Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 4 — Tuesday, October 11, 2005 (HTML)

2005 Legislative Session: First Session, 38th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
MINUTES AND HANSARD

Blair Lekstrom, MLA
Chair

Kate Ryan-Lloyd
Clerk Assistant and
Committee Clerk

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		71
	K. Durrell B. Nicholson B. Ebert J. Richardson J. Inkster R. Graham L. Clark H. Hannaford E. Inglehart J. Valgardson A. Stedel K. Goodings J. Harper L. Patterson J. Clavier W. Ezeard B. Deith S. Barber A. Erbe

Chair:	* Blair Lekstrom (Peace River South L)
Deputy Chair:	* Maurine Karagianis (Esquimalt-Metchosin NDP)
Members:	Harry Bloy (Burquitlam L) * Dave S. Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead L) * Gordon Hogg (Surrey–White Rock L) * Richard T. Lee (Burnaby North L) * John Yap (Richmond-Steveston L) * Leonard Krog (Nanaimo NDP) * Jenny Wai Ching Kwan (Vancouver–Mount Pleasant NDP) Nicholas Simons (Powell River–Sunshine Coast NDP) * denotes member present

Witnesses:

Sam Barber (School District 59 — Peace River South)
Bill Caldwell (District of Chetwynd)
Swapan Chowdhury (Northern Lights College)
Lyman Clark (Councillor, Village of Pouce Coupe)
Judy Clavier (Chair, School District 59 — Peace River South)
Bill Deith (School District 59 — Peace River South)
Keltie Durrell
Dr. Bill Ebert
Albert Erbe
Wayne Ezeard (Vice-Chair, School District 59 — Peace River South)
Karen Goodings (Provincial Sales Tax Committee)
Ronald Graham (Propane Gas Association of Canada, Inc.; President, Joy Propane Ltd.)
Heather Hannaford (School District 60 — Peace River North)
Jane Harper (Executive Director, South Peace Community Resources Society)
Ernie Inglehart (School District 60 — Peace River North)
Jim Inkster (New Car Dealers Association of B.C.)
Bob Nicholson (Councillor, District of Chetwynd)
Laurie Patterson (Dawson Creek Catholic Social Services)
Judy Richardson (Peace River South Teachers Association)
John Royer (Northern Lights College)
Alvin Stedel (Provincial Sales Tax Committee)
Jean Valgardson (President, Northern Lights College)

At this time I would like to call the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services prebudget consultation hearing to order. I would like to welcome everybody in attendance. We do have a number of presenters scheduled through the morning between now and 12 noon, at which time the committee will be going to Prince George for an afternoon and evening hearing and then on to Smithers.

My name is Blair Lekstrom. I'm the MLA for Peace River South, and I have the privilege of chairing this legislative committee.

Our mandate, as dictated to us by the Legislative Assembly, is to tour the province and hear public submissions as well as accept written submissions and then evaluate all that we've heard as a committee, draft a report and put a final report to the Legislative Assembly by November 15. The process is that we're looking for input on the development of next year's provincial budget. If there is the ability to invest in additional services, if there is additional money, we're asking British Columbians what their priorities would be and where they would like to see that money invested in British Columbia.

Today's hearings will be recorded and transcribed. It is a public hearing. We have with us Adam Wang and Marilyn Pollard over to my left, behind all of the equipment. As well, to my right, we have with us Kate Ryan-Lloyd, who is our Committee Clerk. At the back of the room is Jacqueline Quesnel, who is at the information table with packages for people if they're interested in taking those.

As I indicated, I think it is a great opportunity for British Columbians to come out and speak with the government, speak with the all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly and help develop the future of British Columbia. With that, rather than me go on and on, I'm going to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. Then, Keltie, we're going to ask you to come forward to the table, and we'll begin our day. I'll begin with Richard.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): I'm Maurine Karagianis for Esquimalt-Metchosin.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much. Also, I will point out that Maurine is the Deputy Chair of our select standing committee as well.

So again, welcome. Keltie, if I could ask you to come forward, we will begin our day. Thank you for coming.

K. Durrell: Thank you for coming. I'm here as an independent, and I've spoken to Blair on this. I was going to write him a letter, but you people came, so I decided I would come and talk to you.

It's mostly on personal experience, and I won't drag it out or anything. Five years ago I was living in the Yukon — very happily for 30 years — and my mom got sick. I came down, and we waited a month for her to get an operation. She needed a shunt in her head, and we ended up in an Alberta hospital. That was fine.

We came home. She was in the hospital here for a month, and she lost some of her memory because of this. We could not get her into Rotary Manor, so I had to quit my job, come down and look after her in Dawson Creek for two years. Luckily, I was on my own and could do this, but that was my first introduction to B.C.'s seniors policies.

I am now going through with my stepdad. Two and a half years ago he was sent down to Vancouver to see a neurologist and found out that he had Alzheimer's and could not stay on his own. Since then I've got a job, so I couldn't look after him. He's in Brock Fahrni, a veterans' home. I have worked well with Sandy — the representative here for Peace River through the health care. My stepdad is 25th on a list in Dawson Creek to get into Rotary Manor.

I did a little more homework, and I would like to leave this for you. I found out he's not really 25th on the list. On the priority list there are four categories, and the first one is in the community, which is an emergency. They're in hospital, in Peace River Haven or preferred. My stepdad is 25th in the fourth category on these lists.

He has lived here for 60 years. I couldn't find out — I guess it's confidential — how many people are in the first three categories, so he may be 100th on a list. I don't know. I feel pretty strongly, as Blair knows. I saw a thing on TV, and Mr. Campbell was giving $2 million to bike paths in the lower mainland, and I hit the roof.

K. Durrell: I'm really upset, because my stepdad has about two years. He has never been in Vancouver before, and he ended up there because his daughter lives there. He had to get out of Vancouver General or they were going to charge him, I think, $200 a day, and he doesn't have the money to pay that. He got into

Brock Fahrni in Vancouver. Every chance we get, we go see him, but it's expensive.

I'm just saying that if you could look into the seniors and maybe become more aware of it in the Peace River district, there are a lot of people who would thank you.

I would like to leave that list, Blair, because when I spoke to you, I thought he was 25th, and he's way down the line.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay. Keltie, if there are any questions from any members, I'll just see if you could answer them.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there any members of the committee who have…? Yes, Maurine.

Keltie, thank you for coming and sharing your story with us. Most of us, I think, are unaware here of the level of seniors care that you have in this area. Could you elaborate on exactly what is currently available for extended or complex care or any of the levels of seniors care?

K. Durrell: Well, Rotary Manor was just built two years ago. It's a beautiful facility. My mom was in it for eight months until she passed away.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): It is. There are about 32 beds in that one attached to an assisted-living….

K. Durrell: Then there's Pouce Coupe Haven, and I don't really know what state that's in, because I've heard it's closing and people are taking it over for assisted living, but I don't think there are any more beds than that.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Pouce Coupe Care Home, which is adjacent to Peace River Haven. Pouce Coupe is just to the east about eight miles.

K. Durrell: I don't know what state that's at. Blair may know. Like I say, I'm sorry; I don't know what…. My grandmother was actually in Pouce years ago. Believe me, in the winter, an eight-mile drive every day to see somebody is not a lot of fun.

L. Krog: I take it that really the thrust of what you're saying is that priority should be given to citizens in the community. Is that it?

K. Durrell: Well, you know, I would prefer that. What I would not ask is the people who are in a hospital or on their own that need assisted living be bumped for my stepdad, because he is safe. That, to me, would be totally unfair to ask that. He is lumped in the last one in preferred…. Sorry, I missed that on my notes. He is lumped in with people who live here and their folks…. They have lived in Kelowna their whole lives and wish them to be here so it's easier and closer, but these people have never lived here. He's lumped in with that. I find that a little tough, when all his friends are here and stuff, you know.

L. Krog: If I can…. I'm not trying to be cute this morning. I mean, Justice Seaton's report on health care in B.C., Closer to Home, would sort of sum up what you're trying to say to us this morning. People should be able to get the health care they need in the communities in which they live.

K. Durrell: Yeah, and I wish…. Sandy said she couldn't give me the numbers of the people here. When I talked to Blair, like I said, I thought he was 25th on a list. He's not; he's in the last category. Sandy said that for confidentiality, she couldn't give me the number of people above him in the other three categories.

K. Durrell: They're in the community. If there's an emergency — somebody gets sick and then needs help right away — they're in the hospital waiting in Peace River Haven and Pouce, because they're trying to move them out of there to Rotary Manor here. Then there's the preferred one that my stepdad's in.

L. Krog: I'm trying to get a sense of the local turf. How big is your health region? Do you know what area it covers?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We're part of the northern health authority, although the northeast sector covers Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Dawson Creek, Pouce Coupe, Taylor, so it's a very significant size. The northern health authority, I believe, is the largest health service delivery area in all of Canada.

K. Durrell: Just to add to that, my brother and I actually had rented a room in Hythe, in Alberta, hop-

ing to get him there, but his daughter doesn't want him to go out of B.C. The people in Vancouver are going: "Well, why would you put him in Alberta?" They don't realize it's so close. I know several other people from this area are in Hythe and Beaverlodge, and that's pretty sad when B.C. is growing, and we're prosperous, and our people are in Alberta.

Keltie, I will encourage you to, as per our discussion, please get something to me in writing as well, though.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I'll work with you on this to see what we can do. The issue that you bring before us today is not an isolated case. We do have challenges. The issue of looking after….

K. Durrell: Maybe you can get the numbers from the first three categories. I can't, obviously.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Certainly, they wouldn't share names for the confidentiality reason, and I fully understand that. Those numbers are definitely different than the last update that they gave me, so either we're having a significant amount of people waiting for placement right now…. I'll definitely work with you and see what we can come up with.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): At this time we will reconvene the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services and again welcome the presenters and guests here this morning. Prior to calling our next presenters forward, I'd like to recognize two councillors from the city of Dawson Creek: Councillor Calvin Kruk, who has just joined us, and Councillor Paul Gevatkoff. Welcome, and good morning.

Our next presentation comes to us from the district of Chetwynd. Joining us today are Bob Nicholson and Bill Caldwell. Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome. How are you doing today?

It's good to see you all, and we appreciate your coming to our country and taking a look at things firsthand. I can recall that our past mayor Charlie Lasser and I had come in to make a presentation. I believe you were with them — weren't you, Blair? — when the committee came and toured.

B. Nicholson: It was excellent. It gave us a heads-up on the way that your government was heading, what you were intending to do. I think it helped us an immense amount to understand a little better where you're intending to go and where you're coming from. It gave us the opportunity to bring forth our concerns. I think you probably found as you went along that our concerns are the same as everybody else's, just a little more fragmented and a little more concentrated in our area.

What do you want now? We've given you a copy of what our thoughts are. I don't want to call it a presentation, but I think it's a list of where our thoughts are at.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): What we would like to do, Bob, is really…. If you want to go through…. I believe they're just photocopying that presentation and bringing it in. If you want to begin and walk through the presentation and just highlight what the district of Chetwynd feels for the future of British Columbia….

B. Nicholson: If you want to know the truth, our deep feelings, if you made Chetwynd the capital of British Columbia…. I presume that might be a little presumptuous on our part, so we won't go that far. On the other hand, I'm having trouble because Dawson's here.

I think our concerns, our needs and our wishes run right along with what you'll find from everybody else. One of the items brought forward by our people that we would like you to have a look at is reduction of the fuel tax for the coloured fuel that could be used in off-road rec vehicles.

Of course, as is mentioned here, we'd like to promote winter tourism. We have competition from Alberta, and certainly anything that levels the playing field or gives us a bit of an advantage that is fair would enhance our winter tourism. Blair, if anybody knows that, you would, being from Dawson and your time as mayor….

I think it's pretty well self-explanatory. We want to go on record that Chetwynd is strongly supportive of this. We feel there could be nothing but good come out of it. With the vast amount of funds the provincial government has in their coffers now, you won't notice it, I'm sure.

Graduated PST was an excellent initiative that the council of Dawson Creek had brought forward. Of course, as you again know, we feel that it would be a strong support…. One of the problems all our northeast region municipalities have is the bleeding of our shoppers to Alberta because of the savings on tax. As a result, places like Grande Prairie, with their larger volumes, can shop and buy cheaper, and they're wholesale, so there's quite a bit of unfair competition there. In

order to compete with Alberta, we feel that the graduated tax would be an excellent advantage for us, an opportunity to level the playing field.

I don't know if it's necessary to spend any more time on that. My understanding is that this proposal is before the government and that you're looking at it as we speak. I would hope that it would be a positive thing, and that it'll come forth from the government that you support it and that your finance division could take care of it. I'll just leave that as is, but I guess I would have to say that the district of Chetwynd is strongly in support of that. We feel it's a fair and equitable thing.

Another thing that is, more or less, totally of concern to a whole area is the infrastructure grants, wherever possible, especially for roads. Again, it's self-explanatory — the vast amount of funds that we send to Victoria from this area in order to keep the industry flowing. There are some wonderful wells that are being created. The coal industry is going great guns. In fact, I'm going to a meeting at the regional district Thursday. My understanding is there are 54 coal licences being looked at, so that gives your committee a good idea of the pressure on our roads. If they can't get this product out…. Certainly, they can get in there with helicopters to take a look at it, and they can get in with rough access roads, but in order to get the product flowing, there is going to have to be more spent on infrastructure.

It's difficult. Understand, from way back the economic development situation in the northeast here…. Under the Socred government, they had set up an economic development area, and one of the things that was brought forward was the lack of our roads up here. One of the things we kept getting from Victoria was: "Well, you don't have the population. You don't need roads."

You guys can understand. If you had a farm and all your produce was on the back end of the farm, you'd have to build a road to it. It don't matter where the ranch house is and where people are living. It's the same with here. They have to get that product out. We have to get the employees in, and it just goes on and on, as we've mentioned.

Water and sewer. The impact on our municipalities…. As we get more people coming in and the need for industry to have employees and keep them here, we have to have better infrastructure. We can't be failing in our water and sewer. Again, they are services that I understand all municipalities have to provide, but we have a lot of pressure on our area now, and we have to have the funds to increase our services. I think that's pretty well self-explanatory.

A big item — and we're faced with this all over the province, and you understand this and where it's coming from: our seniors are getting older, and we're not dying off. I'm a senior myself, and I should have died off a long time ago to take the pressure off of my grandkids. The services have to be there, and we need more pills, it seems, and more doctors' attention. When I was a kid, I'd go for years without seeing a doctor. Now, every time you turn around you need doctors' services.

Another aspect of health in the north is to keep the people at home. It's not only having a doctor pay attention; your health is affected by being close to your loved ones, to home, to where you're comfortable.

I know, more and more, we find our people telling us this. They don't really want to be shipped off somewhere else. They want to stay right at home — in Chetwynd, in Dawson or wherever else they happen to live. We have the need for senior housing, assisted living, transportation, because in some cases, maybe they aren't even allowed to drive any more. They may have had to turn their licence in because they're too old and the doctor says: "You shouldn't be driving any more."

All these things are tied in. It's a need, and we would certainly hope that there's some ability to assist with that. In some areas, I believe, there are ongoing plans for it, but we would like to see it move along more swiftly, if possible.

Blair, if I'm getting carried away here…. If there's something that…. Did you guys want to do some questioning on anything before I get…?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): What we'll do is possibly another couple of minutes, if you could work through, and then if there is time for questions from members of the committee, we would very much appreciate that — if you could answer those.

B. Nicholson: Sure. I probably can't answer them, but I certainly can listen to them.

I'll speed on a little, and I apologize for dawdling. These things are close to my heart.

The adequate bandwidth and high-speed Internet is, again, somewhat similar to our needs for roads. Our industry needs it. It'll help our hospital situation, our schools, to give us the things we need locally without sending our people out or bringing in…. And it also takes a lot of the pressure off the bigger centres, because we can't continually send our people out and expect them to have the ability to service all of us. It goes with it. If anything could be done, and I'm sure there is, broadband and high-speed Internet, and I think the explanations are well put out here, in number five.

The returning of dollars to the different regions. This is pretty well self-explanatory, too, so I don't think I'll dwell on that.

Repayment of debt is a good principle, and I would hope that's close to your thinking too. I'll just leave that.

One other item: support for new businesses and facilities. That touches on the co-op, the meat processing. I don't know exactly where you can go with this, but certainly, if there's any way for you to encourage this — and I understand, Blair, that you're quite familiar with it and up to speed — it's important. Even though the American markets seem to be opening, it

isn't going to hurt anything to have our own processing plants and feedlots and such. If there's anything that your government can do to speed that up, to make it firmer, to give them access or help with the funds they need, it would certainly be wonderful.

I think that probably has given me enough of your time. I appreciate it, again. Thank you so much.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, Bob, I want to thank you. I think you've brought some valuable points. You've laid it out very clearly.

Just for the benefit of the members of the committee, the Tender Beef Co-op that Bob was referring to is a facility that's being looked at by a cooperative, a group of farmers and ranchers, from across this region as well as the Alberta-Peace, that is looking at new slaughter capacity here. They are working with the Northern Development Trust right now. It's certainly an issue that is wholeheartedly supported in this region, and I think, as Bob pointed out, it has to be looked at if we're going to maintain our cattle industry and not be as dependent on others for the slaughter and production of that.

Bob, I want to thank you, and I'm going to look to members of the committee to see if they have any questions regarding your presentation. Bob, you've obviously done a marvellous job. Again, I want to thank you.

Chetwynd, for the members of the committee that are just visiting our region, is about an hour, an hour and ten minutes down 97 south, towards Prince George. Again, it is a region that we all work together, but today isn't a bad day. When it's 20 below and the snow is blowing, it's a little more difficult drive.

B. Nicholson: That's right. That's when we need that purple gas to run those snowmobiles.

B. Nicholson: Thank you for coming. We do appreciate all your trouble. The reason there were no questions: I probably confused everybody totally.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay, our next presenter this morning. I'm going to call on Dr. Bill Ebert. Good morning, Bill.

I have a presentation on the Internet, on the computer, and it'll be forwarded to you, so you really don't need to make too many notes now.

First, I want to mention that over the last four years this government has done a good job of turning things around. People are working again. There's a positive air about it, and remember, that in your next four years, we still hold you to your mandate. Part of the platform was to balance the budget, reduce the debt and reduce the bureaucracy. Many times by reducing the bureaucracy you reduce the obstacles that are in place of small people much like myself, big business, whatever.

I would like to address two main budgetary items in the provincial government, and that's public education and health care. The B.C. government is not receiving the best value for its dollars spent on the public education system. Many times I'll peruse what can be done and how I can positively give you some guidance.

I am a product of the public education system, from a very low-income family. So I feel that I do understand the education system quite well. When I went through school, many of our classes were 44 people, 44 children. That's come down, and you people have brought that down a little bit in the last four years that you've been in power.

One thing, I think, that can happen is to bring in some competition. When I look over the years, competition usually improves services. Here, the competition that we could fund would be the private schools. Possibly look at funding private schools in the same manner that the public schools are funded. Naturally, you'd need to have controls. Let's get the old provincial exams back in after grades three, six, nine and 12. Those schools that don't perform lose their funding, and that's it.

One other thing that has crept in over the years has been these professional development days — Pro-D days. Basically, schools are closed in this area for one day a month, some of the schools one and a half days a month. That works out to ten days a year. That's two full weeks. That should not be. The children need this time in school. They can certainly use it. Also, the taxpayer pays for that school as it's closed down. That shouldn't be. Remember, teachers are professionals. Professionals use their own weekends, their own time, their own money to continue their education. In view of the teachers, they've got weekends, just like the rest of us. They have their Christmas holidays, Easter holidays and summer holidays. That's what professionals do on their own time and their own money. They continue their continuing education.

Stress leave is something that's kind of crept into government. We all have stress, and a lot of you people have a lot more stress than most people because of the job that you're in right now. I know of a situation — and I won't get too specific here — that's very close to me personally, where an individual, a teacher, showed up for work for the first ten days in September, went on stress leave, got partial pay and came back at the end of June for another ten days. This has carried on

for three years. Now, this is absolutely nonsense. Stress is something that comes with any job you're in. If you can't handle that job, then you have to quit. An individual should be able to figure that out themselves.

One other thing that I've thought about over the years is administration. I've seen lots of administration over the years. In our school districts our senior administrators are usually teachers. I've been aware of this in the different professions. The professionals, like the professional teachers or professionals in other fields, are not necessarily the best administrators. Why don't we start looking at MBAs or other people with more administrative skills?

The other thing about teachers taking up these senior administrative positions is that they're biased. There's no question that they're biased. They may tend to know the system better, but they're biased. I've seen people go from the gas industry to the lumber industry to manufacturing, at the administrative levels, and they've done extremely well. So let's start looking at MBAs, possibly, for these positions — and probably at about two-thirds of the cost. There's a good chance that they're going to do a better job.

The other item I want to touch on is, as I said, health care. We all remember the Romanow commission, which was a good smokescreen, didn't do anything and cost the taxpayer a lot of money.

When our universal health care system came in, the federal government paid 50 percent, and the provincial government paid 50 percent. Gradually, the federal government has decreased their share, and I believe that last year it was about 17 percent. Maybe they came back to 19 percent, but at any rate, it decreased tremendously. Taxes on the federal level still kept going up, so it's not as if taxes dropped which gave the provincial government the opportunity to raise more money by taxes. The British Columbia taxpayer had to pick up that extra 33 percent. We can't do it, and it's showing up at this point also.

We've got, say, 3.3 million people in B.C., and we'll say there are a million taxpayers or maybe a little more — just roughly. The one million British Columbians can't afford our 50 percent plus 33 percent of the federal government's. My situation is: you don't need to talk to the federal government on it. Get tough. You pay your share; you get a voice. You drop down to 49 percent; you lose your voice. It has to be tough. There's no arbitration here. There's no bargaining.

If the federal government gets too tough, look at the GST. The BNA is the basis of our country, our Canada — British North America. It states perfectly clearly in there that the federal government has no power to put a direct tax on like GST. So then, B.C., let's collect that GST. If you want to give some to the federal government after you take the health care money out — okay. But get tough. We know where all the power is politically — with the federal government — and we know that we're in a losing situation — so just get tough.

There are some other factors that cost the B.C. taxpayer an awful lot of money that have not shown up in any reports and that I don't see anybody talking about. Remember that B.C. just has a small base of taxpayers, which, basically, we'll say is a million or a little more. We have a large number of people retiring to British Columbia from Ontario west. That's not just a few thousand people; that's a large number. These people have never contributed through their working lives to British Columbia. Now they're here, and now…. It's when you get older — and I know that — that you start drawing on the health care system, and that's where a big cost comes in. Eventually, we're going to have to look at different rates for different people.

Another big thing that happens and that there has been no mention of at all is that a lot of immigrants in this province bring in their fathers and mothers, their grandfathers and grandmothers — quite a number of them — and once they pay into the health care system for so many months, they can get full benefits too. Remember that it's the older people who use the service a lot more than younger people, and this is a big cost. The small base of British Columbian taxpayers is supporting all of this, so we've got to look at changing that.

To go on to another little thing here, and this is the registered nurse program. The registered nurse program worked tremendously. The hospitals got some cheap labour. The nurses got practical training and theoretical training. Young people that, say, had grade 12 graduated and so on and lived out in the bush, like up at Wonowon here, up past Fort Nelson, up at Liard Hot Springs, wherever. They were able to leave home and come to a relatively safe area and get their RN — registered nurse.

These nurses have been exceptionally good. They've had practical training. The ones that didn't like it were able to go do something else. The ones that kept on and got their RN — they're excellent. In the operatories, on the floors, in the maternity wards, in the psych wards, they're excellent.

Now we've gone to a system where it's a BSc nurse. Some of these nurses are taking four and five years to get a BSc. When they come out, it takes at least a year to train them so that they're functioning extremely well.

It's not a good situation. If they're going to spend five years, why not spend another four or five years and become a medical doctor? Our registered nurse program was effective. It worked well and was good. Set it back up again. Just tell a few of these people in Ottawa or where the head nurse departments are that: "Hey, we're changing things." There's nothing to stop an RN from going on and becoming a registered nurse after. Others did that, and that's fine. There's nothing to stop them.

Another thing that hasn't been talked about is unskilled employees — okay, I'll make it real fast — making large wages and large benefits — twice what they do in the private sector. That should be addressed.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Ebert. Sorry about the time frame. We are trying to get through. Usually, what we do as a committee is allow about ten minutes per presentation, and then for questions and answers we allow a couple of minutes at the end. I will look to members of the committee to see if they have any questions of what you have put forward today.

B. Ebert: Okay. I went to Alberta to go to university there and became a general dentist. British Columbia did not have a school at that time. I'm one of the old guys — fully retired, I think.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Are there other questions, members, from the committee?

B. Ebert: Okay. The registered nurse…. British Columbia has a lot of small communities all throughout the north. For young girls to leave the communities and go to the cities or larger centres, it was a little dangerous for them and so on. With the registered nurse program, the hospitals — and Dawson Creek would be one, Prince George another, Smithers another — would have a school. As they entered, they would also have a dormitory where they lived and were fairly safe. Then it took them three years to get their registered nurse certificate. It's a certificate, not a degree. They had practical training and theoretical training. There were departmental exams or government exams that were set by Victoria and not by the local hospital or so on. In other words, it was a very large one.

Just like how we're now getting our regional colleges. We've got quite a little college in a little town like Dawson Creek. You see, it would be very simple to set a program like that up, and it's effective.

L. Krog: Just very quickly. You talked about, you know, competition within the public school system. Government has to deliver its services day in, day out. Public schools have to deliver their services day in, day out. If a private school goes belly up tomorrow, loses its funding, those parents have to find other accommodation for their children in terms of education. The same in the public school system.

I've got to say to you as an MLA that I don't know how I'd confront my constituents when you're told the school's doors are shut. I mean, it's happening in post-secondary education now. What are you going to say to parents when they've received their funding from the government, they've paid it over to the private school and the school disappears? What are you as an MLA going to say to those parents halfway through the year when the school is closed? "Oops, sorry, your kids don't get any education for the other half of the year."

I guess what I'm suggesting is that you've got to think that proposition through in terms of its natural consequences. That's one of the things I'm concerned about — the consistency — and I want to hear your response to that.

B. Ebert: Okay. I'm a product of the public education system, and I felt strongly that that was the only system. In the areas I have been in, there were some Catholic schools, and I didn't want to support them. Over the years I've seen a deterioration, I feel, in our public school system. The separate schools — and, we'll say, mostly the Catholic schools — have maintained a discipline. I've seen a number of young people go through that, and they have developed well.

I feel our public education system has deteriorated, so then I'm looking at alternatives. For me to say: "Start supporting the private…." I'll call them private schools, rather than a church school or whatever. That's a 180-degree turn. But we have to do something, because what is happening now is not the best.

I haven't answered your question completely, I know, but it's a tough one. Lots of times when I'm out in the bush, I'll be thinking, "What can we do?" and this is why I've come up with the one idea of competition. I haven't answered your question completely, but it's a tough one.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Well, thank you very much, Dr. Ebert, for taking the time to come and address our committee today.

Our next presentation this morning comes to us from the Peace River South Teachers Association, Judy Richardson as well as, I believe, Linda. Are you coming? Just Judy? All right.

J. Richardson: I believe you have a copy of my presentation in front of you. I'm going to probably read it to you. That's what I'm most comfortable with right now.

It would seem to me that as this is a season of thanksgiving, it would be an opportunity to extend gratitude to the teachers of British Columbia. It could

be offered in a gesture of respect. Any form of legislation of our collective agreement is a slap across the face to a teacher. Sitting down to bargain with BCPSEA, the British Columbia Public School Employers Association, is like dealing with a goon from the mafia, an entity that has no power to negotiate. This is a key issue: full, free collective bargaining.

Negotiation is not possible when there is no table to bargain the issues with. The education system in British Columbia has been ranked highly in the national scene as well as the global market. That was because we had recognized personnel in place and a system that guaranteed professional integrity for teachers. The system is able to develop quality programming when the workforce is respected and allowed to develop creative individual solutions.

Since the last imposed settlement in 2002, we have lost ground. Even Saskatchewan has created a more viable grid, with bonuses. The 2002 legislation created inequity in the system.

We have a grade three-four classroom of 24 students, and next door is a grade four-five class with 33 students and 14 IEPs. That means the workload of one teacher is almost double that of their neighbour. Within our district a high school classroom began the year with 42 students in a planning 10 course. Last year we had a shop class that began with 36, and that included four special needs students. These classrooms only have stations for 24.

This legislation allows situations within smaller school districts — rural schools — to have inequities because of averaging. Each teacher has given four to six years of their life to prepare for their chosen profession, yet now they are expected to accept $10,000 to $15,000 a year less than their counterparts in Alberta and Ontario. Have we become a have-not province under the B.C. Liberals? Yes, we have, in the area of public education.

There are many teachers in this district that will be looking to Alberta for their future employment if things remain the same as presented by Bill 12. Economically, Alberta offers more, and teachers are treated with respect, not degraded, by its politicians.

The phrases that were bandied about in 2002 were flexibility and accountability. These characteristics have become part of the fabric of teaching, not quaint phrases of politicians. To manage a group of 20th-century students, one must use a variety of strategies with numerous approaches, so one must be flexible. Also, a teacher is accountable to parents, administration, community groups and, most importantly, students. These phrases are the jet propulsion to the first Liberal-imposed teacher collective agreement.

The government speaks of having a reasoned approach but continues to legislate whenever the opportunity arises. There is no reason to dictate the parameters of a contract when the parameters continue to change at the whim of the government, such as when you follow the process dictated by the previous legislation and then a fact-finder is appointed, a new process, which you also cooperate with.

It seems to me the B.C. Liberals promised in the new-era platform in 2001 not to use government advertising to benefit their position. This proved not to be the case in the fall and winter of '04-05: "The best place on earth to…." Now we have a full-page ad taken out on Tuesday, the day after legislation is tabled. This had to be prearranged, as booking and planning an ad of that magnitude takes upwards of a week. The provincial government is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on advertising after it has said it would not put $1 more into a new collective agreement that could improve services for students.

The Liberal government speaks of getting the opinion of regular classroom teachers. Well, until June 30, 2005, I was in an intermediate classroom for 24 years. Therefore, I have been in a classroom throughout the current history of the BCTF, including the four legislated contracts since provincial bargaining.

This is putting on the perspective of a real teacher. This community has always been forward-thinking. These teachers were prepared to walk on January 28, 2002. We marched to your office, Mr. Lekstrom, at 35 degrees below. I can guarantee you that the resolve of this group has not changed.

In regards to the designation of education as an essential service, since when did it become life-threatening or endangering to life for a student not to be in a classroom? From my understanding, this designation is reserved for police, fire and emergency personnel. Some students take extended holidays to Mexico and other places. Did not Mr. Campbell take his children out of school for Christmas in Hawaii for a month?

I do believe that our children are our future, but they will suffer more from continued lack of services: special education support, libraries, fine arts electives and counsellors. Why is this province the only province that has essential service designation? According to international law, education is not an essential service, and the law designating it ought to be repealed. The International Labour Organization, a United Nations body composed of representatives of government, business and labour, called on the B.C. Liberal government to repeal the law designating education an essential service, negotiate with teachers and refrain from imposing settlements in the future. Missing a few days of school is definitely not life-threatening.

Education is vital for our children, our society and our future. That is why teachers are taking a stand to reverse deterioration of services imposed on our schools. If the B.C. Liberal government really valued education, we would not have larger classes, reduced support for students with special needs, loss of specialist teachers and 120 neighbourhood schools closed.

The comments from many of our elected officials have been unfair, because whenever they do not like something, they rewrite the laws. Therefore, they continue to make issues of a union nature illegal so that education can become an international business. Many

Since the Liberals proclaimed education an essential service and stripped our collective agreement, thousands of students have lost more than a million school days due to cost-cutting. Some school districts open their schools only four days a week. Other districts have extended holiday periods because of underfunding.

I'll come back to the ultimate crux of the matter. BCPSEA is a shell for the government, in which the government allows them to act as pawns in their dodge-and-weave act, to point fingers at local boards, school planning councils, the Education Advisory Council and, particularly, trustees. No one seems to have the answers to all the questions other than directing us toward a future plan. This is not good enough, as continuous avoidance leaves our students without the basics like textbooks, library services, counselling services and ESL support. Students with special needs are integrated without proper support, which is neither fair to them nor fair to their classmates.

Education has never been more important to our children and our society. We think the government should work to seek improvements, not legislate more problems and create more instability.

This government has spent an awful lot of taxpayers' money to convince the public they are consulting and following their election promises. There is nowhere that I've seen published a promise to reduce corporate taxes. It would be more effective if more people benefited from such a reduction, such as a 2-percent sales-tax reduction rather than a corporate tax reduction.

From the perspective of a northerner, we have seen our resources go south by train, truck, power line, pipeline and tax dollars. What we continue to miss is equal recognition from the metropolitan area for our contributions to the B.C. economy. This new surge in oil and gas has brought a flush in the resource industry but has brought an awful lot of Alberta plates to town.

This is a social justice union in which we have a long history of fighting for our students. It is not wrong, in a democracy, to demonstrate in the face of injustice when the government has shown contempt for the public education system by legislating another contract. Civil disobedience is a right of all Canadians in a democratic society in the face of unjust legislation.

In this government's effort to undermine and attack the BCTF, they have bullied every teacher in this province, because teachers are the BCTF. Unlike politicians, our representatives to and in the BCTF organization are knowledgeable and experienced teachers. Recent campaigns on anti-bullying have helped teachers realize exactly who the bully in our school system is: the B.C. Liberals.

In closing, I think one of this government's priorities should be public education. The choices are simple: repeal Bill 12 and allow teachers to negotiate a fair collective agreement at a real bargaining table with the government. Increase funding to school districts to ensure adequate support to students in the form of special education support, libraries, learning assistance, ESL and counselling. Show respect to teachers by rewarding them for the work they do by making their salaries competitive with Alberta and Ontario. Without incentives to keep teachers in the province, we are going to lose out.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you, Judy. I will look to members of the committee to see if they have any questions regarding your presentation here this morning.

L. Krog: The real purpose of the committee is to hear submissions and to consult with British Columbians across the province about the priorities for next year's budget. The budget estimates — what is it? — a $1.3 billion surplus this year. Obviously, teachers were seeking an increase but also a reduction in class sizes, etc.

You've talked in a general way about some of the priorities you would like to see, and I'm just wondering: in this school district, for instance, what are the priorities? What is the state of textbooks? What is the state of the schools? What is the state of the class sizes? Can you be…?

J. Richardson: Well, as I said, there are classes with 42. There are classes with 33. There is a situation at one of our schools that has a class that has to share their textbooks because there are not enough, so they can't take their homework home.

That's not current across all the districts, but they have made efforts in every area.

D. Hayer: I just want to make one comment. I'm not sure if I should have done this, but I wanted to make it anyway.

I talked to many teachers in my constituency. I was sort of surprised to see how many of them said: "We're not on strike. We'd rather be teaching than otherwise." I was invited to a meeting with Jinny Sims, the president of the BCTF; also, the president of the Surrey Teachers Association; Channel M; and a few other people. It was advertised in the Indo-Canadian media. It was on the front page of The Now newspaper. I showed up at the meeting. There was a member of the NDP Jagrup Brar and myself. I booked two hours to attend the meeting.

Not a single person from the public showed up to the meeting, so I offered them…. I said: "Listen, I'll buy you lunch, and we'll have a round-table meeting. I'll listen to your concerns one-on-one." Those are the most senior persons in my area. They all said: "No, thank you. We have other things to do." So I went back, and I had booked two hours for my other constituents. I was really saddened to see that. I'm glad you are here. I wish they had taken time to present their point of view.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Just if I could, as Chair of the committee. Certainly, Judy, we appreciate the presentation. I think you've made it clear that your priority, if there is additional funding, is education. That's how I'm reading what you've put forward.

I don't think it's the purview of an all-party legislative committee to get into the political debate and ask you questions on the political side, or vice-versa. So with all due respect, I'm going to ask the committee members that we focus on the task at hand, given to us by the Legislative Assembly.

Judy, I thank you for your presentation. Are there any other questions regarding the presentation?

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): Judy, I guess, more specifically, do you have a budget amount for your district that you believe needs to be reinfused into the education system here? Many of the presenters that we've seen so far in our committee have come to us and said: "We want X number of dollars for a project or for budget increases." Do you have a dollar figure for your region?

J. Richardson: Unfortunately, with the new legislation we don't see a whole lot of what the budgets are anymore, because it's not subject to the preview of a student teacher. I do not have the budget numbers at my fingertips; they're totally at the fingertips of the administration and the school district.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): Do you think your local school trustees would have such a budget? Because often it's easier for government to look at specific requests and say: "This district is looking for X number of dollars." I know in the case of school trustees, that will be provincewide, but it would certainly give us a better idea of a dollar value if we knew, from each district, what kind of budget increases you'd like to see.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Just to comment on that, it is fair to say that the school district 59 budget that we're speaking about here today is a fully public, accessible budget that is available to the public. School district 59 has that available. I've certainly looked at it, so I'd encourage anybody to have a look and see what they think.

J. Kwan: Just a quick question, and you may not have the answer here. Maybe I need to go on the website to check it out. I'm just wondering about the population base. Has the number of students in the district increased or gone down? If it's gone down, by how much?

J. Kwan: On the question…. I guess this must be a big issue, actually. I come from Vancouver, so, I think this cold….

Relative to that question, though, in terms of costs for the school district, in terms of heating costs and so on…. I'm just curious: when do you guys start to see the heating bills change and impact the schools? Is it as early as now?

J. Kwan: Is the budget breakdown of where your costs are and how they're applied within the school district on the website somewhere? Are you aware of that? Could I get that information?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you, Judy, for coming and presenting to our committee here today.

We'll move on to our next presentation this morning. It comes to us from the New Car Dealers Association of British Columbia. Joining us is Mr. Jim Inkster.

J. Inkster: Good morning. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I think you've been presented with the document that I will read. I am representing the New Car Dealers of British Columbia this morning, and I appreciate your time.

First and foremost, I would like to thank the committee and its members for visiting our community to hear about the priorities that matter to people here. The new vehicle retail industry is B.C.'s largest retail sector. We employ tens of thousands of British Columbians in high-paying jobs in just about every community in the province. We collect and remit to government over $1.5 billion in provincial sales tax revenue every year. We're active in our communities. We sponsor sports teams, and we support local charities, and our foundation is the single largest supporter of the B.C. Special Olympics.

Before I talk about some of the issues that we feel deserve the committee's attention, let me talk about

some of the things that the provincial government has done that we're very pleased with.

A strong economy and strong consumer confidence are both critical to the success of our industry. We are very happy with the emphasis this government has placed on restoring a strong, vibrant private sector economy in B.C. Low personal income tax rates, cuts to small business and corporate tax rates, improvements to the Labour Code and employment standards benefit us directly as new car dealers, but more importantly, they benefit our customers.

We are very pleased that the provincial government created the new Motor Dealer Council to raise our standards of professionalism and govern our industry. Our industry is changing, and the New Car Dealers of B.C. are embracing and leading this change. We are very pleased that every dealer, manager and salesperson in the new-vehicle retail industry in British Columbia is now required to receive training and to hold a licence.

We're also very pleased with the government's new approach to apprenticeship training through the new Industry Training Authority. The ITA provides a flexible and much-improved way for our industry to meet its future skilled labour needs, which are considerable.

We're also very impressed with the change in attitude at ICBC. Since 2001 we have enjoyed an extremely constructive and productive relationship with ICBC, with one of the high points being the negotiation of a new agreement with the autobody sector over rates and compensation. Our message to you on ICBC is simple: it's working well as it is.

With all of that said, we still have a number of critically important issues that negatively affect our industry and, most importantly, B.C. consumers. Tax simplification. PST rules are far too complicated and convoluted for small and medium-sized business operators to interpret accurately. This leaves them vulnerable to government auditors whose interpretations of PST regulation can vary from region to region.

In the automotive sector this is particularly evident in the case of shop supplies and the ongoing dispute over which items are taxable or not. Our position is easy: all supplies are taxed when used on vehicle repair, not when purchased by the shop. To do otherwise will almost always result in double taxation, a practice this government should not condone, let alone support.

Like the government's successful, larger red tape elimination program, there needs to be a targeted and measurable program of PST regulation simplification. It is important to keep in mind that businesses are doing government an important service by acting as tax collectors. This has been a major ongoing problem for our industry and many others and is the single greatest policy irritant our members have today with the provincial government.

New-vehicle luxury tax. Consumers in B.C. are not asked to pay a luxury tax on any item other than automobiles. This tax is unfair and hurts people in rural B.C. who must, out of necessity, buy more expensive vehicles — usually a truck — for work and for their families. Purely and simply, this tax should be eliminated. A possible interim approach would be to eliminate the tax on all trucks, which are often used as both a work and primary vehicle in rural British Columbia, and to raise the threshold on other vehicles to a more realistic level.

Trade-in tax credit on leases. The lack of a trade-in tax credit on leased vehicles is unfair to consumers. In British Columbia when a consumer trades his or her used vehicle on a new vehicle, they only have to pay PST on the difference. However, if the same person trades in their used vehicle and decides to lease a new vehicle, they receive no tax trade-in credit. This discrepancy is unfair to consumers and should be eliminated.

Government should encourage consumers to trade in their used vehicles to new car dealers because when a reputable dealer sells a used vehicle, government collects full tax revenue. This is often not the case in the consumer-to-consumer marketplace.

Creating a financial benefit for consumers to move from older to newer vehicles means, also, that B.C. families are driving safer and more environmentally responsible vehicles. A new vehicle today emits 96 percent less harmful emissions than a car built 15 years ago and is likely to experience double the gas mileage of its predecessor.

In conclusion, our message to you is simple. When it comes to issues of taxation, make the system as simple for business as possible and make it as fair for the consumer as possible. Simplify the rules around PST collection. Don't punish small business people for providing this valuable service, and make the purchase and lease of a new vehicle more fair to consumers by eliminating the luxury tax and extending the trade-in tax credit to leased vehicles. Again, I thank you for your time and attention.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Jim. I note we do have a couple of members wishing to ask questions. I'll begin with John and then go to Maurine.

J. Yap: Thank you, Mr. Inkster, for your presentation. Could you elaborate a little bit on your point about double taxation on PST that you mentioned, regarding PST paid by a shop versus PST paid by the consumer.

J. Inkster: The consumables that we use in performing service within a business…. When you bring your automobile to us for a simple oil change, there are consumables that we use — i.e., wiping rags, any of the hand cleaners, any of the floor dries that may be there, any of the tools that we use, the dump buckets and the tools that my staff use to change your oil — that already have their tax paid on them. But for the consumables — the paper, the stuff that we dispose of when your vehicle leaves — we are questioned by auditors as to when the tax was paid. In most cases, what they do

is they add on a shop charge, and it may be called several things throughout the province, that then becomes taxable on the work order. So if we have paid tax inbound into the dealership prior to use, then it is a double-tax situation.

J. Yap: You recover those small items as a shop charge, and then the PST is calculated on the shop charge.

J. Inkster: Yes, and what we do for, and I'm guilty of it…. We do that to make sure that we don't get an audit to come along and pick it up on the back side, which is then penalized and interest charged as well.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): A group of opposition MLAs recently met with the New Car Dealers Association , and we actually had an even more elaborate presentation than what you've given us here. I'm hoping we'll see, actually, something much more comprehensive around some of this double taxation. Are you expected to give us a bit more than this?

J. Inkster: I won't be giving you more than that. It is being prepared. This was rather hasty for us, and I agreed to appear for the New Car Dealers Association just because of the convenience of you coming to the community.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): Excellent. We were expecting to see something a bit more comprehensive, because it is a fairly complex topic. I guess my second question to you is that the Minister of Small Business is conducting a small business round table. Does the New Car Dealers Association expect to be represented at that round table?

J. Inkster: I would hope that we have a chair. I'm aware of it, and I was not notified by the New Car Dealers Association, but I will follow up on it.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): You may want to just urge your organization to really press for representation on that table. I think it's probably important to have that kind of representation there, because I think that round table is going to definitely produce some direction for future policies.

J. Kwan: Just a quick question. Does your organization…. Do you guys have a perspective on the harmonization of the GST and PST issue?

J. Inkster: It would be done federally under the Canadian Automobile Dealers Association, who are working with it because there are other provinces, of course, in the same situation considering the same amalgamation. I have not read papers on it yet.

D. Hayer: My question: have you talked to the Minister of Revenue regarding this problem with the calculation of taxes?

J. Inkster: I believe they were fortunate enough to meet on the same day that Maurine was speaking of. They met with both government officials and opposition officials at the same time. I believe that discussion took place at that time.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Seeing no further questions, Jim, I would like to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to come and present to our committee here today.

All right. Moving along, our next presentation this morning comes to us from the Propane Gas Association of Canada, British Columbia Committee. Presenting is Mr. Ronald Graham.

I'd like first of all to thank Mr. Lekstrom and the committee for coming to Dawson Creek and allowing us time to make this presentation. I believe each of you have received a brief copy of it. Today I am speaking on behalf of the Propane Gas Association of Canada, the B.C. Committee, as well as our own business here in Dawson Creek, Joy Propane.

First of all, I'd like to thank the B.C. government for the concessions they have made over the years for the auto propane industry in particular, which encourage the use of alternative fuels. These include a reduced rate on propane used as auto propane of 2.7 cents a litre — although natural gas still continues to be exempt; I'll talk about that a little later — as well as continuing to exempt propane conversions from the PST.

There's one other concession that the B.C. government has made that, unfortunately, no one can now utilize, and that's what I'm primarily talking about today. It's a provision outlined in Bulletin SST 85. That's where there's actually on the books in B.C. a thousand-dollar rebate of PST on new vehicles that are manufactured or come factory-equipped with an alternative fuel system, either propane or natural gas. When this

concession was first made, Ford was offering a factory propane system on their pickups and a factory natural gas system on their Crown Victoria. Both of these options have been discontinued. Of course, no manufacturer has picked up on it and now offers a factory alternative-fuel vehicle.

No one is able to take advantage of this rebate, so it's actually not costing the government anything. I've already made suggestions to the Minister of Finance, and I'm again proposing them to you people here today; that is, to extend that thousand-dollar rebate of the PST to also include vehicles that are converted to an alternative fuel if they have done so within six months of purchase of the vehicle.

In Ontario they have a similar rebate program where they actually will refund $750 of the PST if a vehicle is purchased and converted within six months of purchase. That's essentially what we're asking for here in B.C. We would, of course, realize that there should be some stipulations or qualifications for obtaining the rebate. For example, it should apply only to vehicles converted using the newer fuel injection systems that are now available, not the older, what I call fumigation-type, systems because they probably aren't as clean as even the newer gasoline ones are.

The newer systems, though, are more expensive, typically running from $4,500 to $5,000— as high as $6,000 in some cases. But they do achieve ULEV. That's ultra-low-emission-vehicle emission status. The PST exemption savings, of course, on $4,500 to $5,000 would be $300 to $350, so if the balance of that thousand-dollar rebate — say $650 or $750 — could be rebated, that would kind of balance off the thousand-dollar concession that's already on the books. That's the first and the primary thing that we're asking for.

The second is the tax rate. The fuel tax rate on auto propane is, as I mentioned, 2.7 cents a litre, and natural gas continues to be exempt from any fuel tax. For awhile the auto propane was also exempt, but a few years ago it was added. However, since 1996 auto propane sales have been declining, as I mentioned.

We're at about 35 percent of our peak years, so what we're also asking for is if that 2.7-cents-a-litre exemption for propane could also be exempted from that fuel tax — only where it's used for auto propane. That way it would be equal or harmonized with natural gas used as an auto fuel.

Those are the two points that I'd like to bring out. As I mentioned, our auto propane sales are only a fraction of what they were several years ago, and yet we still have all of our infrastructure — our pumps, tanks, metres and card lock systems — out there, and they're just not getting utilized to any extent any more.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thanks very much, Mr. Graham. It is an issue that I know you have put a considerable amount of time in. We've had a number of discussions on this issue in my office and around the community, so I thank you for presenting here today.

J. Yap: It's a simple question. Forgive me for asking. What's the difference between propane and natural gas?

R. Graham: Natural gas is just that. It's a compressed gas. Propane comes mostly from natural gas. When the natural gas comes out of the ground, there are some liquids. Propane, butane, ethane and other liquids are stripped out. Propane is one of them. Natural gas is more of a gaseous state unless it's liquefied, but that's another matter itself.

Natural gas as a vehicle fuel. The government has continued to exempt it from any taxation when it's used for auto use.

J. Yap: I'm just wondering qualitatively there…. It's basically from the same source — right?

R. Graham: Oh, okay. I see what you mean. The natural gas, in some instances, may be fractionally cleaner or fewer emissions — very, very little, because one is coming out of the other. Propane has had a higher usage rate, so that's why they probably felt they'd put the tax on it but not natural gas. But over the last few years the auto propane has declined to where we're probably on par with natural gas.

J. Kwan: When was the PST concession — as you put it, I think, in your paper — withdrawn from government?

J. Kwan: For the rebate. You talked about the rebate piece and then the exemptions from having to pay PST for propane conversions.

R. Graham: No, that hasn't been withdrawn. That exemption is still there. What I'm getting at is that the value of that exemption would be about $300 to $350, whereas if there was a refund on a factory vehicle, it's $1,000. I guess we're just asking for the difference in between.

J. Kwan: Oh, I see, for the difference in-between. When have you started seeing the decline in terms of your peak usage of propane vehicles?

R. Graham: In 1996 vehicles the auto manufacturers had to go into phase 2 of their emissions. It's called OBD2. From that time on, the vehicles got much more difficult to convert to propane, and the technology didn't keep up. I hear a couple of years ago finally the technologies caught up to where we now have a propane fuel-injection system available. So now we have

something we can offer, but there were so many years in between that people weren't converting so the auto propane went down.

R. Lee: My question is on…. The government has introduced the hybrid car with a PST exemption. For example, I mean the subsidy would probably be $1,000. Do you have a comparison on, say, hybrid cars — the gas plus electric — or other hybrid combinations? Are there any studies on the relative efficiency of those?

R. Graham: Not that I'm aware of. Hybrids are a totally different thing. They're gasoline powered and electric motor and so forth. They're great, from what I understand, in the Vancouver area — stop-and-go city driving. But in our part of the country they are of little use, because when you're going down the highway, maybe something like the Toyota might be okay, but some of the other hybrids, like GM pickups, still run on gasoline the whole time. So they're next to useless.

The only time a hybrid is of value is in stop-and-go city traffic, warmer climates. Here in the north I don't know how the batteries would even stand up.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Right. Well, seeing no further questions, I would like to thank you, Mr. Graham, for coming and presenting to our committee here.

At this time the committee will take about a seven-minute recess, and we will reconvene to hear our next presenter. Just prior to recessing, I would like to recognize Lyman Clark, a councillor for the village of Pouce Coupe, who has joined us, as well as His Worship Mayor Fred Jarvis from Taylor. Good morning and welcome, gentlemen.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Good morning. At this time I would like to reconvene the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services' prebudget consultation hearing, held in Dawson Creek. Our next presenter is from the village of Pouce Coupe. We have with us acting mayor Lyman Clark.

L. Clark: Thank you, Blair. I do wish to thank the distinguished ladies and gentlemen here this morning for coming and listening to small-town B.C. I have three points that I wish to discuss in my ten minutes here, concerning the budget and the future of our area and of the whole province.

The first one is health. Now, I just received, not too long past, a message across my desk that the Northern Health Authority was operating in the black now — had achieved that or were close to it. This is great. We all know that we can't live outside our budget. But we have a situation here where there's been…. Operations have been carried on by blanket statistics which we feel — in our community, because we do have two care homes — has caused some people to fall through the cracks.

I'm not really here to complain about that. What I'm here to talk about is information that I've been receiving — some through seniors groups, from Simon Fraser University — that clients receiving care are down 21 percent; home care visit reductions are down 8 percent — and this is in B.C.; and that B.C. is below the national average by 30 percent for access to home care.

At the UBCM it was brought forward that 25 percent more seniors by the year 2025…. That's not that far away. That's 20 years. It will cause quite a load. And over a half a million people over 65 in 25 years…. Places I learned about, like Osoyoos, already have a 49-percent population over 55 years of age.

Money is being saved in health care, but with some of the ways it's going — the aging — we need more funding in a long-term manner, especially with these statistics that I've learned about, about the aging population. It's going to take long-term planning. That always has to start right now. When you're doing long-term planning, you can't make it a long-term plan to make long-term plans later.

I'm asking the budget planners to consider these things, consider the certain areas and the aging populations so that funds can be brought forth in a timely manner so our province will not be overwhelmed by the matter of seniors, which I'm approaching myself. I suppose you could say I'm fighting for my own bed here in a way.

My second point is our highway situation in the northeast. First, I wish to say that I'm very thankful for the cooperation with the Ministry of Transportation for what they are doing for the village of Pouce Coupe. Those that are not familiar with it, I often refer to it when I introduce myself to a chamber of commerce luncheon as "Lyman, councillor from Pouce, choke point to Dawson Creek." We have upgrades going on, and that's what I'm thankful to the transportation department about. We have upgrades. With their limited budget, the fellows are trying to do the best they can with what they have.

At this time news has come to me through people in the economic development of Grande Prairie county that Alberta will four-lane to the border by the year 2011. That's four years. That is a main highway from Grande Prairie. It comes from Edmonton and, if you're heading into the north, through our little town of Pouce Coupe and through Dawson Creek, and it can either go west towards Chetwynd and other communities, like Mackenzie, or go north onward up to Alaska, or wherever they have to go.

With the oil boom that's going on right now, traffic at times is almost too much for the road, especially in our little town with children playing and the like. What I'm requesting here and what so many people along this road are requesting is that we have long-term planning within the budget for the funds to meet this four-lane highway that's coming from Alberta, because when they get to that highway, if nothing is done, it will just be a bottleneck and a choke point, and it will be right at our border. There have been improvements, I will say, and I'm very thankful for them. There just needs to be more long-term planning over the whole situation.

We are the first town to really feel the brunt of this situation when you come into Alberta on Highway 2. The only other town is Toms Lake, and it's more open and set off on a side road. They don't have the problem we do with two 90-degree turns right in the middle of town. I ask you to consider that highway situation, which will be an aid to the whole area.

My third point is schools and our education system. I notice the teachers are all out pounding the pavement right now. I passed them as I came into town this morning.

This is a critical matter — education in general — for the future of our young people and the livelihoods they'll make, for the future of our province and for the future of our nation. I don't think anybody would argue with that, no matter what your party of preference would be. Education is very critical.

Schools need upgrading; they need replacement. We have schools that will not be used past a certain period because of earthquake requirements, it's my understanding. Many of these are in areas of the northeast, and our little village is no exception to this matter. Again, funding and planning for the long term are needed.

History has shown that many great men and women come from small towns and rural areas not only in Canada but in nations all around the world. Great leaders, great educators and great scientists have often come off the farm, so to speak, because of education opportunities. Please, don't forget the northeast when you're budgeting for the schools of B.C. and for our children's education. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Lyman, for presenting to us here this morning.

L. Krog: Well, I must say — coming from a place called Coombs, which makes Pouce look like a big place — I'm just delighted that you make those comments about great people coming from small communities.

That aside, any idea what it would cost in terms of matching the four-laning that Alberta is planning?

L. Clark: No, I do not. Over the last 20 years or so, it's my understanding — before I was even in Canada — that there have been ideas brought forth. The Pouce area is a particular problem because of topography, because of the Pouce Coupé River. Some people want the new highway to come right through town, which would destroy most of our tax base. Others want it to bypass. There have been proposals brought forth, it's my understanding.

Cost? I don't know. That's why it needs long-term planning for these ideas to be looked at. There are some areas where it would be pretty quick. There are others where there would a tremendous amount of excavation, maybe bridge building and the like — serious bridges.

L. Krog: Your first point around health and the number of home care visits. Can you give the committee any information about the situation locally, in terms of home care visits?

L. Clark: Well, as I was just discussing with Malcolm Maxwell of Northern Health last week at the UBCM, we realize there is a problem when a health care worker has, say, five people to see a day, five blocks apart, or when they have five people to see a day, 15 or 20 kilometres apart. That's some of the problem that we have.

We have serious questions about some of these people that are judged to be eligible for home care, when they're reaching the point where they need to be either more intensely home-cared or need to be put in a facility. I know many of them don't want to do this, and it would be great to see them in home care.

I just recently had lunch while I was in Vancouver with a gentleman who was in this very room. It's a sister city in China with Dawson Creek. He's proposing full-time home care workers, of course brought in from China, to help alleviate the situation. Of course, I referred him to Mr. Maxwell of Northern Health right away. There is a situation there.

I also had to turn over to Mr. Maxwell the name of one of our local citizens who is in a home care situation but totally disoriented at all times. He walks around and can't even tell you where he lives. He just has a walk back and forth between the store and his little place that he seems to remember. But if somebody takes him — I've done it; other people have done it — to town, he can't begin to tell you where he lives or anything else. Yet he's in home care. So these situations are there, and it just needs some careful looking into and maybe outside-the-box thinking in places.

J. Kwan: Just a quick question. You refer to an SFU…. I don't think you said a study, but information that you received from SFU around the home care piece. Is it a study?

L. Clark: It was research based by Kelsey Nutland from Simon Fraser University. This was issued to the B.C. old age pensioners organization.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Just in closing, on the issue of the twinning of the roads — the Alberta side — I know that our Ministry of Transportation is looking at that right now. There are a number of factors that come into it. Most of us in this area remember that originally, I think, it was planned on being to the B.C. border by 2005, and now it's 2011. But it is an issue. I believe the busiest piece of truck-traffic highway in the province of British Columbia is from the Alberta border in through Highway 2, through Pouce Coupe and up the highway. So it's an issue I know they're working on, and one we'll have to be very cautious of in the future.

Our next presentation this morning comes to us from school district 60, which is Peace River North, just north of the riding that I represent. Joining us is Heather Hannaford and Ernie Inglehart. Good morning and welcome.

H. Hannaford: Thank you, Blair. Good morning, committee members — and Gordon, welcome back to the north. Jenny, I think you were up before too.

Thank you very much for giving us the opportunity to speak to you. You will understand that school districts are under some pressure right now in terms of day-to-day operations. We have a draft submission to you which we would like to update and provide you later in the week, perhaps, with a final submission, because we had some other things we've had to pay attention to.

I'd like to introduce Mr. Ernie Inglehart, who is the secretary-treasurer at school district 60. I am the vice-chair of the finance committee for the board, and I'm a trustee.

You asked several questions, and we as the board would like to bring to you our most significant financial issues. In doing so, we are mindful that the questions formed in your consultation document and the issues with which we address relative to your questions are these. I will read some of it, and with your permission, I will probably add a few comments as well.

While we and many residents recognize and appreciate the balanced budget, the net-zero wage mandate for public employees has created a pent-up demand, which in our view is a reality that many school boards are having to deal with and is causing considerable problems.

Beyond this, there are two additional, related issues that are of concern to this board. In fact, there are a number. One is the provincial government's control of management salaries through Bill 66, and the second is the limitations that are placed on local government's ability to attract talent locally.

We could speak to that at length. It has to do with the economic times in this area. It has to do with the net-zero wage mandate, and it also has to do with respect to your government's job fairs going on around the province, which are actually moving personnel from other districts to come to this district.

This has perhaps supported the short-term goal of balancing the provincial budget, but now the challenge is to move past restraint and allow local boards to manage their own issues. The current net-zero wage mandate is coming to an end during the spring of 2006, and our board would ask, within reasonable guidelines, for the ability to settle our issues locally.

In the past, beyond the current mandate, the province saw a series of simple percentage rate increases across the province. This kind of increase may have kept reasonable order in the house on a provincial level but has limited local government's ability to deal with their own issues. I actually have spoken to this in a number of venues, not the least of which is the organization which talks to PSEC, and PSEC is well aware that we have issues with a provincewide mandate with no flexibility for local areas to make adjustments. I think I alluded to that before.

In addition, our support staff is covered by a private pension scheme, while all but three other districts in the province have their support staff on the province's own…. I believe it's the municipal pension plan.

Under the net-zero mandate, our board is limited from making the switch for our staff. Rather than simply applying an across-the-board provincial percentage increase for all employers, we would ask for the ability to work within certain guidelines and to solve our problems. Once again, it's the same thing. Before we get off this subject, in a minute I'd like to ask Ernie to speak to that.

The provincial government has set ceilings on the amount of money that managers or excluded staff can earn. Senior management, while they're employed by local government, have their salaries capped by a provincial entity — PSEC. A static and arbitrary belief of what a senior manager should make was taken by the province during times of restraint and economic downturn. Times have changed, and local boards are limited in their ability to attract the talent required to get the job done in the most efficient and effective way possible.

Most recently, the net-zero mandate has raised itself during the dispute with teachers. Not only does the province have to recognize for more money for teachers across the province, but we need to recognize that local boards require the latitude necessary to attract teachers and other staff locally. We're competing with Alberta. Our assistant superintendent said to me: "Heather, this is a joke. I keep my salary grid in my pocket. There is no way we can attract from Alberta. Why would they come here?" This is not an argument for or against the current situation, but it is a problem for us not only in support staff but also within the teaching staff.

May I ask Ernie if he would speak to the pension plan? I think it's really critical.

E. Inglehart: The issue for our district is that the majority of the province is on a municipal pension

scheme. I'm talking about support staff. Teachers are all universal on the teachers pension scheme, which is part of the same family of provincial pensions.

In our situation there are only four districts in the province that aren't on the municipal pension scheme. That's Coquitlam, the Charlottes and Abbotsford. Coquitlam actually has an agreement with the municipal pension scheme where they can transfer pensions across the board. In other words, they have a scheme that's equal to the municipal pension scheme. The Charlottes board contributes 6 percent, and the individuals contribute 6 percent. Our board contributes 5 percent, and the individuals contribute 5 percent. Abbotsford's employees are on a Teamsters pension scheme.

So the issue is that it's more costly for a board to join the municipal pension scheme, which is a defined benefit of course. Individuals, when they retire, know what they get in terms of pension. They're on a private scheme right now — again, 5 percent and 5 percent — and it's market-dependent. Sometimes, of course, the market's up and sometimes it's down.

Because the board has to contribute a greater percentage to join the municipal pension scheme, that's the roadblock that PSEC won't let through. It's a very fundamental issue to our board. It's not a situation where our board is coming to the province and saying: "We need more money to get our people on the municipal pension scheme." What we are saying is: "We have the money in our budget. We've placed the $200,000 that it would require for the year to do it. We simply want permission to do it."

You asked our opinions of the government's current practice of providing both contingency fund and forecast allowance to protect balanced budgets from unseen events. We would like to be in the position to be able to create a contingency, if it was appropriate. Right now we have the issue of the rapidly escalating cost of energy, which is affecting not only our board but the entire province. The impact comes in forms of higher costs for gasoline, diesel fuel, propane for both heating and vehicles, heating fuel, natural gas and electricity.

Of course, as you're aware, in the north we have substantial heating bills. Particularly in our district, I believe we have done as much work for efficiency as is possible. We have a program with Honeywell which has allowed us to reduce our heating costs significantly, but we see no end to this.

If the cost of energy rises 20 percent this year, the impact on our budget would mean we'd have to come up with an extra $260,000. If it goes up 30 percent — $390,000. We believe the government needs to spend its contingency fund now on an issue that is very serious for all boards in the province, because this unforeseen event is here and now.

We'd also like to point out that it seems counterproductive for the province to be collecting higher oil and gas royalties, which are being paid by those to whom the funding goes. In other words, the province collects taxes, and then we hope we're going to be able to get some of that money back in order to pay for them. There may be a simpler way.

How to pay provincially for the important physical and social structure projects? We agree that there are issues relating to the need to address the physical infrastructure. Again, during times of restraint, education has seen very severe cutbacks in capital funds provided to upgrade buildings. To upgrade a physically failing building at a cost of $1.2 million is not a feasible request. That is to say that the ministry does not look at projects under $1.5 million for capital funding, and districts are required to find that money from within their budget — the annual capital grant. It simply isn't providing enough for us to be able to do that within the budget.

We had one or two other areas that we would like to comment on, please. While we appreciate that the government has been giving more money per pupil over the last number of years, varying amounts…. I think we all understand that's because the pupil count has gone down, and we understand that the money has been kept in the Education budget. We really appreciate it. But everything else has gone up. This has been constant. I've been a trustee for a while. Utilities, lumber, cars, textbooks — everything goes up, up, up. It just simply hasn't kept pace.

We understand that government is talking a lot about preschool too. That really pleases us, but we do need a strong social policy for preschool education, starting with prenatal. We need to ensure our children get a good start, which in all probability would save expending funds for remediation later on.

In the north and I assume in other places the cost of curricular travel…. We're not talking about sports teams here, although that is a separate issue, or bands going wherever to compete. That's a separate issue, which we would love to see funded. Actually, we don't want to see it funded. We would like adequate money to make the choices so those things can happen.

But curricular travel in rural and remote areas needs attention. Funding is required to have the province's students who live in isolated areas interact through sports, culture and the arts. A child's education is not whole unless we include those events to complete the circle, and doing that requires travel. Bus trips for students cost several hundreds of dollars per trip, with many trips, recognizing the number of students involved during the year.

We have a K-to-12 school in Hudson's Hope, which is 50 miles from the centre. We have another K-to-12 in Prespatou, which is another 40 to 50 miles north of town. We have a K-to-10 school out at Clearview, another 30 miles out of town. These kids can't simply walk to the cultural centre. They can't walk to the hospital for a field trip. They can't walk to the fire station. If parents, teachers and schools want to do those kinds of things, they fundraise for it separately, and we don't believe this is equitable. If we had enough money in

the budget, we would be able to subsidize that in a better way, but things are really, really tight.

We have a very good project in the north. This is the next issue. We know from our school district research and research done for us by educational researchers that our one-to-one laptop computer program for grades six and seven is making a significant difference to students' learning, particularly writing.

It has other side benefits too. It's particularly beneficial for boys. It's particularly beneficial for students who may be hyperactive or have other learning disabilities. We have seen huge gains, so much so that it's morally imperative that we continue to do it. We consider ourselves to be in the forefront of that, and I believe the province believes that too, but the funding isn't keeping up. It won't just be us that are looking for those kinds of forward movements in education. Somehow we have to be able to fund it.

To fund our program initially, we hunted and pecked around the budget. There have been observations from parents of kids who are not in the program that maybe that wasn't the best thing to do. It was a pretty tough choice, but we're really glad we did it.

Before I come to my final statement, special ed funding is always a problem. We do understand and appreciate that special ed funding per se, targeted funding, was increased in the last year — significantly, actually. However, our district and I'm sure others are doing a wonderful job with far too few funds, and it's causing a huge amount of stress. Parents are not generally…. I shouldn't say they're not happy, because whenever you have help for your child in school, any extra is really welcome. But there are still needs, and it's really important we address those.

Finally, we understand that you're the budget committee. We also understand that it's not your business as the budget committee, or anything else, to be telling ministers how to spend their money. But we would like to make this point, please. There is an issue of micromanagement that we'd like to see addressed. We feel that there's a wealth of talent and expertise around the province. We have wonderful administrators, fine principals, vice-principals, secretary-treasurers, teachers and support staff who are dedicated to the things that are happening for children in this province. Far too much time is spent fulfilling other government needs — filling in forms, jumping when a new policy comes down without having time to consolidate and those kind of things. We would, I guess, implore that the ideas of those people in the field who are doing such good work are not…. I wouldn't say they're ignored, but they're certainly sometimes sidelined.

Having been a trustee for quite a while, I've seen wonderful things happen locally. Sometimes you think to yourself that we have to do something else because someone else is telling us to do it. Sometimes they're not our priorities; they're someone else's priorities. That's not to say there aren't some wonderful things going on, but it's just a thought that if you have any influence with the Education Minister, that could be addressed.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Thank you very much, Heather. Thank you, Ernie, for your presentation here this morning.

L. Krog: Your comments under item three about fiscal plan, so to speak. Just so I'm clear. If you've got an upgrade of a million dollars in a school that is required…. The roof is leaking. You don't get a capital grant from the provincial government separately for that. You have to fund it out of that year's budget, your ordinary operating budget, which is based on a per-pupil funding. Am I simplifying it too much?

E. Inglehart: That's the general idea, but perhaps the missing piece there is the annual capital grant which districts get. I think, just off the top of my head, ours is a little over $1.1 million, which covers many things — roofing amongst them, as the example. A lot of it is eaten up by physical changes, and it's to deal with your whole structure and to deal with your energy conservation, if that's part of the program. Our district does, as Heather said, spend a great deal of money, and we have to pay that back right now. Eventually it will pay for itself.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are a lot of things going on with the annual capital grant. The board simply cannot cover significant capital projects from it.

H. Hannaford: Just little things. We had a board meeting at a school last week, and I talked separately to a parent in another school, who said to me…. Well, first of all, we had a meeting, and the principal took me around and showed me several areas where the carpet hadn't been replaced — promised three years ago and still not happened.

The particular parent at another school said: "You know, Heather, you have to come and look at our carpets. This is a dangerous situation." It's things like that that mount up, mount up, mount up and just don't get fixed, because there are always priorities like the leaking roofs or the gravel or…. One of the other things — I don't know if it's operating or not — is parking lot maintenance and entryway maintenance and that kind of stuff in this weather. In other words, the annual capital grant just doesn't help.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): One of the previous presenters this morning talked about wide bandwidth access to the Internet as being important. I particularly noted your success here with your one-to-one laptop computers, but you didn't actually say whether or not

it was a concern for you having that access to the Internet as part of the learning tools for your community.

H. Hannaford: We have a particularly adept technology department with a wonderful administrator running it.

E. Inglehart: I actually think the province has addressed that issue. At least, that's been our experience. I'm stepping out of my area here a little bit. These individuals don't report to me, but I believe that our one-way inbound bandwidth is sufficient. Our outbound is a different situation. It's not exactly two-way communication, but in terms of getting the information, it comes in well and with adequate speed.

J. Kwan: The question centres around the special needs funding. It is true that in the categories of special needs, funding has actually gone up. I'm curious, though. When you raised the issue of special needs, are we talking about the assessment side of things — assessing children in terms of where they are at? There is one component within the special needs funding that actually impacts many school districts, they have told me, in any event. That would be — I always get this wrong — high-incidence….

J. Kwan: Low-incidence. I always get it wrong. I always get it reversed. Is that the issue? I'm just sort of trying to figure out more specifically for your school district what the issue is around special needs.

H. Hannaford: I would have to get back to you. But the comment from our district administrator around that is: "Heather, this is chronically underfunded, and we're having to stretch in every direction." I know low-incidence is one situation, but there are a number of issues around high-incidence too, as I understand. If I may, we'll add the information you need when we send this in.

J. Kwan: That would be very helpful. Thank you very much. Also, thank you for the information I was looking for around the fuel costs, just to get a sense of it for different districts and what it was like. That gives me a sense of it. Thank you.

H. Hannaford: That's an operating budget. So that's a significant amount of money.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): If I could, maybe a quick question. With the increase in education funding this year, $150 million, what did school district 60 receive as their portion of that? Do you know?

E. Inglehart: A little over a million. I can't tell you exactly, but it was a very much appreciated bump.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): As far as where it was directed to, what's the discussion? Where will it be going to in the district this year?

E. Inglehart: Well, a lot of it reflects back to trustee Hannaford's comment about being targeted. A fair bit of it — over $400,000 — went to special ed, and after that, it was split up to the areas of highest needs. We did, actually, start another year of wireless writing. We did get some money. We got a $150,000 grant for that, as well, from the province. We took that and the additional cost necessary to include the additional year. We now go six, seven and eight — eight being the new one.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, again I would like to thank you, Ernie and Heather, for coming and presenting to our committee this morning. Certainly, it's always interesting to be able to hear all of the issues that we face in British Columbia from everybody that works within the system. I appreciate your time very much.

H. Hannaford: Thank you very much. You got the message that we're not too fond of targeted funding.

G. Hogg: After trying to keep competent notes that broke things down into issues and trying to categorize those, I have found that I'm incompetent — at many things, but this just being the one I'm prepared to talk about now.

Is there something procedurally, Kate, in terms of the information we'll receive, that will actually have the presentations — I don't want to see the whole presentation — broken down into categories that will allow us to look at and triage and build on those?

K. Ryan-Lloyd (Clerk Assistant and Committee Clerk): Absolutely. The researchers back home are actually listening to this as we speak. It is live audio broadcast. They are going to be trying their best to summarize the key points of every presentation and entering those into a database. So we will be able to, hopefully, provide you with both a regional breakdown of top issues and sort of a topical breakdown, as well, and a summary.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Moving along, our next presentation this morning comes to us from Northern Lights College. Joining us is Jean Valgardson, president of Northern Lights College, as well as John Royer and Swapan Chowdhury. Good morning and welcome.

J. Valgardson: Typical educators — we've given you two packages. I made a point of making the presentation short and succinct but gave you background notes. You are doing a special job on behalf of the people of British Columbia to go out and hear all these requests, so I thank you at the first, and I'll thank you at the end for any help that you can provide us in the request we're making.

As you know, I brought two technical support advisers here with me. Swapan Chowdhury is the director of IT at Northern Lights College, and John Royer is one of the professional resources in educational technology to our teaching faculty and students on our campuses. They deal with the day-to-day issue that I'm going to be raising today.

I don't know whether you're aware or not that Northern Lights College region involves campuses in Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Chetwynd and learning centres in Tumbler Ridge, Hudson's Hope, Atlin and Dease Lake. I'm just beginning to appreciate, as a new president, just how large, vast and geographically difficult the region of Northern Lights College is — difficult primarily because of geography and because of support capacities caused by the vastness of that geography.

Learning is our business. Northern Lights College is committed to offering instruction in multiple formats which address the learning style of our learners and improve their chances of achieving the learning outcomes of courses and programs. Our faculty, with the assistance of educational technology professionals, have expanded the instructional delivery model from traditional face-to-face delivery and demonstrations to media-assisted instruction which acknowledges a distributed delivery model due to the vastness of our region.

Current innovative instructional methods utilized on some of our campuses are listed, and I've outlined some of the specifics. We have entered into what we call smart classrooms with multimedia lecterns, conference phones and data projections. These methods allow the instructional staff to introduce, right in the same class, a variety of instructional methods to address the learning style of the learners in that class.

Video conferencing classrooms. The video conferencing classrooms use both audio and video. An instructor in Fort St. John presenting to a class in Fort St. John can have learners in Dawson Creek sign on to that same class section, and that instructor can interact with classrooms in both those locations. We have the benefits of having that one course not duplicated with smaller numbers but one course that is of importance in their program requirements delivered on those two sites.

This particular instructional method, because of the interactivity of the methodology — you have both audio and visual from teachers and students — is a method that our faculty and our instructional technology staff are becoming quite capable with. I'll speak to this as a specific need later.

We use the Internet for on-line course delivery. The Internet allows the faculty to prepare their instructional notes just like you would for a PowerPoint presentation. The instructional notes then go across the Internet, and the students get what amounts to the basic organization of the lecture materials presented to them through the computer.

Streaming audio and video services also use the computer, but they register the picture of the teacher teaching in the classroom through cameras and send them through the Internet line. It's a mini form of video conferencing requiring some different technology than the large-screen visible interactivity that's available through our video conferencing capacity.

Through telephone bridge, voice only…. Various sites on our diverse campus can actually communicate with each other through the telephone bridge.

Before I go on to ask for something, I think it's important that we need to extend thanks to the Northern Opportunities. Northern Opportunities funding has allowed us to put those smart classrooms that are described in the previous page in Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Tumbler Ridge, Chetwynd and Hudson's Hope. But the challenges we have is the bandwidth. I was pleased to hear that somebody else has come forward before us to raise that as a concern. It certainly is complicating our capacity to use the video conferencing across our region.

While I've told you it's one of the methods that we would use in a comprehensive list of instructional choices, it is a very rich piece that our faculty have already prepared materials for the utilization of that method. We would like to maximize their effort and allow learners across our region to connect into the video conferencing model. We can't do so because of lack of bandwidth capacity in major parts of our region.

The other thing we have that is problematic…. The bandwidth we have, because other users are tapping into it…. In fact, our own telephone network taps into it. There's only so much capacity the current bandwidth has. Anytime there are multiple draws on that bandwidth, it minimizes the quality and causes interruption. So you can imagine the frustration of an instructor. I'm most concerned about the learners. You can imagine the frustration to a learner of getting this kind of disjointed, bouncy, interrupted presentation that's coming in his or her class as a result of the draws being made on the current bandwidth that we're trying to use just between Fort St. John and Dawson Creek.

We need to feel — in addition to the bandwidth size — that there can be some quality-of-service requirement provided where, if Northern Lights College and the University of Northern British Columbia are combining to send a particular course required in the

future for a nursing course or required now for a business course or required in the oil and gas sector for something that we are just in time providing for some industry upgrade of their personnel, we can actually schedule a quality-of-service requirement for that peak time and that course. So it's not only giving us the bandwidth; it's some kind of coordinated effort relative to the use of the bandwidth that's needed.

Our request is: we want you to help us to reduce the digital divide and ensure that the people in the north can learn the knowledge and skills needed to stay and work in the north and thus permit the northern economy to thrive. Therefore, we request additional investment in the provincial learning network as a provincial learning solution. We also request the quality of service to increase the quality and reliability of the video conferencing.

The current resources are insufficient, and the provincial learning network steering committee is unable to meet all the priorities for learning networks. With this investment, the support would be provided to enhance the capacity of BCcampus by reducing duplication of instructional development, providing economies of scale — since one course offered through video conferencing in Fort St. John could be delivered synchronously throughout the region — as well as providing a vehicle for collaborative partners in northern communities, libraries, school jurisdictions and health authorities to educate the people of the north.

We're open to any questions, and if they're technical, I can guarantee I'm going to be….

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Thank you very much, Jean, and I see we do have a number of questions from members.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): I've actually got two questions. One is more about service, and the other is more technical. The provincial learning network — has it been decreased or reduced in any way over the past years, or is it just simply inadequate in its current state?

J. Valgardson: I do not believe it has been reduced. I just believe that people are awakening more to the need, so the priority list is beyond what they can address.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): A point of order, actually. We're in a public meeting right now. We'll take a recess for a couple of minutes.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): We will actually reconvene the meeting at this time, and I thank you all for your patience.

Our next presenters are Karen Goodings and Alvin Stedel, with regard to the provincial sales tax. Good morning.

A. Stedel: I'd like to welcome you all. I don't know if anyone has done this in this fashion or not, but I was going to welcome you to God's part of British Columbia — and then of course rephrase that to "God's and Blair's part of British Columbia." I'm not sure he wants to accept responsibility for that at the moment, but he'll be back.

You have a handout in front you. We've been working on the difficulties that have been identified for a number of years with regard to border communities losing a lot of their revenue and sales potential to Alberta because it's such a nice, easy drive to some larger Alberta communities. A lot of the resources and money go there instead of being used locally here to build up businesses, create jobs and create tax for Victoria.

I'll just briefly run through this. Mayor Dahlen is trying to come. He may have turned aside with what's happening outside.

What we're trying to do is ensure a level playing field between the B.C. border communities and Alberta. As you can go through, on page 2, "Partnership and Goals," we're in partnership with the East Kootenay regional district, the Peace River regional district, Creston, Golden, Sparwood, Fernie, Cranbrook and of course Fort St. John and Chetwynd. The reason we're doing it is, as identified earlier, that there's a lot of revenue that's been lost into Alberta from B.C. As it points out further, it comes to $230 million worth of lost revenue that we have. This study was done a couple of years ago already. It's been ongoing since 2001.

What we've been after is a pilot project, a proposal given to the government, to give us a reduction in PST down to 4 percent in these border communities. That then could be quantified to actually demonstrate how much may or may not be lost. We on our committee feel that the actual moneys lost would soon be overcome by increased purchasing and employment in this province, and all that goes with that. There would actually be a positive cash flow to the coffers in Victoria, even though there is a reduction on PST on certain items in these areas. The problem is the same in the East Kootenays as it is up here.

On page 4 it says that considerable time and resources have been expended. We have spent a great deal of time on studies. We worked on it for quite awhile, building a lot of support for it. The research was limited. It was hard to get some quantitative research, so we had that done by a firm called Gary Williams and Associates. We went in by identifying the amount of money people spend on small items in different parts of Western Canada, comparatively, between the Kootenays and the Alberta area, between this area and the Alberta area. Then, by calculating, we came up with that figure of $230 million — dollars that are not spent in this part of British Columbia, compared to the rest of the province.

On the small items, most of the money is being spent in Alberta and not being spent here. Consequently, the merchants here do not have the availability of those customers or the dollars, so they can't put in the selection, can't build the stores, can't keep the hours open, can't have the staff, etc., etc.

One of the key points is here on page 5. Saturday is the slowest retail day of the week in B.C. border communities, and it's the busiest in Alberta. You go on the road between here and Grande Prairie, and the traffic flow on the weekend is tremendous. You should go through sometime and look at the B.C. plates that are over there, and then start figuring out how many dollars are spent and how much of that is lost revenue to the B.C. taxpayer.

Now, on page 6 there are several reasons for cross-border shopping. Taxes were one. Cost savings is one. And choice and selection were also a big one. Quite often people go to another community just as an outing. There's nothing wrong with doing that. People go to Prince George. Some go to Edmonton. Some go to Grande Prairie. Some go to Lethbridge. Some go to Calgary. The issue of selection, as I just mentioned earlier, though, is directly related to the amount of commerce that's going on in an area. If there's a lot of activity, there's a lot more selection. Business goes where business is. People that are setting up stores go where people are shopping. We want to try and reverse that.

On page 7 research shows that there isn't a viable enforcement tool. We're not trying to force people to purchase locally; we're trying to entice them to purchase locally.

There are a number of examples in North America where they've done this. Lloydminster, in Saskatchewan and Alberta, is a good one. If the Saskatchewan side had kept their PST, there would be virtually nothing there. They just drew a circle around Lloydminster and said: "No PST in Lloydminster."

Consequently, without the graduated idea, there is really no commerce between Lloydminster and North Battleford, because no one is going to set up there. If they had a gradual reduction, which is what we're proposing, businesses within, say, 50 or a hundred kilometres of Lloydminster would still be able to thrive.

Kansas has done the same thing. New Hampshire and Vermont have also gone through the same phenomenon, where one has tax and one doesn't. Over a period of time the jurisdiction with no tax, although it used to be lower-dollar, has increased to high-dollar-per-capita spending, and the side with tax has been decreasing. But it's taken about 15 years for that to happen, so this will take some time.

We say, too, that consumer behaviour will take some time. In years past, when we had lower tax — in talking to elderly people, and also our stats show it — once the PST got above 5 percent, people made the conscious decision. They were able to calculate how much it was in their heads and decided to drive to save it. Now, there are arguments to say that things are not cheaper in other communities. But in people's perceptions, they are. Of course, the idea is that if you're over there and you've already saved $300 on fridges and stoves or whatever, then you can spend that on food and groceries or gambling or maybe a new coat for the wife, because you've saved all this money already. So you lose more of it here.

We're not proposing to have the PST reduced on anything that's trackable — meaning ATVs, quads, anything the government's tracking the PST on. Motorcycles, cars, trucks, skidders: all that stuff would still be at 7 or whatever the rate for the province would be. But we need it to be reduced on the small-ticket items like cameras, running shoes, jackets and all those kinds of things that people are going over continually to get. If we can get that reduced, especially with the price of fuel nowadays, we feel that more and more people will buy their stuff locally and not write everything down on the big list until they make the big trip to Grande Prairie or Lethbridge or Calgary. Once that happens over a period of years, pretty soon you'll be able to buy more of that stuff locally, and they won't have to go. Like I say, it's the carrot, not the stick.

On page 9 there's the border that we proposed. We have no legal ability to propose anything or to actually make a border, but based on the surveys we've done and based on people's traditional shopping patterns and shopping habits, this border is where people go. On the right side or east side of the border, traditionally those people head to Alberta to buy a lot of their stuff. On the other side they don't. Coincidentally, it follows, also, the geographic boundaries — the Continental Divide, if you would say, that goes up through there as well.

People won't necessarily drive from Revelstoke to Golden to save 4 percent. It just doesn't make any sense. But people from Golden would drive to Calgary to save 7. So if we can get Golden at 4, they're probably not going to leave there. It shouldn't affect communities like Revelstoke. Mackenzie or Prince George, for instance, won't be affected by Chetwynd or by us being at 4 percent, because people don't come here to shop. People from here go there to shop, so we're trying to keep them here.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): You may wish to actually just wrap up a little bit so we have some time for some questions. I already have some questions for you.

One thing this has shown us for sure is that the problem gets worse rather than better the longer it takes. The longer it's going, the worse it's going to get. If something's not done to change it, it'll continue to get worse. As the province has demonstrated, targeted tax cuts do seem to work.

I guess the rest of this you can probably read, but let me see if I'm missing something.

The other thing, too, is that we've got some meetings with all the parties in the House, and we have support from both sides of the House on this issue in the border communities. I think that's important. We've done a lot of work on that.

If nobody changed any shopping habits and everybody kept buying their stuff in Alberta, the cost to the government would be $6.1 million for the first year — which isn't a lot of money. We expect that we can get most of that back and even increase it so that more people are buying here and, in fact, coming here to buy stuff out of that jurisdiction because they wouldn't have to pay the tax.

It's very little money — less than 2/10 of 1 percent of the PST that's collected each year and 2/100 of 1 percent of the whole budget. The graduated concept is simply to keep people from changing shopping habits. I don't think people will, for under 5 percent; 4 percent won't drag them there.

Because I'd rather answer questions that maybe aren't in here — and Karen, unless you have something to add….

K. Goodings: I think it's really important, though, that we've met with the Ministry of Finance. The minister has agreed to do some further looking, and I guess what we're looking for from the Finance Committee is support for that process to happen, for us to be able to put forward and discuss with the government on this, and we believe it to be a very workable solution. I do also want to welcome you to the north.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): Thank you. I do have some questions, starting with Leonard.

L. Krog: My philosophical view is that a graduated income tax is the fairest form of taxation. You folks are talking about getting the sales tax, which I think most policy people would say is a regressive tax, reduced proportionately across the province. Would you support a reduction — I'm not talking about elimination, as I think that's a little dramatic, but a reduction — of the sales tax provincewide to get it below the figure at which you say people are making a conscious decision to travel to Alberta? I speak with some experience. I have a brother who has been in business in Fernie for nearly the last 30 years.

If we then said to folks: "Look, this is a conscious decision. We're going to proportionately increase income tax rates." If I need a new fridge and I make $50,000 a year and I pay the PST on it, big deal. If I make $300,000 a year and I buy a new fridge, it's no big deal at all. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Would you be prepared to support something like that? I'm asking you to consider a step further than what you're asking for.

economic sense, and I want British Columbians to shop in British Columbia. But it also has some complexities, and I'm thinking from a small business perspective in terms of collection and all of those things that may flow from it.

K. Goodings: Could I ask you a question? So you're suggesting that we could make up the difference by increasing what we have for an income tax level?

L. Krog: That's right. Government says, straightforwardly, "Look, we're going to eliminate…. We're going to bring the sales tax down below 5 percent" — which is the number I think you're talking about. "We're going to increase income tax. It's revenue-neutral for government, so government has nothing to lose or gain by this, but it helps you folks in business in the border communities."

A. Stedel: It's kind of a different sphere than what we're in, but you know, if we can get the PST down to zero, it would certainly level…. The perception in people's minds would level the playing field. The difficulty would be that I don't think any government can do that in the short term, so what we're looking for is something on an interim basis. We're at 4 percent, and of course, if the PST in the rest of the province goes down to 3 or 2 or 1, we'd want to go down to 3 or 2 or 1, as well — right?

But even to go down to 1 or into 6 and into 5 and into 4…. That's, in my mind, a ways away. It would be a big shock to do it all at one time, so in the meantime, if we do this as a pilot project, that means it's not set in stone. It's for a defined period of time and can be changed — right? That's what we're asking for, but to get the PST down to zero would be…. I'd look at all kinds of options for doing that.

K. Goodings: I believe our closest neighbour is now looking at a 10-percent flat tax, as far as the income tax goes. So that would also present some problems, I think, for the province. We don't want to see the migration of people from our areas. We already feel that we have a number of people working in our region who reside in Alberta and travel to work, where everything stays there. We don't want that to happen either. I think we'd really have to look at it. This was a step to try and assist our retailers to be able to build their businesses.

A. Stedel: Even to get people to move from the oil patch or whatever and bring their families here, you know, so that they live here and service the industry from here rather than somewhere else…. The wives and families will come if there are amenities here, and we're working on that. They'll come if there are places for their kids to get summer jobs, and we'll do that. The more and more stores, the more summer jobs — it's just one thing after another. We need to have those people living here, as well, to enjoy the taxes that they pay.

J. Yap: Thank you for your presentation. I applaud you in this work, I think, and this is probably worthwhile to consider as a pilot.

I didn't see it here: what time frame did you see for a pilot? Would you try it for a year, two years?

A. Stedel: Yes. It'll take some time — like, New Hampshire–Vermont took 15 years.

We think that in five years it should be looked at and reviewed, but let's commit to at least five and, hopefully, for ten. Maybe the rates should be looked at, or maybe the border should be in a different spot. Maybe it should be tweaked this way or that way.

J. Yap: Yes, because what you're suggesting here, what happens here…. Human behaviour is the same, whether you're in the northeast or you're in the lower mainland. A lot of people in Mr. Hogg's riding, close to the border, South Surrey and White Rock, would also be interested in going across the line to do shopping — I've heard that does happen as well — to Washington State as opposed to Alberta. It's an issue along the entire border, I think. I know in this case that it's PST-specific.

A. Stedel: There is no border patrol or border checkstops between here and Alberta, and that's different. When you go to the United States…. People realize that they are breaking the law to do that and just take their chances, but there's a penalty for that. There's no penalty for doing this.

D. Hayer: I remember last year when we were here, we heard the same comments. I'm really happy to see it's gone to the next level, where the minister's looking at it. I think it has some really good merits in there, if you take a look. My view has always been…. When taxes are way out of whack, people seem to leave. Even if the income tax you are paying here was more than Alberta, people used to move to Alberta to work there rather than here. Then if the business is paying more taxes here, they would very quickly move. I think we have to find a solution. As long as we have a good, strong economy, we can look at the new challenges — especially more revenues from natural resources. Maybe we can at one time look at 10 percent, if that's what Alberta goes to, if the economy is strong and the resources are there to support it.

I really appreciate you coming up and keeping up. I always say that the squeaky wheel always gets the grease. As you keep talking about it, it will get solved. In this case I think it's a good proposal. We looked at it, and I'm happy to say that the minister is looking at it.

A. Stedel: As we said though, it's important that as it comes up for the vote, if you have any additional questions, please get a hold of our committee. I guess the Minister of Finance is going to review it, and we'll be involved in that to a degree. We do need the support of all the people in the province. And we feel that if we can put one more dollar in Victoria than is there now, at the end of the day, that's a win for everyone. I believe we can do that.

J. Kwan: Just a quick question. On the question around the Ministry of Finance review, is it your understanding that it's a public review, or is it an internal review within the ministry?

A. Stedel: It's internal, but they've committed to consult with us if there are any questions that they might have.

J. Kwan: Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to double-check to see if I had misunderstood — that maybe there was some other, larger review where the public as stakeholders will be invited to provide input to the ministry in a travelling road show, so to speak, but that's not the case. Thanks.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I do want to thank you. I apologize for missing your presentation, although I certainly am quite well versed on the subject.

Again, one of the requests was, I believe, that the committee endorse the presentation. Just in getting back, our job as a legislative committee is to listen to British Columbians, compile all of the information we gather and put forward a report to the Legislative Assembly, who will either accept or not accept that report. Certainly, your presentation will be given due consideration, and I thank you for coming forward.

K. Goodings: And we thank you for coming here. It's long way if we have to go to Prince George to do a presentation.

A. Stedel: We even said some nice things about you, Blair, when you weren't in the room.

We will take a five-minute recess. A couple of members are yet to arrive. At this time we will take a five-minute recess and reconvene the group after the five minutes.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): At this time we will reconvene the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services' prebudget consultation committee hearings.

Our next presentation comes to us from the South Peace Community Resources Society, and joining us this morning are Jane Harper and Laurie Patterson. Good morning, and welcome.

J. Harper: This may seem like it's a continuation of what was going on outside, but the reason we came today is that we're concerned about the wages we're paying to our employees. Particularly right now in the northeast, there is ample opportunity for people to be making big dollars.

Social services has never been able to keep up with health or education in their wages. As an example, we put an ad in the paper not long ago. We have them running continually, looking for employees. We look for people to work with adults with mental handicaps, women who have experienced violence, victims of crime and early childhood educators. We posted an ad with a starting wage of $13.67 an hour and listed the qualifications, and right next to our ad was one from homemakers with the exact same qualifications, and they're paying $19-something an hour.

In the school system we train people, because we're quite often hiring people who don't have a lot of formal education but have a background — some knowledge of people with disabilities, for example. We hire them and do a lot of training, put a lot of money into training and then lose them to health or the school district who are paying $20 an hour for the same kind of qualifications.

Our staff — South Peace Community Resources employees — are represented by BCGEU. Laurie's agency is non-union. Our collective agreement for our employees is up as of March. Up until the last contract, which was signed in March of '03, we were starting people at $16.82. After that contract we had to start them at $13.67, so it was a drastic change in entry-level wages. We're having a really difficult time, to the point now where our risk management team is looking at what point we say that we can no longer provide these services to the government because we can't find the staff to provide the service.

We're not alone. Both Laurie and I are members of the Federation of Child and Family Services. We've discussed it at those meetings. We're not alone, but I think we're feeling the pinch a little more in this location because of the other opportunities. People can go and work at Wal-Mart for $12 an hour and leave their job and not think about it when they go home. So for another $1.67 an hour, we're putting a lot of responsibility on people to ensure the safety of women who are maybe being stalked, who are really in danger or of handicapped adults who can be a danger to themselves or others through some of their behaviours.

I think we're asking an awful lot of our staff for that amount. More and more we're looking for people who have formal education and have put some money into their own training and paying off their student loans. They're just not able to make a living at that rate of pay.

I'm here to say that if there is some room for manoeuvring, if we want these services to continue to be provided by non-profit agencies in the communities, we really need to take a look at those wages and say that we're not able to do it for much longer.

L. Patterson: Just to add to that a bit. When Jane is talking about entry level and whatever, we quite often…. You can think of lots of entry-level areas in employment and retail, but in the kind of services that we provide, we've got people who are considered entry-level in terms of the wage scale, but they're dealing with very critical positions that actually ask for a lot of accountability and responsibility. I think the stretch between responsibility and what we're able to offer is just not a workable solution.

With what's happening in this area right now, what are the programs? Like I said, we have family counselling, family education–type programming on the one…. But we also have job search and support, which we do as employment programs. In that area I've lost staff. In that program, because of the kind of program — we have a federal contract as well — I'm able to offer a little better wage. We can start an employee at $16 an hour, which still…. I mean, we require a minimum of a social worker diploma or some post-secondary education. Then our counsellors get $19 an hour.

I've lost staff already to oil and gas and energy. Employers are walking in and walking out with qualified people. That will be happening with the likes of services that Jane and I have as well — not because people want to leave their professions, but if you can start looking at dollars and cents and have less responsibility in terms of being able to go home and leave your job there, people are taking a serious look at it. As I said, I have lost, just in the last six months, two staff persons — one in Chetwynd and one in Dawson Creek

— to big dollars. So I have a concern for the social service industry as to what's going to happen with that.

I'll just echo what Jane has said. If there's any way at all, I think it's very important that the social service sector become as highly publicized and be part of the…. We call it the milking stool with three legs, right up there with health and education. I think if our sector is able to do our work well, the impact on education is going to be better, and the same with health, because if our families and our children are healthier, then it's a snowball effect in the right direction.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Laurie and Jane. I'm going to let the members of the committee…. Maybe I'll kick things off. It's an issue, as you've indicated, particularly competing with the oil and gas industry and the mining industry, that's come back right now.

What I would ask: is there a range that you think would enable you to retain people with the qualifications or credentials that you need? The job that you do — and I'll speak to that at the end when I close — is amazing. The help that you contribute to society is, I think, only able to be done by a very select group of people. Is there a number that you have in mind that may be in the range?

J. Harper: Well, I know in our previous contract, starting at $16.82…. To me, that is reasonable as a starting level. The problem we had then is that whether you'd been there for ten years or you'd been there for six months, you were still getting paid the $18.62. There has to be a wage grid that has steps that recognize the length of time that you've worked for that employer.

Even though there have been increases in costs, I think people would be content with $16.82 an hour to start with, which is what they had in the past.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you. I have two other people wishing to ask questions.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): Jane, this situation is how old now? When was the contract rollback to $13 an hour?

J. Harper: In March of 2003. We're coming up to the end of this agreement in March 2006.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): And have you brought this forward to the previous Finance Committee tours that were done here?

J. Harper: No, I didn't. I think the Federation of Child and Family Services of British Columbia has brought that forward. I know that it's not just the employees who identify this as a real issue. It's the employers who are saying it's now causing a problem. Maybe it's more acute that we notice it here, because of the other opportunities that people have, but it has been an ongoing problem, and it's getting worse.

M. Karagianis (Deputy Chair): I have children who actually work in the field, and so I am familiar with that. Aside from, obviously, the challenges here on wages, what is your casework load like? I know in urban areas that's a huge factor. As well as wage rollbacks, there's been an increase in caseload for workers. That's actually causing some terrible strain on the system as well. What is that situation like up here?

J. Harper: For us, what we've noticed since there's been more activity in our community and a lot more transient people coming and going — I think that's been the key that's made the difference — our transition house has been overfull now for months. We were fortunate enough to have additional funding so that we've been able to hire an extra staff person in the transition house, but it's overfull. We're licensed for seven beds, and we have ten beds full at any given time. And our victim services has been very busy. They deal with violence in relationships, sexual assault, sexual abuse — those specialized issues. They've been very busy. We also hold the contract for the police-based victim services, and their caseload has increased too.

For the longer-term counselling we haven't seen that, but that may be just particular to us, because we did have a changeover of staff in one of those programs. We haven't seen as many people seeking longer-term counselling, but more the immediate crisis kinds of things are where we've really seen an increase.

L. Patterson: Can I speak to the longer-term though? In our family counselling, in our last negotiation we actually decreased the time they were providing service under their contract because of funding issues. We're down to four days a week. The clients are there. Also, our contracts have changed in terms of the language and the clients we can see.

There's not the encouragement to have longer-term counselling. Also, they've really narrowed down the areas that we can work in, in terms of whether there's abuse or whatever. Then they say: "Well, they should be going elsewhere." Some of the elsewhere are people that actually float in and out of the area. Our usage is high, and we could use more. Again, there are situations where longer-term interventions are necessary, but we have to be very careful in how that's done, and it's restricted.

J. Kwan: Maurine's asked most of my questions, but just to build on that. Is this a cumulative impact as a result of the Munroe agreement and the changes that target, primarily, the child care sector in terms of the wage rollback?

J. Harper: No, I don't believe so. The Munroe agreement was involved in the…. No, I don't think it is.

J. Kwan: So the Munroe agreement is separate and apart from the issue of salary and wage rollbacks starting in 2002?

J. Kwan: Okay. When you say the starting point of $16.82, do you have an overall budget of what that might look like for your sector?

J. Harper: Not handy, no. I mean, I'd have to do one, because the budget we're working with right now is starting at $13.67. So I don't know what the difference would be.

Many of our people are still making $16.82. It's the people who were hired after April 1 last year that are starting at $13.67.

J. Kwan: And then other issues. If you're looking at the starting point of $16.82 for new employees coming in, then of course there's the issue of the people who have been part of the system, and it's a cumulative growth — right? — and whether or not that's been looked at.

R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. Do you see more people coming into your area? This is the impression I'm getting from your presentation. What was the rate of decrease in unemployment in this region? Do you have a figure?

J. Harper: I don't have. I mean, just anecdotally, everywhere you look there's a help- wanted sign. Everybody is giving benefits now. Before, that wasn't the case. So 7-Eleven, Canadian Tire, Wal-Mart — they're all offering benefits and between $10 and $12 an hour for unskilled people.

It actually occurred to me when the flooding happened in New Orleans that maybe we should charter a plane and bring those people up here and hire them, because we need workers desperately in this community. Everyone is struggling. I don't know.

L. Patterson: I don't remember the rate. But again, going into the job search report, I think our unemployment rate is actually…. We need workers. We need skilled workers. I think I mentioned a bit ago that in our job search office, we actually have employers…. Our service isn't for employers, but we've got employers walking through the door and walking out with a client that's maybe just walked in, and they haven't even had a chance to register with us.

A lot of the employers that are coming in…. Our retail here definitely…. There are signs everywhere, and they can't get people because…. There's a couple of reasons. I think some of the people who don't have employment need skills. They may need tickets. They may need other skills.

J. Harper: Yes, we have. Whenever we have a posting, we send it through the Federation of Child and Family Services of British Columbia, so it goes out to every other member across the province.

We put postings up at colleges and universities. It's very difficult to get people to move from the lower mainland up to Dawson Creek. They don't think they want to. I'm sure they'd love it if they'd come here, but they just don't think they want to live somewhere where it's that cold. Or they think the costs are going to be higher. It's very difficult.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Jane and Laurie, for coming out. As I said earlier, I think it goes without saying, but I'm going to say it on behalf of all British Columbians. I thank you and all of the people in our province that do the work you do on behalf of making our society a better place. So thank you for your presentation here this morning.

Our next presentation this morning comes to us from school district 59, which is Peace River South. We heard from Peace River North school district 60 earlier in the day. Joining us today is Bill Deith, Wayne Ezeard, Sam Barber and Judy Clavier — our largest delegation this morning.

J. Clavier: Thank you for the opportunity to come and present to you this morning. We have two topics we wanted to talk to you about. I'll present the first topic, and then I'll turn it over to Wayne. We want to talk to you about climate and fuel prices.

What you have before you are some provincial comparisons, and if you would just glance at that, you will see that there is one around climate. Notice that we have highlighted that we are the third highest in the province at 23 percent. All that means is that we're cold.

The second side of the page is that we spend 8.1 percent of our total budget on transportation. To compare provincially, nine districts have climate factors over 10 percent. The majority are at zero percent. The majority of districts spend less than 4 percent on their transportation. Increased fuel costs hit us twice: they hit us in climate, and they hit us in transportation.

Sam gets a daily report on fuel prices. The other piece of paper you have with you — this one — shows the prices for natural gas daily. There are three dates to take note of. One is October of 2004 where one million Btu cost $4.72 wholesale. In June of 2005 that went to $6.13 and in October of 2005, $11.43.

In September at a budget review, using the June figures, we anticipated our utility and transportation costs to go up by $400,000 — about $200,000 per each area. Those anticipated increases have since doubled. Any fuel increase has huge impacts on our school budgets.

One other thing to take note of is that transportation budgets provincially have been frozen for the past three years. So we are asking two things: (1) that you

unfreeze the transportation budget and (2) that you give increased utility funding for unique climate factors. That concludes my part.

W. Ezeard: I'll move on to the second part. Pouce Coupe School is one we've been trying to address for a number of years. It's been a number-one priority of the government's to be replaced for ten years, but they have not done so. We realize that a lot of money is being spent on earthquake provisions on the coast. However, Pouce Coupe is…. The village of Pouce is a dynamic and integral part of this whole south Peace, so it's not just a school you're taking away if we don't replace that school. The school is in bad repair. If we don't spend a huge amount of money on it in the next year or so, there is not going to be a school there. It just will not be safe to be in. Because of how the school was built years ago, it has sinking foundations, where there are foundations, and on and on it goes.

It's a unique situation where it's not that far from Dawson, but because of the whole dynamics of Pouce and the thought that the school…. The gymnasium at the school is as close to a community hall as they have. The school is full day and night. Everything that takes place in the community takes place in that school.

The school is built for about 400 students. In reality, there are about 100-plus students in that school, so the size of a new school there doesn't have to reflect what's there. If we bring it into the scope of things, a school built for about 150 students would be adequate. We're in negotiations right now with Pouce and the surrounding area to make the gym larger. They would come on board to be part of making it a community hall as well, so it would be dual purpose, as other schools and gyms are that we have in our community. It's a joint effort.

We really see a deep need to replace that school with a smaller school. A newer school, of course, would be much more sufficient and efficient — well, better built — so it would be easier to heat. All those costs come down once it's up. That need is really there, and we would like you to take another hard look at that situation.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Well, I'm going to look to members of our panel here to see if there are any questions regarding your presentation.

J. Kwan: Just so that I'm totally clear, on the climate and transportation costs, when you say it's 23 percent for climate and then 8.1 percent for transportation, together, then, how much is the actual amount? In the instance where the school district 60…. They made an earlier presentation to us and are your counterparts on the other side. They advised the committee that a 20-percent energy cost increase is about $260,000 and 30 percent would be $390,000. I'm just trying to get the figure, in terms of actual dollars, by way of comparison. What is it for your school district? Is it about the same?

S. Barber: At 20 percent, it would be approximately $200,000 for us. If we are hit with a 20-percent increase in utility costs, that equates to a $200,000 additional cost to us. When we did our budgets in June, we were basing all of our information on — I can't remember what the actual date was — our June forecasts for natural gas utility costs.

Now, what you have in front of you should…. All that we're trying to show there is the escalating costs in that raw utility. At home you don't buy it like that. You buy it by the gigajoule. What those figures represent are in million Btu. I can't tell you the relationship between gigajoules and million Btu. I don't know. What it shows there is the increase in the whole utilities costs since roughly the end of June till now, and it's substantial.

R. Lee: It's an identical question. Usually, you would think that Peace River North would be colder than Peace River South. What are the factors being lumped together to get this factor?

B. Deith: It's pretty close — within 0.3 percent — so there must be some effect of…. They do have more fog up there, so it could be that the fog warms them up on days just that small amount. It could be as little as that. But we are pretty close. We're both cold. We both acknowledge that.

R. Lee: Yeah, but it's transportation percentage funding that might be 8.1 percent, and in Peace River North it is only 6.1 percent.

B. Deith: Yeah, they're more consolidated in terms of having to get the students to different locations, and we're more spread out. We have some fairly long bus runs, so that's part of the issue. Originally, these numbers…. The $3.22 million — that number was originally determined by distances travelled by students, but it's been frozen for three years now. We can't tell you what the new number would be if it was done again, but it is that we're more sparsely distributed than Peace River North — just by 2 percent more, but basically it's there.

R. Lee: How about the number of students? Do you see a decrease? As I understand it, the number of students was probably quite large in your area. You have a school built for 400 students, and now you're asking for 100?

B. Deith: If you look at our statistics on students, since '96 we have lost almost 23 percent of our stu-

dents. That's a huge drop in our population. If we look at the graphs of students in various grades, we can only forecast that we will continue to decline in enrolment. The issue with that is when you decline in enrolment, you don't necessarily reduce transportation costs, because you're still pulling students from the same vast area. If anything, the percentage of our funding may have to increase for transportation, based on the number of students we have. It's a double whammy as well. It gets complicated, but we're forecasting that we will continue to decline in enrolment.

We're always hopeful that the oil and gas and energy boom will bring some more students, but that's not what the statistics in other communities north of us have shown. Basically, they are status quo, or they continue to decline, because the people arriving for employment aren't necessarily bringing their families. That's a big issue for us as well.

Our forecast is that we will continue to decline, but our transportation costs will still be up there because we're still travelling in those vast areas.

W. Ezeard: I think that the other thing that needs to be pointed out there is that we have, over the past few years, closed down a number of schools that were underpopulated. We closed them, moved people around and have taken some of those initiatives already. There comes a point in time, though…. Where does that stop making sense? We've pretty well come to that point, where we've closed many more than…. Why not just build one great big one that's four storeys high and be done with it? That's where we're at now. We're at the crunch.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Maybe if I could just close with a question. Regarding the transportation funding on the comparisons you put, just for clarification, school district 93 shows 9.9 percent of their total funding. Where is that?

Basically, that is a distributed district. That's my understanding of that district — that it's not necessarily in one place. It's distributed. Therefore, I'm not sure how the transportation costs are figured out. I imagine they pay other districts, or things like that. I'm not totally aware of it, but in effect, it's a unique transportation issue, and if we get rid of that unique one, we're actually number one in bad shape.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I'm not sure if number one is good in that case, but it's still number one, all the same.

Well, Judy, Wayne, Bill and Sam, thank you very much for taking the time out of your schedules to come and present to our committee here today. Thanks very much.

Our next presentation that was scheduled was to be from Western Canadian Coal Corp., Mr. Gary Livingstone. I don't see Gary with us yet. Possibly what we can do, with the indulgence of the crowd, is to go into an open-mike session, and I know that we do have Mr. Albert Erbe with us today to speak to us.

Albert, if I could ask you to come forward, we'll take your presentation now. Albert is the elected official representing area D, which is the rural area surrounding Dawson Creek. He is the regional district representative. Good morning, and welcome.

A. Erbe: Good morning, members of the committee, and thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson, for the introduction.

Actually, as a matter of fact, when I look around at the members here, I become unsure of myself now. You know, I'm speaking to the government, and I feel so small. In particular, this morning, when I listened in here for a little while, you gave money away, and I don't want to miss out. My wife reminded me this morning…. She said: "Well, get up and go to the committee and request some funding — 'Need money.' I mean, that's a time to request money."

We need a lot of money, and I didn't come, really, to get a lot of money. I didn't actually want any money. What I wanted, being a representative of area D…. I don't think I want to manipulate you, but you're all aware of what our area now contributes to the well-being of the province, as a matter of fact: 10 percent of the total sum of assessment, which is about $5 billion. We also have $2 billion direct revenue to the government in the coffers of the $500 billion — is that right?

We also have tremendous growth right now, but you can only keep this ongoing when you put some money in the infrastructure. You cannot run it…. You had something similar in the B.C. Power, where you took it over by public funding, a corporation, ran it in a fashion and didn't reinvest money in the renewal. We're doing something similar here in the oil and gas industry. You spend some money, but it's not enough in the resource industry. The only way you can overcome this…. We need more money for our roads and infrastructure.

Now, I don't want to manipulate you, members, and I can show you bundles of petitions, but they need money for roads. There is a lot of money in the hinterland, and it's hard to get out, but you need the infrastructure to extract it. And if you come to that thinking, to that term, then we're all going to be very rich. You can please everyone, including the school board, the teachers, the social — whoever wants money.

So, I petition you…. And it's immaterial what you say today. I think, Mr. Chairperson, you will most likely say: "We already spent $250 million, etc." That is not enough. You take more out. The total investment,

net revenue, is $2 billion, as I said — direct. On top you have the employment, the investment. I don't know the statistics of this amount, but it's huge, and that particular concept or economic activity contributes to the well-being of all of us.

So having said this, please don't put this on the back burner. I hope something comes out of it instead of nothing. We need more money for the infrastructure. As my friend sometimes…said: "There's a lot of money in the trees, but it's hard to get out." One of those items is infrastructure. There's a lot of money in the infrastructure. That's the only thing we've got. We are a resource-industry province, so we need this.

Having said this, I think you need lunch, too, by the way. Is there any question?

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Albert, I want to thank you for coming out this morning and presenting to us.

A. Erbe: I haven't got a written submission. Like I say, it was an impulse. I have a meeting today, and I don't have to tell you who I am, what I am. My dress will tell you that I'm a farmer. I've been here for 52 years. I come from one of those areas…. Well, I don't want to give you my background information and history, but I'm also a citizen.

That is my home, and I have intense interest for the well-being of this province and region as such. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): A well-dressed farmer, I might add, Albert. Thank you again for coming out.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): I see Gary has not had the opportunity to join us. Whether he was unable to get away from the mine, I'm not sure. He's with Western Canadian Coal.

We are in the open-mike session right now. If there is anybody else in the audience that would like the opportunity to address the committee, now is the time to come forward.

Well, I see no further presenters at this time. I'm somewhat hesitant to adjourn in case Gary gets here. If it would be acceptable to the committee to take a ten-minute recess, and if Gary is here, we'll reconvene immediately.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay. At this time I would like to reconvene the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, our public hearing held here in Dawson Creek. I would like to thank all of the presenters that came out this morning to address our committee. Again, I think it is always valuable to hear from people right around our province. We have now just completed our second public hearing. This afternoon we will be touring to Prince George and then on throughout the rest of the province as the week continues.

I am going to thank the presenters again. I'm going to thank the community of Dawson Creek and surrounding area for their hospitality. With that, I will adjourn our public hearing here in Dawson Creek. Again, thank you, everyone.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.

	7)	Village of Pouce Coupe	Councillor Lyman Clark
	8)	School District No. 60 (Peace River North)	Heather Hannaford Ernie Inglehart

	11)	South Peace Community Resources Society Dawson Creek Catholic Social Services	Jane Harper Laurie Patterson
	12)	School District No. 59 (Peace River South)	Judy Clavier Sam Barber Bill Deith Wayne Ezeard

2)	District of Chetwynd	Bob Nicholson Bill Caldwell
3)	Dr. Bill Ebert
4)	Peace River South Teachers Association	Judy Richardson
5)	New Car Dealers Association of B.C.	Jim Inkster

Other MLAs:
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

Committee Staff:	Jacqueline Quesnel (Committees Assistant)

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES