. To avoid this costly process, one area of consideration is utilizing a group of contractors to review the preliminary drawings and discuss cost-saving measures prior to the project going out to tender. Using the collaborative expertise of the designers, owner and contractors in the early stages may bring efficiency to the project.

Use of association expertise for production and dissemination. Another area we've been discussing with some success is using the resources of the associations for one a one-stop shopping location. For years, 75 years in some cases, construction associations have been in the business of disseminating project information in the form of advertising the project and providing plans and specifications for projects out to tender. In SICA we've even taken the process one step forward and are offering owners and consultants the use of efficiencies of our operation and the bulk-buying power for plan copying to have all the services handled by the association. What this means is that after the design is complete, the original documents are given to us, and we manage the printing, dissemination to con-

tractors, refundable deposits, tracking of plan-holders, distribution of addenda and return of drawings.

We have proven that there are cost savings in this process. We're using the provincial electronic Planroom Server, owned by CITinc, for a big part of this job and see efficiency for government to contract out to this group to provide their necessary services. No longer would MOTH need to have its own electronic system. In fact, we could handle the entire communication and production dissemination for MOTH. There would be no need to maintain separate databases of contractors for small works contracts by government agencies such as BCBC and the health regions. Each area in government does not need to reinvent the wheel and create its own system. Use the private sector to consolidate all requirements under one roof. In many aspects we do the job now, but the different ministries or Crown corporations also duplicate the process. This is not very efficient.

Another costly process for the government is the advertising of projects out to tender. The association advertises all projects it receives notification about for free to its 1,600 members provincewide and has a listing available on the Internet of all projects out to tender. In fact, this system is nationwide through our poolnet electronic system. Considering that plus or minus 90 percent of the contractors who bid on public works are members of the association, it is an expensive endeavour to pay for additional advertising. A review should be conducted of the requirement to advertise these projects in papers.

Own forces in construction. The construction industry strongly recommends that governments 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 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.

In fact, it is the use of own forces on provincial projects, most notably school district projects in Vernon and Kelowna, that causes us the greatest concern. The millwork shop that has been constructed in the Vernon school district, funded by taxpayer dollars, is an example of a use of resources that is more efficiently and effectively addressed by the private sector. The work being done by own forces for these school districts has in fact increased rather than decreased over the last several years. It is our recommendation that the provincial government establish a policy that whenever funds are to be expended, including where there is a contribution of provincial government funds to a municipal project, the provincial government agency or municipality or regional district utilize the public tendering system to contract out the work.

Construction trades training. 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 government in the future. We do encourage government to work with industry to strengthen our apprenticeship system. In SICA we have been training potential employees in our trades-training program for over ten years. We've been using the college structure in Kelowna and Kamloops and, in Penticton, the high school after hours. We are proud of creatively utilizing resources to train potential employees but find it very difficult to gain recognition of the training without it being a very expensive and time-consuming process. The government needs to explore assisting these types of programs to gain recognition with the apprenticeship branch.

Infrastructure. Our provincial economy relies heavily on trade. Well-maintained roads and bridges are important elements to the equation if we expect to compete effectively. It is our recommendation that government work with industry to develop a strategic plan to seek appropriate federal funding for our province.

Workers Compensation Board. We fully support the core review looking at WCB. Until such time as the review is complete, we urge government to direct the WCB to freeze its current assessment rates.

In conclusion, we commend the government for the process being undertaken to seek ways that it can more effectively and efficiently conduct its affairs and offer our assistance locally and provincially to return to B.C. the vibrant economy it deserves. Together we can get B.C. building.

I. Chong: Thank you for your presentation, Debra. I don't how many of the presentations you were here earlier to listen to, but comments in your presentation — or remarks that you've got here — are somewhat the reverse of what others have advocated. You're looking at opportunities to terminate or reduce government programs where there would possibly be job losses. Some would advocate that it's not appropriate to have that go into the private sector. That's a discussion that I expect will continue.

My question to you is: if in fact that were to occur and that was one of the savings that government was able to look at, are you saying that there is a private sector economy out there that would absorb these jobs so that people would still be able to find work? How do you see that with the construction association?

D. Hicks: Well, I absolutely think that just because you take it from one sector…. At the same time I do realize that there is economy and efficiencies that happen from an operation and that you can't have the same number of people in exactly that same sector of the work. However, given the fact that I do believe this is the method to stimulate the economy, the other jobs will naturally fall into place, and we should have a

I. Chong: Just a supplemental. Can you tell me, in terms of competitiveness with wage rates — the private sector in the construction industry, with those that you've identified here in the public sector — for example, the millwork shop…. Are they relatively comparable? I know your construction association represents union and non-union, but you specifically identify millwork. Can you give me an idea of the range?

D. Hicks: I would say that the private sector wage rates are not as high as the public sector wage rates. There's no doubt about that. It's for many reasons. One is the union aspect of the dues and the structure. It is really based on the marketplace; the marketplace dictates. There's the minimum wage in the province of British Columbia Then there's whatever wages happen for everybody else, unless you're in the union. It's the marketplace that dictates what those wages will be, and it's the competitive nature of your skills and your ability to contribute to that job that dictate what your wages will be.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you very much for your presentation. I was just looking at the value of building permits. You're talking about the construction industry. It seems that your population in this region is growing by about 1 percent annually, yet the value of building permits is going down pretty dramatically. I think that in the last five years it's gone down by 25 percent in Vernon, and it's about a half in Revelstoke. What's going on? What happened? Why are we not building?

D. Hicks: That is not just a Vernon statistic. It's actually the whole interior. I'm sure you've probably found the same issues in other parts of B.C. From my perspective and what I hear from the contractors…. Remember that those permits you're probably looking at are mainly residential.

D. Hicks: Okay. The simple answer is that it has to do with the confidence people have if they'll invest their money in the province. If I as a private business person have my choices about where I'm going to invest my millions of dollars, I want to make sure I get a return on that money, and then I'm going to have some protection to have a good working environment to be able to spend my money. Otherwise, I will choose to take it to other places. What we've seen is the erosion of that confidence by business people in the province, which means that permits have definitely decreased.

L. Mayencourt: What's been the experience in the last year in terms of building? Our statistics are just up to 2000. Are building permits up in the area right now? Is there more confidence? Less?

D. Hicks: I don't think I would say it's been in the last year. I would say it's been in the last months. In fact, you guys don't need me to tell you because you know that after the election, we definitely saw people start spending more. I can talk about it from Kamloops particularly. Real estate people came to a meeting I was at and talked about how they have definitely seen a turnover in people starting to have more confidence in spending and investing their money. We will start to see that slowly from the business sector as well, especially as we start seeing this government make decisions that obviously impact directly upon their ability to do a good job of their business in the province.

K. Krueger: Thank you, Ms. Hicks, for your presentation. We appreciate you coming forward — as we do any presenter — with concrete suggestions about how government could do things better, more efficiently, less expensively and to be better stewards of the taxpayers' dollar. We recognize full well that the government really doesn't have any money of its own; it belongs to the taxpayers.

We have many things we want to do in British Columbia and many we've committed to do. We've committed to build 5,000 new continuing care beds, whether extended or intermediate care, in British Columbia. We want to get over the deficit we've inherited with regard to highway infrastructure. Our highways have been allowed to crumble through lack of maintenance and rehabilitation, while we actually should have been building for the present and the future. Now we're having traffic diverted, cross-Canada traffic turning south in Alberta and finishing its trek to the west coast on Alberta roads. We have to deal with all these things in the face of managing a debt that more than doubled in the last ten years and is costing British Columbians almost $3 billion a year in interest.

In your network of large construction companies who obviously also liaise with financiers and funds that enter into a large project, are you receiving good interest in things like public-private partnerships in proposals to actually get on with building British Columbia's infrastructure that wouldn't necessitate government debt?

D. Hicks: We haven't seen a lot of that in B.C., but we know for sure that it happens in other parts of the country, particularly in larger communities in Ontario where they have notable-sized construction companies. It will be a more difficult thing — there's no doubt — from the small-area perspective. There will be large companies who will be able to have the resources to make that happen; the smaller companies will not. However, I think there are opportunities for all sectors, and I don't think every single job that the government does should go out to public-private partnership. It won't make sense; it won't be viable. But for the ones that are larger projects, that does make sense. I think that's probably going to be a very viable aspect. I know

of one that this government is seriously thinking about. I just say that it's a combination of all kinds that will make that process work.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions. Debra, I thank you for your presentation here this morning. As with all the other presenters, what we've heard today will be taken into consideration in the development of our report. Again, thank you for taking the time.

Our next presenter today is with the Desert Rose Society, the people with disabilities network: Lesley Tannen. Good morning.

L. Tannen: I have a written submission, but my text doesn't really follow it very well, so I'll make sure you get it at the end if that's all right.

L. Tannen: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I thank you for the opportunity to meet with you today. My name is Lesley Tannen. I am with the Desert Rose Society, the people with disabilities network, located in Penticton. We assist people with disabilities in the south Okanagan with their social, educational and work goals.

When we were discussing what to put forward to you today, we had a hard time narrowing things down to just a few items. We realize that most legislation and regulations affect the lives of people with disabilities. You might be inclined to think that the concerns of people with disabilities are just those of another small interest group. I hope my comments today will assist you to see otherwise.

Depending on where you live, 15 percent to 20 percent of your community will be people with one sort of disability or another. According to a Ministry of Human Resources report done earlier this year, between 250,000 and 300,000 people in B.C. are receiving some sort of disability benefits. This number does not include children, youth under 19, people over 65 or others who are not receiving any benefits at all.

To put this in perspective, we could use this panel as an example. I was hoping that all 11 people would be here, but they're not. Statistically, though, we can say that two of the panel members may very well have a disability. Now, we can't tell this for sure, which brings us to another important point. That is that the vast majority of disabilities are in fact hidden. Put another way, if the average household has 2.5 people, then every second household contains someone with a disability. Disabilities either touch us directly or touch someone we know. We recognize that the provincial government is dedicated to economic security and a high quality of life for all British Columbians. We are concerned that the proposed budget and restructuring of programs and services may not have the best outcome for the clients that we serve. Since our government first laid out its strategy for economic recovery, a variety of local and world circumstances have changed things. While it is desirable to manage the resources of our province prudently, we would like to suggest that strong leadership recognizes that sometimes it is useful to take a secondary route to reach a goal.

New situations require new decisions. There is no such thing as no choice or sticking to a prior decision when the evidence indicates that a different approach would be better. If this means balancing the budget in four or five years instead of three because external forces confound our best plans, so be it. Such a decision in the private sector would be viewed as a sound management decision.

The quality of life experienced by people with disabilities who live on low or fixed incomes can serve as a kind of canary in a coalmine, if you like, for the rest of British Columbia society. When people with disabilities live in safe and appropriate housing, have timely access to health services, are represented in legal matters, can improve their economic circumstances through appropriate education and training and can find competitive employment, it would be a safe bet that the rest of society is also being well served.

We read with interest the July report of the B.C. fiscal review panel. On page 6 of the report the authors say: "Based on recent experience in other Canadian provinces, we are concerned that cost-cutting in government often comes at the expense of those groups in our society that can least afford it or by lowering standards designed to protect the environment and public health and safety…. We believe that B.C. has an opportunity to address the deficit problem in a manner that avoids mistakes made elsewhere."

Business closures affect all B.C. communities. The layoffs of civil servants, though, have a doubly negative effect. First, during soft economic times the private sector cannot absorb all the displaced workers, and their incomes are lost. Secondly, the government — and that's all of us — also loses the intellectual investment and learning that has been built up in its staff.

Health care is a huge issue, and we understand that there is a separate committee dealing specifically with health. Of particular concern today is the erosion of services to people with mental illness. Presently, if you are a person with a mental illness and you are not in crisis, it is difficult to access any services. Keeping people out of psychiatric hospitals may save money and is generally desirable, but by not ensuring that these people have access to ongoing clinical and rehabilitation services, many cycle repeatedly in and out of jail and hospital. So the financial savings are questionable.

The lack of dental services for people on income assistance or disability benefits is actually a public embarrassment. An example may be useful. I changed the fellow's name, but the facts are actually true. After years as a survey technician, Will got throat cancer. The side effects from his treatment resulted in a gradual loss of most of his teeth. On basic income assistance, he can't find a dentist to treat him. Several dentists in our area say that the Ministry of Human Resources pays

less than other programs and takes so long to pay that it's more trouble than it's worth. Will can't afford to have all his teeth out at once. Without teeth, he does not make a very pretty picture at all. Meanwhile, he can't eat solid foods. He looks a lot older than his 45 years. Even with 20 years of experience, being out of the job market for too long means that a prospective employer will choose someone more current, younger and with a brighter smile.

Specifically, a series of dental clinics with salaried staff would be one way to address this issue. Mobile units for rural areas may also be one thing to look at. Actually, South Africa has a very creative way of dealing with rural health issues. It's like a medical train. We don't have that many tracks going to a lot of our rural areas, but there are examples outside and areas that we might not always view as places to be models for us, which we could be looking at too.

The quality and level of business activity in our province has everything to do with the quality of public education. The only mechanism we have to produce an ongoing supply of workers next week, next year or ten years down the road is through appropriately funded public education. If money is taken out of the public system and put into private schools, we will further penalize children in moderate- and low-income families and children who have learning and physical disabilities for our collective — and I include all of us in this — lack of creativity and resolve. We have many concerns about how children with disabilities are treated in the kindergarten-to-grade-12 system, and these are noted in our written submission.

A diverse post-secondary education system is also essential for a healthy economy. Adults with disabilities who cannot access education or training are more likely to remain on income assistance or disability benefits. There is a double payoff for helping out here. First, people with disabilities who do receive post-secondary education are more likely to find competitive work and participate as taxpayers and consumers. Second, they also then stop being dependent on income assistance and disability benefits.

We understand — and I know this is just a rumour — that the government is considering requiring single parents on assistance who have children three years of age or older to seek work. At first glance, this will worry very many people. Perhaps we need to make a paradigm shift to see if there could be a positive outcome. This is radical. Why not look at universal day care as actually an economic stimulator? The preschool-aged children need care for the entire time that parent is working. Parents who lack education or marketable skills are faced with accepting minimum-wage jobs. At this wage rate there's not enough money to pay for normal living expenses as well as day care, so those parents are unable to meet their actual costs of employment.

Through our clients we have had a number of — I think I could best say it, being politically correct — interesting interactions with WCB. We think this is an essential service, but it also needs a total overhaul. There are numerous disturbing stories right from the antagonistic relationship between employer and employee representatives on the management board to the use of outdated, expensive, off-the-mark rehabilitation practices and disrespectful, punitive case management and medical reporting practices. There are already quite a few non-governmental agencies providing many components of the rehabilitation parts of this service. This should be expanded using both profit and non-profit agencies.

Many people who are incarcerated in our jails and prisons have underlying disabilities such as mental illness, learning disabilities, fetal alcohol syndrome or acquired brain damage. While we have few alternatives for people committing violent crimes, we need to move into the twenty-first century when dealing with the rest. We will continue to pay the cost for not identifying and offering treatment to people with disabilities in our jails and prisons. There are numerous experiments that have been used all over the country and North America and Europe. I can't go into them now.

For every case that you can make for something, you can always make a case against something. We need to allow time for things to work. Quite often governments and departments get caught up with fads in the private sector, and by the time those fads get played out in government, the private sector has already gone on to the new, bigger, better self-help and self-management books. We have to be careful and be judicious about that.

For many low-income residents of British Columbia, legal aid and legal services through community law offices are the only access they have to legal representation. This service has been dying a slow death over the last ten years and needs a transfusion. Justice is not just about the size of one's bank account, or it shouldn't be.

Our government provides a number of commissions and offices that ensure access to government for all residents. The office of the child, youth and family advocate, the police complaint commission and the office of the ombudsman are examples of these services which we view as essential. These agencies are vital because they ensure that the rights and freedoms of citizens are not eroded. In their impact on the total budget, they are nowhere near the 86 percent that the big six encompass. We know that all the other ministries and commissions are in that other 14 percent. These commissions and agencies have a very small impact on the total budget, but their importance to the people who use the service…. That impact is very great.

Finally, we truly hope that the public programs and services continue to evolve to better meet the needs of people with disabilities and, by extension, all British Columbians. We also hope that the suggestions and recommendations being made available to our government through this process will be given serious consideration. Our government can best meet its dual roles of leading and also escorting or assisting us by finding ways and means to integrate the different shades of common interest that we have.

J. Bray: An excellent presentation. I also look forward to reading the written one. Don't worry; somebody else will hand that out.

I worked in the Ministry of Human Resources for the last 13 years, Lesley, as a financial assistance worker as well as a policy analyst as well as an area manager for skills. So I've been in the front line, in the management side and in the policy analysis side. I've seen us deal with a number of difficult issues from groups like the Coalition of People with Disabilities. Robin Loxton has been, in my mind, anyway, a brilliant advocate for people with disabilities.

I've got a couple of questions. We know that the caseload for people with disability benefits level 2 — in other words, the highest provincial level — is growing, and it's growing at a very fast rate. In part, it's because people are being made more aware. We've changed the definition, which has allowed people with episodic illness — primarily mental health, but other episodic types of illnesses — to also be included. We've disengaged the tie between employment and disability, which was something that the community asked for.

We've also seen — and I don't mean this in a disparaging way — people come in at 35 years of age who've worked in the forests or in a warehouse job and had done damage to their back. That means they can't do that work anymore. There's no question that over a period of time they are truly disabled as it relates to their ability to participate in the community. But eventually one can argue that if they don't make any change in what they do in terms of maybe accessing new training and new education opportunities to find a different type of work, they become convinced that they're permanently disabled. In fact, they may only be disabled in that area.

My first question is: do you think there may be an opportunity for us to continue to ensure that we provide services for people with disabilities but include a reviewability component to that designation to ensure that people who have mental illness and people who have chronic illness continue to receive that support but that others have an encouragement, maybe, to take a different direction and find new training?

L. Tannen: I think it's very complicated. As with anything to do with government, when there are millions of people in the province — everything we talk about, generally — there's always an example that proves the rule, if you like, or an exception. I'll get to your fellow who has injured himself.

One thing we need to recognize is that virtually every job is hazardous to your health, even being a parent. Lots of women pick up kids, and all of a sudden their back goes out. I'm developing carpal tunnel syndrome, and I've only really been using a computer over the last 20 years, which in the life of many of the people in my children's generation is not going to be that long. Most things we do are potentially physically damaging.

If WCB had done their job with that man, I don't think he would be on disability benefits. That's the first thing. That's how I feel. We feel very strongly about that. I would love to be working in a different industry and not feel that. I actually do love my job. It's wonderful, but it would be nice not to have to have organizations such as mine — non-profits to help there. We're one of the few that do that.

The review process actually is almost…. I think an argument can be made both ways. People with cerebral palsy aren't going to get better — it's one of the examples I use in my text — and they should not be made to go through that process every year, unless their health has deteriorated to the point where they actually need more services. People who have been granted permanent disability status — that's level 2 — as opposed to a medical disability status, which is level 1…. If they've been granted permanent disability status, that means a medical doctor has attested to their level of disability. The idea of revisiting those things is perhaps problematic.

There is the level 1 disability issue. Those are people who have already received that cute little letter that went out to say: "Yo, do get out there and find a job." That's not actually the first time that letter's been given out, by the way. Actually, here I am defending the government, saying that I don't think it's fair that people should be blamed for sending that letter out, because that's something that happens on a cyclical basis anyway. So it's neither here nor there; if it wasn't the present government, it would have been the previous government. That's fine.

When the level 1 people are given this — being temporarily excused from seeking work because of a medical condition — I think the onus is on the Ministry of Human Resources to then work with the physician but also to look at what opportunities are there. In Penticton there aren't a lot of jobs that pay over $35,000. If you've been self-supporting for 20 years in the forest industry and — by the sweat of your brow, the strength of your biceps and your strong back — you have been able to haul in $45,000 or $50,000 a year in a good year, and you turn around and the only alternative is to do something that gives you less than you've been making before, it's difficult.

The other thing is that when there are more people unemployed, typically the applications to B.C. Benefits for disability benefits go up. When economic times are good, then people tend to cycle back out of it. Believe me, I don't have very many clients that are real happy to be on $500 to $800 a month total income. That's not a place most of them want to be.

J. Bray: Thank you for your answer to the first question. We've had other presenters talk about the importance in the community of social housing. For anybody who's low-income, but certainly for people with disabilities, one of the key components for indi-

viduals to be able to move forward on all the other areas that they're supposed to tend to in their lives is safe, secure, affordable housing.

One of the problems with the current system, in my humble opinion, is…. If I'm a single parent or someone with a disability and finally, after three or four years on the waiting list, I get into a subsidized housing unit, no matter what happens in my life I'm never leaving there, because I know that if my income drops, I've got a secure place. That means that in order for the people on the wait-list to get in, we have to continue to build more housing for them to stay in.

I'm wondering whether or not, especially for people who don't need supportive living environments, there is some opportunity to take the capital money and provide rental subsidies in the same way. In other words, allow somebody to live in the neighbourhood they're already living in but give them assistance with their rent — separate from income assistance or anything else — rather than putting them on a wait-list and having them in a single-occupancy room for five years to get into a place in another community. Do you think there's some opportunity to explore that?

L. Tannen: We know there is, because in Penticton that's already being utilized. I think that's very useful. For instance, we're really pleased that through B.C. Housing, our community was given the opportunity to construct a 20-unit apartment building for people with mobility issues. Some of those were adaptable units, and some of them are totally physically accessible units for people in wheelchairs.

When we screened the people who had applied, there in fact were some people for whom apartment-style living with a number of people was not appropriate. In fact, they were given the opportunity to remain where they were with rent subsidies, sometimes having either a single house…. For families with members who have disabilities and need to have wheelchair ramps and special bathrooms, multi-family living is not necessarily going to work, particularly in small communities.

Trying to provide subsidies and let people stay where they are, more importantly, or to find ways where they can be independently living in their own homes…. Yes, the more variety, the better. It's not one-size-fits-all for people with disabilities. In fact, the interesting thing is that there was a study done a number of years ago in the United States saying that in the case of a workplace, for instance, most workplace accommodations cost less than $500. That's interesting. It doesn't always cost a lot of money to help people be accommodated where they are.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Lesley, for your presentation to our committee this afternoon. I thank you for that.

We are now going to move on, as it is 12:30. We have what we call an open-mike session. We do have a number of people signed up for the open-mike session, but for our first presenters, I would like to call on His Worship Mayor Sean Harvey and Councillor Barry Beardsell, city of Vernon. Good afternoon.

On these presentations on the open mike, we try to hold it to even less than 15 minutes so that we can accommodate as many people as we can. If we could keep it as short as possible, it would be much appreciated — in the five-to-ten-minute range. I note that you were both scheduled as independent speakers, so there will be some flexibility.

S. Harvey: Well, you won't have any trouble with me, but if you can find a way to hold Councillor Beardsell in check, let me know. It will come in handy. [Laughter.]

S. Harvey: Thank you very much for being in our fair city, Mr. Chairman and committee members. It is an honour to have you here, and I just want you to know that we appreciate the tough task. You have put your hand up and said, "Yeah, we'll take it on," and we certainly support you in that.

Councillor Beardsell wants to touch on a number of different issues. I want to focus in on one specifically, and that is the cost of policing services within the province. Recently it was announced that the provincial government will be trimming its contribution to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by 11 percent. Those are the rumours we're hearing. Is that not correct?

S. Harvey: Okay. That's not right. That's good to know. That's certainly….

The issue I want to address, though, is certainly something that we would encourage the provincial government, from a budgetary standpoint, to consider. That is changing the way RCMP costs are apportioned in the province.

Policing costs for municipalities are one of our largest budget items. The apportionment of police services is split up in three ways. Communities under 5,000 pay absolutely nothing. Communities between 5,000 and 15,000 pay 75 percent of the police costs, and communities 15,000 and over pay 90 percent of police costs.

In Vernon we have what is known as a composite detachment. We have the city of Vernon with a population of 35,000, the district of Coldstream with a population of 10,000 and two regional district electoral areas, all serviced out of one combined detachment. Over the past decade we have seen the city of Vernon's policing numbers increase quite substantially.

We're going through another manpower rationalization study now, which would indicate that our necessary manpower is going to go up by another eight or ten officers. Coldstream is going through something

that is very similar, while in the electoral areas, where they are serviced by the provincial contingent, they have not seen an increase in manpower over that same past decade.

What we would encourage the province to do is look at changing that apportionment formula, which hasn't really been tinkered with substantially since the late 1970s. A number of other provinces have changed the apportionment of the way they deliver policing services, and we would encourage you to look at going to two different ways.

One would be setting up regional policing. We're not asking you to increase your contribution to the funding — we understand that there is no money right now — but give local governments the power to implement a regional policing solution so that in jurisdictions with different populations there is one cost, one dollar figure, attached per capita to providing police services.

The struggle we face is that while our manpower is going up and the provincial manpower has remained level, when there is a crisis in our area the RCMP don't just say: "Well, that's in electoral area B. We're only sending the four provincial boys. It's their problem." If there is a crisis, they send every person available, including Vernon officers and Coldstream officers and provincial officers. That is the way it should be. We have no problem with that. What we would encourage you to do is give us the legislative powers to start setting up regional policing or look at assessing policing on a per-capita basis provincewide. Assess a cost in terms of what community safety is worth and what the value of policing is, and assess that equally across all citizens in British Columbia.

The other issue I'd like to touch on briefly ties in with this one. That was one of your campaign promises in terms of revenue-sharing from RCMP fines. I don't think any of us should view policing as a revenue generator, but the reality is that policing is indeed very, very expensive, to the tune of $108,000 per RCMP officer in the city of Vernon now. If we set up even a 60-40 ratio — and considering we're paying 90 percent for our police officers, we might argue it should be 90-10 — there are over $600,000 in fines written in the city of Vernon annually. A 60-40 ratio would give us somewhere in the range of $350,000 annually. That would pay for three police officers.

I know that's something you have touched on. It's one of your campaign promises. I know you've been very, very busy, and we've been happy to see that. But that's something that, from a municipal perspective, we'd encourage you to bring to the forefront in your next session.

I'll allocate the rest of my time to Councillor Beardsell, knowing that he's going to need all the time he can get. Thank you for listening.

B. Beardsell: Well, I would like to commend you on what you are doing. I was pleasantly surprised to read the report that the committee issued earlier. I was going to give you a whole bunch of quotes from different previous studies, but I think that committee, which had some great professionals on it, has already given you the foundation on where to start.

A little bit of history, in case it gets forgotten. It was in 1984 that New Zealand got into a financial problem. If you study the different reports and the processes they went through to emerge from that problem, I think it could be most beneficial to you. I could quote different examples from that report, but I do recommend that you consider that.

Also, in 1993 Alberta was at the height of its trouble. To give you a comparison between the province of B.C. as it stands today and Alberta in 1993, when it was having problems, I'll give you just a couple of statistics. You have an annual budget of revenue of about $22.5 billion. Prior to the tax changes you were looking at a deficit of about $2.2 billion. In Alberta in 1993, they had an $11.5 billion budget for revenue, and they had a deficit of $2.7 billion. The easy way for the province of Alberta to solve things in 1993 would have been to implement a 9 percent sales tax. That would have eliminated their entire deficit. Of course, we know they didn't do that. They cut back; they cut back in very serious ways. In fact, they exaggerated their cutbacks and then afterwards moved back to the positive side a little bit.

The province of Ontario, under Premier Harris, when they took over — and the dire straits that they were in — cut back, and they cut to the bone. Then they moved back a little to the positive side. I suggest to you that you have to do the same thing. You can't take a cautious cutback. You have to do a major one.

That's a little bit of history. I do recommend to you that these documents on New Zealand be considered and also the kind of facts that were put out in the province of Alberta when they were in their troubles. Primarily, a lot of the excellent submissions in Alberta that were followed were from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Alberta. I do suggest that that be considered.

As far as possibilities of solutions here, you need to consider many things. One of the key things is the public-private partnership. I'll give you a "for example" on that. The previous government seemed to just go off on a tear, spending money where there wasn't a cost-benefit analysis. A good example of that was the highway from Aspen Grove in the direction of Merritt. I think your budget overrun in Transportation was the amount of money spent on that particular foolhardy project.

The people of the Okanagan are looking very much in the direction of seeing the Aspen Grove–Kingsvale connector. The estimated costs of that are about $60 million. We're not suggesting that you come up with $60 million. You've got your own problems. What we are suggesting is: let's go to the private sector. Let's have the private sector and the provincial government

work hand in hand on that to institute a toll on it. I assure you, the truckers and a lot of other people will gladly pay that toll to save the costs that result in the other direction. That is one. I strongly urge you to look at that private-public partnership. It's the only way to go.

The other thing that I'd like to suggest is a bit radical, and I don't know if my council would fully support me on this. Please abolish regional districts. They are just a waste of time and another level of government, and they don't do anything useful whatsoever.

B. Beardsell: The public is not generally aware of this. In a small town like Vernon, $1 million — in fact, I think a year ago it was $1.2 million — is assessed on the Vernon taxpayer. I'm not talking Coldstream and the electoral areas. It was $1.2 million assessed for health care purposes. You don't tend to think of local government as being in the health care business. One point two million dollars to the city of Vernon, when you take in comparison that we only collect about $10 million per year in property taxes for municipal purposes, is rather excessive. So I would ask you to consider that.

Another thing that the province of Alberta looked at…. Once again, my council may or may not agree with this. One of the major submissions in Alberta was to abolish the split tax. The split tax is basically where you have one mill rate of tax assessed on residential, and you hit commercial as hard as you want. In other words, in the city of Vernon the rate is twice as high for commercial as it is for residential. You can't change that overnight. It may take a ten-year time span to change that, but that's one more negative that takes place as far as a burden on business. Business is the economic generator that will get us all out of the problems.

We face the same sort of problem in Vernon that you face with the provincial government. We have $16 million of debt. Recently the taxpayers approved borrowing an additional $15 million for a multipurpose. They approved the $9.5 million for performing arts. They're a fait accompli. We are now looking at having to spend approximately $30 million for upgrading our sewage treatment plant and $60 million on water services in the greater Vernon area. I think you can get a feel from those numbers as to the kind of problem that we're in. It's just as bad as the problem you're in.

There is another thing I'd like to say after just travelling to the Island. When I look at the fact that the government spent about $1.1 billion on the Island Highway, probably with no cost-benefit studies whatsoever, I say that sort of thing has to change. What I would commend to you is this. We're looking at trying to get a western bypass in Vernon. When you came in today, you saw that expensive intersection outside of here? Well, you probably didn't know it was expensive. That one intersection alone has a cost riding on it of about $1.5 million, on a provincial highway, and of the $1.5 million we put up a quarter of a million dollars just to try and see it go, to help ease the problem.

We want a western bypass. You can't afford the $84 million for that western bypass. Either change your Expropriation Act or introduce another act so that at least the right-of-way for that bypass, which is desperately needed, could be preserved without asking you to pay up the $84 million at this time.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. I was just looking at the time. It worked out very well. We do have time for one question.

B. Penner: Just to address the mayor's comments about RCMP funding. Perhaps someday there could be a case study in a university communications course about how the story got out that the provincial government was reducing RCMP funding for provincial policing. In fact, we've increased the amount of money going to that particular budget for the RCMP. I was present in a meeting with the Solicitor General and the RCMP brass for E Division when we had that conversation. I think it was in early August.

In the past the RCMP provincial policing budget had often run over budget every year for the last couple of years. What we were asking was whether they were confident that this year they had control of their costs and were tracking them through their new accounting system. We were told that they were and that while they may have to make some adjustments to live within their newly increased budget, they were confident they could do that.

Somehow that came out about six weeks later as a reduction in RCMP funding. As you know, we all have budgets, and we all have to live with them. We also know that sometimes stories get changed a little bit by the time they hit the newspaper.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I knew there would be many questions, but due to our time constraints I would like to thank you, Your Worship and Councillor, for coming to put your views forward to our committee. Again, I assure you that what you've said to the committee will be given due consideration in the development of our report.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Our next presenter during the open-mike session is with the Social Planning Council for the North Okanagan: Eric Kowalski. Good afternoon, Eric.

E. Kowalski: Good afternoon. I know you've received reams of good advice already, so I will try and keep this brief. It was interesting. It was good to hear

Councillor Beardsell. Like him, I agree that it's good to look at other areas of the world when you're making decisions around cuts. With New Zealand, I think you should look at that. My caution would just be to look at the full picture. I'm not an expert on New Zealand, but one thing I do remember from their economic miracle was that the agencies and individuals in that country that were concerned with more social issues said that it came at a very, very great social and personal cost in terms of huge rises in domestic violence, alcoholism and all kinds of other social problems from massive cuts across the board without a lot of thought. I would ask you to look at the financial model, but look at the other parts of the picture when you're looking at making cuts.

Similarly, there's a lot of talk about Alberta's economic miracle. I was in Alberta for a couple of years going back to school. I know that the auditor general of Alberta put out a very negative report about the damage to the long-term infrastructure of that province. I don't think it ever got reported in the Calgary Herald. It did get reported in the Globe, a national paper. In essence, what he was saying was: "Yeah, you're doing this great thing. Look at your books. They're great — lots of money. But you're passing all the problems on to people down the road in terms of deteriorating health, schools and other infrastructure." I would just ask again that you always look at the fuller picture when you're looking at the idea of making these cuts.

With Alberta, the Canada West Foundation put out their report last year, State of the West. I don't think Canada West can, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a left-wing organization. It did point out a couple of interesting factors in the western provinces. When you looked at, say, B.C. and Alberta's average incomes, there were a lot of similarities in things across the border. Alberta had the biggest gap between rich and poor of any of the western provinces, and B.C. had the smallest. These kinds of things are important to look at, too, when you're looking at broader-term changes to how you're doing funding.

Obviously, I'm in the Social Planning Council for the North Okanagan. I work in the non-profit sector — the voluntary sector or whatever. There's a number of terms that people use or are more comfortable with. I'm sure you heard it this morning. The message we seem to be getting is not uncommon. Certainly across the country and across the world people address it. The concern with this sector is that it's not seen as a key sector in Canadian society. You've got business, you've got government, and then the voluntary or non-profit sector is treated as a nice-to-have or an add-on or an extra. I just think we need to be very clear, as we make changes and look at cuts, about the key role the sector plays. People talked earlier today — so I won't go into it — about the kinds of social supports and the kinds of things that this sector does.

If we want to look strictly at money and also at particularly small communities like Vernon or other even smaller communities, from a strictly financial impact, when cuts are made to different agencies and for different ministries programs, which then are not funnelled down to agencies, look at…. I don't know what the proper term would be, but I'll call it a ripple effect. If you're working in the non-profit sector, that old saying "in order to make money you've got to have money" really ties in well. If you're applying to private foundations or to other levels of government, like the federal government, often you need some grant money from somewhere else, and then you can use that to leverage huge amounts of money. So when you're looking at cuts to different agencies, you're not just looking at: "Oh great, we cut $30,000 here." Potentially, because of that cut, you've cut the ability of that sector to leverage other money. I'm talking about quite significant amounts of money. I think it's one thing that as a sector we haven't done well and are working on now, certainly in this community.

What is our economic impact? What is our annual payroll and salaries that we pay out in the community? How much other money do we bring in? How many hours of volunteer work, unpaid labour, do we bring into the market here? That's something we're looking at as well.

As we're looking at cuts and at ways to shift money around, the sector is also looking at ways it can do more with less — whatever you want to call it — and do partnerships. We are looking at that. But I think you have to see that when cuts are being made, you're not just cutting or saving that amount of money. You have very dramatic impacts on the economy of the communities.

Finally, it's Affordable Housing Week. I have to say something about housing, which is a passion of mine. Please, please, please think really carefully before you make cuts to, for example, the Homes B.C. program. As you talked about earlier with a speaker, it's great to have the mix. I've worked for a society that administered housing subsidies so people would go out in the private market. I thought that was great. Often you still don't have the units available that you need for those people, no matter how much you're putting out in subsidies.

You're going to find arguments on either side in the housing literature. There are studies that say it's too expensive to build housing, but you also have a very good study done here by an independent researcher. It's for B.C. Housing but done by an independent researcher. It said that in the long term it's cheaper for the government to actually build the housing and pay it off and, at the end of the day, have a really tangible valuable asset there — land and buildings. It also gives you some sense of control over housing as housing needs change and you do have that stock of housing.

I'm going to stop there, because there are probably other people who want to talk. Thank you for your time.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Eric, thank you very much for taking the time to come out this morning. Noting the time, I know there probably are many questions, but certainly the members will be around.

It is now five to one. We will have time for one more presenter. Our next presenter is with the Okanagan District Council of Carpenters: Tony Heisterkamp.

T. Heisterkamp: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I wrote this while the hearing was going on. I think you all have copies, but I've kind of got arrows all over the place. I'll try and be very brief and, hopefully, answer some questions.

The government recently completed their 90-day agenda to implement their election promises. One of the promises was to scrap the fixed-wage policy because it cost the taxpayers $30 million more than without it. Where that figure came from is at question. The only increase in the cost of public construction is the wages of the workers. In other words, what we're saying is that the cost of the land and the cost of material have always been there, and it's always the same. Fair wages is the only one that we question.

Your Labour minister repealed the Fair Wage Act and the HCL as well, because they restricted the number of companies to be eligible to bid on these publicly funded projects that fell under the Fair Wage Act and HCL.

On page 29 of this booklet — and I wrote this in the back of it — you talk about deferred maintenance and its inherent deterioration of the equipment and buildings. As a new building or equipment is brought on line, we as consumers and taxpayers expect that, at least for the short term, the product would be of such quality that there would be little if any maintenance required.

Your Graham Bruce — and I say your Graham because I didn't vote for him, because I don't live here for one thing — has eliminated an avenue that in the long run would save the taxpayer money. By eliminating the requirement that fair wage/HCL jobs require the workers to be either certified or an indentured apprentice, you've opened the door to any person with a bucket of tools to work on tax-funded projects. There is no guarantee that the project will be built by qualified workers. Just ask some of the school boards around the province about the quality of buildings prior to the fair wage. Just ask the leaky-condo owners — and I see they're on the news again — what they think about the anything-for-a-buck developers and their workforce that at most were anything but tradesmen, let alone apprentices.

I know Graham Bruce owns a grocery store, because my wife is from Chemainus. I do shop there on occasion. With his scrapping of the Fair Wage Act and HCL, is it his intention that when grocery selling is slow he'll take his employees and build a hospital, a school or a highway interchange? Now he's certainly eligible to do that.

There is another panel going around the province looking at deregulation. I note that there is not one person from labour on that committee. One of the mandates of that panel is to deskill the trades — that is to say, make a specialist of every aspect of the trades.

Then we'll go down a little bit further. By deskilling the trades, you may accomplish more work, but you'll also drive the wages down. Even W.A.C. Bennett recognized that when you pay the workers a family-supporting wage, they will pay higher taxes as well as be able to purchase goods in their local community. Everyone benefits.

The first speakers that were on this morning were from Okanagan University College. They talked about the shortage of skilled workers. The government eliminated a vehicle that would have assisted in filling that shortage. You broke an election promise by eliminating the fair wage policy and HCL, not the fixed wage as you stated.

I sit on a national committee funded by HRDC to review, in particular, the carpentry trade. The committee is both union and non-union, contractors and labour. The consensus is: don't cut up the trade; strengthen it. By re-establishing the certification portion of the Fair Wage Act and HCL, we will in the long term save money. You will have the assurance that the product will be supplied, installed and built by qualified workers. That's my submission.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Tony. I know five minutes is a very limited time in which to put a presentation before us, but you did a very effective job getting that much information to us. We do have time for one question.

H. Bloy: How can we increase skilled labour in the province? You said we lost that vehicle, in your presentation, through the Okanagan University College.

T. Heisterkamp: I only talked about the Okanagan University College, saying that Northside Steel was looking for qualified people, and they're having trouble finding them. On publicly funded projects, be it hospitals, schools or anything, it was a cap on where the Fair Wage Act came into effect. One of the requirements was that you must be either a journeyman or an indentured apprentice to work on those projects. We say, "Fine, scrap the fixed wage. Scrap the wages for those workers," but you have an avenue for these people to work on these publicly funded projects — to train these people. You'll have a journeyman and an apprentice.

H. Bloy: Just one more question. As a union, are you training people under the apprentice program?

T. Heisterkamp: We are, and we're doing it with our own money as much as possible.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Tony, I thank you for making your presentation to our committee today.

It is now 1 p.m., and the committee does have to travel to Revelstoke for our second meeting today. I would like to thank all of the presenters and all of the people who came and sat through the hearings today. I

would encourage anyone who did not have an opportunity to address the committee today, if they're interested, to put forward a written submission. The information on how to go about doing that is on the back table.

Just in closing, I want to thank the people who have come out and put their views forward to help in the deliberations that are before this committee. Thank you. I now adjourn this meeting.

Other Members Present:	Tom Christensen (Okanagan-Vernon L)
Clerk:	Anne Stokes

Committee Staff:	Josie Schofield (Committee Research Analyst)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES