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

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Tuesday, October 16, 2001 5 p.m. Heritage Inn Cranbrook

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON 
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2001

Issue No. 13

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 409 ]

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2001

           The committee met at 4:59 p.m.

               [B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Blair Lekstrom. I am the MLA for Peace River South and Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

           We're here this evening to hear input on the upcoming budget for next year. This is our prebudget consultation tour to hear the views and priorities expressed by you, the public of British Columbia. This is one of 16 stops that we are making throughout the province, trying to cover every area. It's very difficult in that we're unable to stop in every community, but we have spread it out and put a good cross-section of the province into our tour.

           For the people that are unable to attend any of our public hearings, there is the ability for written submissions to be presented to the Clerk's office. There is information on the back table that you can use to forward any written submissions that were unable to be put forward here this evening or any ideas that come into your mind between now and the end of this month.

[1700]

           Our committee's mandate is to listen and report out by November 15. Our report will be deposited with the Clerk in the Legislature, at which time it becomes a public document. It is then utilized by our Minister of Finance, the Hon. Gary Collins, in the development of the upcoming budget for next year, which will be presented in the Legislature in February.

           Just before we get going, I would like to make a few introductions. Today all of our proceedings will be recorded and transcribed by Hansard, and our Hansard staff over to my right are Pat Samson and Amanda Heffelfinger. As well, at the back table where the material is, is our research analyst, Josie Schofield, and to my left is our Clerk for this committee, Anne Stokes.

           We have held a number of hearings already. This is our final one this week, and next week we wrap up our public hearings. We have had great input on a wide range of topics in every meeting we've had, and I certainly envision the same here this evening. What I would like to do now is allow the other members of the committee to make a brief introduction of themselves, and we will get right into the task of hearing the presentations here this evening. I will begin with Jeff Bray on my left.

           J. Bray: Good evening. My name is Jeff Bray from the riding of Victoria–Beacon Hill.

           L. Mayencourt: I'm Lorne Mayencourt from Vancouver-Burrard.

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

           T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): I'm Tony Bhullar from Surrey-Newton, and I'm Deputy Chair of this committee.

           K. Krueger: Hi. I'm Kevin Krueger from Kamloops–North Thompson. It's great to be back in Cranbrook. I lived here from '86 to '88. The committee all laughed, because this is the sixth place we've been that I've lived in. I'm a rolling stone. It's nice to be with you.

           B. Kerr: I'm Brian Kerr from Malahat–Juan de Fuca on Vancouver Island. If Kevin had lived in all the places he says he has, he'd actually be 75 years old.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Also, just for the information of the people attending this evening, you may see members from time to time leaving the table. Our time frame is so tight that we don't allow dinner breaks or lunch breaks. It is dinner on the fly, so you may see people coming and going throughout the evening. It's certainly not out of rudeness. It's a necessity to sustain life. As the Chair, I have to allow them to eat. All of the information, as I stated earlier, is recorded and transcribed, and the information will be gone through by each and every committee member.

           Without carrying on and speaking too much, we are here to hear from you, the public of British Columbia. We'll begin with our first presenter this evening, Anne Edwards, who is with the B.C. Heritage Trust. Good evening and welcome, Anne. You're no stranger to the process.

Presentations

           A. Edwards: I would like to welcome you to Cranbrook. I don't have any official position anymore, except as a longtime resident. Welcome, Kevin and others. I thought it would be most useful to go through the written paper that I presented to you and just make some glossary remarks as we go. After that, I know we'll be open for questions. I'll follow this paper that I gave you.

           Certainly, you have a very difficult task in front of you, and I do appreciate the opportunity to be able to give advice on my particular area of interest. I chair the B.C. Heritage Trust. I'm sure that all of you, if you have been active in your communities — and I'm sure you have — will know how the B.C. Heritage Trust has its fingers into almost every community in the province.

           By legislation the function of the heritage branch of the trust is to encourage and facilitate the protection of heritage properties and sites in British Columbia and to further act to foster heritage appreciation. It's a broad mandate, in a way, and yet it is the very core of the kind of heritage activity that is taken on as a public enterprise in all of the western world and probably in most of the world. Heritage is considered to be a matter for public funding.

           The trust supported by the heritage branch administers three quarters of a million dollars in community investments, budgeted by the provincial government, and it also supports planning for and establishment of

[ Page 410 ]

heritage commissions in municipalities. That's under the Municipal Act. It contributes educationally through scholarships and website training programs with Investment Canada and six provincial heritage fairs, which are just a few of the things I mentioned that come out of the Heritage Trust's activities.

[1705]

           As I said, three quarters of a million dollars go into community investments. We have a trust initiative that happens, and we assist with the minister's heritage award annually. This website training program that we participated in with Investment Canada ended up being a highly successful program for training young people in putting together websites and was sort of looked on as a pilot program in Canada.

           British Columbia has the best heritage legislation in the country. I just came back from Heritage Canada's convention, and people say that to you before you even mention it yourself. That is a given. The problem is that we also have the lowest public investment per capita in the country. The investment in cultural activities in British Columbia, which includes museums, archives and historic parks and sites, is one-sixth of 1 percent of the 2000-01 budget. If the budget goes up, that contribution becomes a lower percentage. Because of this, the federal contribution to heritage in British Columbia is far less than it is in other provinces. The federal government looks at what B.C. puts into heritage and therefore matches the low level of funding and contribution. We would hope to change that. I would mention, in particular, a significant federal program, a number of programs anchored by the historic places initiative which was announced in March this year by Heritage minister Sheila Copps. This will lead to a registry of built heritage, a set of standards for determining that, and will set up some tax incentives for encouraging the preservation of built heritage. If, as I say, British Columbia continues to participate, we could in fact have a significant contribution into local economies from the federal government through this heritage program.

           Over the past 15 years the heritage branch — that is, the actual ministry itself — has been cut by more than 70 percent, which has compromised the province's ability to offer expert advice and to seed significant economic activity in communities. In fact, the heritage branch is actually down to about six employees. That's what makes it very difficult to contemplate something that doesn't need to be done. Those people are worked off their feet.

           Twenty-three or 22 years ago, when the trust came into being, the B.C. Heritage Trust administered $3 million in community investments. Today it's $750,000. Since every dollar that the trust puts into a community brings an average of three dollars more invested in that community, it's been a significant loss. That's an average of three more dollars to every dollar we put in. The range is from some grants or community investments that bring no return other than what the trust puts in, to those that have been brought back up to 11 percent. It's quite a range, actually.

           Victoria stands as a example of what heritage can do for local economies. I'm sure Member Kerr will be well aware of that, and Member Bray. Victoria initiatives have been constant over the past 15 years, and return from their investment has ranged anywhere from four times what they've put into it to 11 times what they've put into heritage. What else can you see? You can see that the city core remains vibrant. Suburban infrastructure — water and sewers — has been precluded. Assessments have increased. Landfill sites have suffered 30 percent less from construction waste. Employment has been at least double what would have happened if it had been new construction. Volunteerism is vibrant. You can all see that Victorians share fully in the fastest-growing area of tourism these days, which is cultural tourism.

[1710]

           Every nation in the western world contributes to heritage conservation, and British Columbians certainly are among those who expect heritage to have public funding. The funding that is there contributes to safe, vibrant, livable communities — that phrase I took from your New Era document. I'm very pleased that is a goal of this government. I'm pleased by the formation of the ministry in which heritage now finds itself. The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services was formed — as I have been told and as I had guessed when I saw it — in order to recognize that community is important and that activity at the community level is one of the most important things that we should be fostering.

           As an investment in fostering community, you can't get a better one than heritage. It has provincewide scope. Funding from the B.C. Heritage Trust has been enjoyed in almost every community in British Columbia over its nearly 23 years. It drives development; it drives tourism. It does so as a high-tech green industry that contributes significantly to education and training of our young people. Although Heritage has been operating on a shoestring budget — let's put it that way — it still has managed. Every dollar that goes in is multiplied many times in the economy where it is invested.

           Provincial money is seed money. Therefore it is there, and it expands. But if it isn't there, the activity doesn't happen. I would say very earnestly that the B.C. Heritage Trust hopes that you will recommend a strong heritage component in the 2001-02 budget.

           I also gave you a list of facts about heritage and would certainly be pleased if you would ask some questions about it. I don't think we'll go down it, but I'd be pleased to answer questions.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Anne, for your presentation. I will look to members of the committee if there are any questions.

           B. Kerr: Anne, what sites here are run by the Heritage Trust for tourism?

           A. Edwards: The Heritage Trust no longer owns any sites. All of the provincial sites are run by the ministry. The nearest one here is Fort Steele, which is the

[ Page 411 ]

one with the greatest number of visitors. It's very exciting. I'm sure you might like to see it after you're through tonight. [Laughter.] It is an actual community, and it is 1890s era, a different era than others in the province.

           As you can see from the fact sheet, there are about 230 heritage sites in British Columbia. About 30 of them are owned by the provincial government. There are other very prominent ones such as the O'Keefe Ranch near Vernon, which may be one of the best-known ones. There is the Canadian Museum of Rail Travel here in Cranbrook, which has been allowed to use the term "Canadian museum" in recognition that it's an important museum.

           H. Bloy: Is it a volunteer group?

           A. Edwards: The Heritage Trust?

           H. Bloy: Yes.

           A. Edwards: The Heritage Trust is a board of directors. We are legislated as a Crown corporation. We have a board appointed by the minister, with a Chair and vice-Chair both appointed by the minister.

           H. Bloy: Are you a board member?

           A. Edwards: I am the Chair of Heritage Trust.

           L. Mayencourt: The Whistler 2010 bid has a component of it that is cultural. Does heritage fit into that? Is there some opportunity there that you've looked at?

           A. Edwards: We certainly hope so. I mentioned to the minister, who is also in charge of that fund, that when the bid is made for the Olympics, heritage should have a significant part in that. As far as I know, there has been no action yet to make it happen.

           L. Mayencourt: You haven't linked up with the bid committee yet to talk about whether they have any plans in that regard.

           A. Edwards: Not yet. We would hope to put some plans together and take them to the committee, if we can do that.

           L. Mayencourt: Yeah, because the cultural component is very significant in order for us to be successful in that bid. I've had the pleasure of working on about three heritage projects in my community for which we got some help from B.C. Heritage Trust — not financial help, but advice. I commend you on your hard work and encourage you to keep at it. It's great stuff.

           A. Edwards: Thank you. We'll keep at it as much as we can.

[1715]

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Ms. Edwards, just a question for myself — a little off the heritage issue. Looking at the financial picture we face in British Columbia right now, I would just look to see if you had any comments or ideas as to the priorities or the focus we should be looking at with the deficits we're facing, even excluding the tax cuts that many people bring up. If we take the tax cuts out of the picture, we would face a $3.8 billion deficit by 2004. If you have any ideas, priorities, that you think should be looked at or sustained by government….

           A. Edwards: Well, I think I would boldly say that government is more than health and education. I very much appreciate that we all want our health care and education systems to be vibrant and solid, but government is more than that. Certainly the people of British Columbia expect that heritage is being taken care of by public funding. You can talk to them, and you'll find that they appreciate heritage. They come to events; they talk about it. You talk to them about funding, and they expect the government to take care of it. As I said, I don't think that's a fallacy.

           It's not unusual in the western world for governments to publicly fund heritage activities and certainly build the heritage sites, buildings and landscapes that are important to community. In British Columbia we have such a diverse heritage, as you know. We almost have more Indian nations in British Columbia than in the rest of Canada. We have many types of immigrants, more than many other provinces. We have a very diverse heritage, and it deserves public attention.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions, Anne. I want to thank you for taking time out of your work schedule and presenting to our committee this evening.

           A. Edwards: I just have one more thing. As I took the local paper when I walked in this afternoon, I noticed a letter to this committee from Cindy Weitzel, president of the Cranbrook and District Arts Council, that discusses culture and heritage. I would certainly like to present it to you or make sure that you all get an opportunity to read it.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Certainly. Thank you very much.

           We will move on to our next presenter this evening. It is Derryll White, with the Cranbrook Public Library.

           D. White: I'd like to thank you for the opportunity. It's rather fortuitous, actually. I didn't know I was following Anne, but part of my presentation also involves Fort Steele. That works well.

           My name is Derryll White. I come tonight as Chair of the Cranbrook Library Association and curator of Fort Steele Heritage Town. I have lived in Cranbrook for almost 25 years and am a constant promoter of East Kootenay. British Columbia is a great province, and East Kootenay is the best region to live in. My two daughters were born here, and they still consider this region the best, even though they now live in Victoria.

[ Page 412 ]

           I am here because I believe in community involvement. I think it is the duty of citizens to vote and participate in the government they elect. I volunteer with a couple of non-profit organizations and know firsthand how much work that was once done by government agencies is now performed by volunteers. It is crucial that the present government does not increase this load.

           The ability to read is one of the foundations of our democratic society. Our public library offers programming for mothers and young children to encourage reading, to set the children up for life. This is a free service available to all, no matter what their economic status or personal resources. Business, community, sports, health, pleasure: there is something at the public library for all interests. The Cranbrook Public Library also assists in integrating new Canadians into the mainstream of Canadian society. It is a positive place to go and a safe place to be.

[1720]

           As the national and provincial economies slow, citizens serviced by the Cranbrook Public Library turn to it for a wide range of services. Many want fix-it books to assist in home and vehicle repair. Some want assistance with writing résumés or business plans for home businesses. Library usage across the province is already at an all-time high, and the increasing cost of books and broadening demand for resources have placed our budget under increasing pressure.

           Nationally and provincially, Canadians are told that the access to digital services is key to the new economy. In Cranbrook that has meant increased costs to provide a service bank of public computers. While 70 percent of British Columbians are connected to the Internet, many of these connections are through public libraries. For example, during the September 11 tragedy a woman staying at the Prestige Inn here in town was frantically trying to contact her family in New York and was unable to do so by telephone. She called the library to request Internet access so that she could contact her family by e-mail, and we were able to accommodate her. We don't know all the ways in which we touch people's lives, but this is just one example of how important a library can be to a town's citizens.

           While the demand for services has increased and is projected to continue to increase, provincial funding for the Cranbrook Public Library has been frozen since 1993. Provincial per-capita funding for B.C.'s public libraries is the lowest of all major provinces, with Cranbrook receiving $2.40 per capita. In Ontario the province contributes $2.52 per capita; in Alberta, $4.89; and in Saskatchewan, $6.09. This has contributed to our having to cut back our hours and limit the purchase of new books. It has also meant untold hours of fundraising to underwrite our diminishing revenues and increasing costs.

           The future belongs to those who have a very good command of basic skills such as reading and computer literacy. A government that invests in public libraries invests in our common future.

           The past belongs to all of us. History is the study of the human condition in and through time. It helps to form what we do and say. It is in fact the language that we speak. The past informs our actions, although we rarely recognize the fact. A place such as Fort Steele Heritage Town studies the local, brings it to light and adds to the layers of material culture which assist in creating the dialogue. A place like this is a laboratory for learning. It is a place where stories are told, grandmother to niece or grandfather to son and grandson.

           Fort Steele provokes thought while it celebrates culture and culture change. A visitor's comment on a new display we just did: "Well done. Educational. It shows that prejudice is everywhere. There should be more places like this. In light of the recent American tragedy, prejudice is likely to become more widespread." This is a fellow from Mossbank, Saskatchewan, who went to an exhibit we did on prejudice and intolerance in East Kootenay.

           Fort Steele is also a regional economic driver. One doesn't normally think of a museum producing significant spinoff regional revenues, but Fort Steele does. It is a destination draw for approximately 50,000 people each year and an attraction that stops another 70,000. The Cranbrook Chamber of Commerce calculates that each visitor to this region spends an average of $130 per day. Most of the 50,000 destination visitors spend a full day at Fort Steele, with more and more staying a second day. That in itself results in $6.5 million, along with another million or so spent travelling out of the region. The other 70,000 spend an average of three and a half hours at Fort Steele, $4.2 million for our region. The 15 government employees live here, injecting an additional $750,000 into this community.

           A very old TIDSA study estimated Fort Steel Heritage Town to be worth $20 million to the East Kootenay. Your investment in culture pays direct dividends in the East Kootenay to gas stations and hotel owners, among many others.

           Fort Steele studies the human condition in and through time, presenting evidence for the understanding of our past. It also makes that past relevant to the understanding of our present and future condition. The current exhibits on prejudice and intolerance are a case in point. Perhaps most germane to this standing committee, however, is the fact that Fort Steele produces a very positive gain to the regional economy. The ongoing provincial investment in our history provides understanding, pride of place, a regional tourism magnet and a very significant investment multiplier that spreads significant dollars throughout the Kootenays and up into the Shuswap region.

[1725]

           I ask you to give due consideration to how you fund public services. In particular, I would ask you to be favourably inclined to those services that assist rural regions such as the East Kootenay. Cultural components of the economy are easily glanced over or dismissed as frills, but they do contribute significantly to both quality of life and the ability to keep the micro-economies of rural areas vibrant and healthy. We do a great deal for ourselves, but we still require government involvement to make regional economic drivers, such as Fort Steele Heritage Town, truly effective. The

[ Page 413 ]

government funding component of the Cranbrook Public Library is also crucial to this community resource and works for the benefit of everyone.

           In your budgetary deliberations, please consider the unique economic and cultural needs of rural areas such as Cranbrook and East Kootenay. I appreciate your coming out to consult with us and encourage you to consider the above when making your final decisions. Thank you very much for your time.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Derryll, for your presentation. I'll look to members of our committee.

           K. Krueger: I also want to thank you, Mr. White, for your presentation. I've been to Fort Steele many times. I was always proud to take visitors there when I lived here, and my children loved it. My church used to have socials out there. You could go and listen to the Fiddlers Hatchery. Do they still come up and play at Fort Steele?

           D. White: They still do.

           K. Krueger: So when we talk about history, it's a happy history for everybody that's experiencing it. I just want to congratulate you on that. I wonder what percentage of your visitors are from within British Columbia and how many from other provinces and from out of the country.

           D. White: I think the last figures I saw break down to about 50 percent are European and American visitors, about 30 percent are Albertan, and about 20 percent come from the B.C. region — all of the province. We have a hard core of local users and a lot of draw from Alberta and increasingly more European visitors and Americans. I suspect, with what's happened, that the rubber-tire traffic will grow.

           K. Krueger: I think you may be right. After this first unfortunate economic hit from those tragic events, I think people may well decide that they're going to spend their holidays on their own tires. Anne Edwards had mentioned that she felt there was significantly less money put into promotion in her area. I wonder how Fort Steele is marketed.

           D. White: Not very well, Kevin. Like all government departments, we've experienced budget freezes and a kind of overall budget decrease. One of the areas that gets hit is marketing. Increasingly, we go to the Internet for some of our marketing. We go to partnerships with Tourism B.C. We have partnerships out of Calgary and things like that.

           K. Krueger: I was going to ask you about the collaborative marketing with the industry. I was in Nova Scotia several summers ago, and they have an incredible book that maps out different trails a tourist can take throughout the province. Something like that, it seems to me, would be an ideal thing to pick up at the first tourism information centre you reach in B.C. It certainly would include Fort Steele. Do we have any major joint venture marketing initiatives like that?

           D. White: We have one that's called Pathways to Past Ways, which is a joint marketing initiative with Parks Canada and takes in Calgary and a big loop through the East Kootenays into Alberta. It takes in things like Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump, Fort Calgary, Glenbow Museum. That's an initiative that's really shared the costs around.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions, Derryll, but you brought up a very interesting point in your last paragraph: please consider the unique cultural and economic issues we face in rural British Columbia. Certainly, that's where I'm from — from Peace River South and Dawson Creek. That, I can assure you, will be brought forward and discussed in the manner that we encompass the entire province and the unique needs of all areas. I thank you for your presentation.

           Our next presenter this evening is Carmen Purdy. Good evening and welcome.

[1730]

           C. Purdy: Good evening. It's a pleasure to be here. First, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to come before you today concerning our province's financial future. I also would like to thank those presently in the provincial Legislature for the promises kept during their first 90 days of the new era for British Columbia. The government pledged it would act to initiate 22 specific changes within 90 days of being sworn into office, and they fulfilled that pledge. Thank you very much. Due to the debt, the months and years ahead will be difficult ones. I hope the government continues to act. Actions are sometimes painful, especially financial ones.

           I'm retired. I have been for five years. In my real life I was president of the B.C. Wildlife Federation — I still am a very active member — president of the B.C. Conservation Foundation and founding president of the Kootenay Wildlife Heritage Fund. I was also a director of the Nature Trust of British Columbia and did several other things in the area of wildlife and forestry. I was manager of human resources for a forest company, and in that role on several occasions I was in a position where we had to make hard financial decisions in terms of people, cutting costs and how we made that company productive. In that way, I think you have a very difficult role. I've been there and done that.

           When I first moved in, the federation was severely in debt and had no opportunity at all of paying it. We were in bad shape. I had to lay off people. I had to cut things that we were doing wrong, travel and that sort of thing. That doesn't seem like much, but over two years' time we went from a membership of 14,000 to 37,500 and carried on from there. The federation is still on its feet, and I think it had a lot to do with those people at that time who would make the hard decisions for the future in terms of that organization.

[ Page 414 ]

           The people of British Columbia and our government have to address the gargantuan debt left to us by former governments. Foolhardy and reckless spending in B.C. by a non-caring government over the past ten years has left B.C. in this absurd financial position. It was done at a time of financial prosperity for the rest of our country. When B.C. falls behind Newfoundland, it's time to wake up.

           Finances can be defined as the art and science of managing revenues and resources for the best advantage of the manager. In fact, in the case that we have here, it's in the best advantage of all British Columbians that you do what you have to in order to get us back on track. Provincial wealth is a sacred trust which the government is bound to administer during its tenure for the good of the people and community. Wealth is one thing most honoured by men and a source of great power. Owing nothing is a good feeling, and as a retired individual I can say that's the truth. It's a good feeling. You go through working life always in debt, but when you're finally out of it, it's a good feeling. Wealth not only means power; it also means liberty and security.

           Debt, on the other hand, is one of hell's catch pots — a trap that man sets and baits himself and then deliberately gets into. Debt is the end of freedom, and debt makes a slave of many. Debt is the first and mightiest force to undermine governments and corrupt the people. If you don't believe me, just look at what an economic collapse has accomplished in Russia, a resource-rich country that failed due to economic and political means.

           Economic uncertainty is nothing new. It has been around since the free market system began and before. The deficit we have is not going to disappear anytime soon; we all know that. Our debt level has climbed dramatically in the past decade. The interest payments on our debt alone are mind-boggling. The consequences of our provincial indebtedness parallel those of the family that continues to use credit cards and other debt to fund current living expenses. By obligating themselves to repay the debt at some point down the road, the family has mortgaged its future. The past provincial governments, by continuing to spend more than its income, have done the same.

           There are several options, of course, hoping to work our way back into the black. We could raise taxes, an unpopular and historically impotent strategy. We could decrease spending, tighten the belt on programs ranging from welfare, health care, education, road construction, etc. None of these alternatives is entirely painless, and all carry a tremendous economic and political price.

[1735]

           Forecasting is very difficult, especially about the future. Too often, again, the adviser becomes the problem, and as we all sit here today and make presentations to you, I'm sure we'll get comments in the community. We all tend to react rather than act, I think. Some act like thermometers — always in the red, high-lining spending until the bottom falls out. Winter sets in, and then we are in the blue. That's where we are right now in British Columbia.

           We should act like thermostats. Thermostats control their environment. I'm asking that your government do that. Thermometers reflect their environment, and we have to get into control once more. We do not have to react to our changing financial climate in a knee-jerk, haphazard fashion. We can control our financial future through proper planning and preparation. As a province we can thrive during economic uncertainty. This should not merely be our desire but our expectation, regardless of financial forecasts.

           Solutions for the new era for B.C. — jobs and family, provincial budgets, a secure future — are quite simple. They are how all families should plan financially as well: spend less than you earn, avoid the use of debt, maintain liquidity and set long-term goals.

           I've gone through all this first stuff here knowing that you're doing that already. I'm not telling you anything new. These four principles — living within your income, avoiding debts, staying liquid and setting long-term goals — are simple, so simple they can be easily overlooked.

           With an effective money management plan in place, the government can approach the future, any future, with a sense of genuine security. I look with envy at our neighbours next door, the circumstance of Alberta, and they all say it's so good. They're so wealthy, and they're so resource-rich. We are too. We just haven't used it to our advantage, or we've spent more than we've brought in.

           Governments must learn to control spending, pay down our debt, enjoy liquidity and set goals. A proactive plan is needed. During Joseph's tenure in Egypt several centuries ago, he developed a financial plan. We all know the story of Joseph. With seven years of feast followed by seven years of famine, a strategy was required. It worked for him. Of course, he had some divine help. I'd suggest that maybe some of you guys should get on your knees and ask for that.

           B.C. certainly needs a financial plan. Without one, our escalating debt will eventually force us into bankruptcy. I am personally looking forward to the time when our government controls spending and begins to retire our debt. This is respectfully submitted by myself.

           A couple of areas on the last pages, the bullets — and that's probably all you'll use — and notes on road deactivation from John Konkin, who is a gold medallist professional forester and built roads in the Kootenays for 30 years of his life. He maintained them and looked after them and was responsible for them. At no time during his tenure here did we cross ditch roads, did we beat up infrastructure, did we pull them apart, did we tear them down.

           We're doing that daily in the Kootenays, and it's to the detriment of the people who use the bush here. We want to be there. That's our playground. There are many, many roads. John's got a few listed on this memo. He's the guy who put it together. Those roads were in place. You could hardly wash out a road here. In my tenure with the same company, 30 years, we had

[ Page 415 ]

two periods where the roads were washed out. We had six inches of rain overnight in 1984, and it sloughed the hillside down by Irishman Creek. We also had some problems at Sparwood at that time. All the rest of the time, we did not have to worry about roads washing out.

           Wildlife is another excuse they use for taking and putting roads to bed. It's a lie. Sweden kills 120,000 moose a year. It's half the size of B.C. It's all north of 54, somewhat north of 60. It's not roads. Sweden's been roaded for a thousand years.

           Florida kills more mule deer or whitetail than we have in our whole province. I was talking to a doctor and his brother, who were hunting in the Bull River three days ago. I spent a couple of days with them. Their deer season in Alabama starts in October and ends in March, and there's no limit. They have a million deer in Alabama. Two years ago I was on a mountain with a guide and his client, a lawyer from Michigan. Michigan has 450,000 whitetail. It's totally roaded. It's a lie, and we've been cajoled into believing that taking roads out is going to help our wildlife. It isn't going to happen. That isn't what the reason is.

           Retrenchment, controlling costs. I remember working in the '83-84 era, and we had to go into retrenchment. At one point in our company, we laid off about 50 people. That was a major layoff for us, but we had to. We had no other choice. Our company was hurting.

[1740]

           I was part of a retrenchment program. There were 40 of us who were asked if we would retire early, but they gave us an opportunity to do so with our face smiling and up. We didn't have to go if we didn't want to, but they gave us such a good offer that we did go. Forty of us went, and there were 40 more behind saying: "Me too." Those sorts of things may cost the government money, if they have to go through some retrenchment in taking out what I call non-replaceable positions. I don't know of any replaceable positions within the bureaucracies, but I do know that some of them really work hard for their living. There are some that don't have to be replaced, I'm sure.

           Economics is not all about money. Every act of environmental protection is an economic decision. I've been involved in environmental things all my life. Putting 25 percent of the Kootenays aside wreaks havoc on our economy, and the 12 million-acre Muskwa-Kechika is the same. Locking up huge areas of old-growth forests is an economic decision, and we have to review some of those decisions that were made in the past, because those are the areas that we make our money from.

           When I look at a small area just south of here called the Dominion Coal Block…. During some hearings in CORE we looked at the 500,000 acres in the Purcell wilderness and the 50,000 acres near Natal-Michel in the coal block, and the individual who was talking about the Natal-Michel Coal Block, the Dominion Coal Block, said this: "In the coal block we have 20,000 cubic metres of wood a year that we can cut." That would be one shift on the Alcoa plant, which is about 160 people for a month.

           They have all the wildlife there. They had the waters of forest streams. He said: "We have 74 holes drilled, and we have $400 billion worth of coal in the coal block at today's prices." To give you some kind of an idea, Cominco, in all of its 100 years of operation, put together about $22 billion in product. That's $400 billion. I asked the parks fellow what the Purcell wilderness would have in the same terms. I know they have 60 million cubic metres of wood there. That would determine cut for Crestbrook or Tembec for 50 years, out of one small area.

           He said: "It doesn't matter." That was his answer. That's the problem. It does matter, because we cannot lock up resources to the point where it doesn't matter. It matters to all of us in this province if we want to continue to have the life and the living we've had in the past.

           Expanding a national or provincial park and demolishing existing infrastructure around the park is an economic decision. Not allowing industrial activity near park boundaries is an economic decision. Destruction of logging roads and mining roads on the whim of government biologists and foresters is an economic decision. The passage of many laws and regulations concerning the environment has harsh restrictions on business and kills real jobs. They also trash the provincial economy. Such laws and restrictive regulations are economy-thrashers and must be revised, changed or eliminated — economic decisions.

           The artificial resource-scarcity phenomenon during the nineties, along with the high cost of doing business in B.C. created by the NDP…. Their rules, laws and regulations have trashed B.C.'s economy. These varied regulations have come home to roost, squeezing the life out of B.C.'s free enterprise system, all in the name of environmental protection. This must be changed if we are to pay our debts — economic decisions.

           During the nineties the rapid growth of government and government regulations destroyed the province far quicker than the imagined pollution we all wanted cleaned up. It is now time to clean up stunningly stupid regulations and to reduce government — economic decisions.

           The forest industry has been substantially reduced in B.C. over time. Employment levels are down, and downtime for mill shutdowns and bush closures from environmental rules…. It is time to significantly reduce the bureaucrats in both the Ministry of Forests and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection — economic decisions.

           Bureaucrats build greater bureaucracies, not greater societies — an inherent fault in B.C. causing capital flight to alternate places. The mining industry left B.C. during the nineties, curtailing employment and economic growth, because there were better alternatives elsewhere. B.C. now needs the mining industry more than the mining industry needs B.C. They have been regulated out of existence. It's time to get this responsible industry back — another economic decision. Thank you very much for listening to me.

[ Page 416 ]

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

[1745]

           K. Krueger: Thank you very much. You've covered a tremendous amount of ground, and I share many of your views. One of the tragedies, of course, of the decade you spoke about is that for the rest of the continent, they were years of feast. Somehow we doubled our debt in that time and now have to pay $3 billion a year in interest on that debt.

           We are certainly targeting the overregulation that you discussed. We have a minister of state specifically assigned to work across ministries on our target of cutting red tape by one-third in the first three years of this government. You've given us a number of good suggestions. If you have more, we would welcome them. If you want to follow up your verbal presentation with a further written presentation, we'd welcome that certainly before the October 31 deadline to be included in the report we're building, but anytime after that as well. We know there's a lot out there to wade through.

           I was going to ask you, at the end of your presentation, whether you had any specifics. Then I turned the page and found quite a few. I share your revulsion at the so-called water bars, the deactivation of roads that have been used for decades — to no harm — by the public. In fact, it's great to have them there when there are forest fires and so on. I think the public plays a big role in managing wildlife populations and reporting poachers and things like that. I can hardly ask for more input when you've given us so much, but whatever comes to mind, including through any research and collaboration with your Edmonton colleagues, we'd be glad to have. Thank you very much for giving us this.

           C. Purdy: I would certainly be willing to do that. The habitat conservation trust fund was formed right here in this hotel in 1981. Hewitt and others, including Premier Bennett, were here. I was Chair of the East Kootenay Wildlife Association at the time. I think the habitat conservation trust fund has been hijacked. I see that Matt Austin is wanting a million bucks to relocate grizzly bears in some obscure corner of the province. If that were going to be good habitat for them, the bears would already be there.

           There are many other areas that I would like to discuss. As Chairman of the B.C. Conservation Foundation right now, we're cutting back and holding down our expenses. We know we aren't going to be able to depend on government funds to the same degree that we have in the past, so we have to be more innovative about how we go about getting those funds.

           H. Bloy: Do you see the environment and mining working closely together to redevelop mining in this province?

           C. Purdy: Yes, I do. Some of the best bighorn sheep and elk populations we've got in the East Kootenay are on the coal fields. In fact, our bighorn sheep are in jeopardy right now. When I was a fairly young kid — 14 — in 1953, there were 6,000 bighorn sheep in the East Kootenay. Now we're lucky if we have between 600 and 1,000 bighorn sheep. A lot of those bighorn are on the coal fields. They're on the reclaimed mine sites.

           I fed elk in '96-97 during that winter from hell. I retired and went feeding elk. The government tried to put me in jail a couple of times, actually, for doing it. We raised $140,000. Volunteers put that much money in hay on the ground. It was $154,000 we raised.

           Mining, with the regulation and the responsibility they have, is not a detriment to the environment. It's such a small pinpoint. If you really want to do something smart, you guys should go back into the Tatshenshini and open her up. Let that mine go. That's a $5 billion mine. That's a lot of work, and nobody's there.

           B. Kerr: I would just like to get you really depressed for a second. [Laughter.] You were talking about debt, and that's something that's high on my agenda. If we just use 7 percent, debt will double every ten years. So the debt's going to be $40 billion by the end of 2003-04 if we don't do anything. In ten years it will be $80 billion. In 20 years it'll be $160 billion. I've got grandkids that are two and a half years old. By the time they get into the workforce, if we don't do something, we'll be saddling them with $160 billion in debt and $11 billion a year in interest payments at 7 percent. It's better to make the tough decisions now than when we get down the road.

[1750]

           C. Purdy: I agree. I wrote a letter for the provincial foresters about what would happen in the year 2100. I said that at the beginning of 2000 we'd change governments, and they'd begin to sell off some forest land. They'd look at it like Sweden did. As you guys know, 75 percent of Sweden is privately owned forests. They kick our butt every year. They cut 100 million cubic metres, and their plan is to cut 120 million cubic metres by 2010. We could learn some lessons from them. Free enterprise works and privatization works.

           We have a very, very rich province, and there are abundant ways that we can put money together. Everybody would scream and holler if they thought we were going to take public forest land and turn it over to private for a good price.

           I finally convinced the Nature Trust to log a little piece of ground here. To give you an example, there are 46,000 cubic metres of wood on that little piece of ground that the Kootenay Wildlife Heritage Fund was a part of buying. This is a small example. We're going to log probably 30,000 cubic metres. If we sell it here at $80 a cubic metre, we'll realize $854,000 profit, so we can buy up some other property or whatever. But if we sell it across the line for $120 (U.S.) a cubic metre, we manage to get $2.5 million in profit from that one little piece of land. It's only a small piece of land.

           There are all kinds of opportunities. I won't take any more of your time, but I will write some things, and I'll get some others who have some better ideas than I do to write too.

[ Page 417 ]

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Mr. Purdy, I would like to thank you for your presentation. Certainly you put a lot of thought into it and came forward. One of the comments you talked about was a little divine help, and we certainly need to get down and say a few good words. I would also ask you to get down on your knees and say a few good words for us as well.

           C. Purdy: I do it daily.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): There are some challenges out there.

           Our next presenter this evening is with the College of the Rockies Faculty Association: Velma McKay.

           V. McKay: I'm the president of the College of the Rockies Faculty Association. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of the faculty association. We're a member local of CIEA, the College-Institute Educators Association. Locally, we represent approximately 200 full-time and part-time faculty. The College of the Rockies serves the entire East Kootenay region. Its main campus is in Cranbrook, and its smaller campuses serve Creston, Kimberley, Invermere, Golden, Fernie and Sparwood.

           Our college served over 1,500 full-time-equivalent students last year, and we have nearly 2,400 individual students registered this semester alone. The majority of our first- and second-year students are located in Cranbrook, but we have been experimenting with distributed learning offerings for students elsewhere in our region. We also offer programs at our regional campuses which are uniquely suited to the communities they serve.

           Creston, which is known for its agriculture, is the site of our horticulture program. Fernie, a world-class ski area and mountain destination, is the site of our mountain activities skill-training program. Golden, known for its proximity to the Bugaboos, is the site of our adventure tourism program, and Invermere is the site of other tourism programs.

           We offer adult basic education at all but our newest campus in Kimberley. Increasingly, we have been offering preparatory programs for those wishing to enter health care fields. When the need and funding have allowed, we have offered resident care home support and practical nursing programs at our smaller campuses.

           The College of the Rockies is an integral part of the communities it serves, and we serve our students well. It is important for us to continue to be able to address the very real training and retraining needs of those who are forced either to make career changes or to leave this area, and often this province, in search of jobs. We offer education and training tailored to the needs of our communities and to the adult students and their families. The more courses and programs we are able to offer displaced workers and other students without uprooting them from their communities, the more likely it is that they will be able to fill the positions we know will be upcoming in health care, trades and education.

           The impending shortage of tradespeople has not escaped our notice. Though we are able to offer entry-level trades training in a wide variety of fields, the apprenticeship system is not working well in our area. This has caused unfortunate situations to arise. For example, a major local employer of heavy duty mechanics has been known to recruit journeyman mechanics from offshore to fill vacancies, yet they have no positions available for apprentices.

[1755]

           If students are unable to secure apprenticeships in our area, how are they going to receive the training they need to fill the jobs we know will be there for them in the near future?

           Now may be the time to increase the capability for training tradespeople from entry level to journeyman status in the college system. We know the shortages are coming. The major employers in our region are concerned about the shortages. We need the government to make it possible for us to fully train the skilled workers those employers are going to need soon.

           The distance between our campuses and the relative sparseness of population density in our region create funding challenges that do not occur in urban colleges. Past studies on the post-secondary education system have pointed out the inadequacy of the core funding for institutions like ours. We have no more fat to cut. If the funding to our institution is reduced or even frozen at current levels, we will be unable to maintain our full complement of courses and programs.

           We need the government to fund the wage settlements for faculty members, which were bargained in good faith, and reasonable wage increases for our support staff, who will be entering into negotiations in the spring.

           While the government has made promises to increase the number of graduates in many high-profile programs like computer science, engineering and health-related fields, students tell us that they need access to the courses that prepare them to enter those programs. Adult basic education is a vital part of the programming offered at our campuses, because students need to take the prerequisite courses to prepare them for future education in high-profile programs.

           Our first- and second-year university transfer and career technical courses provide the people of this region with economically viable ways to start their post-secondary education. We cannot train more doctors if they cannot take the range of pre-med courses they need to enter the program in the first place, nor can we expect to graduate more engineers if they cannot take calculus, physics and other necessary courses before entering the school of engineering. The more available that first- and second-year preparatory courses are in regional colleges like ours, the more you are supporting the training of health care professionals and high-tech workers who are interested in working and living in the less urban parts of this province.

[ Page 418 ]

           The college allows students to complete training as care aides and licensed practical nurses in the East Kootenays, thus providing the hiring institutions with a supply of employees willing and happy to work here. In cooperation with BCIT we currently offer the first year of the nursing program. As the program changes from a two-year to a baccalaureate program, we hope to be able to offer more of that training here.

           In partnership with the University of Victoria we have a very successful teacher education program, which has been supplying our area with elementary and now secondary teachers to help fill the vacancies in that sector.

           It is far more cost-efficient for us to train local people here in the East Kootenays than to have them travel to the lower mainland or, in some cases, to other provinces, never to return. While we applaud the government's commitment to increase spaces in specific areas, the government must not lose sight of the importance of supporting all the programming which is offered at regional colleges like ours.

           Now I'd like to give you a bit of a personal perspective. Let me tell you about my son. I'm a single parent, and though I have a good job, the prospect of sending my son out of town to attend college or university would have put a serious financial burden on my family. Yes, my son did have part-time jobs while in high school and throughout college, and student loans might have been an option. But like many parents, I did not want to see my son saddled with thousands of dollars' worth of debt before he even got to start his career. Former students who've struggled to make payments on student loans are not stimulating the economy by buying cars, houses or furniture. They can barely afford to make the payments on their loans, keep a roof over their head and buy food.

           Like many high school graduates, my son knew that he was interested in computers, but he didn't know exactly what he wanted to do with them. When he came to the college, he enrolled in a business administration program and took a variety of business and computer courses as well as English composition and finite math. Along with computer skills he learned about marketing, accounting, logic and how to put together cohesive English papers.

           He also learned that he was not cut out to be a businessman. He decided that he might want to take a computer science degree. In his second year he entered the university studies program and took more computer courses, calculus, physics and philosophy. He discovered that the level of math needed to become a computer programmer was not what he desired.

[1800]

           In the third year, our college was able to offer the computer support technician program. It was not cheap, and it taxed our family resources in order for him to attend, but he was able to live at home, and that made it doable.

           When he finished, he was able to secure a practicum position with a local Internet provider and, later, six months of full-time employment with the same company. After nearly eight months working in Cranbrook, my son, unlike many of his classmates who have chosen to live in Cranbrook, chose to move to Vancouver. After a few months working at less desirable jobs to pay the bills, he was able to secure a full-time continuing job doing computer tech support for the federal government. He got the job not only because he had the one-year computer support technician program behind him, but because he also had at least one more year of post-secondary education in computer-related studies.

           To get the job, he had to write an English placement exam so that he could demonstrate that he had the writing and communication skills required to do his job — writing skills he had developed in that first-year university English course that he'd taken at our college, supposedly in his wasted year. He was able to take that course because he was able to live at home and attend an institution where tuition was reasonable and access to university-level courses was readily available. He was able to explore his options and become a well-rounded citizen and an all-round more desirable employee.

           He will be paying his fair share of provincial taxes for many years to come. Because he does not have a student loan hanging over his head, he's considering purchasing a car — more than I can say. He will no doubt be in the market for furniture and maybe a home in the not-too-distant future. In short, my son is stimulating the economy. He is a taxpaying citizen of this province, and over the course of his working life he will reinvest in this economy far more than we as taxpayers invested in his education.

           Do I consider any of the time or money he spent taking courses at the College of the Rockies to have been wasted? No. In his short working life, apart from using the computer skills he learned, he has already made use of the marketing, English and reasoning skills he attained while attending this college. I suspect that when he sits down to calculate how much tax he owes, his accounting skills will come in handy. While his present employer may not have hired him because he can do physics or has read philosophy, the fact that he is a critical thinker will be an invaluable tool for him and his employer.

           My son was fortunate. He was able to take the prerequisite courses he needed while in high school. Many of the students who come to the college have not. For them, adult basic education is vital. The ability for students to combine ABE courses with some first-year, nursing or business administration courses gives them a head start on their education, which is an important advantage of the college system. My son had a comprehensive community college in his town.

           While distributed learning is an improvement to no access at all, many courses do not lend themselves to that delivery style, and many students cannot thrive in it. It is colleges like ours, in the rural areas, that provide the tradespeople, health care workers, high-tech workers and teachers who are willing and often eager to stay and work in the smaller communities.

           Post-secondary education is an investment the people of this province make in our collective future.

[ Page 419 ]

Community colleges in the rural areas of this province provide needed access to post-secondary education and are important contributors to the economic development of their region. I urge you to invest in post-secondary education in general and in the public college, university college and institute system in particular. Now is the time to invest in the future of British Columbians, not just in high-profile areas of high-tech, trades and health programs but in a comprehensive way that will allow those who do not live in the more urban areas of this province the ability to access vital post-secondary programs, including preparatory programs like ABE.

           We recognize that funding is tight and that recent tax cuts and a downturn in the economy have put a strain on the provincial budget. We hope this is not used as an excuse to shift the burden for post-secondary education funding to students, through tuition increases. For many of our students, tuition is already a barrier to their access. We know that the finance ministers are working together to encourage the federal government to adequately fund health care. We would like them to encourage the federal government to support funding for post-secondary education. Many of the strains faced by the post-secondary education system in this and other provinces can be traced back to the transfer payment cuts in the early nineties.

[1805]

In spite of funding challenges, the College of the Rockies and indeed the whole college, university college and institute system have been remarkably successful at meeting the goals of access, quality and affordability set out in Charting a New Course, the provincial strategic plan for post-secondary education.

           In your efforts to meet the promises made in the New Era document and the challenges of limited budgets, I urge you not to lose sight of the vital role that regional colleges play in meeting the post-secondary education needs of British Columbians. I also urge you to provide the funding necessary to the college and institute sector to meet contractual agreements made in good faith and with the approval of the Public Sector Employers Council. Adequately funding public post-secondary education is the best way to ensure that this province will have the economically bright future we all strive for.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Velma, for your presentation. Certainly, that is a lot of information to get into 15 minutes, and you did a very good job. I will look to members of the committee if there are any questions. We have time for one quick question if there are any.

           L. Mayencourt: You're rightly proud of your college and your son. We will not dare to forget the vital role that the college plays in this community.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Velma, again, thank you very much for coming and presenting to our committee this evening.

           We will move on to our next presenter this evening. Our next presenter is with the Cranbrook and District Arts Council, Melba Hanson. Good evening.

           M. Hanson: The East Kootenay region is one of many areas whose economies have been based on extractive resources such as forestry and mining. It has been evident for a number of years that there has been a gradual reduction in the economic contribution of these industries. In our region we are increasingly looking to future growth in the tourism sector to offset dollars lost from resource industries.

           Cultural tourism is an important component of the tourism development taking place in Cranbrook and the surrounding region. For a number of years we have been working in our city and throughout our region to put in place infrastructures for the growth of this economic sector. Cranbrook is the home of the largest single concert, convention and sports venue in the East and West Kootenays, the Cranbrook Rec Plex, and the home of the renowned Canadian Museum of Rail Travel. The Key City Theatre is the finest performance facility between Calgary and Kelowna. Nearby Fort Steele Heritage Town provides locals and tourists with a sense of our history and contributes incredibly to the region's tourist appeal.

           None of this would have been possible without the economic contributions of provincial, municipal, federal and regional governments. None of this would have been possible without the huge number of volunteer hours from local citizens interested in arts, culture and the economic betterment of our city and region. Continued efforts to strengthen arts, culture and heritage and to strengthen cultural tourism and support economic growth in this sector will require continued government funding.

[1810]

           Regarding funding, we offer this quote from the April 2001 issue of B.C. Business Magazine, comparing provincial government per-capita spending on the arts in 1997-98: "Quebec leads the pack with $18.54 per person, little Newfoundland shells out $15.16, Alberta spends $7.25, Ontario $3.10, and way at the bottom a niggardly B.C. doles out $2.62." Yet to quote Stephen Thorne of Kelowna:           

              "According to StatsCan, more British Columbians are now employed in arts and heritage than are employed in mining and fishing combined. When film, the music industry, book publishing and B.C.'s other cultural industries are added to the equation, some 60,000 British Columbians make their living in culture — more than are employed in agriculture or forestry. Cultural tourism is perhaps the fastest-growing sector of North American tourism, and tourism is B.C.'s second-largest industry.

           "B.C.'s total investment in museums, archives and historic parks…on a per-capita basis is last among all provinces. B.C.'s total investment in the performing, visual and literary arts on a per-capita basis is last among all provinces. Altogether, B.C.'s investment in these cultural assets is…one-sixth of 1 percent of B.C.'s budget." This fact is not lost on Ottawa.

[ Page 420 ]

           "During the past dozen years federal funding of B.C.'s culture has never exceeded one half of the national per-capita average. Culture's track record as an economic driver…is well-documented in the literature of public policy."

           I encourage you to please hold firmly on funding to this sector of the economy. It is the future. Do not cut funding to the B.C. Arts Council or to other cultural groups, theatres, historic sites, festivals and cultural organizations presently funded. Please work with arts organizations, communities and business in a cooperative spirit to grow this economic sector. The Cranbrook and District Arts Council has an active body of individual members plus organizations who are members and businesses that belong to our council. All are dedicated to fostering arts and culture. We are all interested in the direction of this government and what it will offer in its policies and funding. Thank you.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation, Ms. Hanson. I will look to members of the committee if there are questions from any of them. I see none. I will put one forward to you.

           With the issues we're facing as government and as British Columbians, who are all of us, the financial picture is not that great at the present time. We have to make some changes. I think that's a pretty straightforward statement. Looking to what you've said about investing with arts and culture, and it being the economic driver that it has a possibility to grow and be, do you have any ideas on where we can find that funding? In all honesty the issue of finances is very difficult right now in our province, and I would look for any recommendations.

           M. Hanson: Actually, the recommendation in my presentation was based on not cutting any deeper. We didn't ask for more. We didn't suggest that we could have a tax on culture. We didn't suggest that we take away some of your gaming and lottery funds, which you're using for hospitals, for arts and culture. There is significant investment of time, effort and money in this region to grow this part of our industry, and it needs your attention as well.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Thanks very much.

           Our next presenter this evening is Randy Reay with the Kootenay Livestock Association.

           R. Reay: Good evening, hon. Members of the Legislative Assembly. The Kootenay Livestock Association welcomes the opportunity to share our thoughts on the budgetary requirements necessary to get our province moving again. We share the goal of revitalizing the provincial economy and creating a business-friendly environment which will encourage industry to once again invest in our great province. That investment will create jobs, and when people are working, they not only pay taxes, but they have the confidence to spend. This isn't rocket science. It is simple, basic economics, but it unfortunately hasn't been practised in our province for the last ten years. We offer the following suggestions for your consideration and action.

           Social programs. We applaud the minister for his recent initiative, advising those able-bodied citizens receiving social assistance to find a job. We recognize the need for social programs for the truly needy, but it is a program that has been abused by far too many for far too long. For those unable or unwilling to find employment in the private sector, government should put them to work. Working on the serious forest ingrowth problem, weed control or beautification projects are just a few examples. Such measures will instil some pride and self-esteem in these citizens and help them to help themselves.

[1815]

           We need to cut government waste. Again we applaud the government for setting up the waste line, but that is just the beginning. Government must adopt a more common-sense, businesslike approach to running their own ministries. When ordinary citizens can identify some of these wasteful practices, why can't government? There is never enough money for highways to treat noxious weeds, yet — as we drove in tonight, there was a prime example — there's money to spend excavating highway ditches and spreading those weeds to new locations. I doubt there is a citizen living in rural B.C. who can't tell you a horror story about waste or theft in forest fire–fighting practices or activities. These are only a couple of examples, but there are many more, and government needs to clean these up.

           Government downloading — it simply must stop. For too long government has used the worn-out excuses that it has no budget, so the citizen must pay. When will government learn that as long as they keep their hands in our pockets, we won't have any money either? Just a couple of examples of those, from our industry's perspective, are range and highway fencing, where original agreements have been backed away from by government. The downloading has been put on the users.

           Forest Practices Code. This huge bureaucratic albatross has effectively stifled the number one industry in our province. All British Columbians wish to protect our environment and ensure the sustainability of our forests, but this legislation is so burdensome that it has killed the entrepreneurial spirit of those who have made the investment necessary to drive this once-proud industry. These businesses, which once drove the economic engine for this province, aren't investing in new plants and equipment. They are laying off and not hiring workers. We can't help but wonder what government is waiting for. Surely you will realize that most of this is the result of the previous government. But it's you who are there now, and you're going to have make some decisions.

           You must be able to see that the coastal harvesting and silviculture requirements just don't apply to interior forests. They won't work. Again, I will provide a couple of examples. We struggle with serious forest ingrowth. Yet industry must plant logged areas and later thin them. Both of those activities are at considerable cost.

[ Page 421 ]

           We are at a crisis level in terms of losing our productive grasslands not only for wildlife but for livestock, which we're involved with. Most of the loss of these grasslands is due to forest ingrowth. Yet the industry rips up thousands of hectares of land by distrenching it to meet the planting requirements put on them by the code. Neither of these examples makes any sense.

           We need to make better use of the resources of the Columbia Basin Trust. What the previous government allowed to happen to the trust is unforgivable. The potential of the trust to be a powerful economic force in our area is astounding. This potential will never be realized until the government changes the structure and operating procedures of this organization.

           The levels of bureaucracy that have developed and the environmental movement's domination of boards and committees have led to wasteful practices and a failure to meet the original mandate, which was to restore economic vigour to the industries which were negatively impacted by the building of the dams in the Columbia basin. This is not being done, and as each day passes, more opportunities are lost. We encourage you to do something now. Some courage in leadership will be required to change the focus of this potential powerhouse. The rewards are there for all British Columbians.

           Government leadership. The provincial Liberal government received an overwhelming mandate earlier this year, and that mandate wasn't to stay the course of the previous government, which had us on a perilous course to ruin. The mandate was to make changes. You as government must take the lead, and we will follow. The announcement that efficiencies will be made to government ministries is a good start, but we caution you to do it right.

           There is no question that government is bigger than it should be or needs to be, but as those cuts are made, make sure it is the dead wood that goes and not just those junior positions on the seniority list. We encourage you — we implore you, really — to have an independent assessment made of all ministries and let someone who is outside identify who should go and who should stay. To let those in senior positions make those decisions guarantees the wrong people will go. Senior civil servants, many of whom are partially responsible for the mess we find ourselves in today, will never replace themselves. As government cuts the size of bureaucracy, there must be a corresponding reduction in red tape and regulations. Otherwise, business will continue to be held back by unacceptable delays and burdensome paperwork.

[1820]

           The tax cuts already announced were also a courageous and good step as we start on the road to recovery, but government must resist the temptation to continue to raise licence fees and other administrative fees which are simply taxes by another name. Government must, as private business has, learn to do more with less. An old adage of my father comes to mind: look after the pennies, and the dollars will look after themselves.

           Just yesterday I was listening to a request for Vancouver transit to reinstate service on some of their routes to 24 hours a day so that those frequenting the bars till 3 or 4 a.m. wouldn't be required to drive home; some of them would be driving impaired. The cost to operate that expanded service was going to be $1.2 million, and the recovery would only be $240,000. Such practices in business would lead to failure. Government must have the courage to make sound business decisions. You can't afford to weaken to the cries of the faint of heart. You can never be all things to all people.

           In conclusion, ladies and gentlemen, we must all work together to return our province to a position of strength in the Canadian economy. An earlier speaker referred to the situation where British Columbia found itself lagging behind Newfoundland, and that's an embarrassment to all of us as British Columbians. It should never have happened; we all know that. We all bear part of the responsibility of changing that around and getting back on course. Some of the choices government must make won't be easy or popular, but they are necessary. We encourage and we applaud you to make the right decisions, big or small. You'll be giving the leadership that we expect. If you create an environment where our base industries can once again have confidence, they will invest. Those that have left will return, and other industries will follow. Now more than ever government needs to be courageous and creative, and we ask you to do it now, please.

           Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Randy, for a very thoughtful and well put forward presentation.

           We'll look to members of the committee if there are any questions.

           J. Bray: Thank you, Randy, for an excellent presentation, as the Chair said. I'm wondering if you can give us any advice on things that government can do, particularly for the ranching and cattle industry, that might help you to expand your industry not just in the East Kootenays but throughout the province.

           R. Reay: Thank you for that opportunity. We have spent some time over the last couple of months putting together a presentation to government. We have put forward some suggestions that we believe would help our industry, and in return that industry would be stronger and help with the economic recovery.

           One of the basic things we need to be able to do is to improve the conditions out there on our rangelands. These rangelands, which we rely on so heavily, are also our forest lands. They're also the lands on which the wildlife roam, are viewed by visitors and are hunted by our hunters. This is a precious resource to all British Columbians, and we the ranching community require those lands to be productive as well.

           What we find happening in the East Kootenays is a tremendous amount of this land base being lost to forest ingrowth. That hurts us; it hurts the logging

[ Page 422 ]

industry; it hurts the wildlife industry. What has been happening over a period of years…. The statistics and the evidence are readily available, and we'd be happy to make that information available to your committee. It's very clearly evident, as you look at the photos over the years, that the forest cover is moving in tremendously. If that was all productive forest and was leading to higher yields for our forest companies, then obviously there would be some positive aspects to that. But we find that in most of these forest ingrowth areas, it is not. It's like your carrot patch. If you don't thin it, you really get nothing. You get no trees; you get no grass. If you're left with very dense stands of unmerchantable timber, you're also left with situations where grass can't grow and wildlife and cattle can't graze. We're suffering from that. Part of the problem is that we've become so efficient at fighting fires that one of nature's great tools to restore the ecosystem has really not been allowed to work, and that has cost us significantly.

           Our water resources are tremendously important. This year, as you know, the Kootenays are suffering tremendously dry conditions — unusual for us. This is the second year in a row. It's put a lot of pressure on our water resources. I remember a few years ago hearing someone say that water would be the oil of the twenty-first century, and I kind of laughed and thought that was a bit foolish. How true that's turning out to be.

[1825]

           I think we're all recognizing the value of that resource and the fact that we need to be able to share it. We need to be able to share it responsibly and use it responsibly. That doesn't mean that we throw all the safeguards away and that we don't care and that we want the Walkertons. Nobody wants that. What we do need to be able to do is access these resources and utilize them to help our industries become stronger. When they're stronger, they'll hire new workers, and we'll be able to pay more into the coffers.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see no further questions, Randy. I would like to thank you for your presentation. As I've indicated to other presenters, certainly it will be given due consideration in the development of our report. Again, thank you for taking the time.

           Our next presenter this evening is with the East Kootenay Environmental Society, Mr. John Bergenske.

           J. Bergenske: Good evening. I believe you've got a copy of my presentation.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): It's on its way.

           J. Bergenske: I'll just start right at it, and hopefully, there'll be time if there are a few questions afterwards. The East Kootenay Environmental Society represents over 650 members in the East Kootenay region concerned about maintaining healthy, natural ecosystems, recognizing that water, air and ecosystem quality is fundamental to the health, social and economic well-being of all of the region's residents. Government has a responsibility to all British Columbians to protect the air, water and natural ecosystems of the regions and to ensure that this generation passes the rich natural heritage of our province on to future generations.

           We appreciate the Premier's commitment to providing exemplary environmental stewardship and suggest that government must recognize that this requires adequate funding of government agencies and programs. A review of other provinces such as Alberta and Ontario demonstrates that B.C. is already underfunded to provide adequate environmental safeguards.

           EKES believes that government must play a strong role to ensure that the use of our natural resources is sustainable and that the right of all British Columbians to a healthy environment is not sacrificed to obtain apparent short-term benefits. This requires sufficient government planning, regulation, monitoring, oversight and enforcement. Government must ensure that the province receives a fair return on revenues for the use of public assets, that users of natural resources are appropriately regulated based on the best independent science available and that the ecosystems that maintain us all are sustained into the future.

           EKES recognizes that the diversification of our economy is strongly dependent upon the natural settings and wildlife populations of the region. Beautiful British Columbia, an increasingly important asset in world markets, is threatened by lack of sufficient funding to protect B.C.'s environment. Government must appropriately fund the ministries responsible for maintaining our natural resources: Sustainable Resource Management; Water, Land and Air Protection; and Forests. Present personnel and funding levels for these agencies are below levels necessary to meet government's responsibility to safeguard fundamental environmental values. Anticipated budget cuts to these agencies threaten the future of all British Columbians and result in government revenue reduction through lack of direct revenues as well as the decreased social and economic health of our communities.

[1830]

           The social and economic health of British Columbia is directly dependent upon an environmental quality unique to British Columbia. Accordingly, it is our recommendation that the government sufficiently fund research on water, air quality, fish and wildlife habitat, vegetation and forest values; natural resource inventories, made widely available to the public, industry and government to ensure a sound basis for decision-making; ongoing assessment of the status of a full spectrum of environmental indicators, particularly wildlife habitat, water and air quality, forest values; land and resource planning processes that include participation by a full range of interests; enforceable environmental regulation and permitting that is transparent and open to review by the public; monitoring of natural resource use — to ensure compliance with environmental protection measures — sufficient for evaluation of changes to environmental quality; strong enforcement of environmental protection measures supported by sufficient planning, monitoring and enforcement personnel; wildlife habitat maintenance and restoration programs;

[ Page 423 ]

planning, maintenance and monitoring of environmental values in B.C.'s parks and protected areas; appropriate assessment, monitoring and collection of fees to the Crown for use of the province's natural resources. This applies to all users of water, air, forests, mineral, range and commercial recreation resources and public education programs that encourage action by citizens on issues including global warming, water and air quality, recycling, wildlife and habitat protection.

           Environmental quality suffers at the hands of industrial as well as private users without sufficient planning, regulation, monitoring and enforcement. Appropriate enforcement is impossible without sufficient planning, monitoring and oversight by government agencies. Government must provide sound scientific research and inventory to support informed decisions for sustainable natural resource use and protection. Government must play an active role in habitat maintenance and restoration and ensure that natural resource users provide appropriate compensation to government and appropriately contribute to rectifying past environmental degradation. This applies particularly to industrial users in the mining, forest and industrial tourism sectors.

           Initiatives such as the restoration of the Rocky Mountain Trench ecosystem, which was mentioned by your previous speaker; maintenance and restoration of habitat and populations of threatened and endangered species, such as mountain caribou and bull trout; up-to-date wildlife and forest inventories; and full landscape unit plans and excess management planning are a few specific examples of direct funding needs in the East Kootenay.

           The East Kootenay Environmental Society appreciates the opportunity to bring this general list of concerns to the committee and would appreciate the opportunity to be involved in further discussion of specific issues in regard to allocation of provincial resources.

           That's the official presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions on more specific issues that you might have.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Thank you very much, John. It was a very well-put-together presentation and very well presented. I will look to members of the committee.

           J. Bray: Thank you, John. A good presentation. It's actually interesting that you followed the previous presenter. I got a sense from his presentation that he looked at government regulations pertaining to the East Kootenay and the natural habitat as cumbersome for industry — forestry, mining and those types of things. You would advocate, perhaps, something different, but we've heard a lot from people who haven't argued with the outcome of what the environmental regulations have been trying to achieve. The complaint we've heard, though, is that the current regulatory scheme is so complex and so convoluted that big business, small business, medium business, ranchers and ecotourism outfits have had trouble understanding what it is they're supposed to do. Would you agree with the general statement that the outcomes should be better stewardship of our natural resources? A regulatory regime is certainly necessary. Would you agree, though, that there needs to be a change in the current regulatory regime to actually achieve those outcomes, or do you feel the current one is good?

           J. Bergenske: No. There's definitely need for change in an evolution of how we do regulations so it's easily understood by all people involved. At the same time there has to be basically some lines drawn in the sand. Previously a lot of the regulations were very process-driven, and that was actually a direct result of some of industry's concerns about specific regulations. If we are going to go to clean regulations, we need to have those lines in the sand, and it actually becomes much more of a legal framework than we're presently working with. I think some of the confusion comes from the fact that we do have a process-driven system presently. Again, that was an attempt at maintaining some flexibility, which people, I think in retrospect, are feeling is exactly what they've lost: the flexibility. So I think we still have a bit of dancing to do, as it were, to find the balance there so there's something clearly understandable and yet still flexible but is able to actually provide some real direction and some actual regulation. Unfortunately, the history of environmental protection has shown that without some actual enforcement and once in a while the hammer coming down, quite often the values slip out from under us.

[1835]

           J. Bray: John, I appreciate your comment on balance and making things clear and direct. That's good advice, and I think the previous presenter would probably agree with the same as well. We may disagree sometimes where the line is, but I think you've identified a clear thing: nobody knows where the line is. I appreciate your response to that question, John.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there any further questions, members of the committee? Seeing none, John, I would like to thank you again for your presentation this evening.

           J. Bergenske: For sure. As it's been pointed out, Randy and I may not agree quite often on many issues, but on trench restoration I think it's good that you have a strong message on land use issues from a real cross-section of the folks working here in the valley. There's a very strong desire to see government continue to be involved in the trench restoration program, to deal with the growth issues. It's very important for industry and everybody who cares about our natural ecosystems.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Our next presenter this evening is Lori Johansen. Good evening, Lori.

[ Page 424 ]

           L. Johansen: Good evening. I'd like to welcome the committee members to the East Kootenays. My name is Lori Johansen, and I live in Kimberley. I've just come from work, which is why I'm wearing teddy bears. I'm here, actually, to represent students, post-secondary education and especially the College of the Rockies. The college here played a key role in my success and a tangible future. Right now I am employed at the hospital in the lab, where I work full-time and have a permanent full-time position. I have extended benefits, and all of this, I feel, is largely due to the opportunity I had to attend the college.

           I'll just give you a little bit of history about myself, and hopefully I won't be a windbag. I was an orphan at a really young age — at 13 — and both my parents were from overseas, so I was left, basically, with no family. There were quite a few hardships along the way and not a lot of support as I was growing up. I married in 1985, had three children, divorced shortly after and found myself struggling to raise three children without any formal education. I had a number of different jobs and did actually end up going back to college — I was living in the Prairies at the time — but unfortunately for me, the college I chose went bankrupt, so I was no further ahead but ended up with a $10,000 student loan hanging over my head.

           Over the course of the next ten years I took on many different types of jobs: waitressing, working in a hotel, working at the ski hill here in Kimberley, a lot of seasonal work — nothing ever permanent and nothing that was enough to raise three children on. I had an opportunity to do some upgrading at the college and get into the nursing program there — the LPN program. I guess I consider myself living evidence of what post-secondary education can do for someone — especially someone in my situation, where it seemed as though my life would always be a financial mess.

           I did my upgrading at the college, and it was very difficult. Money was tight. It was always difficult to find babysitters. I'm sure you can imagine. I did my upgrading and enrolled in the PN program, which is a 12-month program. It's 12 months straight without, really, any breaks. I managed to complete the program, and since finishing in 2000, I was able to gain employment at the Cranbrook Hospital where, like I said earlier, I am now permanent full-time and feel like I finally have a future. I've paid off my $10,000 debt.

[1840]

           I think my story is a really good representation of what post-secondary education can mean. There were many times through the years that I landed on the system — on and off continually. I'm at a point now in my life, thanks to the College of the Rockies, that I don't think I'll have to go back on the system ever again.

           The support network that I found at the college was amazing. The instructors I had went over and above the call of duty to support me, encourage me, pick me up when I was down. I actually had a car accident about halfway through the nursing program and had to drop out. I missed two weeks. Then to get back in, I had to hire an instructor to catch me back up, which they were more than willing to do. It was a really difficult year, but I have a whole new life now. I felt it was important for me to come to this meeting and present my little story of what post-secondary education did for me. There are just a few things, if you don't mind me reading them off my sheet.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): No. Go ahead.

           L. Johansen: Did you follow all of that? Did I leave anything out?

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): You did terrific.

           L. Johansen: We're on the same level here.

           I recognize that the province faces significant economic and budget challenges. I recognize that one of the purposes of this evening is to look at ways of dealing with those challenges. I also recognize that the post-secondary system in the province has been spared from some of the significant cuts that other ministries face.

           I recognize that the education system in the province is a key to the economic success of the province overall. Given that, I can't help but feel strongly that in fact additional funding should be added to the colleges, like the College of the Rockies, so that they can better meet the education and training needs of adults like myself in the region. It would have been next to impossible for me to uproot my children — who are 15, and I have twin boys that are 12 — and go to Vancouver or a bigger city. I think it may have been traumatic for all of us. To have the college so close by was a huge benefit for me.

           The importance of having an education and a training institution so close to home…. Well, I just couldn't say enough. It was great to be just so close by. I would like to emphasize what a good investment a college education is. The reasonable fees and access to financial supports provided by the province helped me significantly. As a mother of three and a person who's planning to stay in this area, it would be good if the government could look at providing even more programs through the College of the Rockies. That's it.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Lori. I think you did a terrific job putting your presentation forward.

           L. Johansen: Thanks.

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

           J. Bray: I'll defer to anyone on the other side first.

           A Voice: Looks like it's you.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Apparently.

           J. Bray: I've said this before at other hearings. We have the benefit of hearing from all sorts of people — often it's groups — who come representing various

[ Page 425 ]

points of view. I think the committee, generally, always finds that when individuals just come and tell their stories and how the big budget impacts their lives, those are the most powerful stories of all. You talked about what the post-secondary institution has done for you. I don't think you should underestimate what you've done for yourself. I think you should be congratulated on that.

           We do have tough decisions to make. Given that you are from this part of the world and that you plan to stay in this part of the world and acknowledging, as you did, that we have some decisions to make, do you see if we were to increase funding to post secondary — make the investment in post secondary — other areas of what government does that it might be able to make some changes in order to allow that to happen? Do you have a sense from your own experience in the East Kootenays?

           L. Johansen: I'm not sure I understand your question.

           J. Bray: If we are already in a position where we're spending more than we're taking in, in order to achieve an increase in spending for post secondary, we're going to have to decrease from somewhere else or increase revenues. Have you got some sense of where, for the East Kootenays…?

[1845]

           L. Johansen: I think it's a big picture, myself. As far as where you could take the funding from, I can't say. I do know that because of the money that was spent for me to become educated and all of the thousands of dollars that were spent on assistance and having medical paid for and all of those benefits — if you can call them benefits — that went along with being on the system, I am no longer a burden to the system. I think that down the road, it might balance out. Where you could take the money from right now, I have no idea. But I do think it is a worthwhile investment.

           L. Mayencourt: I haven't seen the College of the Rockies. Is it a large facility? Are there lots of people on the waiting lists?

           L. Johansen: Well, it's not far from here, so tomorrow morning you can skip right on up there and have a look.

           L. Mayencourt: They've got us on a really tight schedule, so we may not this trip. But I'll come back.

           L. Johansen: It's a good size. Actually, I think you might have one other person presenting today — at least his name is on the list — who's with the student union. He could probably answer those questions better. It is a good size. I think it's growing constantly. I've become really good friends with the instructor that led me through my nursing program, and I think that as of today, they have 80 applications to get into that program.

           L. Mayencourt: Do you know if those people have to wait very long to get into the program?

           L. Johansen: I had to wait one year. I had to complete my upgrading to get in. I don't know how much that has changed now, as far as their waiting lists. If they had more money and more space and more instructors, they could definitely accommodate the heavier numbers of students. I think every year there is an increase in enrolment. I'm mostly familiar with the LPN program, and it's booming. It's such a great program, and the instructors are so dedicated. The nurses that they turn out, I believe, are top-notch.

           L. Mayencourt: They certainly seem to be.

           L. Johansen: I like it here.

           L. Mayencourt: We're starting to like it too.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Lori, I see no further questions. Again, I would like to thank you for the presentation you put forward and for taking time out of your schedule. Certainly, getting off work after a long day and making time for us is much appreciated.

           We'll move on to our next presenter, who is with the East Kootenay Home-Based Business Association, Mr. Paul Komer.

           P. Komer: My name is Paul Komer, and I'm vice-president of the East Kootenay Home-Based Business Association. I am the owner of the Coffee Lover's Club. That's been a B.C.-registered business since 1994. I've been part of the East Kootenay community for 16½ years, having moved from Vancouver. I am past president of Big Brothers/Sisters of Cranbrook and still sit on the board in that capacity. My last daughter has left home, so now I'm trying to put my efforts into making a really good business for my retirement.

[1850]

           I'm going to address the panel and try to stay really focused, because there's so much happening. Historically, things just haven't led to a point where you can track them without crises that have happened in the world that are affecting us.

           I'd like to begin with some general statements, without getting into the numbers of it. Our enrolment in the East Kootenay Home-Based Business Association has steadily declined to the point where it's very difficult for the association to support and promote home-based business. Initially, we had a large membership, and a lot of those people were there to create jobs for themselves because of the jobless rate in the East Kootenays. RDEK stats now show that there's between 11 and 12 percent unemployment in the East Kootenays. I think it's 11.7.

           The one thing that comes out of this is that people who are working spend money. If you're not working, you just don't have the money to spend on the little things. My product, for instance, is anywhere from $2 to $3.50, and compared with road coffee at $1 a cup or less, it's something that is an extra for people.

[ Page 426 ]

           There are three areas in which I'm looking to make a recommendation to the panel when it comes to what the budget is going to entail. First of all, I have an executive responsibility to try to promote and support people in business and my own business. The atmosphere in which that happens has to be positive. It has to inspire hope and confidence in people. I can't find that anywhere. The things I'm hearing are that we have to make cuts.

           There are three areas in the East Kootenays that are very important to any kind of commerce. They are forestry, regional government services and tourism. It's very hard in an atmosphere like this to get statistics that you can rely on. Everybody says that tourism is down. It's not looking good, and it's not inspiring people to say: "Wow, we're going to have a really good ski season." We've got ski hills around here. You guys should stick around for when the snow comes. They're beautiful ski hills. They've got very good reputations. There's been a lot of money dumped into them. People are very hopeful that they're just going to be packed and the spinoff effects are going to be fantastic, but that's not going to happen. Like I said when I first opened this presentation, world events, something that nobody could have foreseen, have impacted on that.

           The airlines are cutting back service. The article I saw in the paper was that they're cutting out two flights in and out per day. We don't know if people are going to be coming from Europe. That's the large part of the business around here. Fewer people spending money means that the people who work in those industries are not going to have money to spend. That's tourism. Like I said, I can't get a definitive answer out of anybody how much it's down. Anyway, there's a whole aura of gloom around there. That's not hopeful.

[1855]

           The second part is the government services. The RDEK stats show that the income of the ones targeted for the cuts is $75 million. That's a lot of money. I wish they'd spend it all on coffee, I'll tell you. This is my math. If those cuts — anywhere from 20 to 50 percent — happen, the losses in revenue to anybody…. They're not going to be able to spend $15 million to $37 million. That impacts so much.

           The third thing is forestry. There are things that impact forestry that people who cut down trees — or the government that helps them to sell them — don't have any control over. It's like the softwood dispute that's going on. Who knows where that's going to go? Again, it may be stalled because of world events.

           When you're looking for government leadership to provide a hopeful and enterprising future for people, that's what the budget should reflect. I think that what the budget has to do is put money into tourism. I've heard that the Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce is going to put a lot of effort into promoting Vancouver. That's great. However, we have to promote this area. There are other areas in the province that are in the same boat we are. Forestry has just dropped off the edge of a cliff. We can't find out what's going on. There's a feeling of gloom in that industry too.

           The government has to provide services anyway; they shouldn't make any cuts. If the budget reflects that the government is there to lead and instil hope and confidence in the people, there will be more people spending the money they make. People that are unemployed don't spend money. The leadership has to be there to create an atmosphere whereby, instead of doom and gloom, budget cuts, recession, world events and everything else, this government is going to say: "Wait a minute, what's really more important here? Do we give the people of British Columbia a feeling of hope so that people want to get into business and there is going to be business to be had?" I've heard an awful lot about B.C. being open for business. But for those here who are in business, especially my business, it's not doing too well, and it's not looking too good.

           There has to be some mechanism whereby the government can reassure the people of British Columbia and elsewhere that despite what's happening, we are not going to have more and more people unemployed, and that we are going to do everything we can with this budget to keep people employed and to create new employment opportunities so that people can spend money and our economy can thrive.

           That's basically where I'm coming from. I don't know if it's as simple as it sounds. I sure would like to see some positive statements and a budget reflecting some of the points I've tried to put across, so people can say: "Wow. That's going up. That's really something that will instil confidence and hope, not doom and gloom." We've got so much to worry about. Even people in Cranbrook are worried about touching their mail. People are worried about their jobs and their fun. It's not looking good anywhere. There has to be a ray of hope.

[1900]

           If a budget reflects the position taken, you're not saying: "Well, jeez, there's only one dollar. Somebody's got to lose for that dollar to be spread apart." I'm not a rocket scientist when it comes to money, but I think there should be some way for you not to help the downward spiral of people's hopes fading. With the means that you have available, you should try in the budget to instil the hope of a direction that this is a good place to live and make money.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Paul, I'd like to thank you for your presentation. I will look to members of the committee.

           J. Bray: Thank you very much, Paul. I hope you continue to be in a home-based business because I think that's an underutilized area for people to be economic engines in their own industry. Part of what this committee is going to be charged with doing is trying to do exactly what you're talking about. We sort of hear from some in the business community who said: "In the last ten years the budgets didn't create the environment for businesses to come and invest, hire people, create the jobs and do those kinds of activities." We're trying to create the budget that allows that to happen, to bring people in.

[ Page 427 ]

           If you listen to the Premier, we as a government are walking that fine line between trying to advise the people of exactly the challenges we face and the process by which we're meeting them versus doing things in secret and telling people afterwards. I also think that one of the changes, which hopefully will be reflected in this budget over previous years, is that we have a provincial government that's working very hard to create new areas for British Columbia and for our exports. I think the Premier has already been to Ottawa more times in the last four months than our previous government had been in the last four years, trying to re-establish a positive relationship with Ottawa to get the supports that we deserve as part of Confederation. In another two weeks the Premier is off to Asia to try and let Japan and China know that this is a place where they can come and invest. We already have China accepting our building standard so that they use wood that is cut in our mills; we don't need to re-jig our mills. We're trying to encourage that type of investment so that we're not always so dependent on our north-south relationship and to create some new economies for British Columbia business.

           At the same time it's recognizing that people do depend on government services in trying to make sure we have our priorities right so that the services that are most important to British Columbians are maintained and strengthened. This committee is going around the province trying to find and pull out those bits to ensure that the provincial budget reflects those goals that I think are complementary, but sometimes it's hard to arrive at it. I think British Columbia can be in a strong position, and I hope this budget actually lays that groundwork so that the rest of North America and the rest of the world see British Columbia — not just Vancouver, but all British Columbia — as a place to come visit, do business and maybe even stay here.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): I don't think there was a question there.

           J. Bray: I think I was agreeing with Paul on that. We need optimism.

           L. Mayencourt: You mentioned tourism, and it seems like there's a lot of conversation here tonight about arts, culture, quality of life, skiing — some really nice things about this area. Do you know what they're doing in building up the area in terms of tourism? Are there things that we could be doing through Tourism British Columbia? Would that help?

[1905]

           P. Komer: Like I said, I think these stats are correct with anywhere from 11 to 12 percent unemployment. It's seasonal around here. I mean, you have golf courses like you wouldn't believe. They're all over the place, and they're world-famous. We have so much, but we could be looking at events that are out of people's control. People don't want to get on a plane because they're afraid it's going to blow up. They're not going to come. There's not much you can do about that. Then with service being cut, you could see a 15 percent unemployment rate. It didn't drop because the people who work around the ski hills and things like that aren't working. You could even go up to maybe 20 percent if people in the government get fired — right? So what can Tourism B.C. do? Like you say, we've heard about Vancouver, but there are other areas of the province where Tourism B.C. has to say: "Hey, wait a minute."

           Maybe you're going to have to subsidize people coming in — incentives. It's too much for my head sometimes. The States are saying: " Hey, we're going to give a $500 rebate to a single person if they travel." B.C. might have to do something like that. B.C. might have to keep people working. If things get worse because of events that you have no control over and if you help those events by not showing up or firing people…. Like I said, the whole concept here is that it's all going down the tubes. In for a penny, in for a pound. We're all British Columbians. British Columbians have to work. They have to be supported no matter what they do, and I think Tourism B.C. — that's a really good example — has to say that there's something outside of the lower mainland, and it's great.

           I keep hearing this: "There's no money. There's no money. There's no money." I don't know if you people actually handle the money.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, I don't get my hands on a bunch, I can tell you.

           P. Komer: I think the point of that argument is…. We just can't use it anymore, because there's just no hope there. You have to say: "We are going to find the money. We're going to put it in. Tourism B.C. is going to have some strategies to help other parts of the province to overcome these things that are happening." Whatever. The government services are going to have to find some money to keep people working.

           You're going to have to do something about forestry. Ever since September 11, that kind of fell off. I have not heard a thing about it. It must be really difficult to deal with the softwood dispute when there are so many people dead and so many things happening. I understand these things, but I really want to stay focused with all of this stuff happening.

           For people in charge of the budget, there comes a time when you have to say: "Wait a minute. What's the lesser of the evils here? Are we going to stand apart from all this doom and gloom?" I think you have the power. The government has a lot of money — right? It's just that everybody wants a little bit of it, and you're looking at that. But I think you are going to have to support the things.

           If I were running it, I know what I'd do — it may not be the right thing — because logically it makes sense. Give people incentives to use the places in the East Kootenays to travel. Force the airlines to make an extra run, and only cut it in half. Don't lay all of these people off. Do something about selling our wood. It's a long-term process, but that's what I think. Yes, you have to twist their arms. If you have any say with gov-

[ Page 428 ]

ernment services or the chamber of commerce or Tourism B.C., then I think the budget should be the incentive for that.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Paul, I do want to thank you. Just factually, looking at the budget, the government has money. The reality is that the government is all of us. The facts are that if we take the tax cuts out of the picture — which many people have discussed — by 2004, delivering the services that we deliver today, we will be spending $3.8 billion more than we're bringing in. In my eyes, that's truly unsustainable. We talk about hope, and we talk about building a future. I think the way to do that is certainly together, but we have to get our fiscal house in order. Otherwise, the hope isn't going to be there. There are tough decisions that have to be made. All of us are going to bear some pain in getting through these tough times, but I believe an optimistic outlook is going to have optimistic results. We have to look at that and work together on that.

           I want to thank you for your presentation.

[1910]

           I will call our next presenter to come forward and prepare: Mr. Dean Draper.

           D. Draper: I'm before you tonight as a concerned citizen of Cranbrook. I have lived and worked in this community for over 18 years. My wife and myself have enjoyed living in this area, raising and supporting our three children, who are now young adults making lives of their own. I'm employed in the resource management sector, while my wife works as an education support worker with special needs children. Cranbrook, as you know, is a relatively small community that provides a safe and comfortable environment to raise children. It has, over the years, provided my family with good educational and recreational opportunities. We always felt the health care was adequate for our needs, at least in the past. I have always been satisfied and thankful for the standard of living my work and this community have provided my family. In fact, I really have no desire to live anywhere else.

           My concern, I hope to explain to you this evening, is for my community. It's a concern that recent government intentions to slash the budgets of the public service could have a major impact on this community and other communities in the East Kootenay region that support us. As you know, Premier Gordon Campbell has announced that the public service will be downsized and has asked each ministry to consider the effects of severe budget cuts ranging from 20 percent to 50 percent. He has also asked each ministry to conduct a review to determine the core services that need to be delivered and if any services can be reduced or eliminated.

           I understand the government's need to control spending, but I wonder if the cuts that are being proposed are maybe too extreme. In a smaller community such as Cranbrook, this may have a negative effective on the economy but could also impact the important and necessary services government provides. I'm not opposed to governments trying to carry out their operations as efficiently as possible. Sometimes this results in reorganizing structures and delivering services in perhaps a different manner and may even result in having a surplus of employees from time to time.

           The reality is, though, from my observations, that the previous government had initiatives to review ministry structures and to look for and identify efficiencies. There's nothing wrong with this. Looking for more efficient ways of doing things should be ongoing, and it makes good business sense. This has been happening and continues to happen. The previous government, however, dramatically reduced the size of the public service.

           I'm not sure if this downsizing was a result of finding efficiencies or was just a means of reducing government spending. Whatever the reason, downsizing happened, and the government had to carry on and deliver the services the public expects but with fewer employees. In fact, the public service has been downsized almost every year since 1996, starting with 3,500 positions that were cut that year. By 2000 the public service had been reduced by almost 4,800 positions. According to Statistics Canada, B.C. now has the second-smallest public service in Canada.

[1915]

           It is very surprising to me that this new Liberal government would again consider dramatic cuts to the public service. At some point you would think that continued downsizing would affect the ability of the public service to adequately deliver services the public requires and expects. I believe we've reached that point.

           Tonight I would like to comment on two major concerns with the government's plans to slash the budgets of the public service. I question how much more our B.C. public service can stand to be cut before we see adverse effects on service. Secondly, how much more can communities, who are already feeling the effects of a downturn of the economy, tolerate further increases in the unemployment rate? This could be quite severe in communities such as Cranbrook, where the public service is a significant employer.

           First, I would like to comment on what my concerns would be with a further cut in government service. Since I work in the field of resource management, I will use this as an example. Currently, I believe the public service does a very good job of protecting our environment and managing wildlife as well as managing our forests and supporting a forest industry that is a major employer in this province and in this area. I believe we are fortunate to have some of the best environmental legislation in the country, if not the world. The public service is the only agency, in my opinion, that can act in the best interests of the public to enforce our legislation and to ensure that our forest resource is sustainable and that our wildlife and environment are protected. Only a public service can ensure that this task is carried out unfettered, without risk of profit or other special interests affecting its decision-making. I don't think we can stand a further reduction to the public service and risk compromising the sustainability

[ Page 429 ]

of our resource-based economy. In my opinion, our forest management practices in British Columbia are some of the best in the world, and I think we should try to keep it that way.

           I would also like to briefly comment on what I fear could be another result of downsizing the public service even more. When a large employer in a small community has to lay off a large number of its employees, this often can have a significant economic impact on that community. My information tells me that within the East Kootenay region, there are more than 1,400 direct government employees. In my books that's a very significant employer in an area that only has a total regional workforce of around 27,000.

           Like private sector employees and business owners, government employees also spend money in their communities. They buy cars, houses and food. They go to movies, restaurants and hockey games, so they are significant contributors to the local economy and support the many businesses in that community. Unlike any large company or employer, if a large number of people who live in a community suddenly lose their jobs, they lose their source of income and no longer will be carrying out any discretionary spending within that community. This obviously affects local businesses and could result in further impacts to the local economy. The effects could result in further unemployment if local businesses are forced to lay off employees or even close. Government revenues could also suffer as a result of reduced spending.

           Last month the unemployment rate in East Kootenay was around 11.7 percent, or about 3,483 people unemployed. I have no idea what a 50 percent budget cut would mean to this area and how many direct government employees would lose their jobs as a result. As an example, if the number of government employees to lose their jobs in this area was 35 percent, this could have the effect of raising the unemployment rate for this area to more than 13 percent, or about 486 people who have lost their jobs. This demonstrates to me the significance the government has in this area as a major employer and the significant effect it could have on the local economy.

[1920]

           Tonight I would strongly urge you to reconsider the total scope of the impacts that could result from a further large downsizing of the public service. In doing so, I would ask you to consider some recommendations. First of all, I know there were comments earlier that the tax cuts in the long term could possibly be a good thing for the province. Maybe you should consider delaying the proposed tax cuts that were to be implemented early next year and consider phasing in tax cuts over a longer period of time to allow economic recovery.

           Secondly, extend the deadline of the core review of government services to ensure there is adequate time to thoroughly review the impacts and alternatives. Consult with the public as part of this process to determine the services the public desires and what services they consider important. Determine budget requirements after the core review is complete. Let the core review drive budget determinations. I'm referring to government budgets. Consider only minor or no budget reductions for the 2002-03 fiscal year, if the core review cannot be completed in time.

           Consult with all public service employees to search for efficiencies and alternative ways of reducing the cost of government without reducing the workforce and services. If a budget reduction for the public service is still required, consider spreading it over a five-year period to lessen the impact and be able to manage any downsizing through attrition rather than direct layoffs. A large number of public service employees will be eligible to retire in the next several years, and I think that should be strongly looked at as well.

           That's about it. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to make a presentation of my concerns tonight.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Dean, for putting your presentation forward. You've put a lot of work into it, and it's clear. I can see that.

           I will look to the committee if there are any questions.

           L. Mayencourt: Dean, I'm sort of looking at the stats as well. One of the things I notice here is that in 1999, you had a big surge in building. A lot of building took place here. Do you know anything about that? What caused that? You went from $13 million in commercial building permits to $24 million. Did they build something big here? What did they build?

           D. Draper: Are those regional stats you're looking at there?

           L. Mayencourt: Yes, for Cranbrook.

           D. Draper: The Cranbrook area was built. We had the ski hill development happening. There were golf course developments. The economy was a little bit better that year, I guess. There were quite a few housing starts and so forth. I'm not sure what the reasons were.

           L. Mayencourt: So it was probably building for the tourism industry.

           D. Draper: I suspect so, but I can't be sure.

           A Voice: Rec Plex for Cranbrook — $20 million.

           D. Draper: Rec Plex as well, yes.

           L. Mayencourt: Ah, okay. Thank you.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there any other questions?

           Just one question, Dean. I'll point out the issue of the core services review. Certainly, trying to get the input from everybody is very important to government in looking at that. It isn't as much dollar-driven as it is common sense–driven. The questions that we're being asked are: are we delivering the service properly?

[ Page 430 ]

Should we be delivering the service as government? I think tying it to a percentage or dollar figure to reach would negate the real principle of the core services review. Although they can work hand in hand, I don't think one depends on the other in that sense. I just wanted to clarify the issue of core services versus what we're doing with budget.

           D. Draper: Yes, I understand that they're two separate but parallel processes. I guess what I was getting at — maybe I didn't explain it as well — was that the core review could perhaps point the government in the right direction where efficiencies could be made. There may be different ways of delivering services that could save government money. Why would you create budget targets prior to knowing where you can perhaps save money and what might actually save you money? Rather than just cutting the budget, you might want to deliver services in a different manner, and that might do the job for you. That's sort of what I was getting at.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): I envision that what you've just stated is the method by which we will try and approach this. I've stated this before. Whether you're running a household, a small business or government, you can't continually spend more than you take in, in revenue. There does come a time when you have to make the tough decisions and try and bring things back on course, so we can grow the economy and the services we provide.

[1925]

           B. Kerr: I'd like to mention that there's been a lot of…. Everybody hears the worst numbers. The minister asked the ministers of the various portfolios to come back and see where they could make the cuts up to the maximum, to see if it's possible. Give him a hard target to see what can be done. Clearly, they're going to be looking at things to see if there are efficiencies, but I don't think you're going to be seeing 50 percent cuts. In some departments you won't be seeing any cuts.

           If something has to be delivered, it'll be delivered. Front-line workers that are doing the work are the ones that are on the ground. There may be efficiencies, somewhere between where the rubber meets the road and where the idea is up here, that they're going to be looking at. I'll just give a perfect example of what's happened, where there were about 150 people in a department. That department wasn't needed at all. That was in the Buy B.C. bonds. We're saving $170 million by just going to the financial markets rather than doing it ourselves. All those people were bright people. That department was cut in its entirety, and they all got jobs somewhere else. So there's a department where 100 percent of it's gone. In other areas it might be 2 percent or 1 percent. The idea is that if the service has to be delivered, it's going to be delivered. I mean, that's in our New Era document. We say that we want to restore confidence. We want to deliver the services; we want safe communities. We just have to look at other ways of doing it, because the way it was done in the past didn't work. I just want to get some optimism in this room. All is not doom and gloom.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Dean, again, thank you for your presentation. I encourage you to speak with Josie so that we can get the other pages of your report. I think it was very well done.

           D. Draper: Sorry about that.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): No problem at all.

           We will move on to our next presenter this evening. With the Creston and District Community Resource Centre Society, we have Serena Naeve. Good evening.

           S. Naeve: Thank you for allowing us to be part of this process. I don't have a written submission because I moved from the wait-list early this afternoon to madly writing my ideas down.

           I'm Serena Naeve, and I'm the executive director of a social service agency called the Creston and District Community Resource Centre Society. I live in a small town of 5,000 serving a population base of 15,000 people. We have limited professional resources, and, for example, we currently have half the required physicians per capita that we should have to serve our population and no specialists in our community. This is from government guidelines. Other professional resources are in similar circumstances in my community.

           I have 13 programs under my umbrella, all with specific mandates of service funded by five different ministries of government: the Ministry of Health; the Ministry for Children and Family Development; the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; the Ministry of Human Resources, and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We're a non-profit society committed to the provision of accessible community-based social services to enhance the well-being and social development of individuals and families in the Creston valley. I provided services to approximately 1,000 clients last year. I am one of 750 non-profit agencies serving communities in the province — front-line. In my community, like a lot of rural communities, I administer 30 staff and supervise 30 staff on four days a week, so we're talking about a different relationship here.

[1930]

           I have huge concerns when I hear of cuts between ten to 50 percent in ministries of government. We all understand that cuts must be made, but 50 percent cuts are too drastic and extreme. I understand the Liberal government made promises regarding the need to bring the provincial deficit under control. I support this concept. Those promises, however, were made under different circumstances and in different times. Our new circumstances are these: softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. and tariffs on our lumber, affecting one of our largest industries in British Columbia. We are already feeling the effects in our small communities. Secondly, the terrorist attacks in New York affecting the airline industry and the ripple effect beyond that — huge economic world effects, not just in B.C. The B.C. economy

[ Page 431 ]

is currently fragile. Thirdly, I wake up every morning to CBC and the news of layoffs or companies leaving British Columbia, such as Western Star in Kelowna this morning.

           We need to make intelligent, well-researched gradual cuts in this province. We need to have a plan of how to implement this in stages. We need to make changes when our circumstances change or when we make mistakes. This process will take time and patience. Our circumstances have changed since the election campaign, and our B.C. economic plans need to be adjusted.

           I would like to reinforce to the government that we need to be very careful how we implement cuts and reductions regionally and how they affect the very small communities under them. Smaller rural community cuts or reductions in services mean there is nowhere else to go and, in the social service sector, nowhere to refer clients, which is not the case in larger centres. I recommend that you analyze and be aware of the cumulative reductions in small communities to minimize the impact. In my experience, often ministries will make cuts, but they don't talk to each other about those cuts. The cumulative effect in the small communities is pretty dramatic.

           The services I provide in the social service sector are cost-efficient, and we often prevent more expensive treatment in hospitals. We help to prevent more crime activities in our communities due to intervention. We provide intervention, for example, to suicidal clients and populations. We treat many individual and family crises front-line, and we try to have a more preventative approach and short-term/long-term plans surrounding families. We help clients make better choices.

           On another note, I operate, as most social service agencies do, with a 10 percent admin budget. That's a direction from government. That covers admin wages, heating, lighting, rent and stationery. I think the government needs to look at my sector and how we balance budgets, because we cannot be in deficit. We have to come in with a balance in terms of what we do, because we don't have any choice. Remember that when you reduce service to already disadvantaged people due to their circumstances, you take away hope. We need people to feel productive and to contribute to society.

           I do have a few recommendations in terms of globally…. I'd like to see a balance of priorities across the ministries of government. I think we all have to share in the reductions. I'd like to see a balance between promoting business and a social conscience in terms of how we are as a society ? the philosophy and the morals of our society. I think we need to still invest in our children and families, because they're our hope for the future.

           We need to put some of our health funding into preventative health, which we rarely do, because we rarely have enough money to do that. We need to do it in physical and mental health, engaging people in making better choices. We are personally responsible for our health, and we are partners in health personally and with government.

           I still feel, like everybody else, that most people have talked today around tourism in B.C. We need to promote that into the U.S. They have a great currency, a great dollar, and they're not coming into Canada as much as they should. I don't think we're promoting that.

[1935]

           In terms of the welfare system, which I have a lot to do with in my job, we can't just tell people to go out and get jobs, because there aren't enough jobs in this province for everybody. My experience with that department is that we have never promoted…. In the 15 years that I've been through, this is the third government, so I started with the Socred government. We've never promoted and assisted people in training to get off the welfare system and get jobs. The people I know personally who have been in that system and who tried to get some funding to take some kind of little course to be an ambulance attendant or whatever, were refused that. These are people who wanted to make changes in their lives, so they took it out of the food money, and they still did it and succeeded, but not all people are like that. We're not encouraging. We've created a system for people to be dependent on. We're not promoting people to help them work out and go out and get jobs. We're not training those people. We're not assisting those people to get off the system. We can't just tell them to go out and get jobs.

           Anyhow, I want to thank you for having the opportunity to come from Creston. It was worth the drive, and I enjoyed everyone's presentations today. I'm open for questions.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Serena, for your presentation. I thank you for taking the time and the effort to come and present to our committee this evening. I will look to members of the committee if there are any questions.

           H. Bloy: Thank you very much for your presentation. I know how hard the non-profit societies work on very minimal operating budgets. You mentioned some areas, but are there some specific programs you could say that could be restructured in such a way to allow more money or to flow differently — not necessarily in your non-profit agency, but in the ministries or wherever?

           S. Naeve: One of the things I've always wondered a great deal about in this province — and it's probably a national problem — is the justice system. Certainly, what I see there is not very efficient. In fact, most of the time it's not very efficient at all. Judges come in, and everybody's supposed to wait there all day long — professional people, families and clients — to get before the justice system. It's not productive; it's not efficient. There has to be a better way of revamping that system so it's efficient and productive, and it gets the work done, but people aren't just waiting around. It's a very cumbersome process.

[ Page 432 ]

           H. Bloy: My wife is a therapist-counsellor with the non-profit. She's been in the courts supporting clients all day without ever getting there. We did have a suggestion at one of our meetings for the court system to run double shifts on a day. Right now they sit from ten to 12 and from two to four, and they use the time in between for negotiating. They do use that time. You may not see it from the courts. But actually running the court system from 8 a.m. till 12 and then from one to five, so we could speed the process….

           S. Naeve: Well, what I see is just all the people that are waiting, who have professional jobs. There's a loss of productivity in their jobs. Everyone has to wait there all day long because their cases might be shuffled from ten to two, and nobody knows that. I don't have any other ideas. It's a pretty bare-bones sector.

           K. Krueger: We have a colleague who's temporarily away from the table, so I'll ask his favourite question of organizations like yours. Do you have to work under many different contracts with government, or do you have one all-encompassing contract?

           S. Naeve: All my Ministry of Children and Family Development have been put under one global contract under contract reform. Each ministry has its own contract with my agency. There is a global funding. I'm funded from five different spots for 13 programs.

           K. Krueger: Is that 13 contracts or five contracts?

           S. Naeve: About five.

           K. Krueger: Do you have to spend a lot of admin time monitoring compliance with those contracts and essentially pushing paper to make sure that you maintain all the provisions of all those contracts?

           S. Naeve: Yes, I do.

           K. Krueger: About what percentage of a full-time employee would that specific administration be for you?

[1940]

           S. Naeve: I can't answer that completely because I'm so integrated between administration, supervision of staff, monitoring of contracts and the financial. I have one financial person who works three days a week, but there's a whole process there. It's just one of probably two other jobs that I do four days a week.

           K. Krueger: Our orientation as a government, as a caucus and as individual caucus members tends to be results-based rather than process-based. We're considering carrying the results-based orientation to the extent that we actually trust people to do their jobs — the jobs that they've had a long track record of doing. You're given your funding envelope, maybe for longer than you've ever had it before, and you're told your results will be monitored and measured, but we're not going to tell you how to do the job anymore. We're not going to tie you down to all the specifics of contracts and so on. We're going to give you the money, and you do the job. If you deliver the results, we look forward to a long working relationship.

           How does that sound to you? Does it sound like a big risk for government to take, or does it sound like a smart move?

           S. Naeve: Well, we're monitored by outcomes now under contract reform, so that wouldn't change. It's hard to say how that would play out, but the people that I know in the sector are very committed and very low-paid employees. They take their jobs very seriously. In terms of a sector, we're pretty self-monitoring. We abide by the contracts, but we work very, very hard to provide the best quality of services we can to our communities.

           K. Krueger: Presumably, if that's the case, if government wasn't wasting your time on government-imposed administration in compliance with the government process, you'd be able to deliver even better service and more service with the same number of employees, because we're not wasting your time.

           S. Naeve: That's right. It would go more to direct service, and I would support that.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right, Serena. I see no further questions. Again, I would like thank you for coming out and presenting here this evening.

           Our next presenter this evening is with the East Kootenay Child Care Planning Council: Peter Ashmore.

           P. Ashmore: Good evening. I can't say it's a pleasure to meet with you, just because it's nervous-making, but thank you for the opportunity. We'd like to introduce ourselves and the organization that we are representing tonight and then talk with you about some themes that we feel are important around the issues in the sector we work in — child care.

           I'm Peter Ashmore, and I've been an early childhood educator for some 25 years, which makes me a very old early childhood educator. I currently work in Creston. Actually, I work with and for Serena, who you just heard from, and coordinate one of the many programs in our community that are part of the community resource centre. It's a very special one in our view. I work in a school-based child care program that serves both young parents completing their high school education and their children, and a wide range of community parents as well.

           I'll now let Gail introduce herself and also the planning council.

           G. Brown: Yes. We're here representing the East Kootenay Child Care Planning Council. I'm the co-Chair of that council. The council is composed of persons who are working in the field of child care from around the East Kootenay region. That includes per-

[ Page 433 ]

sons who work in day care centres providing care to infants, toddlers and children of school age.

[1945]

           Looking at you folks, I'm just wondering how many of you have used child care and if you understand how important child care is when you're a parent working in your office or working away from home, wondering how their children are doing and concerned about how their children are feeling and how they are being cared for when they are not there as a parent to care for them.

           The East Kootenay Child Care Planning Council is a completely voluntary organization. It has been formed because caregivers are concerned about maintaining their services in each community. They're concerned about meeting the needs of children and families in each community. They're concerned that they will be able to continue to provide their services, knowing that their services are so needed.

           The Child Care Planning Council met last weekend, and they asked us to come and speak to let you know our collective concerns about child care in terms of the fiscal issues. I'll let Peter go ahead with some of the points that we were going to make.

           P. Ashmore: One of the things about the planning council — and there are councils of some description in probably all of the communities that you represent — is that we feel that we're a very effective partnership of local folks working in and connected to child care. We're also very much partners, particularly with the provincial government, in moving forward on the child care agenda.

           We did come the last time the select standing committee was here in Cranbrook and spoke to the committee then. Actually, our plan is to say many of the same things to you that we said then to that committee. We are well aware that there has been a change in government and that there are new fiscal realities that you are working within. I guess our point is, in part, to say that while fiscal realities or economic realities are often cyclical — strengths, weaknesses, ups and downs — the reality of child development is really unchanging. To some extent, I think that's why our message to all of the folks that we speak to in all levels of government is really unchanging. Children and their needs can't wait. In my workplace, a generation is two or three years. To the extent that we're not able to support those needs in the short term is — what did Hemingway call it? — a lost generation. We do recognize, as we said last time, that your role is very much a juggling act, juggling many different balls and complex issues. Our role here is to try and encourage you to keep the child care ball up in the air and in play through the next four years.

              [T. Bhullar in the chair.]

           In talking to the committee then, we also made reference to the presentation that the board of trade made to the select standing committee. They said last time, though focusing on tax reduction — an achievement of this government — that there are some provincial investments that warrant serious consideration. Because of the substantial payback that government realizes while creating an asset, they said: "We believe that there are good investments where government can demonstrate that the investment, using a conventional cost-benefit analysis, shows an adequate return and that these investments should be undertaken." The Vancouver Board of Trade has said over many years, and more recently in a presentation on child care directly, that they believe that child care is such an investment. I think much of their analysis is based on the recent work of a University of Toronto economist who did such a social cost-benefit analysis. They suggested that there is a return of two dollars in benefit for every dollar investment in cost, a pretty significant return on investment.

[1950]

           One of the other themes we want to raise is that we see — and I think others see as well — that child care is a solution to a number of problems, both economic and social. I want to highlight a few of those. These are all part of the balls that you are currently juggling. For example, if — and it is — one of government's goals is to work with families on social assistance, through training and liability initiatives, to help families move away from income assistance and into the workforce, child care is part of that solution. This government has created an interesting and innovative new ministry, the ministry for early childhood development. That's what we do every day. Child care is part of the solution of moving forward on that agenda.

           Government is paying a lot of attention to the effectiveness of the school system. Again, child care focusing on strengthening children's readiness to learn, as the sort of buzz phrase, is part of that solution. As government works towards a vibrant economy, with strength in many sectors, child care is again part of that solution. Child care for working families, training families is very much a part of that solution. Certainly, if we look at individual sectors where we look to a strong economy, both here and in other communities — in the high-tech areas, in tourism, in film and around health and education — those are sectors which have paid and need to continue to pay attention to child care.

           These are just personal examples. Whistler, for example, as it built itself into a world-class community, struggled with and had to create child care as part of its infrastructure for a healthy, vibrant ski economy — the people who live and work at Whistler. The high-tech sector is another sector where, in terms of retaining valuable people, child care has often been a workplace solution. Around the nursing shortage, which many people feel is so critical, hospital-based child care is part of the solution.

           One of the other themes I want to share with you is our sense, certainly, that the child care community is a very effective partner with both provincial and local governments. We're based in our communities, and we're able to bring together provincial, hopefully federal and local resources to make solutions work and child care work in our communities. We've worked hard at that over a number of years, and I think we have been successful and have gotten better and better

[ Page 434 ]

at it. We look forward to working with your government on those themes.

           One other thing I think is important in relation to this budget and the budgets over the next few years, which this government has said is important to it in providing — my own sense of that reference is — particularly for education, is the issue of stable and predictable funding. We would urge you and, through you, this government to look at providing the child care sector as well as other sectors with a stable and predictable funding base.

[1955]

           There are several levels to that. One is that child care funding is spread all over the map. The child care community has advocated and, I think, will continue to advocate consolidating child care funding, bringing it together. We see that as part of enhancing both effectiveness and efficiency at the government level and at the provider level. There are too many different funding streams, different ministries, different fundings that inadequately support child care and stress the day-to-dayness of child care. We would urge you to look at both stability and funding reform that looks at consolidation. The child care community has worked activity and developed a paper that looks at the consolidation of child care dollars.

           The Child Care Planning Council met with the minister responsible for child care over the weekend. She talked about government's goals as looking at, hopefully, more spaces, the need to retain caregivers and to enhance the flexibility of the care that we're able to provide. We're not a 24-7 sector. We're certainly not, by and large, a Monday to Friday, 7-to-6 sector, and that isn't the reality of many families. The minister and our community are anxious to look at that and find ways that we can enhance the flexibility of our sector.

           The New Era document talks about targeting funding to help parents who need it most. I think it's important for us, as part of the child care community, to say that we have argued that the child care subsidy system, which forms the backbone, if you will, of funding that government provides to child carers — it's hard to total; it's roughly $120 million of $200 million provincial expenditure on child care — is not an effective system. We have advocated and continue to advocate fundamental change to that system. I'd be happy to share our thoughts on that as part of the submission. I won't review it. Our sense, perhaps, is if government were to choose to move in targeting funding, the subsidy system may be the way that you would choose and might be an effective approach in the short term.

           I'll say one other thing. The subsidy level, which is the core on which providers are paid — not on which families are charged; it's the core…. The level of that funding has not increased in seven years. Since October 1994 the subsidy levels have been unchanged. The child care system is suffering from it. All of the issues that government is interested in suffer, and maybe most especially, the quality of care suffers because of that.

           If government chooses to move in that direction, subsidy is the existing vehicle that you might choose to use. The levels haven't increased in seven years. As I said, the level of expenditure is roughly $120 million. It supports a significant number of families. A 10 percent increase — the math is easy to do on 10 percent — would be in the order of $12 million, and it would have a positive impact.

[2000]

           One of the other issues which has been of critical importance to the child care community and is something which I may want to talk about later is that 60 percent of the child care subsidy dollars — whatever 60 percent of $120 million is — goes into unregulated child care, not into the licensed sector. We have two concerns. One is a concern around accountability for provincial funding, a theme which your government has made an important one, and we have broad concerns about the quality of care. To the extent that the government is looking at the child care system and ways to strengthen it, we would certainly encourage looking at subsidy funding into the unregulated care sector as an important issue. I think it's important to recognize that British Columbia is the only province in Canada that funds into that sector.

           One other thing, just to finish, is that one of the questions you may be asking and that needs asking is: where might some of this funding to move forward come from? I think it's important to draw your attention to the federal-provincial early childhood development agreement signed early in 2000. Over five years it provides $5 million, I think, to all of the provinces. In the first year — this year — that's $31 million, and we have $59 million as our ongoing….

           The social sector community organizations represented through First Call!! achieved an agreement on how they saw that funding should be allocated. That agreement was two-thirds, one-third. Two-thirds of that funding moved to support child care as part of the early childhood development sector. That agreement, which wasn't easy for our sector — competing interests — was recommended to government, and we continue to recommend it to you as the basis on which that fund could and should be used. We believe that it allows you to continue to move forward on the child care agenda as part of the broad early childhood development agenda of both the federal and the provincial governments.

           T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Harry, I think you've got a question.

           H. Bloy: Thank you very much for your presentation. When you say the unlicensed portion, what is that? Is that going to grandparents or other family members?

           P. Ashmore: It would depend. It's unregulated. Our provincial regulations require licensing of caregivers where they're providing care to three or more children. That could and, in some cases, would be grandparents. It would be neighbours. Just to be specific, it would be grandparents not living in the caregiver's or the family's home.

[ Page 435 ]

           H. Bloy: You said in your presentation that there are too many programs out there right now.

           P. Ashmore: No, I actually said there are too many ministries and unconsolidated programs. There are too many ministries, arguably, with little pieces — at least, of our sector.

           H. Bloy: Okay. Are there too many programs? Can any of these ministries be eliminated from what they're handling now? Are there too many different programs in every ministry?

           P. Ashmore: I think the child care community would probably say that we would look to effectiveness and consolidation rather than elimination. That's where we would look to efficiency and potential cost saving. I don't know if that answers your question.

           H. Bloy: Partially.

           J. Bray: Actually, Gail, our family uses a child care, but it's unlicensed family child care. We're very happy with the care that they provide.

           I appreciate, Peter, your comment on consolidation of funding. That's certainly something, I think, where we can actually save money but not reduce services, because you're putting the money more at the front line.

           I've got a couple of questions. First of all, I'd be very interested to get a copy, if maybe Josie or Anne can get a copy of your paper. I'd be very interested to see that and your recommendations.

           P. Ashmore: I will write it out. I'd be happy to do that.

[2005]

           J. Bray: Okay. I worked for the Ministry of Human Resources for 13 years, so I'm very familiar with the subsidy program and its various machinations and the fact that the rates haven't gone up. One of the things we hear on the shelter component of income assistance and benefits is that when you raise the shelter portion, the landlords, primarily of the single-occupancy rooms, raise their rents. So there's no actual benefit to anybody involved except for the landlord.

           One of the issues we hear from parents is that the parent portion is still such a significant barrier for them to be able to successfully make that transfer into employment. Do you see a possible concern that if subsidy rates were raised, the child care rates in the community would rise equally, meaning that the parent portion would still…? It's not that that would be a bad thing necessarily. Do you see that as a possible spinoff?

           P. Ashmore: You do know the subsidy system well. I'll talk about the East Kootenays.

           G. Brown: We're representing the East Kootenays, although we're familiar with other areas, especially urban areas.

           P. Ashmore: The East Kootenay rates have remained remarkably close. The actual child care fees are very different from rates in primarily lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island communities. Our child care rates are, regionally, only marginally above the subsidy. In my agency we don't have a parent portion. Our rates are for low-income families, the subsidy rate. To come to your question, if those rates went up, our rate would go up. What would happen, in my view, is that the quality of program we're able to provide would be enhanced. We do charge unsubsidized families a higher rate. Would that rate go up? Speaking only for my centre, I personally don't think so — in the short term. Again, if we had a stable, predictable…. We could actually do some planning in our community around that issue.

           To speak to the broader issue of what would happen in the lower mainland, I think there'd be a mixture. Actually, many centres would try and juggle the balance between…. Then if the rates would go up, I think that would make child care more affordable for many low-income families. I actually don't think that a lot of centres would raise their fees. Affordability would be enhanced. At least in the short term, that would be the goal of most programs.

           G. Brown: Can I just clarify a couple of things? First of all, I'd like to say that many, many parents pay the full cost of child care. They don't receive the subsidy at all. We're not talking about every child and every child care centre or every family being subsidized. The province of B.C. offers a subsidy system on a sliding scale according to financial need, so we're not talking about every family being supported by the provincial government in terms of their child care.

           The other thing I'd like to clarify is what constitutes unregulated as opposed to regulated child care. Unregulated child care is child care in which the caregiver is not trained, has not had a criminal record check and does not have visits from an agency called a child care resource and referral agency. Regulated child care givers must register with a child care resource and referral agency. They must take a first-aid training course, have updated criminal record checks, open their homes to regular visits, attend meetings and training sessions, and provide information about the service they're offering. They are open to query and investigation.

[2010]

           They can also be licensed centres. They're licensed right now under the Ministry of Health. Licensing is one of those types of child care entities that's in one of the other ministries, and we have many examples where we can illustrate how child care is divided amongst many ministries. So it's hard to talk about a consolidated view of child care, but licensed child care is licensed under the Ministry of Health. In those centres the caregivers are early childhood educators. They're trained; they also have criminal record checks. They must register as licensed professionals in the province. They must maintain their education over time. These are the people who are caring for our children. These are the regulated caregivers, the people

[ Page 436 ]

who open themselves, their qualifications, homes, families and places of work for all of us all to view and look at how children are developing.

              [B. Lekstrom in the chair.]

           P. Ashmore: Just to follow up, because I do think it's important.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Briefly, if we could, because of our time.

           P. Ashmore: It is an important issue: the question of choice and the question of this transition that we've proposed — to bringing more of the care into this regulated and supported system. Whether that included family members providing care only to other family members, I think, is a question. But I guess our sense is that as caregivers every day, we see the need for some external accountability. Gail mentioned a criminal record check and so on. As caregivers, we see the need for support in doing the work that we do: caring for children well. We've experienced that. We see moving that as an asset and this transition as a process.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Peter and Gail, I thank you for coming out this evening and putting your presentation before the committee.

           J. Bray: Mr. Chair, I just need to clarify that it was licence not required, not unregulated.

           P. Ashmore: Right.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much again.

           We will move on to our next presenter this evening, Donna Yuill, who is with the Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce.

           D. Yuill: Before I start my presentation, I just want to let you know basically how we went about putting the presentation together. We polled our membership through our fax and have put the presentation together based on their feedback. We had faxes returned from many people in our membership and have prepared the following presentation. I did make copies of it, so everyone should have a copy.

           Thank you, members of the committee, for coming to Cranbrook. My name is Donna Yuill, and I am president of the Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce. Our organization represents the interests of more than 500 businesses in the city and surrounding area. We have performed an advocacy role for small business in the East Kootenay for nearly 100 years.

           Let me begin by saying that we are heartened by your presence here tonight. These are difficult times not only for business people but for all British Columbians and Canadians. It is good to see our government taking the time to listen to our concerns before making decisions that are going to have a significant impact on all of us. The consultation process for budget 2002 comes amidst the most tumultuous times that any of us has or will ever see. Without a doubt, this last month will reshape the way we think about our lives, our homes and our futures. It is with this in mind that I would like to raise the following points.

           This government came into power to examine the way it does business and to institute the core review process. No one in the business community disputes that this exercise is an essential element in determining the government's spending and revenue projections. Without a comprehensive examination of all of the many elements that make up the government business machine, it would be impossible to plan for the future. Often, though, the term core review is synonymous with spending cuts, and just as often committees such as this have a tendency to look at cuts as the only way of bringing economic efficiencies to government. We encourage you to be open-minded and think outside the box as you examine the delivery of programs and servicing. Cutting jobs is not the only solution to the cost-reduction problem.

[2015]

           The East Kootenays has incessantly been the victim of job cuts and transfers on both the provincial and federal levels over the past ten years, to the extent that we are proportionally one of the most underrepresented areas in public service in the entire province. The practice of doing more with less has been in effect in Cranbrook far longer than we can remember. We are cognizant that cuts will come and that we will not be exempt, but I urge you to examine what has already been done. Please take into consideration that some regions of this province have not gotten a fair deal in the past and should be given some consideration in the future. With today's technology, the concept of having to move employees in order to optimize productivity and reduce operational costs is a myth. Cranbrook has been a target for years. The biggest single blow to our economy has been the removal and transfer of government positions and programs that they manage. We would like that to stop.

           There are huge and expanding disparities between the rural and urban regions of British Columbia regarding their respective abilities to compete in today's global marketplace. It is our view that the province should not simply abandon all thoughts of business incentives and should instead consider the creation of regional development zones within the province, much like the empowerment zones that our American neighbours introduced a few years ago. It goes without saying that the rural regions have a difficult time in attracting new business when competing with the already stable and diversified economies of Victoria, Vancouver and the lower mainland. Special consideration should be afforded to them, which could result in a balanced provincial economy with no weak or have-not regions. As an example, this region is unable to attract high-tech industries such as call centres because the province has established a call centre region — areas like Kelowna, Kamloops, Chilliwack, Penticton, Vancouver, Nanaimo and Prince George. This, in fact, is an example of a development zone. However, it is to our detriment.

[ Page 437 ]

           As well, British Columbians should be encouraged to spend their money in this province. For businesses in the East and West Kootenays, the problem of leakage to Alberta is a huge issue. It is difficult to grow and nurture a business, hire and maintain employees and contribute to our economy when so many of our dollars flow to Calgary and Lethbridge. The provincial sales tax is the sole cause of this problem. It is keeping our businesses down and forcing dollars out of the economy. Consideration should be given to those regions that have to compete directly with Alberta on a daily basis.

           Yes, the answer lies in reduced taxes, rebates or tax credits. However, the government's insistence on universality of programs does not allow this to happen. Again, special rural development zones established for specific periods of time with specific performance objectives would help in the resolution of this situation. The development zones could be enabled to offer reduced power contracts, special training incentives, assistance in the enhancement of their infrastructure, preference in the disposition of Crown lands and special consideration for the use of land currently dormant under the agricultural and forest land legislation. Most of the considerations would be of little or no real cost to the government, but the advantages to be gained from a strong and competitive economy in all the rural regions are substantial and will contribute significantly to the province's bottom line.

           The B.C. Chamber of Commerce and the Cranbrook Chamber encourage you to rethink the legislation that will increase the minimum wage in the province. This is anti-business legislation that will cause more losses than gains and will not contribute to an improved economy. It is simply a higher cost to businesses that, in most instances, cannot be passed on. B.C. already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country. We do not need to send the message that it will cost more to do business here. The thrust of this government has been to try to improve our image to the global business community. Making it more expensive for them to do business here flies in the face of the corporate and personal tax cuts that have already made a significant difference in the image that we have been trying to improve. Increasing costs is no way to compete. We do, however, support the introduction of a training wage for young people entering the workforce and see this as a reasonable compromise. Legislated and controlled wage levels should give way to increases based on productivity, performance and merit.

[2020]

           In keeping with the theme of improving our global image, we would like to encourage you to settle the outstanding issues with our first nations as soon as you can. Our region needs mining and exploration, and we need to demonstrate to those companies involved in the pursuit of natural resources that they can come to the East Kootenay and operate in an arena of confidence and cooperation. The settling of land claims and self-government issues will ultimately be the major contributors to the economy of the entire province.

           Further to this, the softwood lumber dispute is the single most important economic issue facing Cranbrook and the surrounding region at this time. While we recognize that this is a federal government issue, we implore our provincial officials to do all they can to ensure that federal ministers fully understand the economic implications of a downturn in this region's forest industry. The stranglehold on our community, if the anticipated lengthy resolution is not expedited, will be significant.

           I've spoken about a few of the issues that concern us in Cranbrook and the East Kootenay. I wanted to leave this point until last. The question has been asked: should we stay the course and aim for a balanced budget in 2004-05, or should we reconsider the legislation and take into consideration the economic devastation that has resulted from the September 11 attacks? Our message is simple and direct: stay the course. Do not lose sight of the objective. The province needs to get its financial house in order, and we all know there will be pain and difficult times. This isn't about a government trying to do what is easy; it's about a government that has to do what is right.

           We are all in this together, and no one will likely suffer more than the small business owner when spending cuts are made and jobs are eliminated. We will be hurt, but we know that we will be better in the long run. Short-term pain for long-term gain is appropriate in this instance. If we were in better financial shape, we wouldn't be worrying about the impact of public sector spending cuts. The private sector would be able to pick up the slack, and it will do so once the economy is back on track.

           We have a resilient nature and economy. To assume that today's situation will be prevalent three weeks, three months or three years from now is not reasonable. We cannot predict next year's economy any more than we could predict last month's tragedies. The government must proceed and make the cuts that are needed. It is far too early to tell if a balanced-budget objective can or cannot be met. Perhaps this issue will have to be revisited a year or so from now. For the time being, we should do what we need to do.

           Make the cuts you need to make, and you'll have our support. We ask only that at the time, you do all you can to stimulate the economies of regions like ours. We need special consideration, and we hope you can see that too. Thank you for your time, and thank you for coming to Cranbrook.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Donna, for your presentation here this evening and for reflecting your membership. Taking the time and effort to contact them and put this report together says a lot about your chamber of commerce. I thank you for that. I will look to members of our committee if there are any questions.

           B. Kerr: I'm sorry, Donna. I came in late. Was this put together by the entire chamber that you have — committees in town?

[ Page 438 ]

           D. Yuill: Yes. What we did was poll our membership by fax. We have between 400 and 500 local members throughout the region and in Cranbrook. We sent out an urgent request for feedback to be given to the standing committee.

           B. Kerr: And had you read our…?

           D. Yuill: Yes. Actually, I had that copied — all 47 pages of it.

           B. Kerr: I noticed that some of the key things in there were performance measures and things like that, which are absolutely critical. I'm really glad that you recognized what happens if we let debt get out of control. The comments you made for this region are quite good, actually. I hadn't thought of some of them.

           D. Yuill: We're very different from the lower mainland. We really want the message to come forward that in a rural area, the spending cuts you're talking about in terms of core review have been done over the last six or seven years and that the services that are in place in our region are already minimal at best. With further public sector cuts, I think you'll really see a decrease of services rendered in this area. While we're not in favour of specific job cuts that would put us on a par with other areas, we do want to see consolidation of ministries — some of the things that we heard about child care tonight. We do want to see a streamlining of government services that makes it more efficient to run government programs in our area.

[2025]

           B. Kerr: I'm not sure whether you were in the room when we described what a core review is, but it's not about cuts. It's about actually getting down to the core values of government and what government should or should not be doing. It's looking at all aspects of government and getting right down to the fundamental question: should government be in this particular project? That's really what you're looking for. If government should be in it, how does government do it? And so we're backing right off. The core review is sort of different from the budget process, but it's something that should be done every five years in any economic entity, or any entity at all, just so you make sure you don't lose sight of your core values.

           T. Bhullar (Deputy Chair): Donna, I just want to compliment you that you polled your membership. I've asked quite a few organizations that have appeared before us if they poll their membership, and you're the first one so far that has actually gone out and polled your membership.

           D. Yuill: I am just a voice.

           K. Krueger: I also appreciated very much your presentation and all the concrete suggestions. When you mentioned the softwood lumber issues, I wondered if you'd had any suggestions from your membership about things they thought might help us resolve that. Many of us feel as though it's just very unfair. It's come around three times already. We win every time. Somebody changes the rules south of the border, back it comes, and right now nobody wants to try to play hardball in negotiations because of the terrible things that have happened. It's obviously a huge issue for British Columbia, certainly for the interior. Have your members talked to you about things like stumpage and tenure reform and their wishes?

           D. Yuill: Yes, actually. At our chamber luncheon coming up this month we will have the CEO and president of Tembec make a presentation. The IMLA had a dinner earlier this month to educate the public and different business leaders in our community with regard to what's going on with softwood lumber. As far as suggestions we could make to the government, expedite the process. What you'll see if we're forced into negotiations with the 17 American companies that are taking the stumpage fees and building up their own plants…. When you want to talk about playing hardball, they're already at it. I would suggest that the time line needs to be sooner rather than later, because what you're going to see is specific to our region. You'll see four or five small mills go completely out of business, and when you have job losses of 100 in a small community, that's a significant impact to the economic structure of that community.

           What you'll also see is the larger companies that have deeper pockets starting to buy out the smaller companies, and you'll end up with monopolies and huge companies fighting for tenure on land and fighting with the government over stumpage. We're hoping the 19.3 percent tariff is going to be cut in half. The companies I've talked to in our region are expecting it to be somewhere around 10 percent, but the fact that there's also a 10 percent dumping charge on top of that puts us in a precarious position in Cranbrook, because we have a value-added wood plant. Every single board-foot that comes out of that wood plant comes under the dumping legislation and will be charged at a 10 percent tariff. We just cannot afford to sell any of our lumber from that mill at this time. It hasn't closed, but we're fortunate that we have a company as large as Tembec that has those deep pockets and can post the bonds at the border. It can't go on. We can't wait three years. The companies will be bankrupt.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Donna, you brought up one thing that we haven't heard a whole lot about regionally, and that's the issue of the 7 percent sales tax. Dawson Creek is my home — I previously sat as mayor of Dawson Creek — and it's a huge issue for us as well. For many years we've seen companies vacating British Columbia to set up ten minutes from the border and come back and do their business at significant cost savings. It is an issue, I assure you, that I will bring to the table and represent our interests on. Thank you for bringing it forward.

[ Page 439 ]

           D. Yuill: One thing I would add, which wasn't specific in the presentation, is that it's not necessarily just the companies relocating to Alberta. It's the tourist trade. What we find is that people will continue through this region and stop in Lethbridge or Calgary or just the other side of the provincial border in order to pay 7 percent less for their accommodation, for all the amenities that they're going to buy. It's not necessarily just the placement of business. It's also the habits that are developed in the tourist who is travelling through this region.

           When you look on a per-month basis — we keep track through the chamber of how many visitors we have in our office — through the summer months 3,500 or 3,600 people visit our chamber office each month. If you think of the impact of 7 percent extra tax on their accommodation, on anything that they would buy in British Columbia when they're less than an hour from the border, you know that a significant number of them will be waiting until they get to Alberta to spend their money.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Donna, again, thank you very much for what I think is a very professional and well-put-together presentation.

           D. Yuill: Thank you for the opportunity.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): We will move on at this time to our next presenter, Roy Dietrich. Good evening, Roy.

[2030]

           R. Dietrich: Good evening. My thanks to the committee for this opportunity. My name is Roy Dietrich. I was born in Cranbrook, and I'm proud to have it as my home all my life. My wife of 16 years and I have one daughter aged 11, whose future is the main reason for all of our concerns over the present issues facing B.C. today.

           As a longtime casual employee of the British Columbia liquor distribution branch, I trust my views are shared not only by my co–auxiliary workers in Cranbrook and Kimberley but across the province. I have been an employee of the Cranbrook and Kimberley liquor store for just over ten years now. This sounds good to most, until you realize that for an auxiliary employee there is no stability and no schedule.

           My family and I have had to adapt daily to our routine, as I work on an on-call basis. This means I may not go out to work elsewhere until the call-out period is over at 10 a.m. More often than not we wait, and the call does not come, although I have to turn down other work for the day in anticipation of being called. In many times of frustration, co-workers, management, family and friends have encouraged me to hang in there as it is only a matter of time before you become a regular.

           This matter of time has passed — a decade. Still I have hung in there. Well, after ten years I thought it had happened this past summer when I earned my 1,827 status, which is an important step on the way to becoming a regular employee. My family and I were thrilled with this news. It meant a regular paycheque, benefits and being able for the first time to actually plan in advance for such things as family camping trips, music lessons for our child and renovations to our home.

           Unfortunately, our hopes for a small sense of security and a more stable future were short-lived. The news was announced about the proposed level of cuts to public service. Once again I'm feeling left in limbo. What does it mean for my family? Have I been persistent for ten years only to be let down once again by our government? Do I need to start all over again as my years of service have gained me nothing?

           The Cranbrook LDB is doing record revenues on an already skeleton crew. There is no room to make further cuts and keep our level of operation. Cuts to our front-line staff would mean customer frustration due to the lack of service and general decline in the good reputation that we have strived for. The service we provide is directly related to the hotel tourism industry, which counts on us for our product knowledge and prompt service. Our decline in services will also affect family community values. With the loss of control, we will face even less staff and add to the alcohol abuse of minors and less enforcement of public liquor store guidelines in general.

           These cuts that are proposed will be devastating to our department as well as many businesses in our area. Income we earn in our community is spent in our community. If it is not earned, it is not spent, and the losses are felt full circle.

           Just the other night BCTV news reported an estimated layoff of public sector employees of between 3,000 and 10,000. Hon. Gary Collins suggested that this will be tough in the beginning but that things will be much better in two or three years. How do families who live week to week survive in the meantime? Are 3,000 to 10,000 more people on unemployment insurance and social assistance better than 3,000 to 10,000 people who are productive taxpayers? How does this help stimulate our economy? How will this sustain our families? What has happened to the election promises of a brighter future for all British Columbians?

           You as incumbents are here today to hear our views and act on them. Please do so. With the largest government representation ever in B.C., there is no reason for your mandate not to be met without devastating the lifestyles and family structures of the voters who are working hard for a brighter future in B.C.

           I need to stress that my situation is far from unique. The auxiliaries in the BCGEU make up a large portion of the membership. Please, when you consider cuts to the auxiliary staff, don't think of us as employee numbers. Think of us as families striving to keep B.C. our home province. Thank you for your time and consideration.

[2035]

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Roy, for your presentation. We've heard a number of presentations like yours, coming from the heart, and they're

[ Page 440 ]

certainly much appreciated. I will look to members of our committee if there are any questions.

           K. Krueger: What would be the employer's reason for going a decade without regularizing your employment? Would they see any advantage to that?

           R. Dietrich: Well, I guess it's just costs.

           K. Krueger: Does it cost more for you to be employed as a regular employee than as a casual employee?

           R. Dietrich: No.

           K. Krueger: It sounds as though you're almost working full-time hours as it is. Is that correct?

           R. Dietrich: I've just obtained that this last year. I'm still not converted. I have to be converted to a regular to become a full-time employee, but because of these proposed cuts I feel it may harm that advancement for me.

           K. Krueger: Does the 1,827 indicate that many numbers of working days?

           R. Dietrich: You must have 1,827 hours in a 15-month period, in 32 pay periods.

           K. Krueger: Your salary's the same as if you were a regular employee, and the hours you work and the benefits are the same.

           R. Dietrich: Well, there are changes there too. After I got my 1,827, my sick benefits apparently changed. I wasn't allowed to take a sick day because of certain rules that they had brought forward.

           B. Kerr: Where did you hear about the cuts that were going to be happening in the liquor distribution branch?

           R. Dietrich: Privatization has always been an issue. This is basically what we're worried about. It's an ongoing thing.

           B. Kerr: You're more concerned about competition coming in, as opposed to the government slashing and burning and making cuts to other government….

           K. Krueger: So there haven't actually been any announcements or anything that jobs are actually being cut.

           R. Dietrich: Not as yet, but they seem to think that it's inevitable.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Roy, I see no further questions from members of our panel. I would like to thank you, like I thanked the others, for coming forward and putting your presentation to our committee. As I've indicated to the others, certainly your presentation will be given due consideration in the development of our report. I thank you very much.

           We will now move on to our open-mike session. It is twenty minutes to nine. We have a number of presenters that would like to present. The open-mike session is based on five-minute presentations. There is very little opportunity for members of the panel to ask questions with that time frame, but we will carry on. It does allow people who were unable to register to have an opportunity to voice their views to this committee.

           Mr. Hills, I will call you forward at this time.

           W. Hills: I have one cartoon for you. I was tutored by a famous professor who used the novel for teaching public administration. I didn't like the novel so much because I always got enough fiction in my facts. I think you could write a 5,000-word essay or maybe a book on this cartoon, but I think it's well worth my delivering it to you.

           We're looking at the provincial budget and the budgetary process. As Aaron Wildavsky said in his classic work, budgets are political documents and budgetary decisions are answers to central political questions. Who gets what and how?

           I'll leave a copy of my little presentation with Chairman Lekstrom. I don't have extra copies because I was in a hurry today.

[2040]

           Challenges facing B.C. I look at it from kind of an outside perspective. I was born and raised in the Kootenays, but I was out of the country for 27 years, heavily consulting with governments — public administration. I think the challenge facing B.C. is our rigor mortis, our traditional condition — a lack of legislation. God, as a small business man every time you turn around, you never know what the rules of the game are. The state of Washington will pass 489 to 511 bills a year, and we'll pass 50. We turn it over to that civil servant and the orders-in-council, and that keeps everybody guessing and wondering: "Where's the line in the sand? What the hell are the rules?" Whether it's the Forest Practices Code or on and on and on — you name it — you need to pass some legislation instead of this "could" or "would." When you pass the legislation, put a "shall" in it so it'll get done.

           We suffer from the three Cs: confusion, confrontation and chaos. It's inherent in our lack of planning, our lack of policy analysis and our lack of open, transparent accountability. The auditor general pointed this out in his study of March 21, 2000.

           Resistance to change. Where on earth would you find a society so conservative and resistant to change, so fearful? In 1986 the U.S. first put a tariff on softwood lumber, and we, like Nero, fiddled while Rome was burning. Thanks to the U.S., B.C. was able to get a serious silviculture program underway for the first time. The U.S. let us keep that 15 percent. Do you remember? We got a $700 million windfall, and that was the first time we started a real silviculture program. Let me, from my long and extensive U.S. experience, translate. Everyone in the U.S. knows that any state, with the

[ Page 441 ]

possible exception of California, would be no match for the giant resource industries. It is only the people of New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Boston, etc., that can control, through the federal government, the inefficient logging on western lands — Alaska, Montana, Idaho, etc. — which costs the public purse far more than it brings in. That the Canadian provinces have never governed the big resource extraction companies as much as the companies have run the government is no secret on either side of the border. Little B.C. has never had the backbone or guts or public support to bring about much-needed and overdue change, including tenures. Maybe the U.S. will do it for us.

           Where is business and labour? Certainly content not to lead for any real change. Together they keep the public locked out. The real public interest of B.C. is ignored. We have structured failure into the Workers Compensation Board — half labour, half business. Where the hell is British Columbia? Where is the public interest?

           Let me suggest a piece of legislation that would help move toward the public interest over the special interest. All boards and commissions will have no more than one-third of their membership appointed from either party. Further, the governing party shall have no more than 50 percent of any board of commission from said party. Let us move past the Jacksonian democracy where, you know, to the victor goes the spoils.

           To this potentially wealthy province, British Columbia…. We should be the California of Canada. It's not just the last eight years. It's the rigor mortis, the lack of legislation, the lack of program evaluation — at least maybe you're going to start that — the lack of creativity and of leadership and vision.

           Oregon put out a White Paper in 1961 that foretold of the coming demise of resource extraction as their future saviour. They not only anticipated but planned for a transition of their products. Here we scramble for a value-added product after the sawmill has closed. Oregon, in the early nineties, set out to attract five chip companies. They landed three of the five. One of them was a $2 billion plant. When we think of chips in B.C., we're still thinking of another pulp mill.

           Short-term politics over policy. Pat McGeer wrote the best book on politics in B.C. — indeed, probably as good a book on politics as you will find anywhere on any jurisdiction in North America — Politics in Paradise, 1972. Let's all read it again and again and again. My wife read it in '92, and she thought it was published the week before. I even read it last week, and I thought it was yesterday's publication. McGeer went on to state one little thing, and that's that the government's vision extended no further than the next bridge.

[2045]

           Now let's talk about something that we'd like to talk about in the symbolic use of power, the symbolic use of politics: free enterprise and competition. When the hell are we ever going to get any of it? Ninety-four percent of the province is owned by the government. I can't think of a state in the U.S. that wouldn't tell that federal government where the hell to go if they had that pot of assets. What do we do with it? Blow it and give it away, and we've got the audacity tonight to talk about welfare for the little old lady that lives down the lane. Let me get to some of it. I just want to get the one. I'll leave the timber out of it — you know that one — mining, commercial backcountry recreation, guiding. If you're a foreigner and want to hunt elk or any other animal, the cheapest place in North America is right here in B.C.

           Let's talk about grazing. A cow and a calf out on the range for $2 a month. In Alberta it's $24-something. I asked the Ministry of Forests here why. "Well, over there they put it up to bid." Twelve bucks, and at the end of a summer, at the end of six months, the cow is fat and ready to calve the following year. The calf is shipped off. I know one rancher who averaged $875 per calf, and we're getting a wonderful 12 bucks — two bucks a month for six months. You could balance the budget and within ten years wipe out the deficit if we started collecting fair market value on that 94 percent that we give away to our friends. They're not given away fairly or equally. I'll send you correspondence from the ministry over the last three years that'll surely prove that to you.

           If you want to get a cattle-grazing permit in the Kootenays, you might wait till hell freezes over twice, because they're handed down in perpetuity. There was one open at Yahk. I thought I'd bid on it for the hell of it, but I couldn't bid on it. No siree. We only take bids from current range users. Why do we do that? Well, in the words of assistant deputy minister Janna Kumi, we do that to ensure the economic viability of the existing ranches. Well, how many of the ranches have these lovely gifts? Sixty percent. So the other 40 percent are screwed by government. Talk about teetering the totter.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Bill, I know we could go on for a long time, but in order to get to the other ones….

           W. Hills: Can I have ten seconds?

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Ten seconds is fair.

           W. Hills: I would encourage you not to slash and burn. There have been many governments that have done that in many places around North America, and it's not wise. But you could begin and should begin some program evaluation, which is virtually nonexistent in this province — some good program evaluation.

           How many of you have read the reports of the auditor general? That is about the only program evaluation we have ongoing in any ministry in the province. He's got a lot of good ones that would improve government. I just don't see slash and burn. Our poor public service — and they're shocked to hear me say that, because I'm usually on their ass — is so demoralized. The auditor general's own report points out that there's no training and no development. Eighty-some percent in some ministries say they don't even know what the hell their job is, and that's your own auditor general.

[ Page 442 ]

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Bill, I thank you for coming out this evening and stretching that ten seconds a little long, but it was certainly worth it. I appreciate you taking the time.

           Interjection.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Bill, we were just talking about your presentation and what you have. It is written, and we will get copies.

           W. Hills: I am sorry, but I was so pushed today that I only got one copy. It's the first time I've ever done this.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): We can look after that.

           Our next presenter is Denise Shervey.

[2050]

           D. Shervey: First of all, I didn't know I was going to be presenting until five minutes before I walked into this room. I'd like to make a suggestion. I hope that doesn't come out of my time for presentation. At your next forum I think, as part of your agenda, you need to put in a coffee break so that, as members of the community, we feel like we are being heard by the whole panel, not half. It's just a suggestion. You guys look pretty exhausted, and you need breaks just as much we do. I would prefer to see it an official break in the agenda.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay, we can certainly take that into consideration. We were kind of looking at it the other way — so we could listen to more people. Please continue.

           D. Shervey: Statistically, three men on your panel will go home and beat their wives tonight, or they'll go home and molest their children. Statistically, Anne — one woman here — there's an 80 percent chance that you come from domestic violence or child abuse. Those are pretty high statistics, and they're pretty damn scary.

           The reason I'm talking tonight is because I haven't seen anyone promoting women's programs. I come from abuse and domestic violence, and it took me 40 years to heal from that, and I'm still healing. It took me 40 years to create enough self-esteem and healing to go out and get work and some small education. I also suffer from a learning disability, so I can't work and go to school; I can only do one. Now I'm trying to get back into society. I'm trying to make up for the abuse I went through. I work in women's programs. My goal is to empower another woman to become a productive member of society.

           There's always a fear, and there's a rumour that with a Liberal government the first one that goes is women's programs, and I've seen evidence of it. For seven years I have worked casual, part-time, on-call. I cannot create a budget. I cannot be part of the economy when I can't buy a house, when I can't buy a vehicle to go to work, when I can't afford to feed myself. I have finally just bought a house. I'd been able to, with two jobs — on-call, relief, casual — maintain some form of budget. But if you're thinking of cutting women's programs — that's my second job; I work part-time — I will lose my job.

           Last month alone I had 400 women come into my centre. They come from the same history of abuse that I did. We've got nothing for these women. That's 400 women who aren't productive members of society. They get slammed. Why didn't they leave their abuser? Get them off welfare; go to work. You tell me what initiative there is for a woman to get $7.50 an hour to try to feed four kids, pay for an apartment and food and go to school. On $7.50 an hour? If you guys took a quarter percent cut of your wage, I could finance 25 homes in this community. I don't see the Members of Parliament saying: "We'll take the first step. We'll take a cut."

           Abuse and domestic violence are impacting our society — just unbelievable — and it's not getting recognized. It affects social assistance programs. How much money is going into welfare? The welfare recipients are getting blamed. Didn't 100,000 letters go out saying: "Go to work"? Have you opened our newspaper lately? I can't get a job. I'm educated. I'm experienced, and I could be out of a job. For seven years I've been trying, and my goal is to help women that are in the same position. It also affects foster care. How many kids are in foster care because of domestic violence, because of child abuse? I heard there are going to be cuts in foster care. Where does that leave our kids? We're repeating the cycle of abuse. It has an impact on society, and it's just getting overlooked.

           It also affects incarceration and the judicial system. The last stats I had, and I don't know if they're accurate…. It costs a minimum of $150,000 a year to keep one perpetrator in jail. What does he get? He gets three meals a day; he gets shelter. He's probably fathered five kids, and he hasn't paid a damn cent to them. He can have an education in prison. Oh, and by the way, you get your anger management and your counselling. But the victim of his perpetration is getting slammed by the ministries, is getting told to get off welfare. Their kids are starving, and they're blaming her because she's an addict.

[2055]

           We live in a cycle of abuse, and it's got to stop. We need to start investing in these women. Women are almost half the population of voters, for God's sake. The cycle of abuse destroys and attacks self-esteem, self-worth, motivation, incentive. There's shame and guilt that go with it. I really think you need to look at it. You know, when you guys go out for a drink with five of your buddies, three of them are going to go home and beat their wives. If you have five daughters, three out of those five are going to experience abuse or violence of some sort. We just keep pushing them aside and pushing them aside. A man still has a chance. He can go out and get a job, and he's still making a dollar for 60 to 80 cents that a woman's making.

           Please, when you start making cuts, or where programs belong, the women's programs cannot afford

[ Page 443 ]

any more cuts. We cannot help them. If you start helping the women, you will help the children because most of the time, in divorce and separation, the women have the children. We need to really address this issue.

           Why did terrorism hit America? Because we weren't prepared. We knew it was coming, but we weren't prepared. Now we're doing terrorism prevention. There's no difference with the cycle of abuse. It's time to invest in women and do prevention — not just intervention and then slices at our needs.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Denise, I know five minutes is a very short time, but you were effective in bringing your message across. There is one thing that maybe I could leave you with. Whether it's accepted it or not, our job as government is to work hard on behalf of everybody versus taking women and children and men. I certainly believe — and I think I can speak for my colleagues — we're working for a better society for all.

           The one thing that I would caution you when you said: "The rumour is…." Rumours, all around, hurt society. They are nothing more than that. I would encourage you, if it isn't factual, to face the people that start the rumours head-on and ask them where they got it. That will help each and every one of us, I think.

           D. Shervey: I'll believe it when I get full-time hours.

           B. Kerr: I'd just like to say something, please. I know you feel like you're a voice in the wilderness at this evening session, but at today's session we had five presentations from women's groups, you'll be happy to know. So you're not a lone voice. You are getting support there.

           D. Shervey: Thank you.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much.

           It is now shortly before nine. We have one more presenter for the open-mike session, Darcy Victor.

           D. Victor: Hi. I'll try and talk really fast. I'm a youth probation officer, so I'm used to talking in front of the judges. I'll see what I can do. [Laughter.]

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Please don't compare us to judges.

           D. Victor: Just a little bit of background on myself. I've worked in the justice system, both through the government and non-profits, since 1985. Currently, I'm a youth probation officer with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I've been in the East Kootenays for almost four years.

           Prior to me coming here, there used to be probation officers in pretty much most of the communities in the East Kootenays. When I started, I was a three-quarter-time position, and I covered from Cranbrook north to Golden, which is 300 kilometres, as well as from Cranbrook south to Elkford. My area that I covered was 500 kilometres, and that would be just a one-way trip. I averaged a thousand kilometres a week driving.

           Since the last six months we've acquired a new probation officer. That's really nice. My area's cut in half. She covers half; I do half. My concern is that we went from — not this government; the previous government — having full-time people in the communities to cutting positions. Now my concern is: are we going to lose more positions? I'm referred to as a travelling probation officer, a travelling PO. Somebody has to do the jobs. We have to reach the small communities. That's my first point.

           The next one is services to those communities. I feel that in the outlying areas there is a lack of services. Substance abuse is a major issue in the Elk Valley, which I cover. That's Fernie, Sparwood, Elkford. We're not just talking about alcohol and marijuana; we're talking about crack cocaine. It is an issue. It's not just the youth; it's also their parents who are involved in using these substances. Young offenders are also becoming more violent, specifically to females. It's not just in the lower mainland; it is throughout the Kootenays.

           As well, there are mental health issues for female offenders. One example is that there was a facility opened on Vancouver Island, and it was a female young offender residential program. It has three beds, and that's for all of B.C. Certainly Victoria and Vancouver are further ahead on the waiting list than Cranbrook or Elkford are. My concern is: why do my clients end up having to go to youth custody centres because we don't have the services and don't have the facilities or the staff to work with them?

[2100]

           The hardest thing for me when I go to work each day — and like I said, I was in court all day today — is when I have to recommend that a youth go to custody because there are no treatment facilities and no programs, whether it's in our area or just in British Columbia. My feeling is that we need to invest in our youth, particularly those in the criminal justice system. They deserve to have choices available to them for services, programs and housing similar to the services that are available for kids in Victoria, Vancouver, Kelowna and Kamloops.

           One of the things I'm suggesting we need to do, whether it's provincially or just locally, is that specifically for the East Kootenays we need youth forensic programs. The next closest area that we send kids to for any kind of psychological assessment is Kamloops or Kelowna, and that's at an out-patient level. If the youth is in an in-patient situation, they have to leave their community. They have to go to Prince George or Burnaby, and they're gone from their home and their community for six weeks to two months just to get an assessment done for the criminal justice system. We need more youth psychiatric services that are more accessible. We have what we term our fly-in psychiatrists that deal with youth, and the waiting lists are just phenomenal. You can't even get a kid on the list. It's really, really difficult.

[ Page 444 ]

           We also need safe houses for youth. Right now I have kids in Cranbrook and Elkford that are living on the street. They have no home. They're addicted to drugs. It's colder here than it is in Vancouver. I mean, it gets pretty cold at night, and they're out sleeping in the park. We need safe houses.

           We also deal quite a bit in this area with fetal alcohol syndrome. We don't have a lot of services or programs to deal with those particular clients, and those are specifically the ones that end up — and they do; the percentage is 40 to 60 percent — in the criminal justice system. We need to listen to the front-line workers like myself as well as invest in our youth. That's all I have to say.

           B. Lekstrom (Chair): Darcy, I'd like to thank you for coming out and presenting. Again, the time frame is very tight, but I think you were very effective in the time allotted. I would like to thank you for taking time out of your schedule to present to us this evening.

           It is now shortly after 9 p.m. I would like to thank all of the presenters that came out today and this evening as well as the people that sat through and listened.

           I would also encourage anyone who, through their listening here today or over the next week or two, has any thoughts that they would like to add to this process. I would encourage you to submit a written submission to us. The information on how to do that is on the back table on your way out. I would like to thank each and every one of you and thank the community of Cranbrook for allowing us to come and be present here to hear your views.

           With that, I will adjourn the meeting.

           The committee adjourned at 10:03 p.m.          

[ Return to: Finance and Government Services Committee Home Page ]

Copyright © 2001: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada