Finance and Government Services -- Issue No. 9 -- Thursday, October 13, 2005

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

5. The Committee recessed from 7:52 p.m. to 8:01 p.m.

6. The Committee adjourned at 8:02 p.m. to the call of the Chair.

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		237
	M. Gabias D. Rampone J. Sardinha G. Lucas B. Schmidt J. Cooper D. Nixdorf P. Leitch K. Crookes T. Toth H. Cook R. Nagai C. Aikman N. Assam K. Lyster G. Randhawa C. Sinclair

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:

Chris Aikman
Norm Assam (New Car Dealers Association of B.C.)
Heather Cook (University of British Columbia Students Union — Okanagan)
Dr. Jim Cooper (President, British Columbia Chiropractic Association)
Kevin Crookes (Kelowna Chamber of Commerce)
Mary Ellen Gabias (Canadian Federation of the Blind)
Weldon LeBlanc (CEO, Kelowna Chamber of Commerce)
Peter Leitch (Motion Picture Production Industry Association of British Columbia)
Glen Lucas (B.C. Fruit Growers Association)
Kim Lyster (Executive Director, Penticton and District Community Resources Society)
Rob Nagai (University of British Columbia Students Union — Okanagan)
Dr. Don Nixdorf (Executive Director, British Columbia Chiropractic Association)
Domenic Rampone
Dr. Gary Randhawa (President, Kelowna Medical Society;
B.C. Medical Association)
Joe Sardinha (President, B.C. Fruit Growers Association)
Bruce Schmidt (Genome B.C.)
Charly Sinclair (Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelowna and District Branch)
Tony Toth (Executive Director, B.C. Wildlife Federation)

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Blair Lekstrom. I'm the MLA for Peace River South, and I have the honour of chairing the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. We are presently touring the province under the prebudget consultation process that was laid out for us by the Legislative Assembly. We are travelling the province to listen to British Columbians on what their priorities are in helping us develop next year's budget for British Columbia.

Prior to having the other members of the committee introduce themselves, I'll just lay out what our mandate is, given to us by the Legislative Assembly. We have been asked, as I indicated, to tour the province, speak with British Columbians, listen to presentations as well as review written submissions that will be accepted until October 23, at which time we will then put together a final report that must be presented to the Legislative Assembly no later than November 15. This process is used as one tool in the formation of next year's budget for British Columbia.

Today we were scheduled to start at 4:35 p.m., but we do have people who wanted to speak to us under what's called the open-mike session, which begins about 8:05 p.m. We do have an interest already, so with the indulgence of the committee and the public that are here presently, we are going to begin a half hour earlier in order to hear as many presentations as we possibly can.

With that, our hearings are live, broadcast publicly, and Hansard is here with us. Over to my left we have Marilyn Pollard and Adam Wang with us from Hansard Services. Everything is recorded and transcribed and is part of the public record.

Also with us is Jacqueline Quesnel, who is at the back table with the information. To my right is Kate Ryan-Lloyd from the Clerk of Committees office.

With that, I'm going to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves. I'll begin on my right with Leonard.

L. Krog: Good afternoon. My name is Leonard Krog, and I'm the MLA for Nanaimo.

At this point we are going to begin. We have a presentation from Mary Ellen Gabias. Mary Ellen is with the Canadian Federation of the Blind. Good afternoon, Mary Ellen.

M. Gabias: Good afternoon. This is my first time making this kind of presentation, so if you have questions that I don't cover, I'll be happy to answer them.

The Canadian Federation of the Blind is a membership organization of blind people. We're all laypeople from a variety of walks of life. I'm the stay-at-home mother of four. We have people who do a variety of other jobs, and we've come together because we believe that blindness is respectable and that, given training and opportunity, blind people can lead full and active lives. We've been meeting for approximately six years, and as I say, we are all laypeople not steeped in the legislative process.

There are a number of things that we would like to see become policy in British Columbia. I wanted to talk about two of them today — very simple, straightforward, relatively easy to implement.

The first one deals with the question of financial benefits for people who are on welfare, and it's a very simple change that could make a huge psychological difference for blind people and make some practical difference for the province. The current system, as I understand it, for becoming eligible for disability benefits under the welfare programs in the province requires the completion of a very long application that involves a great deal of explanation about functional limitations, and then a decision needs to be made based on that document.

Blindness is the only disability that has a legal definition. It's a very clear definition. By law, you are either blind, or you're not. The province could make things simpler for provincial workers and for blind people, also, by simply saying that if you meet the legal definition of blindness, you meet the criteria for disability under the law. It would save paperwork. The main advantage for blind people is that the current process focuses a lot on functional limitations, and in order to convince people that you're disabled enough, you need to, in effect, tell people how bad off you are.

That process doesn't help encourage people toward rehabilitation. On one hand, the province very much wants blind people to become productive citizens. On the other hand, when someone becomes blind and needs assistance, they have to convince the province of how helpless they are. It makes far more sense simply to say: "Okay, if you fit the legal definition of blindness, short-circuit the paperwork. You are eligible based on disability." Of course, the other eligibility requirements for income and resources, etc., would still be in effect, but the disability part would be much more easily handled, and you wouldn't have to have people convincing themselves and the province that

they're helpless in order to qualify for benefits. That would, by the way, put B.C. ahead of the federal government in that area because the federal government's requirements are also kind of stringent, and there are issues with them too.

The other issue that we think is really important is one of accountability for services. B.C. does a number of things for people with disabilities, but it is very difficult for a layperson who doesn't know the system well to know what is available for blind people. Because statistics…. We haven't been able to find very much in the way of blindness-specific statistics. It is very hard for us to know what the results of the money that is given have been.

We would like the province of British Columbia to do two things:(1) keep statistics based on disability, at least for blind people; and (2) rather than funding this program here, that program there and another program yonder, come up with a very clear, consistent plan. What does B.C. believe reasonable rehabilitation services, employment services, library services, other services for blind people should be? What is the province's plan for blind people?

That should be developed with blind people, all blind people. It should be a very open, consultative process. We believe the first step toward developing a plan is for somebody in government to take on the task of saying: "What are we doing now? What's working? What isn't?" We can't plan for the future we want if we don't really know where we are at present.

I'm not sure how the logistics of setting that up would be done, but I have yet to talk to anybody who works for government who can say what the total range of programming for blind people is. Different people in government know about different services, their own ministry services, but I've never been able to get sort of a clear "this is what B.C. can offer you if you are blind and need service in this province."

Those are the two items that are of interest to us during this session. I'd be glad to answer any questions.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Mary Ellen. You've raised some valuable points there. I will look to members of our committee to see if they have any questions on what you brought forward before us here this afternoon.

Possibly I will start, Mary Ellen, just with a quick question. Have you approached the government with this idea of meeting the criteria to be legally blind with the automatic follow to qualify for disability benefits?

M. Gabias: This is our first…. We're not legislatively experienced, and we are just beginning here. If you can tell us where we should go next, I'd be happy to go there. But this was our first bringing of this concept to government.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, Mary Ellen, I think what we can do…. Certainly, as the Chair of the committee, I think we can take this issue forward to the minister on your behalf. With your indulgence, if you could leave us the full contact information, we will follow through on this and begin a process of dialogue to see if, you know, issues can be dealt with.

J. Kwan: Actually, more of a comment than a question. My understanding on the income assistance act and the application for disability is that nobody is exempt from the application process, so it would be great, actually, for this committee to bring this forward. That might actually begin the process for people who are blind but perhaps for others, as well, who are faced with the onerous process of applying for the disability application under the income assistance act. I just want to bring that to your attention, because everyone has to go through that very onerous procedure at this time.

The income assistance act is such that it's by regulation. There's nothing in the act that actually lists out the areas of disability. We tried to get the government to do that when the bill was brought in, but the government rejected that.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Mary Ellen, again, I think that the information you've brought to us today…. If this is your first time, I must congratulate you. I think you've done a tremendous job. Thank you very much.

With our time allotted this afternoon…. We have begun a little early. We do have another individual who has appeared and would like to participate in the open-mike session which was scheduled for the end, but we do have time right now. I would like to call on Domenic Rampone.

D. Rampone: I really thank you for this opportunity for me to say a few words and a few comments on such short notice. I'm not representing any group. I am a local farmer in the area, and our family has been farming in the Kelowna area since 1893. We have a bit of a passion for farming and the agricultural industry.

A couple of comments with regard to…. I understand one of the questions you're wanting to address is the target for allocating anticipated fiscal-plan surpluses with the provincial budget. I think one thing that I've noticed over the years, in talking to my dad and grandfather and a few other people, was that the agricultural budget has been cut significantly over the last few years. Some areas that we've really noticed it in are the extension services and liaison services between the agricultural department and the local farmers. They are virtually non-existent now. Over the years they have provided us with some really needed knowledge. The Ministry of Agriculture staff — in the past, and the ones who are working now — are very

The other items. Of course I don't have to inform you people of the importance of agriculture; it's a huge part of the B.C. economy. One thing that I've found a little frustration with is that the Canadian income stabilization program has been very cumbersome to fill out for some of the farmers, and for some of the older farmers, especially, it's really cumbersome.

The province of Alberta, I believe, had a system where they combined the crop insurance administration and the administration of the CAIS program under one administration. In talking to some people who ran the program over there, it ran very well because the crop insurance people are really familiar with each individual farmer and what they do because they're based around the province. That model seemed to work.

With the CAIS administration being in Winnipeg, it's very frustrating to communicate with them. A lot of them in Winnipeg are very helpful once you get them on the phone, but they don't seem to understand the horticultural and the tree-fruit industry in B.C. The crop insurance people do, and I think that's a model that should be looked at.

The other item that I think…. A lot of the payments for the CAIS administration seem to be very delayed. Some of them are still working on 2003-2004 claims. It's been really cumbersome, and I would hope that the provincial government would, because of the drastic prices in some of the commodities in B.C., advance to the farmers through the CAIS program some sort of advanced payment that they could do the accounting for after the payments actually come to the farmers from the federal portion.

One other item that I personally believe in is the government practice on contingency funding. I think it's a very good practice, and I think people in their homes practise that: to have a contingency fund. I think the agricultural industry in B.C. could certainly use some help in this case, because it's an industry that I don't think we want to lose. It's pretty valuable. In the central Okanagan area there's about $1 billion worth of capital assets, and hundreds of millions of dollars in sales are going to this area.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Domenic. It's certainly obvious that you and your family have a commitment to the land. To be in agriculture that long says a great deal about you.

If I could, a brief comment. Under the CAIS situation and the application process…. I know in the Peace country, where I'm from, we actually have the Ministry of Agriculture come up and put on a forum and a workshop. I'm not sure if that's been approached in your area.

D. Rampone: Yeah. The ministry staff did put on a workshop that I attended, and they were very helpful. I'll speak in my particular case, because we're a fairly small operation.

We grow crops varying from basil to eggplants to corn to pumpkins to cherries, and when you throw that all in the loop in the CAIS payment they just go: "I don't know how to deal with it." The local people here do, but it's really frustrating when they tell you that the form's not designed for it. Well, tell me where I'm supposed to put it on the form. So it's really frustrating. Once you get through, it seems to work, but they just don't seem to understand the varied crops of some of the small farmers in B.C.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Okay. What we will do as a committee, certainly, is to forward the issues you've raised with us to the Ministry of Agriculture here in British Columbia and see if there is some dialogue that can begin or process to at least look at some of the recommendations you put forward.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Just prior to calling our next presenter, I would like to recognize a colleague from the Legislature, the representative for Kelowna–Lake Country. Al Horning has joined us. Good afternoon, Al, and welcome.

For our next presentation we will call on the British Columbia Fruit Growers Association. Joining us this afternoon is Joe Sardinha and Glen Lucas. Good afternoon, gentlemen, and welcome.

J. Sardinha: Good afternoon. First of all, I'd really like to say what a great opportunity this is for us. We appreciate having input into this particular committee and this process. We also welcome this opportunity to put forward our views.

I would like to say, before I get started, that we're kind of launching our own Buy B.C. program today. We have brought some lovely apple product from orchards, including one of my own. We have some apples that are actually stencilled with 2010 on them, and we have other apples that you may take home with you and enjoy. This is the Ambrosia apple, which is a winning cultivar for our industry. It is sort of the tip of the iceberg, because we have an excellent plant-breeding program here in the Okanagan, looking at new varieties to further make our industry sustainable in the long run and provide marketing opportunities. I hope you enjoy them.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much. This one is the size of a small pumpkin.

I would like to give sort of an overview of what happened lately in the industry. Really, for three years — 2001, 2002 and 2003 — this industry saw some very good returns. It proved beyond the shadow of a doubt

that we were competitive in the marketplace and that we were sustainable in the long run.

What transpired in 2004, of course, was that our main competitors south of the border began pouring excess overcapacity apples into the Canadian market to an unprecedented extent of volumes, which in turn led to a market collapse in the Canadian market and for the Canadian apple industry.

As you've heard from a previous speaker, we do have the provincial-federal Canadian agricultural income stabilization program. Our industry, on average, has suffered a 50-percent decline in income as a result of the 2004 market collapse, but we are seeing that the program has been a failure in addressing the short-term assistance that a program of this nature should offer our industry. That's largely been due to administrative problems, having the program administration centralized in Winnipeg and having our particular industry, among other horticultural crops, being problem areas for the CAIS program.

To that extent we have asked the province for the same consideration afforded the cattlemen when their border issue arose over the BSE situation. We have asked for special assistance. Also, to that extent we are asking that the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services provide direction for the use of provincial emergency contingency funds for the crippling and unfair trade that the apple industry now faces.

As a footnote to that — and this will have no impact or bearing on the market returns for 2004 or the destabilizing effect for the fruit growers as a result of those losses — B.C. and the rest of the Canadian apple industry are pursuing anti-dump action against the United States. We are looking into the preliminaries of that with the intent of going forward. I need to remind you that that will have no retroactive benefit to the industry. It'll be something for the future to prevent a similar occurrence.

I'll just briefly touch on a couple of items. As a result of the provincial replant program, our industry has seen much innovation and adoption of new technology. In fact, we see our competitors complimenting B.C. on how progressive we have been. It's amazing to hear that growers or horticultural experts as far away as Germany have complimented the B.C. industry on just those very things that we have shown a lot of initiative in: implementing the replant program and the results to date from that program.

We also have opportunities. The Ambrosia apple is a chance seedling. It wasn't from the breeding program, but it did spring up in the Similkameen Valley here just to the west of Osoyoos. It was one of nature's gifts, I guess. But our breeding program, through the Pacific Agri-food Research Centre, is going to provide future opportunities for this industry as well.

In our brief we do have a summation, also, of the economic contribution that our industry makes to this valley. I'm sure that the local valley MLAs are well aware of that contribution. May I also say that we are into our third century of apple production in the Okanagan here — something that sprang up in the mid- to late-1800s.

Of course, I've talked about the success of the replant program. There is an article attached in here for your benefit, for your reading, from our competitors south of the border just extolling the virtues of how provincial moneys contributed to a progressive industry and how well those moneys have been spent, along with much grower reinvestment as well. I would leave you that article to look over.

We did want to address the questions that we're posing in terms of the government fiscal plan. We believe that the best way to reduce debt is to ensure that there is a positive business climate in the province. That, in turn, promotes economic expansion and creates additional tax revenue for important government social programs and other matters. Also, a sustainable economy provides the best resources for health, education and social programs that every British Columbian desires. We know that those are the big ministries that require much of the budget.

What priority areas should government target for allocating the anticipated fiscal surplus? We wanted to answer this from the association's point of view. Really, it's largely for social programs, business infrastructure, development and debt repayment. We feel that those are very strong areas that any surplus should go towards. In fact, we support using this year's surplus in the contingency fund to repay debt. We see that as something that has to be ongoing for the future of British Columbians.

We're also very supportive of business infrastructure and development programs. One area of agriculture that we believe is very underfunded is the area of food safety — something that's becoming a bigger and bigger initiative under the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and something that we'll have to deal with more and more into the future. It does not provide a direct benefit, as such, in revenue to growers, so it really requires programs that are meaningful to build that incentive to adopt food safety at the farm level.

The safety of our food supply is an important role for government, and there is also a strategic benefit for the industry and for our society to be leaders in food safety. Just to give you an example, the provincial environmental farm plan program has been very successful because there were meaningful dollars there. There is a big adoption of the environmental farm plan program by valley growers and throughout B.C. because the incentive dollars were there, and it was well funded.

In terms of the current practice of providing for both a contingency fund and a forecast allowance to protect balanced budgets from unforeseen events, we believe that a contingency fund is very prudent and also believe that if there are unexpected expenditures, the contingency fund can address those as well. Any surplus funds in the contingency fund at the end of the fiscal period should be used for debt reduction.

We also believe that the budget should be balanced over the business cycle so that normal fluctuations in

forecasts, where the positive balances the negative, make a forecast allowance unnecessary. We believe that the contingency is large enough that it can deal with those unforeseen events and circumstances.

How do we pay for provincially important physical and social infrastructure projects? We in the tree fruit industry know it's a risky business. Most of it is usually weather-related, and we have, of course, production insurance for that. Our experience is to minimize our exposure to debt should that production insurance or should financial programs not cover the losses to the extent to where we are comfortable.

On the other hand, of course, there's a real benefit to infrastructure projects provincewide, one of those being improvements to Highway 97 — this is a very important transportation corridor in the Okanagan Valley — and further highways project work throughout the province. We also believe that our provincial infrastructure is necessary to improve competitiveness. Obviously, the transportation corridor is one of them.

We would like to see less than 100 percent reliance on borrowing. That's the province actually having some capital upfront and then perhaps borrowing the balance. It always makes good fiscal and financial sense.

I would just like to summarize that the B.C. tree fruit industry, I believe, is sustainable and is also very proactive. We are recognized as innovators. We are actually competitive as well. You know, one only has to look at the year 2003, for instance, when the rising Canadian dollar was already a factor, and this industry was very profitable — as long as we have fair trade in the world that we live in.

Of course, we have problems with the CAIS program. We appeal to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to look at the possibility of contingency funds being used for special assistance. We also support that surplus funds from contingency or surplus balances at the end of the year be used to pay off debt. We also believe, of course, that the forecast allowance is not needed for unexpected expenditures, since we have a contingency fund for that. The physical and social infrastructure programs in this province are key and must be funded adequately. Also, the less borrowing, the better off we are.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Joe, and thank you, Glen, for attending and presenting to our committee.

Are there any questions from members of our committee regarding the presentation?

L. Krog: I don't know if you were here to hear the previous presenter, but he talked about the Ministry of Agriculture and its funding generally. Do you have any comment about how the ministry is funded, whether you feel that the staff , or how shall I say…? Are there enough of them to do the job that's necessary? Are there things they should be doing? In other words, is it an area that government should be funding better?

J. Sardinha: I believe, and it's a feeling of the growers in this valley, that for many years the agricultural budget has seen declines. Perhaps its effectiveness is only as good as its budget. There is definitely room for increased funding. It was really evident when the CAIS program was first introduced.

We as a province elected to have the federal government and, basically, Winnipeg administer the program, because the province, through the agricultural budget, didn't have the funding at the time to say: "Yes, we will train our own staff here in B.C." I think in hindsight the program would be functioning today on an entirely different level had we had B.C. personnel handling case files. We wouldn't have the mess that we're in right now.

G. Lucas: Yes, the tree fruits are covered under the NAFTA agreement, and we basically have free trade in fruit right now. There are no duties or restrictions on the movement of fruit between countries with the exception — and again, under NAFTA — of anti-dumping provisions. That means that if a foreign country is selling at under their cost of production into our country, then duties can be put in place. For example, we're working with Mexican growers. They have had a duty in place on American apples for about three years — almost a 50 percent duty on American apples entering Mexico. We're looking at that, given the disastrous returns of 2004. In answer to your question, it's really free trade in fruit.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming and presenting here today to our committee. We appreciate it very much.

G. Lucas: No. The apples are…. We have a clear stencil. The print is black. We put a bag around the apple when it's green. Then when it gets bigger and it comes time to pick it, we take the bag off, and we put the stencil on. Where the sun shines clear through the plastic, it's red. Where it hits the ink on the plastic, it doesn't get through; it doesn't tan. There's no residue on there. It's all food-safe. It's just a tanning process, I guess, if you want to put it that way.

G. Lucas: Don't tell Gordon Campbell that, or he'll have you stencilling your arm or something.

J. Sardinha: We understand, too, that there's potentially equipment out there now that will actually laser a stencil onto an apple without damaging the skin. There are definitely some opportunities there. We just wanted to point out that we are thinking of 2010, and I think all B.C. agricultural commodities have to think along those lines.

Just prior to calling our next presenter, I would like to welcome Sindi Hawkins, the MLA for Kelowna-Mission and Deputy Speaker of our Legislative Assembly. Welcome, Sindi.

Our next presentation this afternoon is from Genome British Columbia. Presenting is Bruce Schmidt.

B. Schmidt: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for this opportunity. On behalf of the board of directors, management, staff and the many hundreds of scientists engaged in genomics research in the province, I really want to extend our thanks for the opportunity to speak to you and, also, to give you an idea of this frontier of science and a new economic opportunity for British Columbia.

What I will do, if you'll bear with me, is just give you a 30-second introduction to genomics. There won't be a test, of course. The fact is that we all have our own genomes. An apple has a genome. A tree has a genome. A genome is the entire collection of genetic material in an organism. What we're interested in doing is investigating those genomes that we are interested in, either for social reasons or for economic reasons.

We should also say that we're not interested in changing those genomes. We are here to simply understand them and to allow us to create either better benefits for the society or better economic benefits for the organisms that may come into question there. I just wanted to make sure that we have the understanding that in our programs there is no manipulation of genomes whatsoever — just the understanding of them.

Just so you know, every organism has this collection of DNA. The real workhorses of those organisms are proteins. If I were to refer to that, you'd know that they are just simply the things that genes tell our bodies to make. They are the products of our genetic system.

On page 2, this is really a point of not only being competitive in the world and being innovative as a culture but also creating a new economic addition, as it were, to the future of the province and the future of the country. Life sciences has become a focal point for many, many areas in terms of economic growth. Genomics is one of those technologies that is going to fuel that growth, fuel the development of life sciences technologies.

In some ways, it can be paralleled with what happened with the computer revolution or with the internal combustion engine, or anything. It is going to make big changes in the way we think about ourselves. We have to be careful about that, obviously, but there are also great opportunities in all areas of life sciences — whether it be a microbe in a mine or, indeed, a beetle that wants to look at a tree for its next lunch. There are ways of looking at genomes as well as ways we look at our own organisms to keep ourselves healthier and happier as a society.

The fact is this is the perfect marriage of academia, industry and government. As a matter of fact, it just simply wouldn't work in this case if any one of those legs fell off. We have a tremendous partnership with many ministries within your government. Advanced Education is our lead ministry. We are very close to Health, Forestry and Agriculture with concern around the environment. This is a broad-reaching program, to say the least.

On page 3, I wanted to point out that I did mention there were certain societal issues around genomic research. We have not had any negative sort of suggestions at all in the four and a half years that we've been active in the province. The fact is we were also active in public outreach, and we are dedicated to making sure that everyone understands the ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social ramifications. There are risks, and there are benefits. We believe that through transparency and openness the benefits will be obvious and the risks will be understood.

On to page 4. I just did want to say that — on the bottom of page 3 — there was a large community involved here. There isn't really a single university teaching-hospital, funding agency or trade association in the life sciences that is not involved in what we are doing today. It's a very big family, to say the least. It has made quite a difference in the way that we are looked at internationally.

On to this mix of research on top of page 4, we have the most diverse mix of research in Canada in genomics. We are the life sciences province, really, to a much greater extent than a lot of provinces. We have, therefore, taken the opportunity to look at these economic pillars, these fundamental pillars of our traditional industries, and marry those with the new technologies of the day so that we can be competitive and have the best economic impact from our industries going forward.

The province has made a tremendous difference in this. In 2001 we received our first funding. The province at that time certainly did not have the money that they would have liked to. I think over a period of a year or a year and a half, we got the first $34 million from the province, which actually extended into over $170 million in research, which is the kind of leverage that we like to see. Actually, that leverage has continued now, and I'll be talking to you about a $300-million

program from 2005 to 2010 that we would like to bring into the province, where the province's investment would be highly leveraged as well.

The fact is we've been able to really become internationally competitive in our science. We always had competitive scientists. I mean, I talked to the head of the genome consortium — Dr. Francis Collins — at one meeting. He said that Canadian scientists were involved in the human genome project but that Canada wasn't. That can't be said today. We're involved in every single crevice of the international genomics community. It is quite amazing where we have come. There has been repatriation of many world-class scientists. The stars of the sector are now coming to British Columbia to work. There are many programs that are now filling in behind this.

On page 5. We've now provided ourselves with international collaborations in Norway, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the U.S. I'll talk about them very briefly. International investments have come in. We've trained multitudes of scientists and brought in a new science course. We've been very responsive to new opportunities like the SARS virus. When I say, "we," it's gratuitous, actually. It was the scientists at the Genome Sciences Centre in Vancouver that had the absolute ability and, I think, reactiveness to be the first in the world to sequence that virus.

Over 70 groups around the world have now taken that information and are going out to create vaccines and various therapeutics around SARS. Frankly, if it weren't for the fact that the government had the foresight to invest a few years back, we wouldn't have had the infrastructure to do it so quickly. I think that is one of the really key issues.

There has been a tremendous amount of external spending that has come into the province, and we have been punching above our weight, as it were. We have now garnered over 25 percent of all federal genomics funding available. I think we have a great track record, and a lot of people are quite surprised at how we're doing.

Some of the news that we've had…. Of course, the SARS virus was very topical across the country. We have a project in collaboration with Spain on understanding the grape — both wine grapes and table grapes. That is a $6 million consortium going on right now involving the Okanagan Valley. It's great to be here in Kelowna to talk about it, because we have wineries contributing tissue and samples to this work, just as they are in Spain. It's becoming a very interesting project, to say the least.

On the next page…. We've been involved in the bovine genome, and with that work on BSE and other issues in animal health. We have been involved in an international consortium on sequencing the first genome of a tree. That was the poplar tree — a very complex genome, about three times the size of a human genome. This will work towards B.C. being able to make better decisions in terms of what kinds of genotypes they will be planting in the future. We also have work on salmon and using salmon genes as the sensitive detectors of pollution, and being able to understand how we can use those genes in industrial situations to monitor effluents, etc.

On page 7, these are really the personal issues around predicted, preventative and personalized health. In this province we are now working on adverse drug side effects in kids, where there are medicines that we don't understand. We don't know how to give them to children, and we're going to find that out by genotyping kids with extreme side effects. The genetics of organ transplant rejection, the use of chemotherapy and how that changes from patient to patient, using other genetic tools to understand mental retardation and things like antibiotic resistance — this is really where the world is today in scientific research.

On page 8, just around the history of what we have been doing…. We have now brought commitments to the province of over $270 million in genomic research. That started, basically, from $34 million from the province and our first funding of some $69 million. Some of that is ending. Going forward, we now have about $200 million starting up and moving towards 2010 and our target of $300 million in research. What we're doing is asking the province to continue its investment and bring about 25 percent of that plan to the scientists in a phased fashion. I won't go into too much more in terms of summarizing this. The fact is that this is about bringing economic vitality to the life sciences sector in the province.

This helps biotechnology. It helps forestry, agriculture and every life sciences sector there is. This is the technology of the future. We are focused on commercialization. Basic research is important. It's important to have those discoveries, but it's also important, where possible, to commercialize the important findings that have been brought forward by the scientists.

The last page gives you, pictorially, the fact that we want to keep the research teams — and the universities and teaching hospitals that have been sponsoring this research — active. The more consistency in funding and the better the people they can attract, the more notorious B.C. will be in the world of genomic research. Just so you know: we are now probably number one in the world in forestry research. We are number one in salmon research. We have areas within our health system in which we are bringing innovations that are seen at every conference as being right at the top of the ladder. It's because we've got great scientists, which enables a scientific community to thrive.

With that, I would ask you to…. You have many ministries here to look at, but the momentum is important, and we're here to ask you for that consideration. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, thank you very much, Bruce. It is an exciting event for British Columbia taking place. We do have a couple of questions. I'll begin with John.

J. Yap: Thank you, Mr. Schmidt, for your presentation. Certainly, the area is leading-edge and just tre-

mendous for our province, with the innovation that is coming out of it. Is it still a bit early to start to point to some commercial successes that we're starting to see? Is that still a little ways out?

B. Schmidt: Well, actually we have a couple of very good examples right now. We have Novartis, a pharmaceutical company that has partnered a program at St. Paul's to do with organ transplant rejection. They're looking at finding biological markers that they can both make diagnostics with and also design better immunosuppressives for transplant recipients. There are tools already to do with putting whole genome arrays together, where you put very small fragments of DNA on a very small microchip. That's now being sold all over the world, frankly. Now, I wouldn't call that a commercial product. It's still a research product, just as the salmon chip, as it's called — where there's a variety of salmon DNA on this chip, which can give people insights as to how pollution can affect organisms — is also being distributed around the world.

Would I say that we have, you know, the blockbuster drug yet? No, but in any biotechnology area that takes many, many years.

B. Schmidt: Two things that we think are vital for commercialization. Number one is all the training. All the trained personnel, post-docs and graduate students that go out into industry are taking this knowledge with them and, therefore, enabling our biotechnology industry to thrive internationally. Also, the fact is that we are now bringing international investment into the province and showing that we are not only competitive but also, probably, leaders in some respects.

L. Krog: Can you give the committee any idea of how many people are employed directly, as we speak, in this?

B. Schmidt: In terms of lab staff, project leaders, post-docs, etc., probably in the area of 500 to 600. Obviously, that means they're on the payroll of an institution that is funded through us.

R. Lee: Genome research is very important for B.C.'s prevention and cure, I guess. We know that the health care budget is really high. In the future, can you foresee some kind of benefit to the health care system?

B. Schmidt: Absolutely. I think some of the examples that I gave of the predictive and preventive health…. That's really where we have to go. We have to stop treating disease and start preventing disease. There are some difficulties in getting to know the genes that are responsible for disease and actually saying to an individual: "You may get sick because of those genes. If you don't do something else, if you don't change your lifestyle, you just may get some kind of chronic disease."

The fact is that promise is here. We know we can prevent over 70 percent of cancers through lifestyle changes. There are now ways that we are saving money within the system by knowing the genetic makeup of certain patients. We won't give them certain drugs that we thought they might need. We can save money by…. In families where there is, perhaps, a genetic predisposition, it doesn't mean that everybody's going to get sick, because they may not have the same set of genes.

There's a very good example of kids who have little tumours in the back of their eyes. What had happened, traditionally, was they would have to test on a yearly basis every child in that family because one child had it. Now there's one simple genetic test, and either they don't have the genes and you never see them or you maybe see them every five years. That has, again, saved money for the health system.

It's all about, really, preventing and predicting disease, but in a social context that doesn't create paranoia. It's the fact that people are able to change their lifestyles and, therefore, moderate disease.

D. Hayer: Thank you very much. A very good presentation. Are we there yet — to find out if you can check the genes to see if you're going to get cancer or leukemia or something later on for each individual?

B. Schmidt: Well, every disease has an environmental component and a genetic component. Actually, there are some…. An injury has no genetic component at all, but something like Huntington's Disease is completely genetic. Most of the diseases that we deal with are a combination of where we've put ourselves, the way we create an environment for ourselves, and our genetic predisposition.

We are now at a point where we can say to some people, if they were to be genetically screened: "Yes, you do have some genes that could cause certain diseases." However, they may never get the disease, because their lifestyle has been able to moderate the effects or counteract the effects of that gene. You can actually nullify the effect of a disease-causing gene through proper lifestyle, proper nutrition.

D. Hayer: Let me just ask a follow-up question. Here's an example. When my son was 19, we found out he had leukemia. He was on breast milk for the first two years. He ate organic foods. He was healthy — never smoked or anything. He seemed in perfect health and never got sick. Then one day we find out…. We thought he had the flu; it was leukemia. That type of person…. If you had another individual, could you do a test on the genes in advance and say: "Listen. This is the reason you got leukemia," or "You might get leukemia"?

B. Schmidt: I think that there certainly will be in the future the ability to do genetic screens. There are

huge social consequences to that right now. I think we're going to have to learn as a society how to deal with that. Some people will take it…. If you go into any environment and say, "How many of you would like to know whether you might get sick or not?" about half the people put up their hands, and the other people don't want to know. That's fair, because no one wants to go through their life with this sort of self-stigmatization.

I think it is very, very possible. I think you're going to start doing it in families who have disease as a…. You go into your doctor now and they ask you: "When did your mother and father…? What sort of health did they have? And your grandparents?" They're cobbling together this genetic history in a different way. So, I think it is possible.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We're going to try to get one more question in here before moving on to our next presentation. I'll go to Jenny.

J. Kwan: Have we seen the connection of the information from research in the life sciences area tied to the health care system in a way of providing health care support to the family? I'll use one concrete example: hereditary colorectal cancer. The research tells us that the carrier could pass the gene on to the next generation, and so on and so forth. We've just started talking about the testing, yet our heath care system does not provide for the test…

J. Kwan: …even if the family wanted it here in British Columbia. In fact, for colonoscopies, unless you show symptoms that are actually indicative of your likelihood of having colon cancer, you would not be able to get a routine test with your medical doctor because it's not covered by MSP. I'm interested from this perspective, with the great research being done, in how that ties into the health care delivery services to actually benefit individuals in that context. Are you doing the work in that context to make those links and, more than that, to get the coverage so that after you've done the research, the availability of those tests is there for the public?

B. Schmidt: Certainly. The Minister of Health could probably respond to this a bit better than I could, but what is to be considered is: what are best practices? Today, I'll tell you, British Columbia has better outcomes than most places in North America on a lot of chronic diseases. They're doing an amazing job, you know, under the fiscal constraints that they have. From an epidemiological standpoint, how do you know which practices will actually bring positive outcomes for the patient? Yes, there is a mortality rate in a lot of diseases — or some kind of disability rate.

I think the reason they wouldn't bring in one of these tests is because it's not 100 percent sure, if you were to take the test in some of these diseases. Now, in colorectal, perhaps it is 100 percent in a particular disease. Why they don't reimburse that is really a policy issue right now. I mean, they are starting to bring in tests. For example, they're now funding a lot of the cancer genetic tests so that we can understand how patients should be medicated and what kind of prognosis they would have. It's happening, and again, I think it's a policy issue right now as to how that technology gets into the clinic. But for a lot of diseases, it's not conclusive yet, and that's why it's not widespread.

J. Kwan: Yeah, fair enough. But the question is: are you advancing it to push the policy-makers to move in the direction so that those tests are available?

B. Schmidt: We certainly are interested in selling the benefits of what we do, and there's a great deal of interaction at the clinical level. Most of the people we work with are clinical researchers, so they're seeing patients every day, and they're also spending time in laboratories looking for the genetic causes. We sure do, but best practices are the issue.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Bruce, I do want to thank you, and I know this discussion could go on for some time. Fifteen minutes is a very tight time frame, but I do appreciate you taking time out of your schedule to come and present to our committee here this afternoon.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Our next presentation this afternoon is coming to us from the British Columbia Chiropractic Association. Joining us are Dr. Don Nixdorf and Dr. Jim Cooper.

J. Cooper: Thank very much for allowing us to be here today, Chairman Lekstrom and committee members. My name is Dr. Jim Cooper, and this is Dr. Don Nixdorf. Don is the executive director of the B.C. Chiropractic Association and the college, and I'm the president of the B.C. Chiropractic Association. It's nice to have the meeting here in Kelowna, since I only had to come up from Penticton — kind of a nice change. I did see your schedule, though, and I don't envy that.

I think you've got a handout there, and I'm just going to go over that. Then we'll open up to some questions. I'll probably let Don take the questions because he's the one with all the numbers in his head.

First of all, how do core services impact the provincial budget in health care? That's what we really want

Just a little background on the B.C. College of Chiropractors and the Chiropractic Association. Chiropractors were first legislated in British Columbia with the first chiropractors act back in 1934. Since 1950 they were legislated under the Workers Compensation Board act. In 1965 we came in under medicare protection, and the ICBC act in 1972 brought chiropractors into that fold.

The chiropractic profession is involved with several ministries in the government — obviously Health. MSP still does have some chiropractic coverage. Advanced Education as well — there are chiropractic research physicians at universities. Public Safety and Solicitor General are involved through ICBC — and Labour and Citizens' Services, WCB, Employment and Income Assistance financing.

The B.C. College of Chiropractors is responsible for the licensing and regulation of approximately 900 chiropractors in B.C. Chiropractors have seven years of education — three years of university education at a minimum and four years in chiropractic colleges, of which there are two in Canada and several in the States and other colleges around the world. The colleges are accredited by a council on chiropractic education, so they are standardized throughout the world.

Approximately half a million British Columbians attend their family chiropractor every year. Those office visits do not involve pharmaceuticals or surgery. It's a drugless form of health care. The primary ages of the people that we see are 25 to 60 years of age, although right from infancy to geriatrics are seen in chiropractors' offices. Fifty-five percent of them are female and 45 percent male.

How can we provide better health for all British Columbians? We want to balance information sources, just like we balance the budget. That's how we can improve B.C.'s finances.

Currently, the Ministry of Health is responsible for approximately 35 percent of the provincial budget. I've seen figures ranging to almost 40 percent. These medicare costs continue to rise. I have a sheet here, estimated expense budgets, and we see here that health care is scheduled to increase by a billion dollars over the course of the next year in British Columbia. We have to wonder how that can continue at that rate.

With WCB, approximately 30 percent of their annual expenditure is on spine and back-related problems. With ICBC, 50 percent of ICBC's annual cost is bodily injury, which is the equivalent of $2 billion. MSP, WCB and ICBC data have published evidence on the lower cost of using chiropractic services compared to many other health services.

Primary health care. What is primary health care? If we put it simply, primary health care is treating acute and episodic illnesses, preventing people from becoming ill or injured, managing chronic conditions, making the most effective use of health provider expertise, and doing that with efficiency and coordination. Access is also important. We want to encourage individuals to play an active role in their own health care. Primary health care can help support that sustainable health system that British Columbians want.

In B.C. we have opportunities to reduce health care costs. One-third of medical utilization is for spine and related conditions. We encourage the respect of the patient's choice in managing those conditions. Many patients choose non-surgical and non-pharmaceutical treatment. We encourage the support of patient choice in government information systems, as well, such as the B.C. HealthGuide, WCB literature and other literature that comes out of government.

How can we reduce provincial expenditures? Specifically, through the use of non–surgical treatment and recovery, decreased use and dependency on medications and Pharmacare, the decreased use of government infrastructure related to health. We can support economic growth though decreased time-loss and wage-cost. Without the reduction of Ministry of Health expenditures' improved outcomes. As I mentioned before, funding of other B.C. ministries may become impacted. As the health budget goes up by a billion dollars a year, obviously there are going to have to be cutbacks made elsewhere. So that should be a concern.

In conclusion, how can we balance the choice that British Columbians have for their health care? The B.C. Chiropractic Association and the college would recommend a joint committee with the government and college and the association to identify opportunities to reduce government costs without the loss of outcomes; also, to develop the B.C. college and association and government prevention and education programs for healthy bones and joints. We would also encourage that the government update their government-based information health living guides, health files, WCB, their Internet and print-based materials, and we would recommend that the government review regulations regarding public utilization and access to reduce the duplication of costs.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you, Jim, for your presentation. I know we do have a question. I'll begin with Dave.

D. Hayer: Is there anything else that the government can do to help grow your industry or your organization without costing a lot of extra money to the taxpayers?

J. Cooper: I'm going to turn that over to the much more eloquent Dr. Nixdorf.

D. Nixdorf: Thank you, Mr. Chair through to Mr. Hayer. I think the recommendations we have…. It's important to underscore that what we're talking about, first of all, is one-third of all medicare utilization. That's rather huge when we think about it. We're not talking about hospital-based care; we're talking about one-third of the health utilization, which is primarily the

visits to private clinics that will lead in some cases to hospital visits as well.

What we think we're trying to present to government is really something that is information-based. We're not here to have a schedule of new listings with more costs or higher fees for what you're paying for. What we're suggesting is — I think in the last point that Jim was making — called balancing choice. Just as you've balanced the budget, we're suggesting you take a look at government information systems and balance information.

Currently, they really don't reflect a full, comprehensive choice for British Columbians. If government were to assist in the information for public choice, that will help the Ministry of Health and ultimately the Ministry of Finance in this province's budget.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Seeing no further questions, I want to thank you for taking the time out of your busy schedules to come and present to our committee here this evening. Again, as I've indicated earlier, it is our job to take all of the information we receive through these public consultations as well as the written submissions and formulate a report to the Legislative Assembly by the 15th of November. Thank you, Dr. Cooper and Dr. Nixdorf, for attending here.

J. Cooper: Thank you very much for the opportunity, and good luck on the rest of your schedule.

D. Nixdorf: Thank you. We look forward to reading your report and recommendations.

We're going to move on. Our next presentation this evening is brought to us from the Motion Picture Production Industry Association of British Columbia. Joining us to present is Peter Leitch. Good evening, Peter.

P. Leitch: Good evening. Thanks very much for the opportunity to present this afternoon.

The B.C. film industry is now a very significant industry in British Columbia. Throughout the '90s it increased probably 20 percent a year. From the year 2000 on, we're basically a billion-dollar industry in the province, employing 20,000 people directly and another 15,000 indirectly.

It's been a great industry for the province. It's a clean industry; it's creative. It doesn't extract any resources from the province, and it's a very globally competitive industry. It's almost ours to lose at this point in time. We see it as a great economic benefit to the province in that with this billion dollars, it creates a fairly large multiplier because this money comes into the province and gets spent. I've got an example in my handout where we're going to spend over $100 million, and it's going to go to over 2,000 vendors for one production that is currently shooting in British Columbia right now.

We've had several large productions recently, and a lot of those have been attracted, first of all, by the low Canadian dollar. There's no getting around that. That's been a big factor, especially a couple of years ago when we were in the 60-cent range. That was a real bonus for us and really continued to build the industry.

I'm a little bit surprised now that we're as busy as we are, but I'd like to explain. Actually, the dollar dropped half a cent today, so that was good news for us. In December of last year or, actually, about a year ago today — in fact, in October — things really took a downturn, especially for our company and other companies in B.C. Our average occupancy in our stages in Vancouver had been over 90 percent for the previous eight years, and last year we dropped down to 50 percent. Our break-even is about 60 percent, just to let you know how fragile that business is.

The government, of course, has participated in the studio business and the infrastructure with the Bridge Studios in Burnaby, which is still under government control. The infrastructure has been very important for British Columbia in terms of attracting the business. It's given us an advantage over Toronto. It's given us an advantage over a number of U.S. states, which have become very strong competitors.

One of the biggest buildups of infrastructure has been in the post-production area of the business, and the special effects and animation tax credit has been a big boon to that part of the industry. Now we've got some of the best post-production facilities in the world right in Vancouver. That's been a growing business. It's one of those businesses you walk in…. I'd love to give you the opportunity to tour some of those businesses, because they're kind of behind the scenes. You walk in, and you see all these young people in their shorts and jeans and cutoffs and everything, making really decent salaries, producing world-class work. That's a tremendous benefit to the economy. It gives them opportunities.

One of the things is that we're a real equal opportunity employer. If you walk into some of the paint shops and construction shops, you see quite often as many women as men in the industry. Our two biggest producers right now at our studio, which are doing Scary Movie 4 — I figure I'll be retired by Scary Movie 8…. But Scary Movie 4 is run by Grace Gilroy, who is one of the predominant producers in town. The other show we're doing is a television series that her daughter is producing called Reunion, which is a new successful series that was brought to Vancouver.

One of the other series that we had last year was called The 4400, which aired in the U.S. and was very successful there. That's a good example of the industry really coming together to lower costs. We did a break-even deal for them when we did it for the studio, and labour enabled some of the provisions in their contract to make sure that we could bring that movie to Vancouver and British Columbia. That's now become a successful television series, and they just announced they've been picked up for 13 more episodes starting in January. This is a series that could go on for quite some

Sometimes in our industry your job can last anywhere from three days to a year or more if it's a successful series. We had X-Files at our facility for five years. That built a lot of houses on the North Shore and other places in the Vancouver area.

I think one of the other things that our industry does is that we are starting to give back to the communities. We support a lot of initiatives in the downtown east side and other charities. We just made a donation to the Paraplegic Association, so we're getting more involved in the community. We feel that's very important because they're a major partner, as well as the government, because we're shooting in communities. We want to emphasize that the people working in the industry are living in these communities.

The tax credits are really the language of the industry in terms of trying to be competitive with other jurisdictions. There are probably over 30 different jurisdictions that offer tax credits. Most recently a lot of the U.S. states, including New Mexico, Louisiana — of course, they've had their own troubles these days — Illinois and New York, have introduced fairly aggressive tax credits. We understand that we're not necessarily going to be competitive with some of those states where they're trying to bring the industry in there, but the most important thing for us is that we at least have a level playing field in Canada with Ontario.

We understand that some other provinces might have to be more aggressive in the tax credit to attract the business, but we've certainly got some geographic advantages, infrastructure advantages, same time zone, modern climate — all those advantages — a great cosmopolitan city and fantastic locations in British Columbia that attract the business here. Ontario is certainly our major competitor, so we really appreciate the role the government played in matching the tax credits to create a level playing field when Ontario increased theirs late in December of last year.

The difference there is that we went from a 50-percent occupancy to where we are now 100 percent occupied on our stages. In fact, you can't get a sound stage in Vancouver, I think, until next February. The interesting thing is that people ask me: "Well, then what happens in March?" I have no idea what's going to happen in March. I don't know where the dollar is going to be. What is important to us, though, is that we have a great relationship with the government so that we can talk and have dialogue. Last week we met with Minister Hansen. We talked about the Tysoe report, which was welcomed by the industry — maybe not the Teamsters, but the rest of the industry. It showed that the industry has to work to be competitive, as well as the government playing their role.

It's working right now. I'm a little surprised that we're as busy as we are with the dollar where it is, but of course it was the tax credits that helped greatly in keeping that business there. What that does is give us confidence to continue building infrastructure instead of…. Six months ago we were thinking: "What's our alternative use for some of this space that we've got?"

I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you. I do have a handout there, but I'd certainly be more than happy to answer some questions.

D. Hayer: The film industry is a very important industry, I know, in my riding. I live in Surrey — Tynehead Park. Constantly when I drive there they are shooting some films or movies or some commercials. Is there anything else government can do to make sure your industry is growing and keeps growing, generating more revenue for us?

P. Leitch: Yeah. I think that partnership probably extends beyond just the tax credits, for sure. Access to certain locations that are government-owned is important to us. When I say access, I don't necessarily mean free access or anything like that, but on a cost-recovery basis. That's important to us.

I guess if there's anything we can streamline…. This is what we talk to municipalities about, who we normally deal with in terms of getting permits and policing and all those other things. We need to maintain reasonable costs for those things. It's not that we're looking for handouts, by any means. That's what happened in Los Angeles and New York. They drove a lot of the business out of there just because it got too expensive. So a lot of the states that are trying to attract the business…. You phone right into the governor's office, and they give you free police and free locations. Again, I'm not advocating that, but just reasonable recovery of those costs would be great.

J. Yap: Thanks for your presentation. We hear in the news media that there is an imminent reaction from the government of California. What's the latest that you hear on that? Some sort of protectionist moves they might make?

P. Leitch: Right. We're not overly concerned about that. I think it gets played up a little bit in the media. But don't get me wrong. We're watching it closely. They were introducing a bill in California to introduce tax credits there, and it wasn't received very warmly. They've now pushed it off to next year — to January or February. It's kind of like, "We'll keep you posted," but when it first came up we sort of went: "Oh, the sky is falling." This is one of those things we really can't control, and I don't want to have a race to the bottom with tax credits.

When we were talking to Minister Hansen, we said, "We want you to be talking to the Finance Minister in Ontario," because the worst thing that could happen to us is if Ontario all of a sudden increases its tax credits. We don't want that to happen. We feel that they're at a reasonable level now.

One of the important things is that we were on kind of a one-year time frame on the tax credits. The movie industry doesn't work that way, because as soon as it

gets within three or four months of that, everybody says: "Well, we better not plan our budget for British Columbia because there's uncertainty as to whether the tax credits will be continuing there." So it's really important in terms of sustainability to give them confidence.

I understand that Minister Ilich is coming down with us in December to talk to them. That's very important. They really appreciate that the government is supporting the industry and recognize that.

R. Lee: We know that during production and post-production, you use a lot of skilled workers — technicians in the digital and video or multimedia area. Do you have any co-op programs with the learning institutions so that in the future, we have a steady supply of skilled workers?

P. Leitch: Capilano College has a tremendous program. I'm a little more familiar with that one than some other institutions in terms of working closely with the industry. They've certainly hired professionals that I've worked with in the industry in the past to teach their courses. They bring their classes for tours around the sets to talk about different lighting aspects and all those other things. They're very realistic in their approach. They say: "We're not going to turn out a producer or a director here; we're going to turn out somebody that has a really good understanding of the reality of the business."

Those programs are very important. The unions have worked to create and develop apprenticeship programs, which have been very important to the industry.

Education is key, and certainly the post-production houses are now looking for people with computer degrees or graduates in that area from different institutions who are bright, sharp people who can step in and be a quick study, I guess you'd call it.

R. Lee: I guess my question is: are you actively seeking co-op students in the industry?

P. Leitch: Some times more than other times. When the industry is on a downturn, we don't want to bring people in to create this myth that there are going to be jobs. But when the industry is healthy and we have confidence that it's going to be sustainable in the long term, that's absolutely what we do. In fact, that's what works best in our industry — co-op.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Seeing no further questions, Peter, I'll thank you on behalf of the committee for coming and making your presentation to our committee here this evening. Take care.

We are a few minutes ahead of schedule at this time. Our next presenters have yet to arrive, so I will recess the committee. We will stand recessed for ten minutes and reconvene.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Good evening. At this time we will reconvene the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services prebudget consultation hearings in Kelowna. We are going to move on to our next presenters this evening. Presenting now and with us from the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce are Weldon LeBlanc and Kevin Crookes.

K. Crookes: Good evening, and thank you for having us. It is, indeed, a pleasure for us to appear before the committee.

We've given you a handout, which you can read at your leisure. I'll just get started.

To give you a little bit of background on the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, we have a membership of over 1,550 members, and we view that our mandate is to be the voice of business in the Kelowna area. For those of you who are not that aware of Kelowna, Kelowna has a population of 103,000 people — the largest community in the central Okanagan — and we're one of the fastest-growing cities in British Columbia. In fact, our retail and commercial base has a trading area of over 450,000 residents, making it the largest urban centre outside of Vancouver and Alberta.

What we would like to talk about is the importance of enhanced productivity in the provincial economy and economic growth in the provincial economy. The specific issues, we feel, are linked to one common theme. That's, as I said, increased productivity in our economy. We believe it's imperative to create a smart fiscal policy agenda with the goal of enhancing the productivity of our economy.

We just recently returned from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's annual general meeting in Charlottetown, and our ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, in his presentation noted that our productivity in Canada — of course, British Columbia would be similar — is 20 percent less than that of the United States of America. If we were able to increase our productivity in Canada on a federal basis, that would accrue at a further $75 billion to the federal government, which would, of course, be a significant influence in terms of funding for all our different social programs.

I think the same issue applies at a provincial level as well as federally. I think we need to start looking at productivity and quality of life as cause and effect. Increased productivity results in improved quality of life for all of us in the province.

As we all know, economic prosperity is by no means guaranteed. We need to have strategically focused, smart policies that include tax policies that embody a competitive tax system, that encourage work-effort savings, investment and risk taking, thereby enhancing productivity and economic growth on a sustainable, long-term basis. In essence, we need to be more competitive and productive. A smart fiscal policy

agenda must also focus on further reducing government debt. Cost savings realized from lower interest payments would make room for budget incentives like an improved standard of living and ultimately contribute to the quality of life for all British Columbians.

It's encouraging to us when we can note that the taxpayer-supported debt as a percentage of gross domestic product ratio is set to fall from 17.1 percent this year to 15.8 percent in 2006-2007. This is information we obtained from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. We feel the government is to be applauded for that; however, our concern continues to be the increase in overall debt in the province, which currently stands at $14 billion and is expected to be at $18 billion by 2007-2008.

Continuing to lower our ratio of taxpayer-supported debt is all dependent on a strong economy and continued economic growth, but we must look at the total debt figure because, ultimately, that will impact our ability to remain competitive for business and for a place for people to invest. We need to look at our tax system to make sure it's efficient. We need to make sure that the surpluses that are resulting are used to pay down our debt to a more manageable basis.

I think it's important that we all realize — that everyone in B.C. realizes — that the business community is the driver behind the economy, and a strong economy is the very foundation of our society. Without a strong economy, we'll not have any of the other benefits that we've come to expect in terms of social spending.

Another area that we would like the government to consider having a look at is provincial sales tax. Our friends to the east don't have a sales tax. We do in B.C., and we're very pleased that the government has reduced it back down to 7 percent, as promised. We feel that it would be a good idea to continue on with that trend. We would suggest reducing the provincial sales tax by half a percent per year over the next 14 years. This would put more funds into the hands of British Columbians, especially British Columbians who are in the lower income brackets. Their spending will further fuel the economy.

One of the other issues that's very significant to the business community and should be a concern to all of us is the skills shortage that we're seeing right now. This is the tip of the iceberg. I think that we have to address this issue. It's happening all over the province. What we believe would make sense would be to have a human resource investment tax credit that would be a progressive and efficient tax incentive to stimulate trading and strategic investment in our human resources and that would assist our businesses to be more competitive locally and globally.

Essentially, to sum up our points…. We feel that productivity and quality of life are cause and effect. Increased productivity results in improved quality of life for all. Members of the select committee, as a leading business organization in British Columbia, the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce urges the provincial government to enhance our economy through implementation of strategic, smart policies. These policies should focus on debt reduction, enhancing competitiveness and productivity in our business community. That, basically, is the nuts and bolts of our presentation.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Thank you very much, Kevin. Well then, I will go to Dave and then to John.

D. Hayer: A very good presentation. I've got one question regarding your comments on the GDP versus the total debt. Do you think that maybe we should delay some the capital projects or infrastructure, such as the Bill Bennett Bridge, because that's going to increase our debt overall? Or should we sort of say: "Since the economy's growing, our debt-to-GDP ratio is fairly low. That bridge is important. We should go ahead with it, because even though it's going to increase our debt…"? What is your opinion on that? There are many other similar projects, either for university campuses or hospitals or highway improvements or, in a riding like mine, the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

K. Crookes: We look at these as being strategic investments. If you look at something like the Bennett Bridge, or any bridge for that matter, or any capital expenditure on the part of the government…. In business if you make an investment, there's going to be a payback for it. I think we need to make investments that will enhance our economy. By strengthening our economy, we'll increase the amount of income that we're going to have coming back to us through taxes, through successful economic growth.

Clearly, we cannot have successful commerce in the central Okanagan by having a road infrastructure that does not work, and that applies to other parts of the province as well. Clearly, for the money spent, the government will get it back tenfold through enhanced economic activity.

J. Yap: That was actually my question, but it sort of has led me to think of a supplemental, and that is: what level of debt-to-GDP would you be comfortable with, would the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce be comfortable with?

You actually mentioned in your submission the figure of $15 billion. That's actually one portion of the debt. The total debt is actually much higher; it's in the $30 billion-plus range when you include all provincial debt. We've had all kinds of opinions on where that level should be, everything from zero to 10 percent, and right now that figure of total debt-to-GDP is around 22 percent. What are your views on that?

Unfortunately, we didn't come to you with a specific number, which might have been nice, but I think over all it has…. The biggest issue that I think we have

is the debt load. It has to be paid down, has to be reduced. How much…? As I was saying to Weldon earlier on, in the 1930s, when John Maynard Keynes came out with the idea of deficit spending, the other side of the sword was that we would pay down the debt in times of economic prosperity, and that has not happened since the Second World War. I think that's what we need to be focused on: reducing that debt as much as we possibly can without cutting our services to the bone or abandoning those things that we as Canadians feel are important and identify our culture.

But we are facing real issues worldwide that we have to be…. We cannot spend our surpluses thinking that our economy will continue to grow the way it has. It's been driven mainly by commodities over the years, fuelled by the demand out of India and China. Certainly, we have to look at what's going to be the long-term effect of this in terms of secondary industry and everything else.

A quick supplemental. Do you see a difference between debt that results from deficit spending on an operating basis versus debt from investing in infrastructure like a bridge or a hospital?

K. Crookes: Yes, there is definitely a difference. I think that infrastructure spending has to be done. Obviously, that's going to enhance our productivity overall.

L. Krog: Well, happily, Mr. Chair, my cheeky friend the member for Surrey-Tynehead has already asked the question I was going to ask about the bridge and capital expenditures, so I thank him for that.

R. Lee: You mentioned productivity, and it says 20 percent below in Canada compared to the U.S. Are there any suggestions on how to improve our productivity?

K. Crookes: Well, certainly by having a competitive tax system that encourages business investment, business capital expenditures, to enhance business productivity — that would be one area. The government has made tremendous strides in reducing the tax burden on British Columbians over the last five years, and that's to be commended. I think if we continue to do that, what we'll see, as the government gets out of the way of business, is they'll make the investments that will drive this economy forward, which will be a benefit to us all.

R. Lee: You say cancelling the retirement requirement. Would that be one of the goals?

K. Crookes: As President Kennedy would say, I can't believe you'd ask me a question like that. Next?

No, I think there may be merit in that. I think it's going to be an issue that will help address the skills shortage. Clearly, people are living longer than they did, and they want to have a continued involvement in the economy. I think it just makes sense.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, Kevin and Weldon, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for taking time out of your busy schedule to come and present to our committee here this evening. Thank you.

Our next presentation this evening comes to us from the B.C. Wildlife Federation, and joining us is Tony Toth. Good evening, Tony.

T. Toth: Good evening. Thanks for letting me come before you. I guess this is about my fifth or sixth time, so it's relatively old hat.

B.C. Wildlife Federation represents resident anglers, hunters and gatherers in the province. We have 30,000 members and 125 clubs throughout the province. As you'll see in the front of our brief, there's a half million anglers and 90,000 hunters in British Columbia. Together we constitute a $2 billion economic contribution to the economy. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that we've been around for a long time, and we'll be celebrating our 50th formal anniversary in Penticton, March 29 to April 1, 2006, next year, and you are all most welcome.

The committee's first question is about allocating anticipated fiscal plan surpluses. We recognize it's government's responsibility and role to make choices about allocation, and it is government's responsibility to set spending priorities. You'll do that, I guess, in the context of all of the influences in the Legislature, including now, and influence from the opposition. You'll get a lot of advice from everyone else as to how to spend the surplus, if there is one.

We at the B.C. Wildlife Federation feel that government is at its best when improving the health of the people and the environment that we live in. The B.C. Wildlife Federation are not medical experts. We leave medical issues to other folks. But we are experts in matters of healthy lifestyle and conservation issues, and we suggest that the anticipated surplus could be productively employed to promote a healthy lifestyle in as many British Columbians as possible. This is a very practical recommendation, because a healthy lifestyle reduces medical care costs, reduces the social stress and related costs, and it certainly enhances the quality and purpose of our human existence.

We think that this committee and government should encourage all youths to get somewhat away from the mesmerizing effect of electronic toys and get out into nature. We think that you should support pro-

grams that encourage urban and rural adults to take up or resume healthful recreation and programs that teach people conservation skills and knowledge to enjoy and build a sustainable environment in which our sense of wellness can be maintained and increased. But we need to promote and work at that. We have to produce the human resources and the skills so that generations coming have the ability to make the dreams that we have realized.

There was also the question about what we think about contingency and the forecast allowance. I'm a little surprised at the question. This is a question that wouldn't come up in the private sector, I don't think. Contingencies — I don't have to tell you what they are — are a fundamental part of business budgeting and accounting practices. So is forecast allowance. They're very fundamentally different. You need both. The trick is to get the size right. I think that any major economic entity cannot do without either contingency allowance or a forecast allowance. If you want to ask me questions about that later, I'd be happy to answer them.

How to pay for provincially important infrastructure? We were originally not going to answer this, but we got a note from our land use chairman last night and decided to address it anyway. We do not profess to have expertise in infrastructure. However, our membership is very concerned about the increase in sewage that is finding its way into the streams and other waters of our province — this, by the way, in spite of the very generous cost-sharing by both the province and the federal government in local infrastructure improvements.

The problem seems to be that when it comes to ratepayers actually paying for their share of the improvement, they're quite often reluctant, and they defeat capital proposals that have to do with sewage. That's such a critical problem. The sewage leakage into our water system is getting worse and worse and worse, and it's time to creatively do something about it.

Again, the province pays enough; the feds pay enough. We've just got to find some creative way to encourage the municipalities to get into the game. There are all kinds of schemes that you can think of in that respect, and I encourage the committee to look towards those.

As to other aspects, we would like to bring a whole slew of things to your attention. The first area is Forest Service recreation sites. I understand a representative in Kamloops gave you a brief on that. I won't repeat what he said, because he basically said what we wrote. But I would like to tell you once again that we are very much in favour of getting back to the $6-million-a-year funding or more as soon as possible.

Really, from our perspective, you don't need to wait until the next fiscal year, because the forest recreation sites are being degraded and damaged as we speak. We have said that consistently for the last four or five years. As my colleague probably told you, they are of such valuable use to a whole range of community people that it really is something that, if we have a surplus, we should put the money into.

We think that the government should promote recreational fishing. It's an incredibly healthful activity. The best way to do that is to assist non-governmental organizations that are engaged in encouraging fishing experiences. The problem with non-governmental organizations like us is that we depend so heavily on donations and the efforts of volunteers that we sometimes can't realize the objectives that we really want to. For only a little bit more seed funding, we could have the proper coordination to do a way better job.

The programs that I'm talking about are the Family Fishing Weekend, which could use an infusion of cash to make it even better than it is now. Fishing Forever, which in case you don't know, is a program to help disabled and special needs folks experience fishing…. This is very emotional when you go and see it. It's community-supported.

Becoming an Outdoors-Woman program is a program of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. If only we could give more scholarships or allow people to take them for free, we could hold classes of hundreds ten times yearly. As it is, we're down to one. We're only able to entertain 50 women a year. It's absolutely marvellous what an impact it has on their lives in terms of being able to enjoy the outdoors in the future. Pathways to Fishing is a B.C. Federation of Drift Fishers program; it's also very good. We're not just shilling for ourselves, but other organizations deserve support as well.

Another area that we feel you could productively employ any surplus is the promoting of hunting — hunting recruitment. There has been a steady decline for the past 20 years in the number of hunters. We're down to 88,000 or 89,000. You should know that the Ministry of Environment has as a service objective to get that back up to 100,000 hunters a year. Hunting, you should know, is also a critical part of wildlife management. It's probably the cheapest way to get much of the wildlife population adjustment done. It's an area which I think the government needs to get back into promoting, along with other outdoor activities.

By the way, in this respect we are far, far behind Quebec and Ontario, which have very effective hunting opportunity publicity programs that are very, very beneficial to the communities where these activities take place. Some small communities depend entirely, or to a huge extent, on hunting or fishing activities — Spences Bridge comes to mind. You know how critical the steelhead catch-and-release program is to Spences Bridge, and there are a lot of other communities like that in this province.

We would really like it if you folks in government would support continuation and extension of the B.C. conservation corps program. This is one of the best things that has happened in a long time. I think there should be bipartisan support for it. This program was rushed into operation in May, and in spite of some really serious challenges in the startup, it has been incredibly well managed by the Ministry of Environment

I don't know if you folks know if or not, but the B.C. Wildlife Federation founded the B.C. Conservation Foundation. They are a very important ally organization of ours, and they have done an absolutely remarkable job of meeting all of their objectives. There have been 153 kids receiving four months to nine months now of direct, practical experience in environmental work. This means that the kids get experience not just on the ground but in relation to the communities. It's practical. It's not dramatically ideological. It's not internationally directed. It's directed from our own communities.

The end result is that if we manage to do more of this, a number of groups will benefit in terms of getting well-experienced, well-skilled…. I shouldn't say "kids," because it's not just kids who are in this program. It's adults as well. But what we will get is experienced people who become available to the Ministry of Environment, who are having trouble finding experienced people and getting people interested in careers with the ministry.

There is a dramatic need among NGOs. I just hired an administrative assistant. I don't know how I lucked out, but she happens to be a biology grad. She's not an RPBio. I imagine that as soon as she gets her RPBio, she'll be gone. Finding a biology grad, an RPBio, is like gold. It's hard to develop them, and the more programs you can generate to produce more, all the better.

It isn't just NGO and government. It's private-sector industry that desperately needs…. We've got all the capital programs going on. I know Ivar was involved in a couple of them. All the highway environmental mitigation programs require the services of these kinds of people. They cannot be found. What we are suggesting is that the B.C. conservation corps program…. It is funded at $3 million a year for three years. We would respectfully suggest that that should at least double, and double in perpetuity. We really, really need this ongoing effort and investment in human capital and human skill to enable us to realize maximum return on our natural capital in this province.

We would also like to find some funding for the treaty-related advisory committee, such as the Vancouver Island Region Wildlife Management Society. That's a place where stakeholders and first nations combine together. It's actually really neat, because the issue of wildlife values and fish values and habitat values get discussed with people who really revere those values. What you get is, also, a sense of comfort developing between the various stakeholders, which is good for us in the long run. Any financial support that you folks can lend to that…. We absolutely think you should support it.

I'd just like to quickly mention the issue of alternate users of Crown land. We anglers and hunters have accepted the user-pay principle. We pay and pay and pay. We support the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund. We do not begrudge that, by the way, because we believe in supporting the environment. It's good for the environment, good for our wildlife, good for fish, good for us.

However, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are not paying their fair share. There are ATV recreational users who are tootling through the woods developing great big giant ruches going back and forth, back and forth. They're not paying. Mountain bikers, of which I am one, are not paying. Other kayakers are not paying. It's time for someone else to belly up and also help pay. When anglers and hunters have accepted and are responsible contributors, it is time for others to be the same.

I have left quite a large brief with you. I invite you to contact me directly if you have any questions. I understand that on the 21st I have another time slot. I will come back to emphasize some things that we didn't have a chance to mention here.

I want you to know that the B.C. Wildlife Federation is a solutions-oriented, non-partisan organization. We invite you to contact us, and we'll do our level best to help you towards what we think is the most important issue, which is a healthy environment.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you very much, Tony. Are there any questions from members of the committee this evening?

J. Kwan: One very quick question. Do you have a dollar figure attached to the requests for the programs and initiatives?

T. Toth: I do have. I don't have them here. But in answer to your question, it's in the order of a cumulative $500,000.

T. Toth: No, not all the initiatives. I can cost them for you. We have them costed.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Seeing no further questions, Tony, I want to thank you for taking the time to come and present to our committee here this evening.

We're going to move on to our next presentation this evening. It comes to us from the University of British Columbia students union, Okanagan. Joining us tonight are Heather Cook and Rob Nagai. Good evening and welcome to the committee.

My name is Heather Cook, and I am currently elected as the external coordinator at the University of British Columbia Okanagan students union. Today I'll speak to you about the budget priorities of Okanagan students in post-secondary education. First of all, I'd like to thank you on behalf of 3,500 students at the University of British Columbia Okanagan, and 4,200 students at the new Okanagan College, for meeting with us and allowing us to voice our recommendations on the province's budget priorities.

Tuition fees for students in the Okanagan have changed significantly over the last four years. In 2001 a student would have paid on average $1,400 a year. This year at UBCO, students are paying close to $4,000 for a full course load. Tuition fees are the number-one barrier to accessing post-secondary education. Statistics Canada has done several studies that support this fact. In one study, 70 percent of young people said that financial barriers prevent them from attending post-secondary institutions. As well, a similar percentage had to drop out because of financial pressures.

Okanagan College was one of the few institutions to reduce tuition fees in 2005-2006, which has in turn increased accessibility for this academic year. The college met higher full-time-equivalent numbers than the UBCO counterpart in the Okanagan. In saying that, I should mention that over the past four years the outlying campuses for the Okanagan colleges — Vernon, Penticton and Salmon Arm — have decreased their enrolment.

We must continue to make sure that the community college system remains accessible and affordable in British Columbia. Now is the time for the government to reverse these trends, reduce tuition fees and therefore improve overall access to post-secondary education in B.C.

At the federal level, the Liberal government has acknowledged that tuition fees are a barrier to access. After years of cuts to the Canada health and social transfer and post-secondary student loan program, the federal government has realized it can no longer starve Canada's public post-secondary institutions. By passing the federal budget amendment, including $1.5 billion to be earmarked to the provinces to reduce tuition fees for all students, the federal Liberals have shown a renewed commitment to public post-secondary education.

In a move to encourage higher literacy rates and more access to adult basic education, fees were dropped for anyone returning to school who did not have a high-school equivalency, also known as a Dogwood. While ABE was free in British Columbia in the late 1990s, the deregulation of tuition fees allowed for the charging of ABE — or adult basic education — tuition fees of up to $100 per credit at many institutions. To put it into context, that means that a student enrolled in a grade 12 English class would pay over $300 for their course.

Currently, ABE student courses are now tuition-free at Okanagan College for those without a Dogwood. But with other institutions now charging fees, ABE students need better assurance that these courses will stay free. ABE programs are so important for ensuring that the students who have the least amount of education are able to access the B.C. post-secondary system. ABE allows for students to graduate from high school in an environment more suitable to adult academic learners than a high school. It also allows mature students to upgrade their education to get necessary prerequisites before entering a program — for example, nursing. We need to continue this avenue of education and reduce all fees for those in need of adult basic education.

In 2004, B.C. grants were eliminated from the B.C. student loan program, and tuition fees still went up that year, driving higher student-debt averages in British Columbia. Average students in Canada graduate with over $25,000 in debt.

Okanagan students who started their degree and were counting on the grants to give them some help in paying their tuition fees were stuck with the bill for the budget cuts, and now they're graduating with higher debt. This makes it more difficult to plan for the future — and I'm sure if you have kids, it's harder for them as well — creating higher uncertainty around the decision to start or even finish one's post-secondary degree. It will affect their choices, whether they can afford to stay in their community or have to move out of town or even out of province.

The burden of student debt dictates where one must go to find work. Many students in B.C.'s heartland are forced to move to the coast, or even Alberta, to find work. The new loan reduction program, while altruistic in nature, will not give as much help for students in paying their upfront costs, nor will it be as effective at reducing overall student debt.

Financial assistance is more than a reward system. It was created as a way to ensure that British Columbians would be able to pursue an education regardless of their financial situation. An upfront grant gives students money to offset the costs of fees, books, rent and other living necessities essential to their success at school and ensures that they will not be saddled with debt later. Current loan reduction programs provide no stability, and students who qualify for the reduction do not learn what the amount of the reduction is until after the fact.

If more students qualify, then unless the amount budgeted for the reduction increases, the reduction will be smaller. A small investment by the province in giving assistance in the form of upfront grants will help to reduce student debt and help people promote fully in the economy after graduation.

In 2001 operating grants from the province covered, on average, about 70 percent of the cost of private student education. Last year that number averaged closer to 50 to 60 percent. The exact ratio varies slightly from institution to institution, but provincial funding has dropped on a per-student basis, and students are burdened with the difference through their increased tuition fees.

The only way the province can ensure that the per-student funding will improve is if the post-secondary institutions receive a corresponding funding increase as seats are added. Tuition fee increases have paid for government cuts and helped government meet its seat-growth targets. They haven't improved quality. They have decreased access and traded quality.

Adding seats in B.C.'s institutions is great, but it won't help students if the seats are empty because they're unaffordable for average British Columbians. Higher tuition fees have not made our education higher in quality. The quality of education provided by universities is a function of the resources available to do the job. The total resources currently available to the universities through government operating grants are insufficient to provide the highest quality of education.

As well, an increase in per-student funding means that the province will be able to provide better education in those sectors that have a high need for skilled workers, such as in trades, nursing or applied sciences. These courses may cost more than the average to provide, as there is a need for up-to-date equipment for students to be able to learn their practical skills.

Increased per-student funding will allow institutions to offer these courses without jeopardizing the quality of education or the accessibility to students of all financial backgrounds. This is important because nearly three-quarters of all jobs being created in Canada right now require some kind of post-secondary education. As we move towards the 2010 Olympics, we will need more and more skilled individuals to drive the B.C. economy.

The first recommendation to the committee is for the province to use next year's budget to reduce tuition fees and make post-secondary education accessible for everyone in British Columbia, regardless of their financial circumstances. Regardless of whether they're thinking about post-secondary education in the future or are already studying, this will show a commitment to post-secondary as a priority for this government.

The second recommendation is that the province needs to eliminate adult basic education fees again and ensure that funding is provided to the institutions that provide ABE to pay for the cost of offering these courses.

The third recommendation — there's a lot of them — is that the province needs to do more to assist those students with financial needs to pursue their education and pay for the costs related to this pursuit.

The fourth is for the B.C. government to use the province's entire portion of the budget amendment to begin tuition fee reductions starting in September 2006.

To wrap it up, there's no greater pursuit than the pursuit of learning. Students who choose to pursue their dreams will give back a hundredfold to their home, community and British Columbia. In short, create a plan to completely reduce all tuition fees, increase funding, increase financial aid and make public post-secondary education the priority that it should be in this province.

As well, if you have enough time, I think that the tolls on the Coquihalla Highway can be a little bit less, and students will love you for that too.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): All right. Well, thank you very much, Heather and Rob, for coming out to present to us. I'm going to look to members of the committee to see if they have any questions regarding your presentation.

J. Kwan: Do you have any suggestions as to what percentage the tuition fee should be reduced, to start off with? I know the ultimate goal is to have no tuition at all, but do you have any suggestions as to where the beginning should be?

H. Cook: I think we should have, first of all, a legislated reduction. So any decrease is good enough for right now — but progressively to no tuition fees at all, I would say.

R. Nagai: I think the move back to regulation of tuition fees, with the start on the cap to inflation, is a start. It's a recognition by the government that something has gone very amiss in the last four years since 2001 — the deregulation of fees.

Basically, it's kind of been skyrocketing. I was going to UBC in Vancouver at the time, and I'd experienced the tuition freeze for about three years. In my last two years, of course, the classrooms were the same, the teaching was the same, but definitely the cost was a little higher on the bankroll.

I think the portion of amount that students are paying now is close to $900 million in tuition fees, and that's double since 2001. I think that what needs to be created is a plan to look at how tuition fees can be reduced. Start with a small percentage, and a five-year plan where it moves to a larger one. Any student who enters post-secondary within those five years will know exactly what their tuition fees are going to be by the end of that time. I think that's a start.

There are other ways it could be done. It could be done for people in their final year of study and then move toward the first year in increments. I think the government has to create a plan, and the government has to look at that pretty soon, because I really do think we're at the point where there is a crisis. I do believe enrolment has dropped in the province. I think two years ago was the highest graduating class ever, and a lot of those people have looked for opportunities elsewhere, unfortunately.

H. Cook: Especially at UBCO. We have a 15-percent decrease in enrolment from what was targeted. It was supposed to be about 4,200, I think, and it's now 3,500. Actually, it was supposed to be 4,000.

R. Nagai: I think the projections for UBC Okanagan are largely amiss. I don't think they're going to be meeting the projections for the next three years. I'd be surprised if they did, which is sad, because I think it's a great institution. Unfortunately, I also don't think it's moving up to the kind of spaces that were set for it. It just doesn't have the infrastructure to support 4,200 students. The services are getting there, but they're not there yet.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, possibly I could end with the last question. You spoke about student grants and the issue there as far as financial aid. When you talk about it, are you referring to all students, or would you focus on low-income individuals? Have you got a position on that?

H. Cook: We're focused mostly on low-income students, but across the board I think every student needs financial aid in some way or another. I think reducing tuition fees can almost eliminate the barriers to that.

Heather and Rob, I want to thank you for taking the time to come and present your presentation this evening to our committee.

It's a little out of time and out of the schedule the way it's set up, Chris, but you're with us this evening and certainly fit into the schedule well at this point.

C. Aikman: First of all, thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the select standing committee, for allowing me to present to you tonight. I'm going to talk about building your renewable future for British Columbia.

I should say that I'm just speaking as a private citizen. I have no particular expertise in this field. I'm not an engineer. I do have a professional background in astronomy and astrophysics. I worked for the National Research Council of Canada for 29 years, and that has something to do with energy but on a more cosmic scale.

The information in my brief to you is all drawn from public sources — books and Internet resources — and is open to anyone. However, I should warn you that my request to you is probably several orders of magnitude beyond the other requests you might receive. What I'm suggesting is that the province should invest, through B.C. Hydro and other Crown agencies, an amount in the order of $5 billion over the next decade to ensure that we do have an energy future that is truly sustainable.

I think we're all aware that the world is undergoing an energy crisis. Petroleum, which has driven our economy very strongly for the last century, is probably near the peak of world oil production now. It will be astonishing — and it's almost a certainty, if any other outcome happens…. We are facing a decreasing oil supply of about 5 percent a year a decade from now. This affects every aspect of our life and the whole planet, because approximately 85 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuel resources — 40 percent of that from petroleum alone. Use of petroleum has outpaced discovery of those resources every year for the last 25 years. We can't expect future discoveries, whatever they be, to be significantly changing that outcome.

We do have options, and it's important that we exercise those options now. Every day the Earth receives from the sun about 17,000 times more energy than all human activity uses, so if we can capture just N\z,/// of 1 percent of that energy, we can solve the energy problem for all people. No jurisdiction is in a better position to do that, I would submit, than British Columbia because we have such diverse and abundant renewable resources in the form of wind and run-of-river flow. We have high mountains and lots of rain. Tidal generating stations would be possible because we have some of the fastest-flowing salt water on the planet between Vancouver Island and the mainland.

I recommend to you the five books given in my bibliography that detail these concerns. I won't dwell on them more. They're all becoming public knowledge and are, I think, fairly well-established facts.

In order to draw upon our renewable energy resources, we face one particular problem. All of them are more or less intermittent. The wind doesn't always blow. Small streams do not always flow, or their flow fluctuates wildly. Tide does not always flow. So the approach up to the present time has been that if we're going to have these renewable energy supplies to generate electricity, we must also build some backup system, which is usually fossil fuel–based and which only increases our dependence on fossil fuels and doesn't solve the problem.

To enter into the realm of renewable energy, we have to have some way of storing that energy. One proposed method, of course, is a hydrogen-driven fuel. Hydrogen is not a fuel in and of itself. It's just a way of storing energy. There are many technical problems about that, which I won't begin to go into, and it may or may not ever come into being.

One of the simplest and most effective ways to store energy generated by electricity would be to pump water uphill into a reservoir so that when you do need that power, it can flow downhill again. In British Columbia we have an abundance of hills and lots of reservoirs at high altitudes. We might think there's an even simpler solution, which is to optimize the use of those reservoirs already existing in the Peace River watershed, in the Columbia River watershed and in the Nechako basin, which already are there and are being harnessed for hydroelectricity but are perhaps not being used in an appropriate manner.

Let's look at the Peace River's Site C as an example. The ideal system would have a series of reservoirs so that you could draw water down from one reservoir to

the next to the next. If three power stations were in existence on the Peace River — the existing ones at the W.A.C. Bennett Dam from Wilson Lake and the Peace Canyon Dam, and the proposed Site C to be located near Fort St. John — one would be able to do this very systematically and draw on water supplies to generate electricity virtually at the turn of a tap. It would be very, very simple.

The Site C project has been on the books for almost three decades. It's well conceived. It does have a few environmental complications, but very few compared to the problems of, for example, oil prospecting, offshore oil exploration — any fossil fuel use you can think of.

It may have, in fact, some beneficial side effects. It would moderate the temperatures of the surrounding farmland. It would probably increase the productivity of the farmland around it. It would certainly benefit downstream flow if it were handled properly, which has been a major environmental problem of the Bennett Dam — that it interrupted the natural seasonal flow down the Peace River. One could control that in a much more natural manner if one had the Site C project in addition.

We have gotten this mindset, over the last couple of decades, against megaprojects and against flooding valleys. I'd like to point out that there's quite a difference once you cross over the Rockies. Most of British Columbia — all of our fertile land — is concentrated in those two valley bottoms, which are very, very precious to us. We hesitate, with good reason, to flood them. Once you cross over the Rockies, however, you have good soil everywhere — deep soil. The only thing that is limiting the productivity of the farmland is the temperature. These reasons which we've built up in our minds for not building large hydroelectric projects really don't apply in this case. The cost of this project is about $2 billion, or $1.9 billion in 2003 dollars. It's well documented in B.C. Hydro's material that you can find on line.

A second very, very valuable resource would be the Nechako watershed, which currently feeds the Kemano power station operated by Alcan. It was built during the 1950s, and of course, it produces aluminum for the smelter at Kitimat. It was developed then because there was no other demand for the electricity, and it seemed an ideal solution. It produces about 896 megawatts of power, about the same as the Peace River Site C would, but it is the most superb condition imaginable for storing on-demand power that you can then manage the supply of. Basically, the water drops 800 metres from the high plateau down to almost sea level. It goes almost directly into the ocean, so you do not have problems of flooding the downriver area or it going dry, which is important if you have a fishery downstream.

It is probably the ideal situation on this planet for having an on-demand power supply. Therefore, I'm making the rather startling suggestion that it really should be purchased by B.C. Hydro and placed under its management, so that it can be used in the most efficient manner. There are a number of reasons discussed in my brief that surround that, and I'll let you look at those at your leisure.

If you look at some of the other existing power stations — for example, the Revelstoke dam on the Columbia system — when you look at the dam you can see there are six penstocks coming down for the six generators that were to be built. Only four were ever installed; two of them stop. It would not increase the overall production of the generating station to have six instead of four because you are limited by the flow of the river, but it would allow a lot more fluctuation in the amount of power you could produce at any time. I suggest there are a number of projects already built around the province that need completion, which would allow better management of supply.

Once these facilities are made, then we can open the door fully to renewable energy with its fluctuating supply. For example, there's a proposal that's been sitting on the shelf for a couple of years now to build a wind farm at the north end of Vancouver Island that would supply at peak production — certainly not every day, but at peak production — about half the power of Kemano, for example, or Site C. There are many other locations and projects that are possible, and Hydro has not been able to pursue these successfully so far, because it is strapped by having to produce a steady supply and is not able to deal with a fluctuating supply that renewables would provide. That's what I think we need to change.

I don't see this as a political issue of being privatization or public resource or whatever. There is a place in the province for both public and private power. I think most citizens overwhelmingly want to keep the control of this system and have the system operate as a public body, but many of these new projects that would involve small streams or new technology like wind turbines, and so on, would be very appropriately managed by private companies under contract with B.C. Hydro.

In summary, I would like to suggest that there are at least three key steps to managing electrical generation. One would be the Site C power project which has been talked about for so long, the addition of the Kemano power station to the B.C. Hydro system, and completion of Revelstoke dam and other similar projects to allow their full capacity. Then, of course, the important fourth step would be to provide a prominent role for the other forms of renewable energy that are so possible should we choose to build them.

L. Krog: Firstly, I want to thank you for making this presentation privately. I gather from your remarks you're not supported by any group, and it's a very intelligent presentation. I was going to ask you if you'd

read Heinberg's book The Party's Over, and it's in your bibliography. I've been much influenced by that.

C. Aikman: It's a startling book, and I certainly recommend it to anyone. I'm just reading part of it now. I've read his other book, Powerdown.

L. Krog: I encourage you to continue to pursue this. Energy and water are what this century is going to be about. British Columbia has a unique opportunity to deal with some of the things that have been advocated here before this committee — and I want this on the record, Mr. Chair; obviously, that's why I'm speaking — around high-tech industries all requiring a steady supply of power. I see your residence is Comox?

L. Krog: I'm just delighted tonight that you have travelled this far to this committee to make these remarks. Thank you, sir.

C. Aikman: I'm sure one could argue that Kemano was already producing power; why should we want to bring it into the B.C. Hydro system? If I may draw an analogy, say, with music…. It's already a power-generating station; why change it? A fiddle and a violin are the same instrument, yet they're played very, very differently. I think Kemano power station, as it is presently, is designed or at least operated to be producing a very steady supply of power for…. That's what's required for smelting aluminum.

It has such an incredible ability to do just the opposite of turning it off, turning it on. You can still control down-river flow, which, of course, has been a big issue in the Nechako river system. You can draw on that power with a great deal of dexterity, so it's more like having a violin in a symphony that can work in concert with all the other resources that you have but has to be under the direction of a single director, which would be B.C. Hydro, and operated to work in concert with the other instruments of electrical generation.

R. Lee: Yeah, this is a very detailed presentation. Of course, for other alternative energy, for example, producing hydrogen from water and that kind of thing, it's the efficiency. Also, on wind power, it's the efficiency question on how much material you use to produce one kilowatt of power in the long term. In the future do you foresee any gain in efficiency, for example, in wind power technology?

C. Aikman: With the hydrogen, I'm not an expert, but I don't think it's going to be possible, because generating hydrogen from electricity is very inefficient. Most of it goes into producing heat. Wind-capturing can be fairly efficient. The problem is that wind is everywhere. It's so diffuse, so you'd have to build a lot of wind-generating farms to really capture it fully. Start with a good place where it's windy a good deal of the time, and we're well underway.

C. Aikman: Yes, actually, during the last energy crisis in the 1970s the National Research Council built a demonstration wind-generating plant just by the southern tip of Vancouver Island where the wind blows quite a bit. B.C. Hydro wasn't interested, and eventually it died from lack of interest. But wind turbines have come quite a long way, and I think they're very efficient now. They don't present any real problems to birds, for example, or noise or anything. They do have a fairly long design lifetime and are fairly highly efficient. It's just that you need a lot of them spread over a large area.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, Chris, on behalf of the committee, I want to thank you for your presentation. You have certainly put some interesting ideas forward for consideration. It is something that, as Leonard said earlier, is going to be for the future in British Columbia and certainly all of Canada — a major issue that we have to pursue and look for opportunities in. I thank you for your input.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Our next presentation this evening comes to us from the New Car Dealers Association of B.C., Mr. Norm Assam.

My name is Norm Assam, and I'm here today representing the New Car Dealers of British Columbia. I took my tie off, because I see that some of you are casual, and it's a little more fun that way.

First and foremost I'd like to thank the committee and the members for visiting our community to hear the priorities that matter to the people here. Thank you.

The new vehicle retail industry in British Columbia is the 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 the government over $1.5 billion — that's $1½ billion — in provincial sales tax revenue every year. We're active in our communities. We sponsor sports teams. 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. First of all, a strong economy and a stronger consumer confidence are both critical to the success of our industry. We're very happy

with the emphasis that this government has placed on restoring a strong, vibrant, private sector economy in British Columbia. Low personal income taxes, cuts to small business and corporate tax rates, and improvements to the Labour Code and employment standards benefit us directly as new car dealers. More importantly, they benefit our customers.

We're pleased that the provincial government has 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 British Columbia are embracing and leading this change. We are 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 our future skilled-labour needs, which are considerable.

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

With all of that said, we still have a number of official, critically important issues that negatively affect our industry and, most importantly, B.C. consumers.

Provincial sales tax. The 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 regulations can vary from region to region.

In the automotive sector, this is particularly evident in the case of shop supplies, with an ongoing dispute over which items are taxable and which items are not taxable. Our position is easy: all supplies are taxable when used on vehicle repair and sold to the customer, 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 large 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 the government an important service by acting as tax collectors. This has been a major, ongoing problem for our industry and many others, and it is the single greatest policy irritant our members have today with the provincial government.

Consumers in British Columbia are not asked to pay a luxury tax on any item other than automobiles. This tax is unfair. It 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 both at work and as a primary vehicle in rural British Columbia, and to raise the threshold on other vehicles to a more realistic level.

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

We believe the government should encourage consumers to trade their used vehicles in to new vehicle 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 market in the marketplace.

Creating a financial benefit for consumers to move from older to newer vehicles also means that B.C. families are driving safer and more environmentally responsible vehicles. The 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.

Our message to you is simple: when it comes to the issue 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. Make the purchase and lease of a new vehicle more fair for consumers by eliminating the luxury tax and extending the trade-in tax credit to leased vehicles.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you, Norm. Are there any questions from members of the committee this evening?

L. Krog: Only to say this. Thank you for coming. We have heard a similar presentation, so if we don't ask questions, don't take it personally. You've had a very effective lobby. Those of us in the opposition caucus met with the auto dealers — I guess it was about two or three weeks ago — and I must say it was a very compelling presentation as well. Thank you.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Seeing no further questions, Norm, again, thank you for taking time.

Our next presentation this evening comes to us from the Penticton and District Community Resources Society. Joining us this evening is Kim Lyster.

K. Lyster: I'm the executive director of the Penticton and District Community Resources Society. We're a non-profit organization. We're accredited. We have over 40 years of service to the community, and I work for a non-profit board of directors who come from the community, so I really feel that we are a grass-roots organization.

The scope of our services is very broad. We serve the whole South Okanagan–Similkameen, all the way from Summerland to Princeton over to Oliver, Osoyoos, Keremeos and Cawston. We cover a rural and urban area, and that's somewhat unique in terms of the challenges facing a social service agency. Our services are provided to children, youth, families, adults and children with developmental disabilities, seniors, and aboriginal persons. We provide innovative programs in food security. We look after issues around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. We run the handyDART. We provide information referral services. We really try and respond to community needs. I think we've been really innovative.

Our sources of funding are quite varied. They include the Ministry of Attorney General, the school district and the health authority, and a significant portion of our funding comes from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We've had a long service working in partnership with all these different funders. We also fundraise. We're members of the United Way. We apply for grants. It's the story of the non-profit sector.

Most of the issues I want to raise tonight reflect our relationship with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I sit on the board of the Federation of Child and Family Services. I'm also a member of the B.C. Association for Community Living. We're a member of the B.C. Child Care Advocacy Association, First Call, a number of organizations that advance the cause of children and families.

One of the primary concerns that faces us is stability — stability to be able to be in partnership with government. We have not had any increases in our budgets for almost ten years. They are not negotiated with us. They simply arrive in the mail as a contract modification, and we're asked to sign it. We do the work of government, but we do not have the opportunity to ever negotiate our contract, except if we don't like the amount, and then it's offered to somebody else.

Our relationship with government is very significant in that the services we provide meet the tenets of government: they are effective, they are efficient, and they are accountable. We are accredited by the Council on Accreditation, which is an international accreditation body. It testifies that our services meet international standards.

We've watched government reorganization, particularly in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. We haven't seen significant improvements, but we've borne the brunt. Services have been cut. Our budgets have been cut. We are often the first line of prevention in the services that we provide, yet ironically, some of our most effective services have been the ones that have been cut.

We ran a family centre that supported some of the poorest families in our communities. The service we provided those families often prevented the children from going into care. When that budget was cut — and it was a lousy $20,000 — we were told the reason it was cut was because it was likely we could fundraise for the money. We ran an after-school program for children ages five to 12. That money was cut as well. There was no explanation offered except that it was going to the aboriginal authority. Yet the services provided by the aboriginal authority have not yet been developed in our community, nor will they necessarily encompass the people we're serving. And we serve aboriginal children.

There are gaps emerging. There is a crisis in the community. We're seeing more poor people, more families in distress, yet the preventative role we try and play is not funded. The response of agencies likes ours and my sister agencies up and down the valley is to get more into fundraising. To continue to provide services at a level comparable to what has been provided, we have to try and negotiate a service reduction, which is very difficult; form partnerships with other agencies, which we've done; or diversify the range of funding sources and services provided to try and stay alive. It's a challenge facing the volunteer sector that leads our organization, and it's becoming difficult to recruit volunteers as a consequence.

One of the other things that we're seeing in our community that's related to the services we provide, that's related to government cuts, is the increase in youth addiction. It's happening all over the province, but it's certainly happening in our communities — in the rural and urban communities. It's not just meth. It's other things. There are grow ops all over the area.

A lot of these kids are struggling with addiction as a consequence of other issues in their homes. They're homeless, or they're living under youth agreements, or they're victims of abuse, or they're victims of sexual exploitation. The issue of youth addiction is very complex. Part of the challenge in considering funding it is to work with partner agencies like ours and say: "Okay, what's the issue? What's the real issue, or what's the complexity of the issue?" and work on an interministerial basis to tackle what the response might be.

Another significant issue, and an example of this, is child and youth mental health. We finally got an adolescent psychiatric unit in Kelowna. That's a magnificent achievement, because we haven't had the resource, but there are no step-up or step-down services to either prevent a child going into the psychiatric unit or to respond when they're discharged. If you work with community agencies, you have a better chance of that investment having successful outcomes because you're developing a broader range of services. That's not happening in the budget planning.

Another area that our agency participates in providing service to the community in is child care. We provide a range of child care services. We provide an infant-toddler centre on the grounds of our high school that supports young parents to stay in school. We pro-

vide preschool programs. We often meet children there who present with global delays. We respond by helping them prepare to get ready for school, and then we provide after-school programs.

The recent injection of funding into the child care initiatives in this province is very promising, but it doesn't tackle the issue of children aged six to 12 at all. There is no money going there, yet those children need care. They really need care.

Child care workers are historically poorly paid. It's very difficult to retain staff. They're not treated as professionals. We need to start injecting funding into the post-secondary institutions to support them in the development of their professional credentials and to keep them. We also need to provide sufficient operational funding to sustain the viability of child care centres. The improvement in subsidies will help, but it won't be enough, especially for the six-to-12 age group.

Another area that remains unattended in any significant way in terms of budget planning is the issue of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. They're everybody's problem but no one's responsibility. Community Living B.C. hasn't taken them under their wing because of the IQ issue, nor has any other branch of government, yet there are at least three in 1,000 born with some aspect of the spectrum disorder. They cost millions to support. A lot of the young men end up in jail, and a lot of the women end up on the street, but no one is taking responsibility for that. While there are some interesting prevention initiatives being supported by the government, the real crunch comes down to intervention. Right now it's not being tackled at all in terms of budget considerations.

If a person is lucky enough to have an IQ of under 70, they can fall under the services of community living and now the new authority with Community Living B.C., which we contract with. If they don't, there's no place for them, and they're going to cost the system one way or the other. The reality is we have to address that in terms of planning and in terms of budget allocation. It's really a significant issue.

The other area we're challenged by in terms of providing service is in our relationship to the funding of the collective agreements. I have a portion of my staff that are unionized, yet I don't participate in any of the bargaining or the decisions associated with whether or not the collective agreement is funded adequately. This last collective agreement included a 1 percent increase on the last day of the collective agreement that I'm not funded for. Against the challenges already facing me with my budget planning, I don't know where I'm going to find that 1 percent that I didn't negotiate.

The other thing that's interesting about our sector is not just the service that we provide to children, youth and families but also that we're employers. I have over a hundred staff. I'm a significant employer in my community, so the stability of my organization contributes to the economic stability of my community. If you keep me around, I keep my staff around.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thanks very much, Kim. I would look to members of the committee to see if they do have questions. I see some.

G. Hogg: Kim, can you talk to us a little bit about the reorganization that you've done in the valley with other service providers, and fiscally, what that has gained you and what type of need you see now to get to…? You're accredited through a co-op, so if you are to meet accredited levels of service, what type of financial impact would that have for your organization?

K. Lyster: One of the things that we've done to effect some financial efficiencies in our organization is working in partnership with other accredited organizations. We looked at information technology systems and collaborated on that. We also needed to do a financial upgrade in doing some of the reporting responsibilities associated with our contracting relationship, so we collaborated on payroll and an accounting upgrade with another organization. We shared a common server. That was an example of innovation, and it saved us both a lot of money.

The challenge facing agencies both in getting accredited and staying accredited is that it involves significant information technology improvements, usually in organizations, and those don't come cheap. We had to install an information technology system, and we had to implement different kinds of management throughout the organization to stay accredited. The financial implications of that were that it cost us, probably…. It was an extensive process, but it probably cost us a quarter of a million dollars to get accredited. That wasn't funded, yet it was a condition of retaining our contractual relationship with government, so it seemed an odd kind of process.

While the site visit and the cost of bringing the accredited team was funded by government, none of the costs associated with getting there were. That was, in a big organization like ours, not an insignificant challenge. We continue to look for ways to partner, because it's one of my sort of bottom lines. If it takes a community to raise a child, it might take several communities to hold this together, so I partner because that's one of my commitments, but we've also done it for efficiencies.

We don't want to participate in amalgamations or mergers, which some people have ended up being involved in, because there's a certain distinction between the south Okanagan-Similkameen and the central Okanagan, but where we can, we do collaborate. I hope that answered your question.

J. Kwan: I'm only allowed to ask one question, so I'm going to bridge my question — one question into a long one. You mentioned many aspects that would be important in terms of supports in our system, particularly for the people who are most vulnerable in many

ways. You talked about the issue around youth addiction and the increase in youth addiction.

I'd like to just probe that a little bit in terms of what thoughts you might have on what would be important government initiatives to address the issue around youth addiction. And then, related to that piece but to all the other pieces you have itemized, as well, and brought to our attention, do you have anything that is perhaps a little bit more detailed around each of those components and what actions you are looking for government to undertake? Are we talking about bringing budgets back to where they were, in some cases where there were no initiatives and new programs needed to be put in place? What's the startup cost, for example? Just some pieces of it, to give us a sense of how much, and where one would begin.

K. Lyster: …but I have a couple of ideas. With the issue of youth addiction, one of the challenges we face in the Okanagan is that there is not enough in the way of preventative services, nor is there any place for kids to go to detox that is close to home. So the challenge is: how do you get out of the cycle?

The other struggle that we're noticing in our agency…. We track all the critical incidents, and most of them aren't necessarily a reflection of any action on the part of our staff; it's more a consequence of being in contact with a youth. They disclose something, and then we report it as a critical incident. A youth will report physical abuse or emotional abuse or whatever. We're finding that families are pretty frayed around the edges, so children end up being alienated at a variety of ages within the family structure and look to other bodies or peers or sources, like drugs or alcohol, to deal with the pain.

We also provide the sexual abuse treatment program in our organization, and the children that you see as victims there are often children who are witnessing violence in their homes. They're witnessing other kinds of activities in the homes that are contributing to the destruction of their spirit.

I think that part of what we need to do is look at how we prevent addiction, how we stabilize families, how we support families to be successful in their parenting. I really believe that parents want to do a good job. The trouble is that they're struggling with underemployment or unemployment. They're struggling with insufficient or transient housing. They're struggling with how to cope with a changing world. They may be struggling with literacy issues. So it's part of shoring up the variety of supports that enable a family to be successful.

In terms of specific actions, one of the recommendations I can make is that a group like the Federation of Child and Family Services be tasked with taking a look at a series of issues and then a series of actions in corresponding kinds of either existing programs or enhanced programs that would respond to that so that there could be sort of targeted dollar values. I think that some of the programs that were really successful disappeared, unfortunately, because there wasn't enough money. In the last few years there's been, you know, a sort of continuous reduction in budgets.

We were doing some of the right things. The problem is that we're not able to do them without adequate funding. And fundraising for wages is a fool's errand in an organization. It just doesn't work. You can't stabilize.

One of the things that was probably the most frustrating aspect of some of the messaging that occurred around the budget reductions was that it was coupled with a desire to return some of the responsibility for caring for children and youth back to community and to really promote volunteerism, which in and of itself is not a bad idea. The problem is that a lot of the specialized services can't rely on volunteers.

People don't have that level of expertise, and they're not going to make that kind of commitment. I can't bring in a volunteer to do sexual abuse treatment counselling, nor can I bring in a volunteer to work with kids who are violent or displaying behaviour challenges or with adults in a group home who have complex medical needs. I can't use volunteers. While it's important that we use them, and we do, the reality is that some services have to be funded. I think that if we tasked, say, the federation, that would be a helpful process.

It seems that it's a very big organization, with a hundred staff under you, and….

R. Lee: What area…? If you had three wishes, which three would be your wishes to get more funding and resources?

K. Lyster: Child care. I'd like to see some improved funding in the area of child and youth mental health. I'd like to see some stability in the area of addressing wait-lists for people with developmental disabilities who are living at home with their families. There is a group of adults who are aging, along with their parents, and they've never seen the social service system. When their parents die, they're going to have needs, and that wait-list hasn't really been addressed.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, Kim, I want to thank you for your presentation. You've brought some very

interesting points to our committee, ones that we have heard from others. Prior to leaving, I want to thank you on behalf of our committee, on behalf of…. I think I can speak for government and opposition to say the work that you do isn't on behalf of government per se; it's on behalf of all British Columbians. So please, pass our gratitude on to the people you employ as well. It's an amazing job.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We are going to move…. We do have an open-mike guest who is with us. We are going to move to that. I believe the next presenter scheduled is still on their way. Is that correct? So at this time, I would like to call on Dr. Gary Randhawa.

G. Randhawa: Good evening, Mr. Chair, and members of the Select Standing Committee on Finance. Welcome to the sunny Okanagan. It was beautiful today. In fact, I was a little late in submitting my…. But I did put my points quickly, and you might have some of those.

What I would like…. In fact, I was amazed. I thought this is a finance committee and there will be very little about health or medicine, but everybody, I've found, is talking about the same issue. I have been a physician in this community for the last 17 years. I've seen some good changes and some bad ones. My issue is that sometimes there is investment, and that can pay big dividends, like an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. That's very true.

The Act Now campaign is a very good one. All the medical community will love it, but it takes time before it comes into the picture. I want to make sure that there are enough funds…. I talked to ADM Hazlewood, and funds are rather low, but I think we need more funding in the Act Now campaign or health and wellness areas, because whatever we put in now will pay big dividends in the long run.

The other issue I want to say is that people are aging, and so are health care providers. There is a fair bit of shortage of all kinds of health care providers — doctors, nurses or technicians. Certainly, we can get some as immigrants, but in the long run we have to produce our own.

I was amazed that a medical school opening was announced, but I heard now there could be some delay. I'm kind of concerned. We cannot afford to wait, and we need more medical schools. We need more doctors, nurses and technicians.

I think that in producing this labour force, health care is very, very important because baby-boomers are almost getting around 60 years of age. The longer we live, the more we get sick and the more we need care. We need a lot of people to take care of the sick and ailing population. I must say that we should make sure that we invest a lot in disease prevention.

How can we do it? Sometimes it's very easy. We put some programs, and they are very well understood by Caucasians because there's no language or cultural barrier. I belong to the East Indian community from where I came. I have trained partly in India, but I did my fellowship and my FRCPC and other things in Canada. I have found that the South Asian community….

All communities are important. Everyone is a VIP. They are all taxpayers. There is a fair bit done on aboriginals, very rightfully. It should be done, but some communities like South Asian and Orientals are kind of left out. They belong to different cultures. They're a different language. They don't understand sometimes, so they don't take advantage of very many measures.

I'm sure if you talk to my friend MLA Dave Hayer…. He belongs to that community, and he must have seen that they dress differently. They don't go to health clubs where they can do exercise, but we have seen in Vancouver when we put treadmills and exercise machines there, they just go for it. The incidence of diabetes is very high in our community — as much as aboriginals — and one has to do something, because these people will get sicker, and sometimes they do not seek help. That is the language issue and these cultural issues.

What I'm trying to say is that there are certain areas, whether it's the Oriental community or South Asian community or the Italian community or something, where we have found that if we put some chronic disease management areas in temples and other areas where they feel more comfortable, they certainly make use of it. This has improved very well in the lower mainland.

Probably some of you will know that some diseases are very, very common, like diabetes, hypertension and obesity. Many times we say, "Okay, don't eat hamburger," but somebody from the South Asian community says that he doesn't eat hamburger. He doesn't eat beef or meat, you know. We have to tell them that these fatty foods…. Sometimes they like some kinds of food that are very rich in fat.

There are different cultural areas, different areas like how to go for mammography, how many times to get Pap smears done. Due to these language barriers, sometimes they do not understand. What I need to say is that we need to put these education areas…. We have to invest some money in certain areas where they can understand in their own language, in their own context, in their own cultural area, that these things provided by government are important, that these things are available. Somehow they do not avail it.

I have seen that if you do flu vaccination in temples, they all show up there. Sometimes they don't line up. All I'm saying is don't do anything special, but certainly if something could be done in these areas and somebody can explain in their own language, these people…. The health guide must be published in Punjabi in other areas so they can understand which benefits they could use.

Apart from that, as I said, almost 10 percent to 15 percent of the population does not have a family doctor. So we need to produce more health care providers. The other thing that I want to stress a little bit is that we all agree that a public health care system is the best. Nothing can beat it, but sometimes if it's not available, if there are long waiting lists, public-private partnerships…. There is nothing wrong with this.

There is no developed country where health care is provided only by the public system. It's a very touchy issue for politicians, but as health care providers, we see that we need money, whether it's a federal-provincial, a public-private or a private-public partnership. Somehow we need to access every area so that we can help reduce long waiting lists.

As I gave you, in written almost…. All I want to say is that at this stage there are certain important issues. People need to be taken care of, so additional funding is needed to provide more health care providers. The waiting list must be reduced. If help could be taken from the private sector or public-private partnership, nothing is wrong with it.

Prevention is better than cure, so we must make every important issue to make sure that we put a lot of money into prevention, like gyms. There are certain areas there…. Probably there should be some tax rebate, and there should be healthy food in schools. Pop machines should be taken out. We have to start at childhood, where they get glued to smoking and all this unhealthy food. There is a little bit of money that will be spent now, but it will pay big dividends in the long run.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Thank you for taking the time to come and present to us. You sat through a number of presentations this evening. I've seen you sitting within the gallery, watching, so I appreciate you taking the time. With your information, like all other presentations, we will take that and utilize it as part of our discussions in the formation of our report. Again, thank you very much.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): We're going to move on to our next presenter this evening. We'll call upon Charly Sinclair, who is with the Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelowna and District Branch.

C. Sinclair: Good evening. I'm fine. I don't have a formal presentation, but I just wanted to take this opportunity to talk to you a bit about mental health. I am a person with a mental illness. I deal with depression. I'm also a family member of a son with schizoaffective disorder, a husband with schizoaffective disorder and my sister-in-law, who lives with us, also with schizoaffective disorder. So I think I come with a little bit of expertise in this area.

I would like to just quote to you from an October 12 news release from the Canadian Institute for Health Information.

Mental illness costs a great deal to our economy, and I would like to suggest a couple of ways that some of the budget surplus could be used. An increase in community resources for mental health — for instance, case management. Caseloads in Kelowna for mental health clients are between 90 and 100, which is far above the recommended amount. We need an increase in rural psychiatrists. Rural areas in our province are far understaffed, as far as psychiatrists go. They have long waiting lists to be able to see somebody, and I think that's an area that could be addressed.

Something that's dear to my heart is consumer involvement. Recent research on best practices and consumer self-help and initiatives consistently associates consumer involvement with reduced hospitalization, reduced use of other services, increased knowledge, information and coping skills, stronger social networks and support. I think this is an area that is far underfunded. Areas like peer support and peer advocacy can definitely use increases in their funding.

Advocacy initiatives for mental health. I think it's important that the mental health advocate position be reinstated. I think that the loss of the Minister of State for Mental Health is a sad statement. I think we need somebody that can advocate for people with mental illness who may not be able to advocate for themselves. As I said, peer advocacy is very important. It allows people with mental illness to advocate on their own behalf. But they need to be able to develop skills to do so.

I think that accountability for mental health dollars is important. We need to make sure that the dollars that are being spent on mental health are actually going there and to the services that provide the best bang for the buck.

Lastly, I'd like to talk a little bit about the shelter portion of the persons-with-disability income assistance. I think everybody knows that the rents in B.C. are rising dramatically, and it's very difficult for a person to find a place to live for $325 a month. In Kelowna, with the organization that I work with, we see a lot of people that are living in places they've managed to find for that amount of money, but one of the issues is the drug use that is in these places. Because they're low-income places, the drug population gravitates to those areas. Therefore, they're put at risk for increased problems with their mental illness, be-

B. Lekstrom (Chair): Well, Charly, I want to thank you as well. You sat through a number of presentations. Your interest in trying to make British Columbia a better place is very evident. I thank you for taking the time out of your day to come and present to our committee here this evening.

We do have one further scheduled presenter. I think what we will do as a committee is take a five-minute recess. Hopefully, our presenter will be here, at which time we will reconvene.

B. Lekstrom (Chair): At this time I will call the committee hearing back to order. Seeing no further presenters…. We had allotted time for our last presenter to come. Unfortunately, they have been detained, I'm sure, doing other business.

At this time we will adjourn the committee hearing here in Kelowna. We stand adjourned.

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

Other MLAs:	Sindi Hawkins (Kelowna-Mission L) Al Horning (Kelowna–Lake Country L)
Clerk:	Kate Ryan-Lloyd

1)	Canadian Federation of the Blind	Mary Ellen Gabias
2)	Domenic Rampone
3)	British Columbia Fruit Growers Association	Joe Sardinha Glen Lucas
4)	Genome British Columbia	Bruce Schmidt
5)	British Columbia Chiropractic Association	Dr. Don Nixdorf Dr. Jim Cooper
6)	Motion Picture Production Industry Association of BC	Peter Leitch

7)	Kelowna Chamber of Commerce	Weldon LeBlanc Kevin Crookes
8)	B.C. Wildlife Federation	Tony Toth
9)	University of British Columbia Students Union — Okanagan	Heather Cook Rob Nagai
10)	Chris Aikman
11)	New Car Dealers Association of B.C.	Norm Assam
12)	Penticton and District Community Resources Society	Kim Lyster
13)	Kelowna Medical Society; British Columbia Medical Association	Dr. Gary Randhawa
14)	Canadian Mental Health Association, Kelowna and District Branch	Charly Sinclair

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