2007 Legislative Session: Third Session, 38th Parliament
SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES
MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Wednesday, October 3, 2007 8 a.m. Douglas Fir Committee Room Parliament Buildings, Victoria

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON 
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2007

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1277 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2007

          The committee met at 8:06 a.m.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Good morning, everyone. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the committee. My name is Bill Bennett. I'm the MLA for East Kootenay and Chair of the legislative committee on Finance and Government Services. I have to correct my notes because I think the correct name of the committee is the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

           I'd like to welcome everyone in the audience here this morning for coming to this and participating in this important process. I'll let the other members of the Finance Committee introduce themselves, starting with the Deputy Chair over to my left.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Bruce Ralston. I'm the MLA for Surrey-Whalley. I'm the Deputy Chair of the committee.

           B. Simpson: Bob Simpson, MLA for Cariboo North.

           J. Horgan: John Horgan, MLA for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

           D. Hayer: Good morning. I'm Dave Hayer, MLA for Surrey-Tynehead.

           H. Bloy: Harry Bloy, MLA for Burquitlam and the home of Simon Fraser University.

           R. Lee: I'm Richard Lee, MLA for Burnaby North.

           I. Black: My name is Iain Black. I'm the MLA for Port Moody–Westwood.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I've just met our Clerk this morning, Les Gönye. Les, you are from…?

           L. Gönye (Clerk-Assistant, Committees): The jurisdiction of New South Wales, an officer of the Legislative Assembly. We have two Houses in our state parliaments.

           B. Bennett (Chair): We're very glad to have you with us this morning. Also, Jonathan Fershau, who does the research for the committee, is over here on my left. Of course, the good folks behind us in the Hansard booth — thank you for your contribution.

           The Minister of Finance for B.C. is required to release a budget consultation paper by September 15 of each year. The consultation paper provides a description of fiscal and economic conditions and identifies the key issues that need to be addressed by the public in the preparation of the next budget. If you'd like to review this paper, I think there are some in the back, if you don't have a copy of it.

           The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is charged with carrying out public consultations on the minister's behalf. This all-party committee is required to report back to the Legislative Assembly not later than November 15 of this year.

           There is a variety of ways that you can make submissions to this process. One, of course, is an oral presentation here today, but there are also other ways that you can do it. You can send us a letter. You can submit a written submission on the Internet. You can fax us. Those are just a few things that you can do, but you have to do them all by October 19. That's the deadline for all written and on-line submissions.

           Today we'll hear from a number of presenters. We have a busy day today. Everyone who is presenting to us today has already preregistered with the Clerk of Committees. Presentations are to be not longer than ten minutes. If you can get your presentation in within ten minutes, we then have five minutes after that for some questions from committee members.

           At the end of today, after all of our formal presentations, we will also set aside some time in the event that there is anyone who would like to participate in what we call our open-mike process. Those folks get five minutes to come up and tell us what they think. We don't normally have questions after that, but it's an opportunity for someone who hasn't been able to get a slot here today to still get their two cents' worth in.

           With that, I'd like to call on our first witness, Drelene Gibb. Good morning. How are you this morning?

Presentations

           D. Gibb: I think I'm fine. I just hope I can present according to your specifications and be clear.

[0810]

           I'm representing myself and concerns related to the family unit as the core of the economy and the socioeconomic economy — bringing the family unit into the social safety net. My concerns are around the degree of pressure that will be coming onto the family unit for health care and for looking after our seniors. I don't believe that we are prepared, or that we are helping to prepare families, for the kinds of responsibilities that they are going to have to be engaging in.

           At the same time, we not only have what I call healthquake-preparedness — a term I've sort of put together — but we have a number of issues that hit the family unit in terms of how that family is going to be able to apply change and sustainability for the society.

           One is with the environmental movement and environmental living and conservation and how we're able to educate the family unit. I think what's missing is consistency. I think that we have a lot of people that fall through the cracks in a number of areas in this society, and it's because of the change. I think that the issues around the homeless people have come from a breakdown of the family unit and a breakdown of consistency in how individuals are able to apply themselves as good and valuable contributing citizens to the society.

[ Page 1278 ]

           Just a case in point. I'm a mother of four children. Back in 1990, as an entrepreneur, I created a system to improve family-school communications. This system was very well received, and it was simply about supporting the child as the agent of delivery of information. The child who is delivering information to the home may have parents with language or literacy differences or special needs. There wasn't any acknowledgment around the kind of pressure that was on those individual children, and there was no system of support. It was an assumed activity: "Here, take home your notice." Maybe 5 percent of notices and things were getting home.

           Now we have more technology into the schools and an even more fragmented system. There are a number of issues, from the cradle through to the grave, where you see the system diminishing the ability, particularly for a low-income family unit, to be able to maintain connection with one another so that they can keep responsible for their family unit.

           I would really like the government to make it its top priority to look at how to bring the family unit into the social safety net and how to see that there is more consistency from the provincial all the way down through to the municipalities and the various levels of government. I think there's a lot of waste and a lot of pressure that happens to individuals out in the community based on the fragmentation of the system.

           I really think we should look at what might be called trickle-up economics so that we can build economies for the homeless people, build education systems in terms of every ministry delivering its issue independently out to the society. What is the family unit? How is the family unit supposed to implement all of these things? I think we have to look at the end user, being the low-income family unit, as the core of the economy and the core of the emotional human resource as well.

           I had a systems solution. I formed a business, as an entrepreneur, to build this little system where the kids would deliver the mail on Wednesday, return it by Friday, get points into an education savings plan. There was consistency so that everybody in the family received information the same way, the same day, and to encourage cross-governmental information to be coordinated into the home. So that if you had a plan for how the family was to adjust its lifestyle according to the specifications or the interests of the government, it should be integrated as an adult education program into the home, one unit, so that it could be implemented….

[0815]

           I'm looking at that type of efficiency. I think we attack our families because of the fragmentation, both vertically — down into the municipalities and up through the government — as well as horizontally in the community.

           I think we need to look at why we have so many homeless people. Where did that come from? What are the things that actually have created…? I know six people right now on the street who were from established families in the community. I mean, historically established Canadian families. It's because of things like this. They've either had a mental illness problem in the family, or there was a breakdown in the marriage. There was an inability to be able to find work.

           What happened with me is that I presented this project to the Ministry of Education, and it was brought in as a pilot test in '92. We did it for one whole year. We had fabulous results. Just this simple little thing: kids deliver the mail on Wednesday, return it by Friday and get points into an education savings plan.

           We were ready to have it implemented for the province of British Columbia, and then the ministry didn't know if it was inside the ministry or if should be schools' and school districts' jurisdiction. We didn't have a federal presence in education, and I got tossed around between government to government. In the process, everybody takes the idea. It gets out into public domain. I ended up losing my house and my family breaking up because of the pressure that happened as a result of bringing something in trust and having it eroded in this fashion.

           This particular project would have cost less than a textbook to install. It would have been consistent around how we deliver information so that families, with varying language and literacy differences and special needs, have an ability, through the consistency of the process, to learn how to practice being good citizens, how to stay in touch with your kids and how to keep in communication.

           I put it onto the government to actually look at the causes. I see a lot of band-aid solutions — Raise-a-Reader, or 30 percent drop-out in the schools, bullying. Where does it come from? I believe it comes from the fact that you have this initial love for your children, and the system that you get put through makes it more and more difficult to keep the connections and that ongoing sense of responsibility, especially if you've dropped below a certain economic level.

           I'm just putting that upon the government, to say that I really would think that the top priority should be looking at the family unit — how to bring that into the social safety net and to bring a more seamless system and how we deliver coordinated information. Otherwise, we'll have more people as roadkill on the green highway.

           That's my position.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. You had no reason to worry about your presentation. You did very well. I notice you didn't look at any notes or anything.

           D. Gibb: No. This has come from my heart.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I can tell.

           D. Gibb: I worked very hard. I met President Clinton and Al Gore. We had a private meeting with one another about what would happen to the country if we had a national communication day. It was about good news. It was about putting a virtue a week just so that the families….

           We pilot-tested this for two years in a 65-percent illiteracy rate in North Carolina. There was no loss of a

[ Page 1279 ]

courier pouch. It was all in the design of the system. They implemented, within that year, as one of their recommended resources…. But because I couldn't establish myself as a company within the government here, and I went to the Investment ministry saying….

           The head of the Szechuan province of China, the president of the teachers' college and the head of technology met with me for two weeks to find out how this whole thing worked, because they didn't have a way to deliver education to the outer regions of China where there was no electricity.

           The head of pedagogy for all of Russia was in touch with me for six months about how to build community based on the relationship between parents, teachers and children.

           I've come back to this government to say: "Okay. We started something, and then you guys pulled the plug on it." It left me hanging as a company, and I couldn't build my business in the area from which it originated.

[0820]

           The whole thing fell apart, and everybody picked it apart in bits and pieces. The key to the whole thing was it being simple and integrated.

           I still would like the government…. I mean, I've presented over the years to several standing committees, saying that we've got this little system. I've seen portions of it picked up inside the government as well as out into the community, and the rights for use were never procured for further development by the government or by schools and school districts in the community.

           I think that it still needs to happen. I'm here to offer this project, which also handles a way in which you can track the students from post-secondary education and create skill sets for parents who are volunteering in the schools.

           How great it would be — my four children and I are spending all this time volunteering in the school — if those could be translated into skill sets so I had prerequisites for further adult education. It puts me, my parenting skills and my volunteering as a parent into a learning model along with my children in the school. It gives me something for being a parent, something credible, by translating those skill sets. It would be a more effective way in which the parent associations could be functioning within the school setting.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much for presenting to us now. Committee members, any questions?

           Drelene, will you have a written presentation that you'll provide to the committee, that we could pass along?

           D. Gibb: I have three feet of written letters back and forth between the government…. All that's required is for the government to finally say, "We pilot-tested something, and we need to buy the licence for further implementation," and to bring me and the project in-house to coordinate, to make a small contribution to a better system.

           Here I am. I don't have work. I work in a little dress shop for $9.50 an hour. I lost my home, and I'm close to being homeless myself. I gave my heart and soul to this for 15 years, and I think you guys should buy the system.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you. Thank you for being first on the list this morning. We appreciate your coming in.

           The next witness is Mary Sanseverino of the University of Victoria Faculty Association. And Chris Petter has joined you. Welcome.

           M. Sanseverino: Yes, that's right. Well, thank you very much, everybody, for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. As Mr. Bennett has said, Chris Petter, who is president of CUFABC, has joined me. I should say as well that Chris is a colleague of mine at the University of Victoria, where he's a librarian.

           I'm a senior instructor in the department of computer science. I'm also the president of the faculty association at the University of Victoria, and it's in that capacity that I'm here to speak to you today. I'm here really because the faculty of the University of Victoria want the provincial government to provide funding so that we can improve the quality of our educational and research programs.

           For almost 20 years the provincial government has focused on the need to provide more space in our public higher education institutions. The reasons for doing so are well known, and we won't go over them here, other than to say that from '85 to 2005 we're looking at about an 80-percent jump in our university populations.

[0825]

           Like the other public universities, UVic did its part to accommodate growth. Our enrolment grew from 10,700 in '85-86 to 18,900 in '05-06, an increase of 76 percent. This included a whole bunch of things — meeting targets; priority training for nurses; our Island medical program, of which we are quite proud; doing our best to expand enrolments in engineering and in computer science, and I should say that that is my field.

           We've done a great job, dare I say, at UVic in meeting both the local and provincial needs. I'd like to just call your attention — for those of you that have been up around the campus — to the building boom. It's going along quite well. I was surprised that we actually had Ring Road cleared at the start of classes this year. Now we need to focus on not just more space but on improving the quality of all facets of education at UVic.

           What do I mean by improving the quality of all facets? Let me set the scene just a little bit. The two-decade expansion of the B.C. higher education system has come at a price. Little by little, the quality of the education we provide our students and the quality of the research environment for our faculty has been eroded. Between '85 and '05 the provincial government funding per full-time university student dropped by just over 16 percent. Some of this lost revenue from government sources has been made up by recent increases in tuition fees, but it is not fair that we've balanced our books on the backs of students.

           It's even less fair that despite paying more for their education, students are actually receiving, in many

[ Page 1280 ]

cases, a lower-quality education and a lower-quality educational experience than their parents enjoyed.

           My own experience? I was a UVic undergrad, and I actually did grad work there as well. It was interesting to me that in my first year my instructor knew my name. Honestly folks, it wasn't just because it was me and I would make myself known to my instructors, but my instructors knew everybody in the class. That's nice and good, but where that really showed up was in the fair, rigorous evaluations of my work that were done in my classes.

           That's not to say we're not doing that today. We certainly are. But the thing that was interesting was that back then there was an individual tone. It was: "Well, Mary. I can see that you've made an improvement in the work that you've presented today from the work that you presented back in September." That type of quality…. We really need to recapture that again.

           Today classes are larger. Multiple choice and short-answer exams have replaced essay exams, and there are fewer term papers assigned. Computer labs are open shorter hours, and there are fewer academic and personal support services available today.

           For example, we have ten fewer librarians at UVic today than we did 1975 — the year I started at UVic — but we have three times as many students. The information explosion that has occurred in this time frame, as you well know, is unprecedented in the march of human time. I know that sounds like a big statement, but folks, it's true.

           Who helps us make sense of this information tidal wave? Librarians. As the joke says — this is a little joke for librarians up at UVic: why spend ten minutes with a reference librarian when you can waste two hours in a fruitless Internet search?

           Our graduate students are also having a tough time of it. At present about one-third of the overall graduate student spaces at B.C. universities are unfunded. This means that universities have received no direct funding from government to support these 3,800 students across the province. That's the '05-06 data. I'm going to speak to some changes here in a moment.

           At UVic this means as many as ten grad students are forced to share an office. You can look at our history department — no place to work at all. History, actually, ten students in the class. Masters of dispute resolution program — no space at all. Even in science programs, where there's more external funding available, students have to share basic equipment. This means that if I'm going to do an experiment and Chris is going to do an experiment and we're going to share the equipment, recalibration has to happen between experiments.

           This is not to say that our students are getting a poor education. Far from it. My faculty and staff colleagues work very hard to provide students with the best education we can. We are literally running as fast as we can just to stay in the same place, and some of us are losing ground.

[0830]

           The reality is that if you're teaching 200-plus students a semester…. I should say that I teach first-year classes. I have had as many as 750 students in my first-year classes. Typically, I'm around 400 to 450 students. If you've got 200-plus students a semester, and you don't have a teaching assistant, then you've got to find a way to make the workload manageable. Although the quality of instruction remains high, the evaluation of students' learning is not as frequent nor as individually rigorous as it once was.

           On top of this, rising fees and living costs mean that students don't have the time to take full advantage of the education we provide them. Many students are working part-time, and some are working full-time.

           From my own experience…. Over the past eight years I've taken to conducting straw polls in my class. The polls in the class show that it has gone from about a quarter of the students working part-time to half to three-quarters. I've even got some working full-time. I expect from students, and this is normal pedagogy, four hours of contact time, and two hours of prep for each hour that they have in contact with me. Do the math. If you do a part-time job and you're trying to carry classes, something's got to give.

           As for single parents, I don't know how they do it. Certainly, child care is a huge issue at our institution. Every time I walk across campus, faculty want to talk to me, and they want to talk to me about that issue — the child care issue. Child care issues have been starkly illustrated in the current strike up at Simon Fraser. We hear from our colleagues there that literally millions of dollars have been lost because faculty members can't get to their research grants. There is a lot more I could say about this, but I want to move on to my recommendations.

           First, government has to stop tying all the funding increases to universities to increases in student numbers. Yes, we need more spaces, but we need general increases to institutional budgets to try and turn back some of the degradation in quality that I've talked about.

           Second, I'd like to give a vote of thanks and support to the 2007 budget, which marked the start of funding specifically for graduate education. Please keep this up; it really must be continued. We've had too many years where that has fallen off the plate.

           Third, government needs to make substantial new investments in university-based research. We lag Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, and have done so for years. Let's bring it up to move to third-highest. At UVic we applaud the goal of making B.C. the third-highest province in terms of research. It's a goal we need to move to.

           Finally, our students need some relief from the high cost of being a student. They need to work less, and by working less I mean work less outside the university, and concentrate on their studies more.

           I hope I've been able to impress on you the need for government to start paying attention to quality of all facets at our universities. Let's not risk today's diminished quality of education becoming our high-water mark.

           Thank you very much. It's certainly not too late to turn things around. Chris and I welcome questions.

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

[ Page 1281 ]

           H. Bloy: Thank you for your presentation.

           I find some of your presentation negative to where we're going in the future. But if we just talk about students, what part of a student's education do you think they or their family should pay? There has to be some realm of reasonability in this.

           M. Sanseverino: I think that people do have to pay. I'm giving a personal opinion on this. I think that….

           H. Bloy: No, but you're asking for students not to work and only go to school. What part of…?

           M. Sanseverino: No, no. To work a little bit less.

           H. Bloy: How much should a student pay?

           M. Sanseverino: How much should a student pay?

           H. Bloy: That's my question: 50 percent, 10 percent, 100 percent?

           B. Bennett (Chair): Harry, Harry. Let the witness answer the question.

           M. Sanseverino: Let's take the numbers, and let's look at it. In my class, as I said, there are four contact hours. Pedagogically, this is reasonable. In fact, some of my colleagues think I'm a little below here. I'm going to expect two hours of their prep. I'm going to expect them to prep two hours for every contact hour with me. That's 12 hours in total.

[0835]

           Now, if you say you're doing a full course load, that's five courses. If you're also going to work part-time outside of that, you're getting very, very close to not having enough time in the week. I say: let's start at that point and come back…. We're not saying, "Don't pay"; we're just saying: "Let's be reasonable about what we pay."

           I don't have all the answers on this. Maybe it's a subcommittee that gets together, that looks at it from this perspective. I think that's the way we should go. Let's start with what it is we really want, and what we really want out of this is educated, engaged, critical-thinking citizens for the province.

           J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Mary, for your presentation.

           I have two sons, just in first year at UVic, so tuition fees are no longer theoretical for me. They're a reality, and I've been paying attention to the percentage increases. When you're writing cheques, it makes a big difference, and the percentages are little bit irrelevant to our family and to many other families.

           I'd like to focus on your comments around librarians, because as a former graduate student, that resonates with me. Now a victim of the Internet and Google, I find that I am wasting many, many hours when I used to be able to go to a librarian and get direct assistance from an expert who knew where reference materials were.

           The data you put in your presentation…. There are ten…

           M. Sanseverino: Fewer.

           J. Horgan: …fewer librarians 20 years on. How does that happen?

           C. Petter: It's partially through the change in technology that some of those positions have disappeared. The cataloguing positions have disappeared, and there have been increases in the system support because we're much more on line. Even given that, the people who are doing the reference work and the teaching need to go outside of the library — to be in classrooms with the instructors, like Mary, and to support the teaching role — and they just don't have time to do that. There just aren't enough to do that.

           It's the low profile of the library, I think. It's just not seen as supporting pedagogy in the way that it does. It's sort of an education process. I'm very glad that Mary put this in, because I think it is something that's very much underappreciated by the public at large and by the politicians as well.

           M. Sanseverino: May I just add on to that? Before I was the president of the faculty association, I was the associate director of UVic's Learning and Teaching Centre. One of the things that we at the Learning and Teaching Centre have been really trying to do is to get back to this idea of: "Hey, the library — that's this major area where you can go not just to use their computers but to actually speak to people that will help you — targeted help to get your research done." We're trying to bring that back in again to the extent that it used to be, and it's very difficult, because of time, resources, just the huge extra number of students and, in the library's case, the lower number of people on the ground. It's very difficult.

           D. Hayer: First of all, a good presentation.

           I have four kids, and actually all four of them work part-time. Three are in post-secondary, and my wife attends also part-time at the university, so I can relate to most of the issues you're saying. They thought it was a good experience being able to work part-time. It gets them to learn the real value of money.

           My question. This paper that the Finance Minister put out says: "What choices would you make for a greener future?" There are some questions at the back. I don't know if you've seen that paper. If you haven't, maybe you can take a look at it, maybe try to provide some input from the environmental point of view. Is there some initiative we can take to the committee that they can look at? Unless you have some suggestions you want to talk about.

           C. Petter: Were there some specific post-secondary concerns there?

           D. Hayer: It talks about how we can use our environment. You can say from a post-secondary-education

[ Page 1282 ]

point of view how it can help to make our environment more safe, better for us in the long term.

           M. Sanseverino: Can we take that?

           D. Hayer: There's one at the back.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Mary and Chris, thank you very much for presenting to us this morning. We appreciate it.

[0840]

           Our next witness for the committee is the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce.

           Good morning, ladies. Shannon and Lindalee, welcome to the committee.

           L. Brougham: I'm Lindalee Brougham. I'm a chartered accountant in public practice here in Victoria. In some of my spare time I volunteer as the chair of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. Through that role and tied in with my profession you get to see a lot of what goes on within the community and the effect of decisions that are made.

           As part of the chamber of commerce, I'd like to thank you for having Shannon and me here today. The opportunity to contribute to the budgeting process is quite important to us.

           The Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce is the second-largest chamber in British Columbia. We've been awarded the B.C. Chamber of the Year award in 2006, and we carry national accreditation from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for the work that we do and the standards that we've set.

           As the voice of business for the region, we represent over 1,500 businesses and a total of more than 22,000 employers and employees in our region. We'd like to thank you and present to you some of our highlights that we think are important for the budget process. Shannon Renault is our policy development person, so I'm going to have her speak specifically to that. Then the two of us will be available to answer questions at the end.

           S. Renault: Before we get started with our five specific recommendations for budget 2008, I thought it worthwhile to just highlight a couple of principles under which we operate at the chamber. Obviously, as a business organization, our goals are to advance existing business, attract new economic development opportunities to our region and support a healthy free enterprise system.

           It's also worthwhile to note the chamber's position on social policy. As a business organization, we're daily aware of the interdependence of issues that used to be specifically deemed social service issues. In fact, the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce has taken a leadership role in developing a business position on social policy issues. Our position has been adopted by the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and is attached in full as an addendum item at the end of this presentation for your reference.

           In brief, however, the chamber believes that all social service programs should be developed, implemented and evaluated with the benefits of the entire community in mind. Programs are geared towards individuals or groups, obviously, but in their construction and evaluation they should benefit not only the individuals and groups to which they're targeted but also the community as a whole.

           We believe that social service programs should be standardized, with measurable results that evidence a tangible benefit to the community, and that one of those measurable objectives should be economic in nature. Again, I just draw your attention to the full statement of policy at the end of the presentation.

           To our five specific recommendations. Our first one is in regards to co-op tax credits. British Columbia is made up of small businesses. That is defined as companies with 50 or fewer employees. In our province we have 364,000 such businesses, which provide 48 percent of the employment across the province. Interestingly enough, 83 percent of those 364,000 businesses have four employees or less, so "small" is the operative word.

           With the important role that small business plays in our province, we feel that it's imperative that the provincial government do everything it can do to allow small business to be as competitive as possible. We're obviously operating in a labour market that is the most competitive it has ever been, and we believe that offering co-op tax credits to private business enterprises is one way of making our small business environment more competitive.

           We have a great co-op program in the province. Small businesses, particularly those ones with four or fewer employees, find it economically challenging to participate in our co-op programs. However, co-op placement is also something that gives our small businesses an edge when they are competing against the aggressive attraction efforts of companies in other provinces, because they get to experience working in small business in our province.

[0845]

           Other provinces such as Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba have introduced co-op tax credits, where employers obtain a tax credit of 10 to 15 percent of the wages to the co-op students up to a maximum cap. Our recommendation is that the B.C. government introduce a similar co-op tax credit program to B.C. business employers equal to 15 percent of the wages paid to qualified co-op students when they are participating in a co-op program that leads to their graduation from an accredited co-op education post-secondary institution program.

           This program should apply to all types of business structures, whether they be corporations, partnerships or proprietorships. Based on the '06-07 co-op placements in private business, we're talking about roughly 5,600 or 5,700 students at a cost of probably somewhere around $8 million to $8.5 million.

           Our second issue is the property transfer tax, which I'm sure you'll hear more about today. Clearly, the property transfer tax is a significant revenue source for the government. However, it is also one of the factors that is increasing our cost of living across the province and, from our perspective, making us less competitive in terms of attracting skilled labour at all levels to all sorts of businesses and the public sector.

[ Page 1283 ]

           In 2006 residential real estate sales, as reported by the B.C. Real Estate Association, reached $37.8 billion, and the province collected $912 million in property transfer tax.

           The chamber appreciates the support that was shown in the budget last year, 2007, to new homeowners when the property transfer tax threshold was increased to $375,000. However, the average price of houses, as you know, is in excess of $375,000 in many markets in our province. Coupled with the fact that a good percentage of the residential real estate market is sales from individuals that are moving around within the market — not so much new home buyers — we feel that there is still significant room for improvement in terms of making housing more affordable and making us a more competitive location.

           Our specific recommendations on the property transfer tax are to amend the PTT to charge 1 percent on the first $375,000, rather than $200,000, and 2 percent on the remaining purchase price; and then, secondly, to create legislation linking those 1- and 2-percent tax tiers to the first-time-buyer-exemption level, so that if that exemption level is increased, the 2-percent tier then also kicks in at that higher exemption rate.

           Finally, and quite importantly, we would like to ensure that move-up buyers be required to pay the property transfer tax only on the difference between the price of the house they sell and the price of the house they purchase.

           Our third recommendation is in regards to economic development in the capital region in particular. The provincial government supports economic development throughout the province through a regional economic development branch. I say throughout the province, although that is actually with the exception of the capital region and the lower mainland. The reason for those two exceptions is because the population base in those two major urban centres is deemed to be sufficient enough that the municipalities should be able to fund economic development on their own.

           In our own area we do have a population of roughly 330,000 individuals. However, it's divided amongst a number of municipalities, none of which actually have the resources to be able to adequately fund economic development. As a solution in our region earlier this year, in 2007, the Greater Victoria Development Agency was formed, which is an industry-led organization to deal with economic development on a regional level. Currently that agency is funded by our own organization, the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce. It's funded by two municipalities, Victoria and Saanich.

           The agency has recently received notice from the federal government, western diversification, that they will offer some funding over three years. And we've also recently received a report from the Ministry of Economic Development provincially for $75,000 in funding over three years. That's much appreciated, and that specific pocket of funding will be used to develop a sustainable development industry cluster here within our region.

           We would encourage the provincial government to increase the support for economic development in the capital region to help further capitalize on our companies and our post-secondary institutions, which are working hard to develop green businesses and a green cluster — to market not only in our region but to export those skills to other areas.

           Our specific request is that the B.C. government consider doubling its funding to the Greater Victoria Development Agency, from $75,000 to $150,000. That's a very, very small request. It's $75,000 over three years.

[0850]

           Regional district property tax ratios. This may sound like a municipal issue. I'll be quick on it, and I'll give you a pictorial. Regional district property tax ratios — one line item on your property tax, charged by the municipal government, governed by the Municipal Act or the Community Charter. Disparity of rates all over the province. In areas that are in electoral districts, those taxes are collected, actually, by the provincial government, and the multiples are kept steady at 2.45 to 1 as a business-to-residential ratio. Everybody pays the same rate on their regional district taxes.

           Within municipalities, when municipalities set their own municipal tax levels, they also keep those levels consistent on their regional district taxes. The result of that is a huge disparity in what businesses pay for regional district services. To be quite visual, if you live on one side of the street in Victoria and turn on your tap, it might cost you 1.86 to 1 for the water. If you live on another side of the street in our capital regional, it'll cost you 7.52 to 1 to turn on your water.

           It's quite a disparity, and it's absurd. It's a challenge here in the capital region. It's a challenge across different areas of the province. I've got rates in there…. Whistler, 3.25; Prince Rupert, 3.5; North Vancouver, 3.7; Logan Lake, 4.0; Comox, 4.42.

           Our request is that the provincial government create an equitable tax field and require that all municipalities follow provincial multiples when collecting the regional district tax rates for each property class, capping the business-to-residential ratio at 2.45 to 1 throughout the province.

           In terms of the tax competitiveness, I'll just move directly to the recommendations. Tax competitiveness is, of course, important in terms of competing with other provinces. We know Alberta is moving toward a very competitive tax structure. Our recommendation is that the provincial government remain competitive — with Alberta in particular — and publicly commit to the policy that ensures B.C. corporate taxes do not exceed 125 percent of Alberta's; include a reduction in the small business tax rate from 4.5 to 3 percent in this year's budget; and increase the small business threshold from $400,000 to $500,000 in budget 2008.

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

           J. Horgan: Thank you very much for your presentation.

           Firstly, I want to commend the chamber — I did so on the radio the other day, but in case you missed it — for your aggressive stand on the social policy for the

[ Page 1284 ]

economic leaders and the business leaders in the lower Island. I commend you for that.

           My question specifically revolves around the Belleville terminals. It wasn't mentioned in your report, but I have had discussions off line with members of the chamber. They see this as a significant economic driver in the region. Absent provincial support, it's languishing. I'm wondering if the chamber has a comment or a position on that issue.

           L. Brougham: At this point the chamber hasn't come down with an official policy, because our board is still struggling with it. The people that were put onto that board to determine what the report is that we currently have were given certain constraints, and we feel that within those constraints they did a good job. We would like to see the provincial government probably help out.

           We need to get the RFP out there so that we can get some proposals working. I think if we get the RFP out, businesses will find a solution to make something work. That is a gateway to the province. We need to solve it, and we need to improve it so we can bring people up from other parts of the U.S. and that and expand the service that's there.

           H. Bloy: Thank you for your presentation. Very good. I hire co-op students from Simon Fraser University.

           You said you had a sustainable cluster?

           S. Renault: A sustainable industry cluster, yes.

           H. Bloy: What is that? How do you describe that?

           S. Renault: Well, the Greater Victoria Development Agency, working with an industry representation. We're working with all of our academic institutions and a lot of businesses in the technology sector to draw together groups of companies and research institutions that are working towards developing technologies, products, services that are all geared towards environmental improvements.

[0855]

           As I say, because this started only early this year, we're really in sort of the gestation stage of this. The goal is to develop a cluster of definable businesses, definable products and services, to take that cluster and brand it as the capital region identity, much like you might want to think about the Silicon Valley — brand our area as a sustainable industry cluster — and then to market that outside of the capital region, across the country and internationally.

           That's the goal, and as I say, it is in the formulation stages at the moment.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ladies, thank you very much for your presentation. Unfortunately, we're out of time, but thank you for the time it takes to prepare and come and present.

           Our next witness is the Association of Service Providers for Employability and Career Training.

           N. Strachan: I am Norma Strachan. I am the executive director of ASPECT. It's a provincial association of employment training programs. We represent more than 150 employment training organizations around the province. Those organizations have approximately 3,000 employees in 60 communities throughout British Columbia. It's kind of interesting because we're the small businesses in the communities that the chamber was talking about. Most of our organizations have fewer than ten employees.

           ASPECT members are both non-profit and private organizations throughout the province. They provide employment training specifically designed to assist individuals overcoming barriers to employment. Community-based agencies have been able to help clients in their communities enter employment by cobbling together funding from a myriad of sources. These usually involve provincial government ministries — typically the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance, family and children's services, the Ministry of the Attorney General and also the federal government through Service Canada.

           Funding for these organizations is very much like a house of cards. If you take away one card, the organization — the rest of the house — will crumble. Funding from both the provincial and the federal government is now under threat.

           First of all, over the last six years we've seen the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance consistently erode community service delivery and make deliberate moves towards the corporatization of employment services. First, they moved towards a model of delivery that reduced the need for them to manage a number of contracts and instead called for and designed programs that reduce it to two or three prime contractors for the entire province.

           Secondly, the tendering process has come to favour organizations that can invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in hiring professionals to write their proposals. The tender for the B.C. employment program, which was in 2006, resulted in awards to two providers, with a requirement for only 25 percent of services to be subcontracted to arm's-length, community-based agencies. That's 25 percent of the money being spent in communities by community service providers, where once it was 100 percent.

           The tendering process for services for persons with disabilities just this last spring resulted in contracts awarded primarily to the same two providers, with one additional contractor added. This effectively eliminated many agencies that have specialized for decades in providing quality services to disabled clients in the communities where they live.

           One of these corporations that won the persons-with-disabilities contract and also the BCEP contract has now been sold to an American company operating out of Phoenix, Arizona. I've attached the media release at the back of my document. Now we not only have corporatization of welfare services, but we have corporatization to an American firm.

           Community-based agencies have become really marginalized by this provincial government. This is

[ Page 1285 ]

what's really going to cause a windfall for the provincial government financially, so I choose to address it at this venue rather than wait until next year after it's been done.

[0900]

           The federal government announced in its 2007 budget their intention to devolve the responsibility for all federally funded employment and training programs, together with the related staff and dollars, to the provinces within the 2007-2008 fiscal year. Their goal is to have the document, the agreement, signed by March 31, 2008.

           These are called labour market development agreements, which have to be reopened and renegotiated between the federal and provincial governments. In B.C. the Ministry of Economic Development is going to be taking the lead on this, and negotiations are just beginning.

           The transfer to the provinces will include $2 billion in benefits and supports for the employment insurance, part 2, and $500 million per year for funding for the delivery of programs. These are the programs that have been delivered through Service Canada.

           Some $500 million per year in new programs is allocated to provinces and territories on an equal, per-capita basis. That's the only fund they stipulated would be done in that way. And another $33.6 million over the next two years is for foreign students and skilled temporary foreign workers who are already in Canada.

           That's all good news if that kind of money is being invested in helping people get into employment and helping employers find a workforce. It represents a huge windfall for the province of B.C., and our concern is that it will be spent in a manner similar to the past expenditures by the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

           While Service Canada has been committed to the availability of services for clients and citizens in all communities, the corporations delivering for MEIA are inclined to maximize profit by providing peripheral services in highly populated areas. They go to where the low-hanging fruit is. They don't provide services in rural communities. It's often a 1-800 service or an itinerant service where they stop in one day of every month.

           These fundamental changes to the way in which employment and training programs are funded and delivered in our province will have major impacts on career and workforce development in British Columbia. It'll particularly impact the rural communities.

           In response to these changes, ASPECT formed an alliance with other provincial organizations that is now known as the B.C. Career and Workforce Development Alliance. There are at least four provincial organizations right now, and others are joining us.

           They are concerned about what's happening for social services in British Columbia — if they're going to be privatized further and if they're going to be sold off to American firms. They're joining to inform and mobilize the sector in order for us to prepare and shape this devolution. Collectively we represent hundreds of agencies, their boards of directors and thousands of career development practitioners.

           The B.C. Career and Workforce Development Alliance held a consultation last June that brought together over 130 agencies from across the province. The outcome of the consultation was a clear mandate to proceed as an alliance and work to ensure the seamless, transparent devolution of federal employment services to the province of British Columbia and to contribute to the design, implementation and evaluation of an expanded provincial employment training services program through direct representation by stakeholders with service delivery expertise.

           The consultation endorsed a shared purpose for the alliance. The B.C. Career and Workforce Development Alliance is committed to building a productive and effective workforce that meets the demands of an ever-changing economy and provides opportunity for all British Columbians, including those who may be barriered, to participate and benefit in the resulting prosperity.

           The alliance is also committed to assisting our member organizations to identify and contribute their expertise, assets and resources to developing the world's most effective and productive workforce in B.C.; to identifying the principles and best practices for building a comprehensive and effective workforce development strategy that will address labour market supply- and demand-side opportunities and needs; and to enhancing communication within the sector to increase awareness and understanding of the workforce development opportunities and needs.

           Our recommendations to this committee are that we would like you to ensure that members of the B.C. Career and Workforce Development Alliance are included in any advisory committee struck to implement LMDA funds — the multi-millions of dollars that I outlined; to review the provincial government tendering process and how it affects the ability of the voluntary sector to contribute to the overall economy of British Columbia; and to review the media release attached to this document and provide a written response as to how the sustained economic growth of British Columbia is well served by the corporatization of welfare services and, further, by the Americanization of corporate delivery of welfare services.

           Are there any questions?

[0905]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. We do have at least one question.

           B. Simpson: Your presentation is interesting with respect to what you've pointed out for rural areas — that corporatization of the delivery has negatively impacted the areas.

           One of the things you don't have in your recommendations to the standing committee, though, is that you don't break that out as a separate, discrete issue. You reference it in the body of the text, but your recommendations to the standing committee talk about the provincial government tendering process and the overall economy.

           Most of those rural communities are going to go through a fairly significant transition, if they're not

[ Page 1286 ]

there already. Are you seeing any connection between the federal and provincial governments' service delivery and the transition either underway or looming on the horizon — like the mountain pine beetle falldown? Is that something that this group could take on as a discrete project?

           N. Strachan: I know your community fairly well. I know some of the service providers in your community. New Focus and the ESP are members of ASPECT. I've heard for a number of years of the lack of services in the communities and also a concern that a lot of the provincial government employment-training programs weren't being delivered in those communities because of the model that I outlined.

           The only major funding for employment assistance in those communities was through Service Canada, and there is a huge concern from those organizations that there won't be service in communities like yours.

           B. Simpson: Again, it's not broken out as a discrete thing. That's all I'm saying.

           N. Strachan: That's a point well taken.

           B. Simpson: That's looming, and I think it is a discrete area that needs further discussion and focus to it than just lumping it all in as a provincial issue. That's just a bit of feedback.

           N. Strachan: Okay. Thank you.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. There is some suggestion that there are some problems with the tendering process, in your recommendation. What kind of perfect tendering process do you think would work for the smaller service providers? Inside a tendering process, what kind of criteria would actually help to let the service providers increase their value?

           N. Strachan: A few years ago I was privileged to be on the voluntary sector advisory committee on employment that was pulled together by HRSDC. We were addressing that particular issue for them at that time.

           I also am aware of some initiatives that are starting through the University of Victoria. The Centre for Non-Profit Management is pulling together a round table to address this issue too.

           It's a big issue. I'm not quite sure what the exact answer is to it. I think some acknowledgment of the additional community resources that…. A community-based agency is able to access a myriad additional community resources that they can pull in to help an individual client in a holistic way.

           It's not just the individual looking for employment that they are dealing with. There are often family issues, issues of child care, health issues, sometimes issues of abuse and drug and alcohol. There are myriad resources that need to be pulled in to help a person become employable, and those connections are all held and worked out within the communities.

           That's not something you can come into town and deliver if you're there for one day a month. So there could be some recognition in point form for that.

           I've sat through a number of debriefings, not only for the proposals that we used to put in when we were bidding on contracts but also with some of my members who have gone for debriefings. There has been no opportunity…. In fact, many of them get very high scores, and they're unable to determine what it is they could have done to enhance their proposal.

[0910]

           We're left believing that it's the fact that some of the corporations are hiring public relations firms to write their proposals. What it is that's the pizazz and the razzamatazz in the proposal, I don't know. Nobody knows. That would be some information we'd have to get from the other side of the table.

           J. Kwan: In your presentation you've listed the global budget that is going to be transferred from the federal government to the provinces. Do you have the breakdown of what B.C.'s share is? Do you have the information on what our current share is at the moment and how that breaks down on a region-by-region basis?

           N. Strachan: I have the information from Service Canada on what the current share is right now. We have a breakdown of all the contracts, who holds them and what the dollar value of them is.

           We're doing an analysis right now. We've hired a researcher to do an analysis of what the breakdown of the transferred funds will be, but we don't have that exact figure yet. As negotiations haven't started, I'm not even certain that we would be able to ascertain that fully.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.

           The next witness for the committee is the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre.

           Good morning. You must be Theo.

           T. Boere: Good morning, lady and gentlemen. My name is Theo Boere. I am the executive director of the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre.

           I just wanted to direct you to the package first, to orient you, because there is quite a bit of information in it. As you open the package, on the left-hand side there is a table of contents. That will help you get oriented to the information.

           There is a history of the men's centre, and there's a personal story by one of our counsellors, which gives you a personal example of the kinds of people we help and the kind of work we do. We also have a budget in there. Some of these things I'm going to come back to within the next ten minutes. We have about 18 or 19 letters of support in there from various people who are familiar with what we do.

           There was a coroner's inquest in Nanaimo last summer, in August of 2006. We were invited to send a witness to that inquest. It was into an incident that

[ Page 1287 ]

happened in 2004. It was an incident of domestic violence. There was one adult and one four-year-old child who died in that incident. There was a coroner's inquest, and we were invited to testify at that. We've included the verdict and the recommendations that were made by the coroner. Those recommendations were arrived at by a jury of four women and one man. I'll come back to that as well.

           There's some other supporting information. There's also a CD, which might make it easier to look at some of the information. You can put that in your computer. It's got all the information in there that is in this package, except for the video. There is a video on parental alienation awareness that's in there as well. I wanted to touch on that.

           Just briefly, the Men's Resource Centre was started in approximately 2001. That happened when a number of men in Nanaimo were having problems getting access to their children. We started to meet once a week to support each other in an emotional way but also to deal with some of the legalities, because as some of you may or may not know, wading through the family court system can be very challenging. It can be very difficult.

[0915]

           Most of these men had run out of money to be able to deal with some of the issues they were facing. It grew from there. The initial issue we were dealing with was fathers who were being denied access to their children. But it grew from there to a lot of other issues, and I think one of the things we started to realize was that a lot of the issues around denial of access really revolved around the lack of importance given to fathering in our society.

           One of the programs that I'm going to talk about a little bit is the Dads Make a Difference program that we have in Nanaimo.

           In the package there is also a list of the programs. I believe that's on the right-hand side. There are about 12 different programs that we give. It'll give you a synopsis of what those programs are. There's not enough time to talk about all those programs, but the one I do want to talk about is the Dads Make a Difference program.

           I brought it separately. I don't know if it was put inside by the staff here. There is a sheet called "Dads Make a Difference." This is a fact sheet put out by Gardner Wiseheart, a psychologist in Texas who has been running a program called Dads Make a Difference for about 12 or 13 years. He put these statistics together.

           This is a list of things that tend to happen to children who grow up without their biological father. The two I really want to highlight are at the bottom of the list. "More than 70 percent of all juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes." That's a very telling statistic. Kids who grow up without their dads are at extreme risk for all of these things on this list.

           The other statistic that I find very scary, actually, is the very last one. "Children from father-absent homes make up 63 percent of youth suicides."

           These are some of the issues that we're trying to deal with, with this particular program. What we're trying to do is help fathers stay connected with their kids. So we've created a program that essentially looks at young dads and hooks them up with older mentor dads. We're actually starting a new part of the program this year, where we're bringing in more grandparents.

           What we really want to do is take these more experienced dads and hook them up one on one with the younger dads to give them a mentoring process. We don't make restrictions on how we support those younger dads. We give them parenting skills. If they lose a job, we help them find another job. If they've got drug issues or anger issues, we help to support them on whatever piece of their life they need support for.

           The intention of the whole thing really is to keep that connection. Whether that dad is in a working relationship, whether he's married, whether they're common-law, whether they've separated or they're divorcing, it doesn't matter. We're just trying to support them to maintain that relationship.

           One of the statistics that Gardner Wiseheart has come up with in his program is that without support, at the birth of the first child for a couple, fully 90 percent of the dads are present at the birth and involved in the relationship. After five years that number, without support systems, drops to 35 percent. It's a huge drop.

           What they've found is that with the support systems that they have in place — and we're modelling our program on what he's doing down there — they've increased that number to 75 percent of the dads still involved with their kids after five years.

           Essentially, what they've done is more than doubled the number of dads who stay involved with their kids. I think that's absolutely astounding, and I think it also addresses the underlying issue that a lot of these statistics, which are very scary if you read through the list, attempt to deal with.

[0920]

           With the whole fatherlessness, problem we've got a lot of kids running around, increased crime, increased dropouts from school, increased drug use, promiscuity. The list goes on. This program directly tries to alleviate those. I think it's got the potential for huge success. We've only been running the program for a couple of years, so we don't have statistics from our own program yet. But I think the success that they have in Texas is pretty astounding.

           One of the other things that I wanted to mention here and one of the reasons that we have a men's resource centre — and you may not be aware of this — is that men commit suicide eight times more frequently than women during the process of separation and divorce. I would say that that's violence turned inward.

           You also have men who turn that violence outward — as we saw, for instance, in the Oak Bay murder-suicide that happened a month or so ago. What we're trying to do is alleviate all of that by getting involved with men before they get to that stage.

           The inquest in Nanaimo — a copy of that coroner's report is in here. Recommendation 4 stated that the provincial government should provide permanent, sustainable funding for the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre. What I would suggest to this committee is that this is something we need to look at, not only on a local basis in Nanaimo. We need to look at it provincially.

[ Page 1288 ]

           Solicitor General John Les gave us a grant for $250,000 last month which he called interim funding until he put a package in place of long-term, sustainable funding. That's a good start. We need approximately $1 million a year to run a centre in a community to provide all the services that we have in the package that we've shown you.

           This is a cross-ministry responsibility; it's not just the Solicitor General. What I would suggest to this committee is that you recommend that the funding for the men's centre in Nanaimo be made sustainable over the long term and that some recommendation to provide those funds be allowed for. And also, look at it from a provincial basis.

           I'm aware of another ten to 15 communities in the province that have approached me and said: "Well, why don't we have a men's centre?" I think these resources should be available on a provincial basis. To start that in terms of actual funding, I think you're looking at $10 million for ten or 15 communities, and that's going to double over the next five years.

           I think my time is up.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. I let you go over a couple of minutes there.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Over the last several years the government has ended funding for a number of gender-based services, particularly women's centres, so why are you optimistic that the government would fund gender-based services in the form of men's centres?

           T. Boere: Well, that's a good question. I was going to stay away from the gender issue. Since you bring it up, it's true that the government has started to move away from gender-based services.

           In an ideal world I would actually say that I'd like to see people's centres rather than women's centres or men's centres, but we don't live in an ideal world. Currently the Ministry of Community Services, as of last year, has still funded women's services for $46.7 million and zero dollars for men's services. I think there's a large inequity there. Those services aren't available for men.

           We've always supported those services. I think that's money well spent, but until we are at a place in our society where we can have those services under one roof…. I don't think we're there, unfortunately, because we've tried working with the women's centres in Nanaimo, and we haven't been able to get very far.

[0925]

           I would direct you to one of the letters of support that we have by Dr. Larry Waterman, who's a psychologist. It's included in the package. He talks about that in one paragraph — how we've tried to work with the women's centres. We're still trying to work with them. In fact, we're on a committee working with them, a VAWIR committee called Violence Against Women In Relationships, but it has been a very uphill battle. We'll continue to do that.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. In your written presentation, there's mention about the transition houses for men. How does it work? What is the utilization rate on those kinds of facilities for men?

           T. Boere: Well, this is something we're working for. We don't have a transition house right now, and there is no transition house for men anywhere in the province.

           There are places like the Salvation Army. I know that in Nanaimo there is a place called Samaritan House. These are places where, essentially, we're talking about homeless people, and this is a lot different from what we're talking about.

           We're talking about a place where a man who is being abused can go. One of the statistics that most people aren't aware of — and this comes from Statistics Canada — is that 7 percent of women and 6 percent of men have been the victims of domestic violence. This is within the last five years.

           I know that before I started running the men's centre, I always thought that domestic violence was 90 percent perpetrated by men, if not 99 percent. I've since discovered that that's not true. Those statistics come from Statistics Canada. We also have about 200 studies that say the same thing — that domestic violence is perpetrated relatively equally by men and women.

           One of the things we know is that domestic violence is extremely underreported by men. Men say: "Oh well. It's not a big deal. I didn't really get hurt." They minimize it, so we don't really get the full picture.

           One of the things that a transition house would deal with is…. Essentially, it would do the same thing that a transition house for women would do. One of the things right now is that when men go to a place like the Salvation Army, they can't bring their stuff there during the day. They have to move it out. They can't bring their kids there. It's not appropriate.

           What we're looking for is a place…. If you have a man who is being abused by an abusive partner, he's also going to want to take his kids out of that environment. Why should he leave without his children and leave them in an abusive environment?

           What we're doing is really creating a safe place where these men can take their children, for one thing, and where they can rebuild their lives. We're not talking about permanent housing but a safe transition time for them to be able to put their lives back together when they're leaving a relationship.

           All the same factors are in place if you reverse the genders.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Theo, thank you very much. That was a very interesting submission. I appreciate it.

           T. Boere: Thank you for listening.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Our next witness is the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C., the Vernon chapter, Jennifer Charlesworth.

           Good morning.

           J. Charlesworth: Good morning. Just a correction. I'm actually the provincial executive director. You will

[ Page 1289 ]

be hearing from the interior region at a later date. I'm the provincial representative.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. Thank you for that correction.

           J. Charlesworth: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for this opportunity to present to your deliberations and present the views of the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C.

           I'm Jennifer Charlesworth. I'm the executive director. I have 30 years in the child-, family- and community-serving field. That certainly doesn't make me an expert in this complex field, but I've been around long enough to see a few things change.

           My presentation today is going to do the following. It will introduce you briefly to the federation's work and its member agencies' actions. It will identify progress that's been made in the child, family and community field. It will describe a significant long-term issue for the sector. And it will identify and quantify a specific action that we believe can be taken to alleviate a risk that is emerging within the child, family and community service sector.

[0930]

           First, the federation was established in 1982. It's our 25th-anniversary year. We were established to create a provincewide network of community agencies that provide services to children, youth and families.

           We are entirely self-sustaining. That means we don't rely on government grants in order to carry out our work. It's a collective voice of 115 child-, family- and community-serving member agencies throughout the province. Our core mission is to enable excellence in service to children, youth and families in their communities throughout the province.

           There are a number of ways that we do this. We are very big on continuous quality improvement. That includes such things as agency accreditation. We deliver education and training provincially, regionally and locally.

           We collaborate with our colleagues in government, school districts, health authorities and post-secondary institutions to develop more effective practitioners and services. We facilitate networking and mentorship amongst agencies and with our government colleagues. We raise public awareness about the value of our children and youth.

           We offer nice tangibles, like employee benefit, liability and general insurance packages at reasonable cost, and we provide members with access to administrative supports and expertise.

           Our members serve communities spanning from Fernie in the southeast to Fort St. John in the northeast, from Haida Gwaii in the northwest down here to Victoria, and hundreds of communities in between. They include small agencies with budgets of $100,000 through to the largest in the province, with budgets of $25 million to $35 million. This is not a small sector.

           Our members deliver a significant array of programs and services in their community. They cover the family life span from pre-natal through to adulthood, from supportive, voluntary services such as neighbourhood parent drop-in programs through to the statutorily mandated services like youth justice and child protective care. They're engaged in family and community development work as an antidote to the stressors that many children, youth and families face.

           The province of B.C. — most notably the Ministries of Children and Family Development, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Community Services and Employment and Income Assistance — invests in these organizations to deliver community-based services on their behalf.

           Provincial investments account for approximately 60 percent of the budgets of our member agencies. Other funding comes from federal and municipal governments; from community organizations such as Lions, Kiwanis, United Way; from fundraising; and from community donations.

           In short, the federation and its 115 member organizations work to support the government's great goal of building the best system of support in Canada for persons with disabilities, those with special needs, children at risk and seniors.

           We also work closely within MCFD — the Ministry of Children and Family Development — to support its main goal in their current service plan, which is identifying and strengthening effective services for children, families, youth and communities in B.C. within a strength-based, developmental approach.

           Although we work across ministries, I'm going to direct my comments to the work we do with and for Ministry of Children and Family Development. I'll refer to it as MCFD or the ministry.

           Positive steps. The federation acknowledges that MCFD has received additional funding to support transformation, development of aboriginal governance, staffing enhancements, foster care rate increases and the development of laudable new programs such as family development response, family case conferencing — some of which are now delivered by our agencies.

           We support these developments and their enhancements. We work closely with our ministry colleagues at the provincial office and in all regions, and we support these goals and vision. They are positive developments.

           However, the new money has been for new initiatives. They have not been directed toward sustaining the system of community care that we've all invested in over the years. That's essential to the attainment of the great goals and the ministry's goals.

           The area I'd like to focus in on now, in response to question 4 of the prebudget consultation paper, has to do with the funding of infrastructure and operating costs for agencies. These are the non-wage and benefit costs. They include rent, mortgage, utilities, facility repairs, vehicles, food, telephone, cellular — all those kinds of things.

           They also include information technology, hardware and technical support, audit, accreditation and quality assurance. These costs account for about 10 percent to 20 percent of an agency's budget, depending on the structure of the agency.

           The problem we face is this. The funding that community-based agencies have received for operating

[ Page 1290 ]

and infrastructure has not been increased for between six and ten years in contracts with MCFD. As costs have risen due to inflation and other drivers, agencies have had to absorb these cost increases.

           I'll speak in a moment about how they've done this and what has happened. But let me first describe how we arrived at this place, because it's not a matter of neglect. It's circumstantial.

[0935]

           Many of our agencies have longstanding relationships with the ministry. In general, when an agency enters into a contract with government, they negotiate what services they'll deliver for government. That's set out in schedule A. In schedule B they set out payment for direct services and what that breakdown is going to be.

           What's happened is that in recent years, at the end of the fiscal year, the contract managers assess the quality and quantity of services, and if they're satisfied, then they essentially agree to extend the contract.

           In the past the contract managers at that juncture were able to negotiate or consider inflationary or other cost drivers and adjust the contracts, at least to some extent. However, the ministries have not had the financial resources to deal with these cost pressures for, as I mentioned, between six and ten years, depending on where you are and what kind of service you're providing. As such, contract managers have had nothing to offer, and contracts have not been opened up for review.

           As I mentioned, the new dollars that have come in are doing good things, but they're not sustaining what's already out there.

           Both ministry staff and agencies are fundamentally committed to providing the best quality care to the greatest number of children, youth and families, so both have wanted to maintain service levels. It has fallen on the agencies to make do. Agencies have gone to remarkable lengths to cope without compromising service delivery, but they've reached their limit.

           Let me talk about the impact now. We'll start with the global picture. As you'll see in the note shared with you, inflation in B.C. has averaged 2 percent per year since 1997. In real terms what the agencies face is that the dollar they received in 1997 for infrastructure is now worth 77 cents. This, in itself, is a challenge, but there's more. I'll illustrate the challenge for our agencies.

           We wanted to understand and quantify this phenomenon, so we undertook a joint study with the ministry from July through September of this year. It's called the infrastructure cost research project.

           The budget problem I've described and the information I'm going to share with you is not something that we're making up. This is something that the federation and the ministry understand together. In fact, our work has led to the ministry now undertaking a review because they recognize the challenge that they face within their own regional operations.

           The conclusions I'm sharing with you today are based on this project and our subsequent analysis. Let's talk about costs, to begin with.

           In addition to inflationary pressures — so 2 percent per year, on average — agencies have faced other challenges. Insurance rates have gone up — in some cases, up to 98 percent. Quality assurance and improvement requirements have necessitated investments in information technology. They've also required the dedication of resources to prepare for and maintain accreditation and quality services.

           The good news is that you know the quality of the services you're getting, but the bad news is that there are costs associated with that. Audit costs have increased due to regulatory changes imposed by the federal government. Our study determined that in the past three years alone, inflation and these other drivers have resulted in close to a 30-percent increase in operating and infrastructure costs.

           Over the years agencies have utilized a variety of strategies to deal with these budget challenges without compromising service delivery. First step, as any of us would do if faced with this: reduce operating costs where possible. There are some good things there: reducing costs by changing service providers, etc.

           But there are other challenges: putting off needed facility repairs and maintenance, withdrawing supports and benefits for staff, decreasing vehicle fleets or putting off needed replacements, delaying recruitment of staff and asking staff to do multiple jobs in order to save a little bit in staffing.

           Next step that they tried: increase revenues where possible. Many have done well. However, revenue resources, such as gaming funds and United Way funding, have been diminished, and where they used to get things at 100-percent rebate on GST, it's down to 50 percent.

           Agencies have now reached the point where they have no other option but to reallocate funds from service delivery to literally keep the lights on. This, of course, reduces the effectiveness of agencies, compromises a community asset, reduces the effectiveness of government's investment in the services and will negatively impact the performance measures MCFD has established in their service plan. The impact is shown in the notes here.

           The ministry has envisioned doing their work in partnership with the community-based agencies, and we're up for this, but we must be sustainable.

[0940]

           Let's quantify the ask here — what we're asking. To ensure that government receives full value for its investment in direct services, we recommend that $20 million be placed into the MCFD budget, specifically to cover the inflationary and other cost drivers on agency operational needs.

           We arrived at this number by looking at the data we obtained through our joint study, rates of inflation and the portion of the ministry budget that goes towards community contracted services. By the way, 75 percent of the service delivery is through community service agencies.

           In the written submission that we'll be providing to the select standing committee, we'll provide more detailed calculations to substantiate this request, so you'll see the formula that we've used.

[ Page 1291 ]

           We recognize that there's a differential impact on agencies, so we would work closely with MCFD to distribute these funds, to ensure that the dollars go to those agencies that are most in need of operational infrastructure cost lifts and to those that have been most significantly impacted.

           I'll close there. Thank you for the opportunity to present. I wanted to alert you to the fact that you will hear from other member agency colleagues in the north region, in the interior region and in the Fraser region. They will speak and provide you with local and regional illustrations of this challenge and of the impact that it's having within their communities so that you can see the depth and the colour of that challenge. I know that you'll find these presentations interesting and compelling.

           I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I understand that you have a tremendous amount of experience in the field, Jennifer.

           Are there questions from members? It was such a good presentation.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I agree that it's a very thorough and thoughtful presentation. I think the conclusion is one that, if you follow the presentation, is hard to disagree with.

           What's your sense of the ministry's likely response? Obviously, this committee only has an advisory role, and the decision would be made by the Minister of Finance, in conjunction with the Minister of CFD. I'm just wondering what your sense is of the response thus far.

           J. Charlesworth: That's a great question. One of the things that I am most proud of in my short tenure with the federation is the way in which we work with the ministry, the minister, the deputy minister and the ministry staff.

           We have presented our findings on the infrastructure cost challenges to the minister and to the deputy minister within the past two weeks. They recognize the problem. All of the regional executive directors have recognized the problem and acknowledged it. As I mentioned, the ministry itself is now taking a look at the cost pressures that they're facing for their regional operations in the very same line.

           I believe that we have strong support from the ministry, and because we are working hand in glove in order to deliver the services on the community's behalf and on government's behalf, it's in our collective best interests to work together on these things. I think you would find that the minister, the deputy minister and their CFO are not only well informed about this but supportive.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well, on that positive note, we'll thank you very much for your presentation.

           The next witness is the Nanaimo Child Development Centre Society, Jean-Marc and Laura. Good morning, folks. Thank you for coming this morning.

           L. Addison: Good morning, and thank you very much. I'm here today as a board member of the Nanaimo Child Development Centre, but mostly this morning I'm speaking to you as a grandmother.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           First of all, we'd like to thank you for your support last year on the recommendations this committee gave on behalf of the CDCs in B.C. This year we would like to ask for your help in following up on those recommendations and in helping to see that those funds that are so desperately needed come down to our level.

[0945]

           I'm just going to paint a little picture for you of what goes on at the CDC, how it impacted our life, why I'm involved and why I find myself here today.

           Nolan, my grandson — you have a picture in your package — was born on January 10, 2001. His mother had had all of the tests required, and there was no reason to expect that we would have anything but a healthy baby. He was born six weeks prematurely, and his parents were totally unprepared for what was about to happen in the next hour.

           The first sign for them that there was something wrong was in the delivery room, when there was no excited chatter about the new baby born. No one would make eye contact with the parents. There was just deadly silence everywhere. Finally, the doctor's words came: "We have some concerns." Just two parents heard these words, but similar words are spoken to thousands of parents in B.C. every year.

           As a family, we've tried to find a way to describe to you exactly how we felt, and we just couldn't. There are no words to describe the feelings that you go through when those words are said to you. Only if you're a parent or a grandparent in that situation will you understand the feelings and the thoughts, the range of emotion that you go through at that time. In the end, of course, you come out on: "What a beautiful baby boy we have."

           He was born with Down syndrome. After Nolan was two weeks old, Jan from the Nanaimo infant development program at CDC came into our lives. Overworked, underpaid but always smiling; calm, capable and just one of the many kind and dedicated people who make our centre so special, she came in and set up Nolan's programs. She became a lifeline not only to him and to his parents but to our whole extended family.

           The doors of the centre were opened for Nolan. He received a full range of services. He was never denied anything — equipment, toys, therapies. Everything Nolan needed came to him. Nolan is one of 1,500 success stories that the Nanaimo Child Development Centre has had.

           At the age of five, he moved on to the at-home program, which is also working very well on his behalf. He goes to school with the help of an aide. He has swimming lessons. He went to day camp. He loves music, videos and all kinds of things that a very normal six-year-old little boy would enjoy. He lives his life, as closely as we can make it possible, like that of a six-year-old down the street.

           Nolan is successful because he had full access to all of the therapies that he needed. The programs are in

[ Page 1292 ]

place and staffed by a very hard-working group of professionals who love their jobs and the kids that they serve. It just doesn't seem fair to me that 400 children are sitting on a wait-list at the Nanaimo Child Development Centre. They will not be given the same opportunity that Nolan was.

           Nanaimo is defined as a priority community. All the social ills are well and thriving in Nanaimo. A very high percentage of parents with special needs children are single parents. That only adds to a situation that is already overwhelming at best — the frustration and despair that the board and the staff feel when we have to become part of the problem and not of the solution. Closing doors and saying no is an unacceptable thing for us. Despite our best efforts, it's part of our reality.

           When I'm out and about fundraising on behalf of the centre — with each group that we go to, each time, 100 percent of the time — we have to explain who we are. We are a non-profit organization. We work very hard for our money. We work very hard to keep those doors open for those children.

[0950]

           Everyone assumes that we are simply a department of the hospital, that we are fully funded by the government. By the time I get to the story of the wait-list, most people find it unbelievable.

           No one understands the impact of the wait-list unless you're a five-year-old starting kindergarten with a speech impediment. You should be worrying about snack time and playground and all those other important five-year-old things and not: "Will anyone understand me when I speak?"

           When it's time for a question-and-answer period after I have done a presentation at a fundraising event, most of the questions are about a wait-list. The community in Nanaimo is very concerned and, basically, appalled at the situation that we face. We're asking you today to help us help the kids. Remember that each of the numbers you hear has a name and that every one of those names has a story.

           Jean-Marc now will tell you another story, of another little boy, named Max. Thank you very much for listening to me today.

           J. Jaquier: Good morning. I am the father of Max, a child with special needs who also receives services at the centre. I will focus more on the issues here.

           In the last few years we've been fighting to try to have more funds to address the wait-list. Last year we got very excited when your committee made strong recommendations to address the wait-list in B.C. and, more specifically, in Nanaimo. We were very hopeful that these would indeed happen. We had several meetings with MLAs Cantelon and Krog to stress that point, and we got their support.

           Later on we were able to meet with Minister Christensen, in June, and ask him what was happening since Minister Taylor had provided those funds to the ministry. We were a bit shocked at that point to find out that although that money had been received by the ministry, the funds were unfortunately diverted to other issues, obviously also very pressing for the ministry. Out of that $30 million that was supposed to go to the CDCs in B.C., and an estimated $1½ million for us, we got $25,000 — which, you know, doesn't cover anything.

           The big thing we wanted to do today was to stress to you that this budget's strong recommendation that those funds…. They need to reach the ministry, but they went into a black hole, and we don't know where they are.

           In terms of economic prosperity and the government announcing huge profits this past fiscal year, our request for both the Nanaimo city CDC and the CDCs across the province is actually very small in the big picture. There was a huge return on investments in bringing those funds and addressing the wait-lists.

           In Nanaimo we serve about 2,000 kids a year, and right now we've got 400 children on the wait-list. For us to be able to reduce that wait-list to zero by 2010, we only need about a million dollars a year. Across the province it would be a mere $25 million to $30 million to eradicate from the wait-list the 6,000 children who are on it today.

           Like Laura mentioned, each of those children…. It's a trauma for the families to be denied services and help, so we really hope that once again you'll recognize the urgency that's right now for those children. If you can, give us any suggestions on what we can do to follow up with the ministry to make sure that those funds which are recommended by your committee, hopefully, this year again, will end up at the CDCs and not somewhere else.

           We've been very patient and very polite so far — meeting with the minister and MLAs — but we'll have to do something else. We can't wait for the kids any longer. We'll have to step up the pressure in order to make sure those children are helped.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I remember that last year the committee was certainly struck by the backlog and what might be needed to reduce the backlog significantly. You mentioned that in your view, the funds appear to have been allocated to the ministry but diverted to other needs of the ministry.

           Did you at any point receive an explanation from the minister, and if so, was that in written form? If it was, would you be prepared to release that to the committee?

[0955]

           J. Jaquier: We've met with the political level first, including Minister Christensen, who wasn't able to give us any specifics except that the foster programs had some big requirements, and also some internal wages of the ministry. Then we went into more the administrative level. We met with the ED Eamer, who I think is the regional manager for that department.

           To date we still have not been able to get satisfactory answers as to how that money was used. We're still

[ Page 1293 ]

pursuing that. In your package there is some correspondence we sent following our meeting with Mr. Eamer, and we're still not satisfied with the answers we've received.

           I. Black: Thank you for your presentation. As a father of young children, it resonates quite emphatically with me, as it did last year as well.

           My question for you is with respect to addressing the backlog of young children that you have. Is there the availability of people? We all read in the newspapers, and some of us experience it first hand, about the shortage of people that exists in this particular economic climate.

           How does that impact the wait-list issue? If the money were to appear overnight, do you have the resources, human capital–wise, to address the wait-lists? Or is this also subject to the same pressures of employee availability that we're seeing in other sectors across the province?

           J. Jaquier: I think what we have seen is that we're able to attract people. Nanaimo is still a pleasant place to work. Of course, there was a shortage of trained people. The pressure we have is that there are other cities in the province which are unionized. They will receive more money per employee from the ministry because of the union requirements, so it's more difficult for us to hire people than at other CDCs.

           We've had to increase wages a bit lately to try to meet the market. There, again, the speech therapists can go out into private practice and make twice as much, if not more. That's a challenge we have, but right now, we've come across some names, and we could hire people if we had the money.

           J. Kwan: In the information that you provided us and in your presentation, you advised that there are some 400 children on the wait-list. Can you tell the committee how long they have to wait, these 400 children, to get assessed? Comparing this year and last year, because you made a similar presentation last year: has anything changed? Or has the wait-list just increased, even though funding was theoretically put in place to address the wait-list question?

           J. Jaquier: Like I said, since last year we haven't had very much increase in terms of funding. Right now, on average, I think it goes between 16 and 20 months on wait-list for kids. We try to at least view them once and assess them to give some little tips to the parents on what they can do.

           Mostly it's with the speech therapists, which is the most difficult situation. This August about 50 children in Nanaimo entered the school system without ever having been seen by a speech therapist. Once you enter the school system, the situation is even worse in terms of seeing a speech therapist.

           In terms of wait-lists I think the number has either remained stable since last year or gotten a little bit worse.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Jean-Marc, for your presentation, and Laura, we appreciate you coming in this morning.

           The next witness is the Insurance Bureau of Canada, Serge Corbeil.

           Good morning, sir.

           S. Corbeil: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, thank you for giving us the opportunity today to present to your committee as it works to identify priorities for the 2008 B.C. budget.

[1000]

           Insurance Bureau of Canada is the national trade association. We represent private property and casualty insurance companies. Those are the companies that offer home, business and car insurance.

           Before I get into the specific recommendations that we have for the 2008 B.C. budget, I'd like to briefly comment on the state of the economy and also offer a brief overview of our industry and its role in British Columbia. We do remain impressed with the remarkable turnaround in the province's financial situation over the past few years. The first quarterly report for 2007 and 2008 once again confirms the impressive strength of our economy, with a forecast surplus now a staggering 400 percent higher than expected just this past February.

           Many options, as you know, exist when it comes to allocating funds to different priorities. Overall, we would like to recommend that the government offer a mix of debt payment, tax relief and targeted investments and initiatives that can generate greater benefits by preventing further costs down the road.

           By all accounts, 2006 was also a positive year for the insurance industry in Canada. In fact, one can say that our industry often follows the fortune of the economy. To appreciate the importance it plays in our economy, just consider these few facts. We paid out $1.34 billion in claims to B.C. policyholders in 2006 and more than $216 million in taxes to the provincial government. During the same year insurance companies had $7.5 billion in investment in B.C. Our industry also employs close to 12,800 employees in our province.

           You'll see on slide 4 of the PowerPoint slides that I've provided to you that the growth in our economy has been reflected steadily in the growth in the premiums written in British Columbia.

           Consumers have also been experiencing a soft insurance market. Slide 5 shows that, on average, rates for insurance have declined in 2006 when compared to 2005. What is increasing, however, is the average policy size, and that reflects the growth in the economy and also an increase in the valuation of homes in our province.

           As you can also notice in slide 6, the majority of each insurance dollar that is being collected by companies goes back into communities, either through claims, taxes or salaries and expenses.

           For the 2008-2009 budget we would like to make recommendations in four specific areas: changes that promote greater resiliency to natural disasters, an equitable tax

[ Page 1294 ]

policy, allowing consumers real choice in automobile insurance and investments for injury prevention initiatives.

           Firstly, I'd like to touch on the issue that is at the heart of the budget consultation paper for this year. The paper asks us about the choices we would make for a greener future. The need to address greenhouse gas emissions has been widely documented over the last few years. To say that the insurance industry has an interest in the issue of climate change is an understatement. We see firsthand the devastating effect that an ever-increasing number of natural disasters is having on our communities and their residents.

           We can only encourage the government to follow through on its commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, as I just mentioned, we are already dealing with the aftermath of climate change. Thus, any discussion around emissions reduction, in our opinion, has to include an important component: how do we adapt today to our changing climate?

           The P and C insurance industry is one of the leaders in disaster recovery. Our industry pays out substantially more than all levels of government to those affected by natural disasters. For example, just this past winter insurers paid out $135 million to British Columbians following the series of storms our province experienced. Apparently, if we are to trust the weather forecasts, we're in for another wacky weather day today.

           Canada is witnessing a greater frequency in the severe types of storms that in the past only occurred every 100 to 200 years. In fact, claims resulting from natural disaster are now doubling every five to seven years. The graph on slide 9 clearly shows the upward trend in claims costs over the past 25 years. It's now reaching close to almost $500 million a year in Canada.

[1005]

           In light of this reality, efforts must also be made to ensure that all components of society are ready to face the challenges of climate change. The government's intervention in flood mitigation work last spring was welcomed by many British Columbians and is a prime example of the necessity to prepare our infrastructure so it can withstand the demands of more extreme weather.

           However, we must move away from work done with a sense of urgency to a more strategic and proactive approach. The government admitted as much just this past Friday with the Premier's announcement regarding long-term flood protection funding, which is most certainly a step in the right direction.

           The pine beetle infestation currently affecting our province is another example of what many consider a result of changing climate. With good reason, the government has committed important financial resources to combat this infestation. However, private property owners are also affected with a greatly increased risk of damages to buildings and other properties. We encourage the government of B.C. to assist property owners with the work needed to limit the impact of the pine beetle infestation. We know that others have made similar recommendations, among them the UBCM.

           Some of what the Insurance Bureau of Canada is proposing to help citizens adapt to climate change and to prepare for natural disasters does not necessarily require budget expenditures. In fact, it could have the benefit of saving the government billions of dollars in direct costs and lost revenues. One such case is our call for the government to make the necessary changes to the Insurance Act, currently being reviewed by the Ministry of Finance.

           The shock to the province's economy resulting from an earthquake would be deep and far-reaching, with the potential of negatively impacting our economic well-being for years to come. Our industry has the resources to help rebuild B.C. following an earthquake. We've shown that to our regulators. A critical question is how quickly the money of insurers reaches those insured.

           In order to ensure an effective and efficient distribution of insurance money following a large-scale earthquake, insurers need clarity as to who is covered under which policy and what they are covered for. We are hopeful that the government will propose legislative changes allowing for the creation of an earthquake insurance product that will offer coverage for both fire and shake under the same terms and conditions for policyholders.

           Now turning to the tax policies of the government. A government's tax policy must be at the heart of any strategy to stimulate economic development. Creating the conditions that will encourage the private sector to make the necessary investments to generate collective wealth remains central to any budget plan. We couldn't help but notice that out of the $1.1 billion in additional revenues the province is expecting in 2007-2008, 66 percent is due to higher-than-expected tax revenues. Evidently, there is room to reduce the tax burden without jeopardizing the province's finances.

           A strong and sustainable economy also necessitates access to a skilled and qualified workforce. With booming economies in other jurisdictions in Canada, we need to make B.C. an attractive destination for would-be employees. This is especially true when we look to Alberta, with which the competition is probably the strongest. There are some challenges in doing so in B.C., among which is our higher taxation rates.

           Income on premiums earned in B.C. is still subject to a higher corporate tax — 12 percent, compared to Alberta's 10 percent. We recommend that B.C. further reduce its corporate income tax.

           In addition, consumers of insurance products in B.C. are at a disadvantage compared to those in Alberta because of a higher rate in the insurance premium tax — 4.4 percent, compared to 3 percent in Alberta. The same is true when you compare it to our immediate U.S. neighbours. It stands at 2 percent in Washington State and has been repealed in Oregon.

           B.C. is in the unenviable position of having the highest insurance premium tax among provincial jurisdictions. We recommend that the insurance premium tax be eliminated or, at the very least, reduced to align with neighbouring jurisdictions.

[ Page 1295 ]

           Turning to the real choice that we think consumers deserve in automobile insurance. By and large, the reforms in automobile insurance introduced in 2003 are now in place with the coming into force of Bill 93 this past June 1. While Bill 93 is a good step in putting the government auto insurance and private insurers under the same contractual obligations for optional automobile insurance, we are still far from a true and complete level playing field. In fact, the reality is that a large government monopoly remains largely untouched.

[1010]

           Moreover, ICBC continues to enjoy a highly favourable tax treatment over private competitors by not being subjected to corporate tax, even for the income generated by its optional automobile insurance. The B.C. government is forgoing an important source of revenue by accepting this double standard. We recommend that the government review the tax-free status on the competitive products sold by ICBC.

           Another area that we'd like the committee to focus on is injury prevention. Mindful of our industry's responsibility in matters of injury prevention, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, on behalf of Canada's home, car and business insurers, has launched "Be Smart. Be Safe." It's an outreach program dedicated to educating Canadians in preventing injuries. In delivering the program to Canadian communities, insurers work hand in hand with local injury prevention groups. And we're very happy to be a part of SafeBC, an initiative that was launched about a year and a half ago in British Columbia by the government.

           Governments in Canada — and the British Columbia government appears to be no exception — have been toiling for some time with strategies to shorten wait-lists in the public medical system. Considerable resources are currently spent in our health system. However, we submit that some resources should be invested to limit the number of persons that end up being on a wait-list. There is no doubt in our minds that a way of achieving just that is to invest in injury prevention initiatives.

           We believe that the provincial government is on the right track on the issue of injury prevention. It is to be commended for the creation of the provincewide safety initiative SafeBC by the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services. We would like to recommend that the provincial budget ensures adequate resources for this important initiative.

           This concludes my formal remarks, and I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have.

           B. Simpson: Thank you for the presentation. Two questions. First, did your organization make a presentation to the climate change secretariat?

           S. Corbeil: We haven't had the opportunity. No.

           B. Simpson: Second, with respect to mountain pine beetle and private property owners, what is it explicitly that the Insurance Bureau is suggesting needs to be done?

           As you've referenced, at UBCM there was a resolution put forward to declare a disaster to free up provincial and federal emergency funding. Is it something like that, or do you have something else in mind?

           S. Corbeil: We know that the UBCM has made specific recommendations. I think the B.C. Real Estate Association has also touched on the issue. The precise form that it would take, I think, is still open for discussion.

           We're in the business of risk mitigation. We'd like homeowners to actually take proper steps to make sure that they don't have to face increased claims down the road.

           It appears to us that making sure that…. Trees are in danger of falling because they're rotten. We see more and more windstorms coming our way and more and more — we've seen it last winter — trees falling on homes. Homeowners should have the capacity, as we're doing overall in the province when it comes to cutting down pine beetle–infested trees…. They should also get some kind of help, either directly or through a tax credit, to make sure that they have the capacity to do this risk mitigation work.

           H. Bloy: Thanks, Serge. A positive presentation; I enjoyed it.

           The one question people always ask is on the auto insurance, to make it a level playing field. How would you compare what you're proposing to what we do now in British Columbia?

           S. Corbeil: When you look to other jurisdictions, most of the jurisdictions in North America — save about three, B.C. included — are open to full competition. There are two different insurance products when it comes to automobile insurance: your basic mandatory product and your optional product.

           B.C. has taken steps since 2003 to level the playing field, or make private insurers and ICBC under the same contractual obligations when it comes to optional insurance. We're closely monitoring what's happening, but it appears to us so far that ICBC still has a very strong presence in the marketplace, just because of the monopoly it has on the basic insurance.

           We would like, down the road, for the government to actually move and allow B.C. consumers the same benefits that they have in other jurisdictions. We pay among the highest automobile insurance rates in our province. We believe that competition would certainly put downward pressures on rates, as it has done on optional insurance. As you've noticed, ICBC has been increasing its basic insurance rates over the last couple of years, while it's been reducing its optional insurance rates. There is no doubt in our minds that this is the result of competition.

[1015]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I know you'll want to be diplomatic in answering this question since you are representing those who are regulated by the ministry. But just for those members of the committee who don't know how long the government has reviewed the Insurance Act and how many years it has been going

[ Page 1296 ]

on, could you briefly inform the committee how long that review of the legislation has been going on?

           S. Corbeil: It has been going on for awhile. It's a complex issue. The Insurance Act is a very complex document. It has been in need of some updating for a number of years. We're happy that it's now moving forward.

           The government also wanted to move in tandem with Alberta, so they also had to have discussions with the government of Alberta on that. Suffice it to say that we're happy that finally, we're told, in the spring there should be new legislation tabled in the Legislature.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Serge, for your presentation.

           The next witness for the committee is the Canadian Federation of Independent Business — Laura Jones.

           Good morning.

           L. Jones: Good morning. On behalf of the 10,000 members who belong to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business in the province of British Columbia, I want to thank the standing committee for taking the time to listen to the priorities of small business.

           I want to be clear that the recommendations that we are putting forward in our submission do come directly from feedback from our members, who represent a broad cross-section of industries, small and medium-sized businesses across the entire province. We extensively survey our members, and most of the survey results that you see today are actually fairly recent — within the last year or so, some of them within the last month.

           Let me start by making a comment about why I think government should pay close attention to the views of small and medium-sized business owners. These are, of course, the people who create jobs, train workers, provide essential goods and services, and contribute to local charities. So what's good for small business in British Columbia is good for British Columbians.

           It's also important to note that most business in B.C. is small business. About 80 percent of businesses in the province employ fewer than five employees, and 98 percent have fewer than 50 employees. Fifty employees is usually the uppermost limit that people use when talking about defining small business. Small and medium-sized businesses together generate over 60 percent of private sector employment.

           Let me get into my presentation. Before getting into my specific recommendations, I'll just make a very quick comment on the economic outlook. I'm sure you've heard many other versions of this, but B.C. continues to be among the strongest-performing economies in the country.

           Our indicator, which looks at small business expectations — current expectations and for the next 12 months — shows that we have exceeded national optimism for 17 consecutive quarters, which is pretty impressive, and that 60 percent of businesses expect a stronger next 12 months.

           This is a little bit weaker than what we saw last year, where we had 65 percent of businesses, but our latest results were released last week, and in those results, British Columbia is number 2 in the country. Actually, we had been running first or second to Alberta for the last 16 quarters, but now Saskatchewan is in first place, British Columbia is at number 2, and Alberta is in third place.

           Thirty-six percent expect to increase full-time employees. That leads us into…. Again, before I get into the specific recommendations, I just want to make a comment that finding employees is a major concern for small business. It continues to be a concern. We've got two-thirds citing it now as a concern. That's up substantially from where we were just a couple of years ago.

           If you look at figure 5, one of the things that really concerns me about this is…. Look at how business owners are coping with this. If you go down to the fourth one down, 40 percent are saying that they are ignoring new business opportunities. You know things are bad when businesses are saying that to cope with labour shortages, they are having to turn down economic opportunities.

[1020]

           It worries me because I think it's an issue for all British Columbians. We're basically forgoing economic opportunities, which means governments are also forgoing tax revenues — revenues that can be put towards important priorities like health care and education. I think it really should be a priority to help business owners cope with these challenges. There's no one magic solution to this problem.

           There's some good news in this story. Hiring underqualified individuals is one of the top approaches to this. Of course, that provides people who in other circumstances might not have opportunities to work with those opportunities. Businesses are investing a significant amount in training — an increase of about 43 percent over the past three years in the time they're putting into training employees. Again, this is also posing a challenge for business.

           In terms of factors contributing to hiring difficulties, inability to pay higher salaries is coming up at the top of the list. Of course, not surprisingly, tax credits and reduced tax burden would be helpful in that regard.

           Turning to the next page, the Finance Minister has in the past couple of years put forward themes for her budget. We asked small businesses what they thought of a variety of different potential themes for budgets.

           Based on our feedback, we will be advising her that it might be time to consider a small business budget theme. We do know that this budget was likely to be an environmentally focused budget, and of course that is a priority for a significant number of businesses. Some 94 percent say that they are very supportive or somewhat supportive of an environmental theme, but there are other issues that are higher on that list. I think that also should be noted.

           For B.C. to continue to prosper, figure 9 shows that a focus on reducing taxes and red tape as well as addressing skill shortages are the top priorities. I put last year's results on here as well. No significant

[ Page 1297 ]

changes. A small decrease in concern over trades capacity and infrastructure. That's probably not surprising, given that there has been some investment in those areas and probably a little more emphasis on red tape than there was in the past.

           In terms of priorities for allocating the surplus, debt reduction and tax relief are priorities with some moderate spending increases. A comment on debt reduction. We are recommending that the government continue to pay down the debt and lower the debt-to-GDP ratio based on our member feedback.

           We're also recommending on the tax side that generally we look at a multi-year tax reduction strategy, rather than just doing it budget to budget. That's something that's favoured by a significant number of businesses.

           The next page goes into some of the more specific tax and spending priorities. As you can see from figure 12, tax relief in any number of areas would be welcome from small businesses. But at the top of their list is reducing the small business income tax rate, reducing personal income taxes further and increasing the small business threshold. Those are ones that we want to focus on.

           If I can comment specifically on the rate and the threshold. If you look at table 1, you'll see that British Columbia could be a lot more competitive than we are in both of those areas, particularly if you look at western Canada. Both Alberta and Saskatchewan are moving to increase their thresholds to $500,000. British Columbia remains at $400,000.

           Our rate is also not competitive with Alberta's rate. Manitoba's rate is actually…. The Premier in a pre-election campaign promise has said that he would take that rate down to zero percent. Increasingly, those taxes are not looking competitive.

           I'd also like to comment that increasing the small business threshold is one of the cheapest tax asks that I could come here with. Raising the threshold by $100,000 is estimated to cost about $10 million. While I recognize that's not nothing, it certainly is a lot cheaper than…. If you look at some of the low-priority issues for members like reducing provincial sales tax relative to that, which I think is estimated to be over $530 million, that puts that in perspective.

           I would also suggest that we get really competitive in this area. So we're looking at something ambitious and recommending that maybe government look to increase the small business threshold to something like $750,000 from its current rate.

           If you look at what businesses would do with tax relief, I think you see these are all worthy causes. Investing in new equipment to be more productive is certainly something that benefits British Columbians. Increasing employee wages, hiring additional employees, investing in training…. These all relate back to the theme of shortage of labour.

           I won't spend too much time on the spending priorities. I think they're very consistent with the spending priorities of British Columbians, and there's a figure there that goes through them.

[1025]

           I did want to spend one of my last remaining minutes on regulation. This is also giving business owners…. Freeing up time is increasingly important in this environment we have of labour shortages. I think it's something that the government should continue to focus on.

           The costs of red tape are more significant for smaller businesses than they are for bigger businesses, if you look at the per-employee costs. We've done some estimates — these are consistent with OECD numbers as well — and the annual compliance costs are highest for the smallest businesses on a per-employee basis.

           A couple of recommendations. These don't cost anything, actually, in this regard. First, we would like to see the counts by ministry published in the budget again. We've had them in the budget documents for the past several years. I think that's really important for accountability and transparency — that we know what's happening to the regulatory burden and whether it is increasing, decreasing or staying the same.

           The second recommendation is that we'd like to see that legislated. Right now we know that there is a private member's bill in Alberta that would require governments to report out on this. We'd like to see British Columbia move in that direction as well.

           Finally, we'd like to see the government set a new target for no net increase in the regulatory burden over the next three years. That has strong support.

           Just to conclude. If you look at the next page, we know environment will be a focus. Figure 19 shows you that we would really encourage government to focus on tax incentives and education in terms of achieving its environmental goals.

           It is also interesting to note, and figure 21 shows you, that what motivates businesses to act is personal views. Many small businesses are taking action to improve their environmental performance.

           The final page of graphs shows you that consultation with small business is indeed very important. It also shows you that, I think, satisfaction with current consultation could be higher. This is consultation in general, not specific to this process. The best way to consult with government about policy changes is to work with groups like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Discussion forums, particularly during the daytime, do prove difficult for business owners.

           I'm one person, but I'm here representing hundreds of small business owners who feel that it is important that you take their views into consideration. I'm here representing hundreds of people who have taken the time to fill out our surveys so that I have these results to share with you today.

           The final page just summarizes some of the recommendations that I've discussed in my report.

           Thank you.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Laura. We have a couple of questions.

           B. Simpson: Thanks, Laura, for the presentation.

           On the labour shortage. I spent some time down in the Kootenays, and it's severe in some of those communities

[ Page 1298 ]

down there. One community I was in has restaurants that can't stay open past about eight o'clock at night because they just don't have the staff to do it. Yet the recommendation on this is more along the lines of tax and regulatory relief.

           I'm wondering if CFIB has any more information. I know there is no magic bullet solution, but is there any more detail to what we could do to address those concerns? My sense is that tax and regulatory relief won't create bodies.

           Secondly, on the consultation component, which I note quite a strong dissatisfaction with — the current level of consultation — is it time for us to have a specific task force on this, with people sitting down and looking at this issue in much more detail and trying to get a longer-term plan for this?

           L. Jones: For consultation or for shortage of labour?

           B. Simpson: No. As part of the consultation fix, let's put some people at a table to try and figure out this labour shortage and skills shortage issue.

           L. Jones: Yeah. I think there is absolutely no magic bullet, and CFIB has been…. I mean, I didn't have time to go into all of the initiatives that we've been working on. We recently released a very comprehensive report on immigration that shows that if you look at the skills of the people who we're bringing into Canada and the needs of small business, there is a complete mismatch there.

           I think there is a lot that could be done to improve the provincial nominee program, for example. Manitoba has had a lot of success with that, actually.

           I think there are a lot of things we can look at. Specific to the budget process, I guess we wanted to make the comment that when we do ask business owners what governments can do to help, what comes up very high on the list is tax and regulatory relief.

           The reason tax relief comes up high is that they do want to be able to invest in training and to pay people higher wages so they can be competitive. Regulatory relief…. Obviously, freeing up time is critical in this climate.

[1030]

           But it's also about making British Columbia an attractive place to live and work. In B.C. there are a number of challenges that our members talk about. I mean, housing affordability…. Tax relief feeds into that as well, because income tax relief helps people feel that living in British Columbia is more affordable. There's no magic bullet, but that focus is important to help with this. It's one of a number of strategies.

           We're also doing some work on looking at what best practices there are to tap into pools of labour that have been maybe underutilized. For example, we've got a report coming out on older workers and what small businesses are doing to make that more attractive and what governments might do to overcome some obstacles in that area.

           I. Black: That was a rapid-fire presentation of the best order I've seen. That was very good. You covered a lot of ground.

           I want to touch on the issue of regulation just for a moment because that was obviously a pretty steady theme throughout your remarks. Thank you for acknowledging the transparency and accountability elements within the budget. It's one of many examples of that. It's the way we do business, so thank you for acknowledging that.

           I think your comment about decreasing further the regulations in place…. I mean, to date we've eliminated about 156,000 regulations since 2001 — about 41 percent of the existing ones that are out there. In looking for the government to reduce regulation further, clearly we're of that mindset where we don't believe in regulating what shouldn't be regulated to slow down the productive nature of small business.

           What would a target be, in your mind? We've kind of had a zero net increase over the last few years. You're suggesting we continue that, but you also used the phrase "reduce it further." What would that target look like, in your mind?

           L. Jones: In my view, one of the really critical things is to control the growth of new regulation. That's why we would be happy with a target of no net increase extended for the next three to five years. I think that would be important.

           The other part of it that's important is really the accountability and transparency of this, so that we can have more informed discussions about…. You see, regulation is really a hidden cost; it's a hidden burden. B.C. has been a leader in making some of those hidden costs more visible and transparent, but we're asking the government to actually cross the finish line on this and make that a legislated requirement rather than something that is sort of discretionary and could disappear once it's no longer a priority of government.

           In terms of looking for further reduction, I think that as long as there's a no net increase, that forces the issue. There's always demand for new regulations, and some of them are important. As we look at those new regulations, we have to look for areas where there is red tape, and we need to encourage people to keep this top of mind.

           I. Black: So tied to that, you mentioned the comment about lowering taxes for small business as a means to an end of increasing wages for the employees. In your view, is that preferable to raising the minimum wage?

           L. Jones: We actually asked a recent mandate question. We asked our members mandate questions where we put arguments in favour and against and some background. We have a split on the issue of minimum wage, with a slight majority saying that they would not want to see the increase in minimum wage.

           I think it will be very tough for some businesses to cope with increasing minimum wages, because it puts wage inflation throughout the system. However, what we're seeing in our survey results is that businesses support the idea of helping those on lower incomes. I think a better way to do it would be through the personal income tax system and lowering personal income taxes.

[ Page 1299 ]

           But just to be clear on where small business is, there's a variety of different opinions on that issue. And many businesses are already paying more than minimum wage.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Laura, thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.

           The next witness is the Private Forest Landowners Association, Rod Bealing. Good morning.

[1035]

           R. Bealing: Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity to join you once again and give you an update on the private forest sector.

           My name is Rod Bealing. I'm the forestry manager with the Private Forest Landowners Association. We represent individuals, families and investors that own something like 97 percent of the managed forest land in B.C. — a very diverse group, large and small, right across the province.

           In addition to working with all these different owners and learning about their businesses and what is and isn't working for them, I am a forest owner myself and a small business person. I do some small-scale contracting. I sell logs, lumber, firewood, you name it — whatever it takes to keep the bills paid. I have a bit of an overview of things, and I also have a view from the coal face on these matters.

           The private forest sector is a small part of the provincial land base. It's about 2 percent of the land, but it provides about 10 percent of the annual harvest in B.C. That translates to something like 27,000 jobs, $1.6 billion in annual economic activity, $400 million in tax revenue to government each year. The important thing to remember is that's mostly, by definition, in rural areas, where there are fewer economic opportunities for people.

           The key thing to remember — and it's worth reminding everybody, I believe — is that we live in a province where most of the land belongs to the public. It's worth remembering that we forest owners have invested our aftertax dollars in our land. We pay property taxes. We pay business taxes. We're regulated by over 30 acts and regulations that directly apply to us. We're committed to responsible forest management, environmental regulations and that kind of thing, and to protecting key public environmental values such as water, fish and critical wildlife habitat.

           We're also committed to reforestation, those of us that belong to the managed forest program — in fact, those of us that aren't…. If you're managing your forest land, you're just like a farmer. You plant trees. That's your crop. We take all the risks when it comes to what happens with our land.

           I notice that the province is focusing more intensely recently on environment and climate change, and I understand part of your task is to make some recommendations around that. A key aspect of that focus is energy conservation. We heard the Premier, last week, talking about some of his ideas there.

           I'd like to throw the statement out there that we believe, as private forest owners, that we are already there. We are leaders when it comes to offsetting carbon. The reason for that is that we are compelled to manage our land more intensively. We try to grow more fibre. We try to get trees that grow fast — faster-growing species and faster-growing seedstock. We apply fertilizer, and we use things like commercial thinning and other tools that improve the growth of the crop.

           The other key thing about commercial thinning is that it captures mortality within a stand. Rather than those trees rotting in the forest, we capture them, and they are marketed. It creates all those things I talked about earlier.

           As far as I know, the only place that's happening in B.C. at present — fertilizer and commercial thinning — is on private land. I know I'm sticking my head out there, but I believe that to be the case.

           The other thing is that we don't really have any incentive to let our trees rot. When we salvage trees that have been blown over or killed by bugs or by fire, we do that because we're trying to salvage some of the investment we've made in the past 50 to 100 years it took to grow them.

           There's a contrast there between what happens on Crown land and what happens on private land. We try to move fast when there's a weather event that creates a salvage situation. We change our plans. We shift to the market, and we try and get that product to market.

           In addition, we also provide opportunities to firewood merchants. I make quite a bit each year in firewood sales to local firewood merchants. There's a renewable fuel that's coming off our land base.

[1040]

           As part of my education over the years, I've lived and worked and trained in other jurisdictions. I think B.C. can learn a lot from other jurisdictions, especially Scandinavia, when it comes to using renewable forest fuels for energy. There's lots of opportunity there, and as a group we'd support more work in this. We'd be interested in helping out and getting involved. We think we're already part of the solution, so we'd actually like to get mixed up in that if the province goes in that direction.

           Quite selfishly, as forest owners and business owners, we want better utilization of our wood. We spend enough time growing it and taking all those risks over the years. There's nothing we hate more than looking out to areas we've been working and having to leave wood behind.

           This may be an unpopular thing to raise, but the best way to ensure that wood stays in the forest to rot or gets thrown in a slash pile to be burned is to restrict the market. Presently B.C. is doing just that with the log export market restrictions. As I pointed out earlier, I sell lumber, I sell logs, and I sell all ranges of forest products. But the restriction on log exports does depress the domestic market and basically depress the utilization of all this opportunity out there.

           I should remind you that these restrictions only apply in B.C. There's no other province where it applies and no other country that I can think of where it applies to private land.

[ Page 1300 ]

           I'll give you one example. I'm small scale. It's basically just me and my family that manage our land. One of the things we grow is red alder. We're quite excited about growing alder. It's a very valuable wood these days. It's used in furniture, joinery — all kinds of high-end uses. But what's really exciting about it is that it matures in around 20 years. I'm currently selling boards from trees that are between 15 and 20 years old.

           I think that's something we should celebrate as a province. We're able to do that. We've got the climate for it. We've got the species. I've been forced into selling boards, but when I look into the market for logs…. If I look at the Vancouver Island market, I can get around $70 a cubic metre for my alder. If I look at Washington State, which is actually a shorter haul for me from where my land is, I can get something like $112 a cubic metre. That's a $40 difference.

           This is a species that isn't affected by the softwood lumber restrictions. We've got a dollar that's virtually at par now. As I was thinking about what I'd say today — I happened to be hanging upside down in the engine compartment of an excavator while I was doing it — I thought: what can my government do to help me?

           Well, just giving me a fair chance to compete would be the main thing, as far as I can see. I don't want any handouts. I'm a private investor. I'm in business on my own. I just want a chance to have a fair kick at the can.

           Anyway, enough of log exports. My main point was that when it comes to energy conservation — capturing atmospheric carbon and turning it into fibre — we're already there. The model is in place. Private owners have the incentive to do all those things to capture atmospheric carbon and turn it into trees. So let's talk more on that.

           The other thing we do is, in order to keep our land…. When it comes to reforestation our land is worth…. Sorry, overtime?

           B. Bennett (Chair): No. You have a minute left.

           R. Bealing: Okay, thanks.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Rod, if you go over ten minutes I'll just have to take off your five-minute Q and A.

           R. Bealing: Absolutely. Well, I'll press ahead a little bit.

           The key thing with all this on private land is being able to respond to all the changes we've had in the last year — weather, storms, floods, all these things that have hit us. We need to be able to respond quickly, react quickly to markets and react quickly to events. A results-oriented regulatory regime that we have on private land is absolutely essential for us to do that.

           I look at Crown land adjacent to where I own, and there are trees rotting on the ground that blew over almost 12 months ago. I know the folks who are responsible. They'd like to do something about it too, but they're prevented by the regulatory model they work in on Crown land.

           I'm not advocating for change on Crown land, because that's not why I'm here. What I'm saying is in order for private owners to react and respond and survive the things that are thrown at us, we need to keep a results-oriented regulation.

[1045]

           We also need a regulation that keeps people on the straight and narrow when it comes to environmental stuff. We've got that in place. We've got a model that works.

           It's an incredibly dynamic year. We're affected by labour shortages, strikes, the U.S. housing market and the strength of the domestic dollar. There are all these things that we have to work with. We just need to have some freedom to manage, some ability to respond to these things and to stay in business and keep generating those benefits, providing those jobs and paying those taxes.

           In my asks today, I would ask that you continue to recognize private property rights and the fact that we have invested our own dollars in our land, and to create some distinction between private land and Crown land.

           Recognize the contribution of private forestry to offsetting carbon emissions. I think that's a key thing. I'm very excited about that. Also, just think about things that allow us to compete in this very competitive world we live in these days.

           That's all I have for now. Thank you.

           H. Bloy: Thank you very much for your presentation.

           You should have certain rights as private land owners to do what you want. I guess I heard it best described by one of your members. They don't make the grain farmers of the Prairies turn everything into a loaf of bread before they ship it across the border.

           R. Bealing: Absolutely.

           H. Bloy: Why is the $70 price here in Canada? Is it because of the government's restrictions on the land? Do they low-bid because there's nowhere else to go?

           R. Bealing: Partially. There has been a lot of work done on this particular area.

           A number of factors. The way the various mills, their cost base…. That comes down to things like taxes, labour, how well they utilize their equipment. These days mills are run on a 24-hour basis, so if you have a mill and you're only running it eight hours a day, your unit costs are going to be uncompetitive. That's the world we live in.

           If you restrict where somebody can sell something, then buyers are going to take advantage of that. You can't blame them.

           H. Bloy: Then you lose employment here.

           R. Bealing: Of course. Through no fault of their own, my local buyer for alder has curtailed buying logs at the moment because with the strong dollar, they say, they can't make money. Now I don't have a local market.

[ Page 1301 ]

           The importance of having an open market…. I don't care about export. I don't want to sell my logs overseas. I'm quite happy to sell them at home. I just want the international price, thanks. I don't want to ship logs anywhere.

           B. Simpson: Thanks, Rod. Again, this Notice 102. We had a presentation last year about it. The government did a substantive review called the Wright-Dumont report, which was tabled in December '06. The minister promised he would act on it expeditiously. We are now in October '07. Is the association aware of any actions the government has taken to address the issue of log exports in the province?

           R. Bealing: We're watching carefully. We understand that there has been a lot that has shifted in the last 12 months in terms of the labour issue. We're looking forward to seeing what comes out of that whole process, of course. We want a fair kick at the can, like I said.

           B. Simpson: Has the association seen anything of what the government intends to do? Have there been any communications?

           R. Bealing: We're constantly in communication with government. At this point government hasn't given an indication of what it intends to do around that.

           B. Simpson: That's quite a definition of expeditious action, I guess.

           R. Bealing: I'm not here to comment on that.

           B. Simpson: I can, though.

           B. Bennett (Chair): On that note, we will thank you very much, Rod, for your presentation.

           Next witness is with the Saanich Peninsula Health Association, Lyne England. Good morning. Welcome to the committee, Lyne.

[1050]

           L. England: Thank you very much. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The following presentation is being given on behalf of the Saanich Peninsula Health Association, and we thank you for this opportunity.

           It was a difficult task for the health association board to determine just which of its progressive ideas to put forth as a submission today. Many were discussed. I'll be going over this quite quickly, and I do have handouts.

           The rationale for the submission of this proposal. In May of '05 a group of concerned citizens who advocate on behalf of loved ones, friends and families living in long-term care were advised and assured that the residents were receiving 3.41 hours of qualified care per 24-hour period in the Saanich Peninsula Hospital extended care units. It was painfully evident that this was not the case, so a group of dedicated advocates determined to find out just what the actual level of care being provided to our loved and frail citizens in long-term care actually was.

           This expedition took the advocates on a two-year journey. This journey involved communication with the chief executive officer of VIHA; the executive vice-president and chief operating officer of VIHA; the director of residential services; the hon. Minister of Health, Mr. Abbott; and the hon. Premier, Mr. Campbell; two submissions to the Ombudsman's office; submissions to the freedom-of-information office; and written submissions of inquiry to the Vancouver Island Health Authority board.

           Gradually it became evident that the Vancouver Island Health Authority has a problem in that many of the long-term care facilities are staffed inequitably. Appropriate staffing levels have a direct impact on the number of care hours a person lying in a long-term care bed will receive and on the resident's general health.

           Please consider that historically each person residing in long-term care was classified according to a specific care level that determined the level of care required. Those care levels are IC, intermediate care, and go from IC-1 through IC-3 to EC, extended care.

           This categorization was clear and concise, provided the resident was evaluated on a regular basis. It gave a clear guideline as to the amount of care the resident would require in a given period of time. This identification of need has been discontinued, and now everyone in long-term care is deemed as complex care — residents with dementia, young clients, head-injury clients and our frail elderly.

           The reality is that not everyone in long-term care requires the same amount of care or the same focus of care. To lump them all into one category is a travesty.

           Let's step back now and review the figures stipulated in response to questions posed by a citizen to the Vancouver Island Health Authority board on May 30, 2007 — maximum daily hours, supplied by VIHA, 3.6; median number, 3.08; and the minimum daily care hours, 2.49 hours of care for the same period.

           It is important at this juncture to recall that in '05 the director of seniors health stated that the lowest number of care hours being provided in a 24-hour period was 3.27, with the highest 3.56 and the median at 3.41.

           Now let's look at the figures recently quoted in the latest Vancouver Island Health Authority news release on the new care delivery model. Dated September 20, 2007, this news release states that the hours of care residents in long-term care receive will increase from a current average of 2.88 to a new average of 3.24.

           This is being sold as a 12.5-percent increase in care. It will be implemented — are you ready? — over a three-year period. The cost of this new care delivery model is to be an additional $6.5 million annually over a three-year period.

           To say that this is outrageous is an understatement. The precious citizens occupying the beds in all of British Columbia's long-term care facilities deserve better.

           The residents are now paying and have been paying for a service that has deteriorated to an unacceptable level. The fees that they paid and continue to pay have not been adjusted accordingly. We have not heard that the government is going to pay rebate cheques, nor

[ Page 1302 ]

have we heard any reassurance that the government will leave the fee at the current rate.

[1055]

           I stand before you today to make a parallel proposal for the Saanich Peninsula Health Association that can make a difference for some of our precious citizens. If this proposal is approved, hopefully the project will continue under the auspices of either the Ministry of Finance or some other body.

           This proposal is for a six-month trial study with two additional certified home-support residential-care attendants per extended care unit to provide both psychological and social support to the residents who do not have visitors and who call the extended care units at Saanich Peninsula Hospital their home.

           These additional attendants would be certified HSRCAs who would be aware that their job role was limited to proactive, rehabilitative social and physical care. They would not be counted on or relied upon as regular staff or appear on a staff roster during this trial study. Three days a week, two four-hour shifts. Hours worked would be consistent and appropriate for the resident and facility operational requirements. Variables to consider: resident stamina, willingness, regular schedules, rest periods, scheduled bath times and regular appointments. The hours of attendants would be negotiated with the facility management team.

           The benefits: consistent monitoring, increased socialization, age-appropriate interaction, increased safety, increase in appropriate communication, decrease in regular staff stress, ability to assist to feed, residents being better nourished, residents being better hydrated and increase in the residents' self-esteem.

           Setup and monitoring of this program would be done by a qualified RN supervisor in conjunction with clinical resource nurse at the hospital, with regular reports going to the manager of residential services at the facility.

           Organization: in liaison with the CRN and guided by the supervisor at the beginning of the program. The attendants would meet weekly for a debrief session with time to be determined. The supervisor would be present. Reports would be biweekly.

           This proposal is submitted with the knowledge that all long-term care facilities within VIHA are currently working chronically short-staffed. This situation has a direct effect on the residents' quality of life. We hear residents say that they don't like to bother the nursing staff because they are too busy. We hear from families that bells don't get responded to in a timely manner. We hear from families and residents alike that they don't want to report anything as they're fearful of retribution. These residents and family members are able to choose and advocate for themselves. They have a voice.

           The residents this program would target are the residents that cannot speak for themselves, the residents one can often see pushed into a corner of a room, in a hallway or in front of a fish tank in a Broda wheelchair with a tray table in front of them and brakes on the wheelchair.

           The evaluation criteria would be developed by the supervisor and HSRCAs in liaison with the facility's clinical resource nurse and submitted at the end of the six-month trial to the funding committee, with copies to the management team of the facility, Saanich Peninsula Health Association and schools involved, and be made available to other interested parties for consideration of replication.

           Schools involved. How does this happen? This proposal is initiated parallel to the original proposal. The participants would be supervised by the same RN supervisor. This project would involve seniors living in the community in their own homes, congregate living facilities and long-term care units.

           This initiative would involve selected high school students from various high schools within the boundaries of the Saanich school district. At least two students would participate from each high school. The program leader would liaise with the high schools and assist in the recruitment of participants. The schools with students participating would be asked to permit volunteer credit for the selected students.

           The purpose of this interaction would be to research intergenerational links to wellness and health for the seniors who agree to participate in this trial study. The outcomes of this project would be immeasurable — immeasurable benefit from the intergenerational link for all participants, increased understanding and tolerance, building of relationships that may encourage career choices in health care, publication of study.

[1100]

           There are variables to consider — the possibility of utilizing this project as a back-to-work project for employees, HEU objecting, facilities not being willing to participate or facility liability issues. But the benefits must be considered for the residents, for the facilities, for the educational benefits at the educational institutions participating — the research statistics provided at the end of the study and the possibility of wanting to continue the study.

           To conclude this presentation, I'd like to quote someone known for his common sense, Mr. Will Rogers. In 1935 he said: "It doesn't take much to see that something's wrong, but it takes some eyesight to see what will put it right."

           If there's not support for this proposal, perhaps the Finance Committee might consider paying the $19.5 million outright instead of over a three-year period and VIHA could consider increasing the number of FTEs so that there's consistent and appropriate care for our loved ones and the pioneers of this province.

           Currently the long-term care facilities are operating with too many casual staff, to the point that full-time employees are choosing to revert to casual status because of burnout, or they simply quit. Surely there would be a saving on overtime wages and staff retention that could be applied to initial expenditure, which would benefit the residents and clients, thereby enhancing their health and wellness status.

           As it is right now, residents in long-term care are subjected daily to new faces and caregivers who do not know them or their routines. The residents must continually subject themselves to being cared for in the

[ Page 1303 ]

most intimate ways by strangers. This is morally reprehensible and is something that you have the power to change. Thank you for your time and consideration of this proposal.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation.

           R. Lee: You quoted quite a few numbers on the daily care hours, for a 24-hour period. Sometimes the numbers are in terms of the median and sometimes they're an average. Do you have a consistent set of numbers so that…?

           L. England: No, and therein lies the problem. Everyone gives different numbers. The numbers continually change, and the attachments at the back indicate where those numbers came from. They came from the Vancouver Island Health Authority board meeting, and they also came from the director of seniors health. The numbers are all correct according to the people that gave them. However, they all work within the health care system, and they all give different numbers. There's something wrong here.

           There's something wrong when VIHA is stating today that the level of care is going to be increased but it will not increase to a level of care that was in existence in '05 — the median number of care in '05. There's something wrong here.

           R. Lee: Right. The number you quoted….

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Richard. That's going to have to do it for you.

           John Horgan, one last question.

           J. Horgan: I just have some curiosity around any discussions you've had with school district 63 or the Ministry of Education with respect to the portfolio program, which is now a graduation requirement in all districts, and how that would fit in with the proposal that you've made.

           L. England: No, I have not. But I would certainly do that, yes.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Lyne, thank you.

           Professional Arts Alliance of Greater Victoria — Ian and David.

           I. Case: Good morning. I'd like to thank you all for the opportunity of making this presentation. I'd also like to thank the members of the community — the artists and administrators and also members of the public who come and see our performances and who have bothered to come out and support our presentation this morning.

           My name is Ian Case. I'm the chair of the ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria, and I'm the general manager of Intrepid Theatre. We produce the Fringe Festival, the Uno Festival of Solo Performance and a presentation series of international performances. I also run the Metro Studio, which is Victoria's newest performing arts venue.

[1105]

           I've worked as an administrator and artist for the last 15 years in this community — producer, director, publicist, writer, actor, costume designer, set designer and more. I've consulted for and worked with all three levels of government regarding arts and culture. I'm a member of the Arts Future B.C. steering committee, a coalition of not-for-profit arts service organizations representing thousands of artists and hundreds of thousands of people who participate in the arts in communities all over this province.

           The best place on earth. We hear this phrase a lot lately, and those of us working in the arts sector in the province don't disagree. We love living here. We love working here. We want to be able to continue to do so. We want to be able to put more people to work in our sector, and we want B.C. to produce the best artwork in the country.

           We want to help to make this the best place on earth, but right now we can't. Why? Because provincial core funding for our sector has remained at a virtual standstill for nearly two decades. We recognize that there has been an investment in our sector through programs like the renaissance fund, Van Dop, Arts Now and Arts Partners in Creative Development. We appreciate these investments; however, none of these programs are as far-reaching or as vitally important to the health of our sector as core funding through the B.C. Arts Council. The council supports over 220 communities in our province and the artwork that goes on there.

           The renaissance fund helps to create endowments, but it cannot support small, emerging or many medium-sized companies in the province. Most of these companies are not in a position to create an endowment. Van Dop funding is very specific to the Winter Olympics, and it's really a one-time investment opportunity. Arts Partners is, again, a one-time investment opportunity to create new works. Without support to bring these new works to the public, the opportunity to sustain these new works and creations is limited, and it's also limited to bring them in front of an audience.

           There is no other program to deliver sustainable and long-term assistance to the arts sector except the B.C. Arts Council, and that's why we're requesting an increase of $18 million to the B.C. Arts Council funding envelope, bringing the envelope to $32 million for the province and bringing us closer to the national average of provincial investment in core funding.

           B.C. Arts Council is an agency established by the provincial government under the Arts Council Act to provide support to the arts and cultural community of British Columbia; an opportunity for people within our province to participate in the arts; and an open, accountable and impartial process for managing provincial arts funds. In the 2006-2007 fiscal year the B.C. Arts Council distributed just under $14 million in awards, assisting arts and cultural activities in over 220 communities around the province.

[ Page 1304 ]

           Here in the capital regional district we've experienced what an increase to core operating funding can do. In recent years the CRD, with the encouragement and support of the local arts communities, greatly increased arts funding over five years — from nearly $600,000 to nearly $2 million per year. The result? The ProArt Alliance of Greater Victoria developed a report for the CRD to outline some of the benefits experienced as a result of this funding.

           In purely economic terms, the report demonstrates the heightened financial strength that increased funding has helped to generate. Taken as a whole, the ProArt organization's projected revenues for 2006 increased by over 23 percent. The remarkable fact is that all of the members of ProArt experienced revenue growth, some modest and some to an extraordinary extent, over the five-year period. Across-the-board funding increases have produced across-the-board success. The arts are clearly alive and thriving in the CRD as a result.

           One common theme in the report is that of growth — "growth" meaning more artistic endeavours, greater vitality, increased community involvement. Providing the foundation for a resilient, lively arts sector through increased core funding ensures that the community benefits will follow as a matter of course. Through the security and growth made possible by sustained core funding, our regional arts sector has been able to create greater extensions into the lives of the individuals that attend, participate in or benefit from the artistic activities in our communities.

           In my written submission I've outlined some of the general benefits. I won't read them now, because I'll trust that you will. I have appended the entire ProArt report to the CRD in our written submission so that you can take a look at it.

           Consider for a moment what this small regional investment in core funding has been able to achieve. Now magnify that on a provincial scale. We are asking for approximately 1 percent of the current surplus to be invested in the B.C. Arts Council for sustained core funding for the arts. Imagine what that can do.

           It will mean the same picture as the CRD, writ large. It will mean more artists being paid better wages. It will mean more art. It will mean more arts organizations being able to increase their productivity, their artistic output and their ability to plan for the future. It will attract increased investment from other levels of government, from the private sector and through individual donation. It will send a clear message to the rest of Canada that B.C. values the arts and recognizes their contribution to our province's economy, and that's not a small contribution.

           It will tell the rest of Canada and the world that B.C. recognizes the arts contribution to the well-being of our citizens and to our quality of life, that B.C. wants this to be the best place on earth to be an artist and to be a patron of the arts.

           We came to you last year, and we're coming to you again this year. We're asking you to take this discussion beyond just a recommendation for an increase to the B.C. Arts Council. This year I'm asking you to take this message and to speak to your colleagues about the importance of the arts in their communities, about the importance and possibilities of increased core funding to the sector — what it will mean to each and every community in the province and what it will mean to the province as a whole.

[1110]

           Take our message to the Minister of Finance. Take our message to Minister Stan Hagen. Take the message to the Premier. Help them to understand how investing in the B.C. Arts Council will create sustained growth and returns for the province and how it will help the government to achieve its five major goals for the province. Help us to help them understand how we can work together to achieve our goals and your goals and make B.C. the best place on earth.

           I'm going to pass it over to David now.

           D. Shefsiek: I join Ian in thanking you for this opportunity to speak. I'm David Shefsiek. I'm the executive director of Pacific Opera Victoria. I think it's important that you know a little bit more about me, so I can give some context for my comments today.

           I'm an American citizen living in Canada as a permanent resident and pursuing citizenship. I received my master's degree here at the University of British Columbia, and my eyes were opened to the professional performing arts in the mid-1980s. I returned to B.C. in 2001 to join Vancouver Opera, having had exciting experiences as an arts administrator in New York City and Pittsburgh and as a national fundraising consultant.

           In my six years at Vancouver Opera I had numerous occasions to explore other opportunities, which I declined. I joined Pacific Opera Victoria earlier this year, enabling me to take on new challenges yet stay in this province that I call home. I really believe that this is the best place on earth, and I can extend that to the arts sector, having lived many places. It's an arts community of great accomplishment and even greater promise. I'm not the only one who thinks that, and I'm going to give you some examples of that.

           Artists believe in our province. StatsCan notes that B.C. has the highest number of artists per capita in our country. Vancouver has the highest urban concentration, Victoria the second-highest urban concentration, and seven of the top ten municipalities are located in B.C. Artists recognize that B.C. is a welcoming place to create, and in living here enrich the community for creative minds working in all industries.

           B.C. arts organizations have recently received quantifiable respect at the national level. B.C. organizations have distinguished themselves in recent peer-assessed competition for the additional $33 million in supplemental funds awarded for the Canada Council's 50th anniversary. B.C. is in the top three on a cash basis alongside Ontario and Quebec, and on a per-capita basis alongside Quebec and Manitoba. Eight of the top 40 awards were for B.C. arts organizations.

           Our regional governments believe in the power of the arts, as Ian detailed, and the power of that CRD increase was very, very big for us and the community.

[ Page 1305 ]

           B.C. educators believe in the arts. Arts organizations today are committed to accessibility, with particular attention paid to educators and young people. While a lot of that is not visible to the general public, you only have to look at the Save-On Centre filled with a thousand massed bands playing as part of Victoria Symphony's Rink Cycle, tens of thousands of children exploring curriculum through the Victoria Art Gallery's Gallery in the Schools docent program, or the waiting lists for our Pacific Opera Victoria's Opera in the Schools program to see the interest and demand.

           Audiences believe in the arts. This double-digit growth in Victoria's professional arts organizations over the past five years in B.C. demonstrates that public appreciation for the arts is strong. Many organizations have experienced growth in contributive revenue as well, noting that corporate sponsors and individual patrons believe in arts investment, quantified by their own participation.

           This is all wonderful news indeed. It is, however, remarkable that given these positive indicators, given the belief in arts from all sectors, given the power for even greater leadership from the arts sector in the development of communities throughout this city, funding has remained static. Core operating funding leads success, and while we are grateful for the investment in special project activities, the fact that our province's arts council per-capita funding is seventh of ten provinces during this time of provincial prosperity is of concern.

           We spent some time trying to figure out why funding hasn't followed this success. Perhaps we've not presented the information in a way that communicates our capacity to help the government meet its strategic objectives. In terms of education, literacy, healthy living, support for children and seniors, and job creation, we play a vital role.

           Perhaps we've not repositioned the arts as a vital provincial industry — an essential rather than optional component of public life in an age of creativity. The creative economy is a leader in B.C.'s economic growth. The arts are at the forefront of that growth. As an example, between 1991 and 2001 people employed in the arts grew by 57 percent in Vancouver — more than five times the 10-percent overall growth in the labour force.

           Perhaps while we've thanked you for this past investment, we've not reminded you that other provinces have demonstrated a belief in the power of our national creativity by supporting the arts at a higher level than our province. For example, within the performing arts, provincial government funding in British Columbia from all sources makes up an average of 7 percent of the operating budgets. This is the absolute lowest in Canada. The national average is 13 percent. In Quebec provincial funding accounts for 26 percent of a performing arts company's budgets.

[1115]

           We urge you to reconsider this position on arts funding and to increase the annual funding of the Arts Council from $14 million to $32 million. Within the B.C. Arts Council you have some of the country's finest art professionals and a board of exceptional community leaders well positioned to ensure that this investment is maximized.

           We urge you to see the growth indicators that we experience daily. We urge you to see our industry as a partner in provincial growth. We urge you to support your constituents and see the power of arts to create community and to attract creative people of all sectors. We urge you to see the arts in B.C. as a vital, essential element of the best place on earth.

           I. Case: Before we bring the curtain down, David and I just wanted to thank you again for the opportunity and also to present you with the Arts Future brief entitled Arts Future B.C.: Contributing to our Future.

           It's the provincial brief compiled by all the arts organizations and arts supporters across the province. It gives you an outline of how we can assist you in reaching the five goals and also outlines the hows and whys of our request to the B.C. Arts Council.

           J. Horgan: Thank you for that speed presentation — very well done. I also want to, because I think you neglected to do so…. In previous presentations from arts representatives throughout B.C. as we've been travelling, there's been an acknowledgment of the number of supporters that are in the public gallery. Perhaps they could stand up, just because you didn't ask them to. There you go. Thank you very much for that.

           I want to just ask a specific question. You said that we rank seventh in core funding amongst the provinces. Has that been a decline over a ten-year period, or have we been at about seven for an extended period of time?

           I. Case: I believe we've been near the bottom of the barrel for quite a long time now. Our arts funding has been static. We had a small increase four or five years ago, but that brought us back after a cut a few years before that. We've literally been static for 20 years.

           I would also mention that the committee did make a recommendation last year, and there was no action on it. I guess my question to you is: how does government work? If you guys make a recommendation, why do we not get action on it? And how do we get that to happen?

           B. Bennett (Chair): We appreciate your presentation. Thank you very much for that. It was a good presentation.

           We're going to hear now from the Camosun College Student Society, Matthew de Groot.

           M. de Groot: My name is Matthew de Groot. I'm the external executive of Camosun College Student Society here in Victoria. We are Local 75 of the Canadian Federation of Students.

           Today I want to talk to you about two important issues. The first is students and student debt. You already know that you can make tens of thousands of students and parents happy — ecstatic, in fact — if this committee were to recommend that the budget include new funding to significantly reduce the cost of tuition and provide non-repayable income-based grants to students.

           We, the Camosun College Student Society, and the CFS, our colleagues, are realistic enough to know that

[ Page 1306 ]

there are many demands on the public purse. But we would encourage this committee to take a meaningful look at ways to improve the current lives of tomorrow's workforce and tomorrow's leaders.

           I can assure you that although there has been some positive movement, such as the recent announcements to fund adult basic education, I encounter students every day with unreasonably high debt loads as well as those struggling to feed themselves and their families. This has been demonstrated through the use of our food bank, which is very high.

           I often talk to students who are struggling to make ends meet. I want you to know that I'm not studying philosophy. Rather, I'm studying to become an accountant. From that point of view, I believe that having an educated population from an economic point of view is important. Especially with the high dollar, an educated, efficient workforce is necessary in order for us to be able to compete, unless the government is envisioning a province of Subway sandwich artists. In that case, I would ask all of you to sign a $10 minimum-wage petition.

[1120]

           Making the assumption that a highly skilled workforce is required to ensure B.C.'s economic future, students who worry less about money would actually have more time and ability to concentrate on their studies. For those of you who have tried to work 30 hours a week and pursue five courses simultaneously, it's not rocket science.

           Additionally, I'm also concerned about the $27,000 average student debt of those who get public student loans in B.C. Of those debt amounts, 40 percent come in the form of B.C. student loans. I realize that economically, debt is not always a bad thing, but being saddled with a large debt just out of school puts off spending on houses, cars and families. In other words, student debt limits the type of spending that actually stimulates the economy.

           Some students have $40,000-plus in student loan debts, and you'd be surprised to learn that the interest rates are actually higher than most of you would be able to get from your banks. Put yourselves back to the period in which you graduated. How would $40,000-plus have affected your political careers?

           I'm sure you've heard much of this before, but I believe this committee should look at the cost of education to the students of B.C. and recommend more money be allocated to tuition reduction and student assistance initiatives.

           As a final thought on this subject, I'll bring up the emergency student aid funding from the Ministry of Advanced Education. These funds traditionally matched funding that we as a society would put forward for students that were in unusual financial difficulties. Ten years ago the Camosun College Student Society contributed $5,600 in non-fee levy funds, and the government matched that, which is great. A decade later you would expect that that amount would be a lot higher, but shamefully, the government matched less than $5,000 last year.

           The second issue at hand is the neglected younger brother in the post-secondary education world, the colleges. It would appear that the university presidents, and to an extent the university college presidents, are much more successful in their lobbying efforts than their college counterparts.

           Frankly, it's more than shameful that the universities received an inflationary lift on their operating grants for this year and the colleges didn't — let alone the pure fairness issue. The colleges don't have anywhere near the financial capacity of the universities. Additionally, if this rather mean-spirited action was aimed at forcing the colleges to increase their private donations, the colleges cannot even achieve anywhere near the donation levels of the universities. It's a simple fact. A university just sounds a lot sexier, so universities have a much easier time finding money.

           In a general sense, colleges are almost ignored. If you think of infrastructure, you could take a drive around Ring Road at UVic and observe several new buildings and many more under construction, while at Camosun it has been over ten years since the last academic building was constructed. It hardly seems equitable, when it is the colleges that are supposed to be more representative and responsive to the communities that they serve. As it stands now, the ministry has not given money or allocated any funds for non-academic initiatives such as student lounges, food services, residences and even student union buildings.

           Compounding this situation is a blanket restriction on institutions carrying debt, even good debt. This government restriction forces institutions who wish to provide for an actual learning and living culture on campus to seek private-sector partners with capital.

           While this type of P3 may have advantages in certain sectors, it's not suited to community colleges. For example, at Camosun, my institution, we want to build residences, but for the single reason that it was not around in the 1960s and 1970s to take advantage of the massive government grants, it's now forced to seek private sector partners to finance and run the facility.

           This isn't consistent with the goals of community colleges. The simple fact that the private sector partner would rightly want to maximize the return on its investment would put it at odds with the colleges.

           Communities need to have short-term housing for trades students who come for six-week blocks — or even the need to allocate space to first nations or aboriginal students. There have been cases of institutions such as Thompson Rivers University having to sacrifice too much control in order to entice a private partner. In short, colleges need more money, and not just for classrooms.

           To conclude, now that there is a significant surplus, this is the time to increase the educational infrastructure and social capital of this province. The 8,000 members I represent today ask you to allocate more direct funding to students. Speaking personally, lower tuition and direct grants would work great for me.

           Additionally, we would like your committee to recommend to the Finance Ministry and Treasury Board the allocation of more money to build academic and student-life infrastructure on campus, and that colleges be exempted from P3 policies and perhaps even be allowed to borrow infrastructure money if necessary.

[1125]

[ Page 1307 ]

           I can assure you it's extremely unlikely that anyone will donate $1 million, let alone $20 million, to a college to build a residence. This funding must come from the public purse. We urge you — in fact, implore you — not to recommend further income or business tax cuts at this point until the educational and social infrastructure of British Columbia has been rebuilt.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Matt, thank you very much for that.

           Just a quick question from me. Did I hear you mention interest rates on student loans? Did you talk about that?

           M. de Groot: That's right. I mentioned it very briefly.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. Well, I'll let the members of the committee ask questions, and if it comes up you can expand on it.

           H. Bloy: Thank you very much for your presentation. Many of your colleagues around the province have made the same presentation.

           I wanted to let you know that donations are made to colleges. David Lam at Douglas College in Coquitlam — he made a large donation there.

           I wanted to ask you: what share of tuition should a student pay? What is a fair amount for a student to pay?

           M. de Groot: Well, as a student I believe that education is a right. This is the point of the view of the Canadian Federation of Students as well. I happen to agree with that point of view.

           After the First World War, education was at a token price, and this greatly encouraged the economy and encouraged people to go back to schooling.

           For me, there is no limit on that. If post-secondary education was free, that would be optimal. But understandably, that might not be feasible or appropriate at this point in time. That's what I would like to see happen eventually.

           Right now there has been some progress made, like I said, with the ABE campaign. We're ecstatic about that. We're very happy to see that happen. But I think that more progress can be made.

           J. Kwan: Across the province, as we hear presentations, certainly student representatives have come forward and asked for 10 percent as a starter of a tuition reduction and also for increased access to grants, not only to back-end load the access to grants but rather to front-end load to allow for students to enter into post-secondary education. Maybe that would be useful and helpful for some members in taking that into consideration.

           Having said that, my question is this. You mentioned in your presentation, which is actually unique from some of the other presentations, the discrepancies, if you will, with the funding for colleges versus universities. You highlighted as one example the issue of inflationary increases, which colleges did not get from the last budget, and urged the government to look at that as an issue.

           You also mentioned some capital dollars as well. Do you have a list of the differences in terms of how colleges are being dealt with throughout the province versus universities, as it applies by way of funding formulas?

           M. de Groot: I personally right now do not have a list. I'm sure that we could compile one for you. You know, we could put my board of directors on the student society to work for you, if you like. But no, I don't have one here. I don't have one now.

           J. Kwan: It would be useful and helpful to shed some light in terms of that, because another source has come forward around issues related to funding for colleges versus the university sector that arose from the Perrin report as well. Maybe most of that is in that report that asked for the government to fully implement the Perrin report.

           I don't know if you know about the Perrin report, but maybe that's the impetus for that.

           It was also noted, and the issue was raised, that the report from Geoff Plant actually lacked the perspectives around the needs for the colleges. This is why I'm interested in actually getting that information — to see where the discrepancies lie and for the committee's consideration.

           M. de Groot: All right. Thank you.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Matthew, if you do have the opportunity to put your colleagues to work and prepare some of that information, we'd appreciate it if you could send the information to the committee. We'll make sure that all committee members have a look at it.

[1130]

           M. de Groot: Thank you very much. I'll make sure that gets done.

           B. Bennett (Chair): The Boys and Girls Club of Victoria. Good morning, Ralph.

           R. Hembruff: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to make our presentation from an agency perspective. I'm Ralph Hembruff, executive director of Boys and Girls Club Services of Greater Victoria.

           Earlier today you heard a provincial overview from the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C. As a member of the federation we not only endorsed that presentation but actively contributed to identifying the key issues.

           In response to question 4 of the prebudget consultation paper, it is our belief that the community social services sector currently faces a critical funding challenge relating to operational sustainability. Our presentation today is simply meant to provide some concrete examples of how the situation is affecting one organization.

           For over 40 years Boys and Girls Club of Greater Victoria has been offering a comprehensive range of programs and services for children, youth and families in Victoria. We provide a continuum of services, ranging

[ Page 1308 ]

from after-school and prevention programs to harm reduction to residential and youth justice services. Many of our services receive government funding from both the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Health, through the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

           We support and applaud the pending implementation of the regionalized model by MCFD. We also acknowledge the recent budget increases to MCFD and the positive steps to hire 300 new social workers. While we appreciate the global 6-percent increase for them over the next three years, the 3.5-percent increase in the ministry's own operational budget ironically highlights the issue that is the focus of our presentation.

           We are a non-profit organization with a history of exemplary cost-effectiveness. However, we have now reached the limit of that capacity. The basic problem that agencies like ours face is that the portion of funding we receive for operating costs — rent, hydro, telephone — has not been increased for over seven years.

           It might be argued that community agencies should have done a better job of managing the business end of our operations when negotiating and managing our contracts with the government. However, as you heard earlier today, the reality has been that the contracting process for the last decade has not provided any opportunity for discussion or renegotiation.

           Even when some of the direct services have changed in response to changing client profiles — for example, participants presenting with multiple issues, such as mental illness combined with serious addictions — our existing contracts have simply been rolled over, with no amendments in the contracts to either schedule As, which list the services to be provided, or the schedule Bs, which set out the payments of direct services and operational costs.

           While staff and management have adapted our direct services to meet client needs, our fixed market-driven costs have risen substantially.

           As pointed out in the federation presentation, inflation in B.C. has averaged 2 percent a year since 1997. Until recently we had not received any type of budget adjustment since 2000, while in the same time period the consumer price index increased by 10.3 percent. Even with the much appreciated 3.2 percent that the Ministry of Children and Families recently provided for fiscal '07-08, our agency and employees struggle with substantially less spending power than we had seven years ago.

           The following charts demonstrate the severity of our operating-cost deficits. I've got charts and graphs. Basically, rental rates here have increased by 30 percent and are due to go up again with the high land values in the CRD. Our agency health benefit package has increased by 99 percent. Insurance costs have gone up by 54 percent. Our technology costs have been 35 percent, and program expenses have risen by 10 percent. These are market-driven, uncontrollable expenses, yet there's been no provision to review or amend those antiquated contracts.

           Just as a note. Accreditation, which we subscribe to as best practices, has time and resources that exact a major price. We've had to assign 0.5 FTE of our office staff time directly to supporting and monitoring the accreditation process — again, without any increases in budgets. That takes staff time away from kids. They have to do all the reporting.

           Yet despite these escalating non-funded cost pressures, community agencies have employed a variety of strategies to offset increasing operating cost expenses. Again, I've provided a chart showing that in the time period that's under review here our office expenses have been reduced by 17 percent, transportation by 20 percent and personnel costs by 38 percent.

           Even though benefits, insurance and technology have gone up, we've kept them significantly reduced by adjusting our benefits package and requiring staff to pay a larger deduction, which in and of itself is making staff retention harder.

[1135]

           We've hired fewer full-time staff, filling positions with auxiliary and part-time employees. For insurance, we've diligently shopped the market a couple of times to get reduced prices. For technology, we've got a number of donations, and our IT rate is 50 percent of the going rate.

           We've reduced office expenses by recycling paper, reducing photocopying and lately switching our cellular phone providers. For transportation, we've decreased our agency fleet and we've also limited mileage allowances, which again cuts off the amount of service we can provide to our clients. For personnel costs, we've reduced staff training and travel allowances, which is a counterproductive measure when we're considering all the additional training we need for accreditation.

           We've also been proactive in seeking out and utilizing additional and supplementary fundraising initiatives, and I've highlighted them here. Donations and grants have gone up 300 percent; special events, 190 percent. You can read them all. I guess of importance is that we have had to increase our participant fees, although we have made sure that we have never cut anybody off for lack of ability to pay. We've utilized the facilities that we do own to maximum, renting out to third parties whenever we can.

           To increase our ability to do additional fundraising, however, would allocate even more staff time away from direct service, and that's the key point. We are now at the point where we can no longer reallocate any funds without seriously impacting direct services to our clients. As highlighted in the federation report, we are on the brink of taking money away from the actual services we are contracted for in order to literally keep the lights on.

           For the first time in the 48-year history of our organization, I had to bring a deficit budget before my board of directors this year. They will not approve such a request a second time.

           We have already initiated discussions with our local government contract managers to mutually identify which direct services will have to be scaled back in

[ Page 1309 ]

order for us to meet rent, hydro and oil bills. We will be forced to provide less service for the existing dollars. This may take many forms: reducing intakes in some programs, which will be fewer clients served; having staff provide fewer visits and less support per client; or eliminating specific services altogether. As a response to question 4 of the document, none of these are acceptable solutions.

           We embrace the strategies outlined in the ministry's service plan. However, we provide important programs and services. We do it efficiently and with dedication and compassion. We already exemplify the move toward partnerships supporting vulnerable populations in our communities. Any reduction in our effectiveness will also impact the effectiveness of the government's investment in those services.

           I've chosen to illustrate the perspective of one organization that is on the brink of diluting direct services in order to pay for rent. Our request is that we would wholeheartedly endorse the federation's calculations and request that $20 million be placed into the MCFD budget specifically to cover the inflationary costs on agency operational needs in the contracted community services sector.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. It was an excellent presentation.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. In the presentation the number I don't see is the total budget of the organization. How much is it?

           R. Hembruff: The total budget of the organization is just over $4 million, of which about $3.5 million is government funded.

           R. Lee: So $3.5 million is government funded. Okay.

           How many programs do you deliver?

           A Voice: Lots.

           R. Hembruff: A lot, yeah. We have a number of United Way–funded programs. We've probably got — I'm thinking of my chart — about 25 that would be categorized as programs.

           J. Kwan: The presentation is actually a very good one in terms of highlighting the need and targeting inflationary costs, which I think is a very, very reasonable request of government.

[1140]

           I'm curious. On the issue around staff retention, I wonder if you could shed some light on that, given your budgetary constraints, and also whether or not the sectors you're involved with have any of the increases in wages that came through with the earlier contract settlements that the government settled with the government employees.

           R. Hembruff: It's a can of worms. We are non-union. Recruitment and retention is a huge issue for us, as it is with everybody in the economy right now. I've had six staff leave me in the last seven months to go to government jobs just because the wages and the benefits were better. The example of our benefit package…. We had to increase the deduction for our staff, which was basically taking away from what we were paying them.

           We have done comparisons throughout the sector. We're currently at the lower end of it. The big issue — which isn't for this table, I guess — is that the unionized sector got the good increases with the BCGEU contract that was signed, for 2-percent increases leading toward municipal pension plans and so on. We are not unionized, and we didn't get that. So we are falling behind by that.

           What I referred to…. The ministry did put 3.2 percent of our total budget into last fiscal year, which we were able to apply against wages, which has started to bring us up. But we're still about 8 percent below. My staff that do equivalent work with other people even in the city are 8 percent lower in salaries.

           Did I answer both of your questions?

           J. Kwan: Yes, to a large degree. My understanding, also, is that even the non-profit sector and those that are unionized but not with the provincial government union didn't get the salary increase either.

           It's a huge issue in terms of retention in the sector and really attracting people into the field, and that's been further complicated in terms of the challenges ahead. I just wanted to get your sense of it.

           R. Hembruff: Yes, there's a huge issue there.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ralph, thank you very much for your presentation.

           B.C. College Presidents. Lou Dryden and Dr. Ashton, welcome to our committee.

           L. Ashton: First of all, good morning. I'm Dr. Liz Ashton, president of Camosun College in Victoria. With me today is Lou Dryden, who is president of North Island College and also chair of the B.C. College Presidents group, which represents the provincial presidents of all the community colleges in the system.

           Thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today. We're here to give you an update on the B.C. colleges throughout the province, to share information from an economic study just completed on the colleges and to present our case for increased funding so that we can continue to play our part in producing the most literate, well-educated population in Canada.

           First, I'll tell you about the colleges and the economic impact study. Then I will explain what is needed and why.

           The provincial government supports 13 community colleges and institutes that serve up to 200,000 students in 50 communities throughout the province each year. To carry out our responsibilities to our students, we provide programs in adult education, career and vocational training, university preparation and a narrow range of applied degrees. These programs provide an education that enables students to become entrepreneurs, dedicated employees and engaged citizens in their communities.

[ Page 1310 ]

           To carry out our responsibilities to the communities in which we are located, we develop our programs in consultation with local business and industry to make sure that graduates' skills are in line with what local employers need.

           To carry out our responsibilities to the provincial government across the province, we provide a return on investment of 14 percent, or $7.7 billion a year. That's almost 4 percent of the provincial economy. This is a major finding of the recent study of 13 B.C. colleges done by CCbenefits. This is the largest-ever economic impact study done on the colleges in B.C.

           B.C. college graduates generate $220 million annually in higher earnings, thereby expanding the tax base and reducing the tax burden on provincial and local taxpayers. College operations and direct earnings of B.C. college faculty and staff generate an additional $289 million into the provincial economy. Students' annual income increases represent a 14-percent rate of return on their education investment for every year of completed studies.

[1145]

           The province benefits from improved health and reduced welfare, unemployment and crime, saving the public some $20 million per year each year the students are in the workforce. Bottom line for the taxpayer of British Columbia is that B.C. colleges return $3.80 to the provincial economy for every dollar of taxpayer support.

           As you can see, the study shows the colleges' significant social and economic value to the province, to students and their families, and to the communities in which they reside. These benefits accrue even to the communities that are less populated, more remote or facing significant local economic challenges.

           In government's budget consultations you're asking how British Columbians can be more environmentally responsible. Let me assure you that the B.C. colleges are committed to environmental and financial sustainability. As environmental leaders, many of our institutions like Camosun offer a wide range of innovative, environmentally sustainable programs that introduce new, leading environmental practices into the workforce.

           We are proud to state that we develop the environmental leaders of tomorrow. Many of our colleges actively participate in B.C. Hydro's Go Green initiative. Just this month Langara College announced an environmentally friendly library complete with state-of-the-art heating system and wind towers.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           At Camosun the Pacific Sport Institute is a gold LEED project. Our institutions strive to promote environmental innovation and practices and to fulfil our collective mandate of educating and training tomorrow's skilled workforce.

           To continue to provide the range of programs that are so vital to our province's economy, we need sustainable base funding support from the province. This is a matter of some urgency. The B.C. colleges need a new funding mechanism that, in addition to student tuition, ensures that the costs of colleges' operations are fully funded.

           To maintain current levels of programs and services, we need a 5-percent increase in base operating funding. This 5 percent is equivalent to $22 million and accommodates the inflationary increases to our operations, which have not been funded for years. This base adjustment is our highest priority and is necessary to ensure the financial sustainability of our institutions.

           There are also other priorities that we feel warrant your attention, as they enable colleges to respond to education and training priorities of government. These priorities include maintaining and enhancing our teaching and learning facilities. The colleges need an increase in equipment and capital investment. We also need to make a meaningful investment in increased access and success for aboriginal, first-generation and immigrant learners.

           I said the need is immediate, and this is why. Demographic projections show that B.C., like all Canadian provinces, is facing a labour shortage that will increase over the next few years. By 2013 we can expect 425,000 new jobs to be created in B.C., and 70 percent will require post-secondary education.

           It's vitally important that we provide, right here at home, the training our young people need, as 95 percent who graduate from B.C. colleges will accept employment here. Fortunately, the number of college-age students is growing faster in B.C. and Alberta than anywhere else in Canada, fuelled by this unprecedented economic growth and by the desire of young people to pursue their dreams in provinces that offer a great way of life. As a consequence, enrolment in post-secondary education is up and continues to rise.

           Government's own statistics show that more than 433,000 students were enrolled in public post-secondary institutions in 2006-2007. This is the highest number ever and is up 8,000. Enrolment in university colleges and institutes throughout B.C. represents 5,000 of that increase.

           You should be aware, too, that in 2006-2007 more than 17,000 aboriginal students enrolled in post-secondary education, representing an increase of 15 percent over 2002-2003. More than 10,000 international students were enrolled during the third quarter of 2006, an increase of 11.4 percent from the previous year.

           To respond to these increasing numbers of students seeking post-secondary education opportunities, for our part the B.C. colleges need a new funding mechanism that establishes the right level of base funding — equivalent, again, to the 5 percent, or $22 million.

[1150]

           We also ask that you consider $5 million a year for three years as incentive funding for colleges and school district collaboration in trades and literacy programs; establishment of a matching fund system of $20 million for collaborative projects between institutions within B.C. and between B.C. and Alberta; an allocation of $15 million a year for three years to improve programs and support services designed to increase access and success for aboriginal, first-generation and immigrant students;

[ Page 1311 ]

an increased capital investment for teaching equipment; and $50 million of public works and renovation moneys in the 2008-2009 fiscal year to increase the training capability in technical and trades areas at the college.

           In conclusion, the CCbenefits report shows that B.C. colleges are a valuable asset to the province, its businesses, its industry and its people. Colleges are economic engines for this province. Without sufficient funding, B.C. colleges are not able to deliver what students need and expect if they are to become part of a literate and well-educated province. Without sufficient funding, we cannot effectively respond to the education and training requirements of B.C.'s growing economy.

           Inaction to any degree will mean that colleges will have to reduce access to education and training. The hopes and dreams of many students will be dashed, and the economies of the communities we serve will decline. An adjustment to the base operating funds and a new funding mechanism for B.C. colleges could protect the nearly $8 billion annually that colleges contribute to the provincial economy, which represents an impressive 14-percent return on taxpayers' investment. Just think that for every dollar invested by the taxpayer, colleges generate $3.80 in return.

           Positive action now would be a sound investment in the growing demand for academic health and trades programs, in an educated labour pool for tomorrow and in first nations learning throughout B.C.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks.

           Before you get started, Mr. Dryden, I just wanted to let you know you've gone slightly over the time estimated for Dr. Ashton's presentation, so it's up to you how much of your presentation you want to make or how much you want to leave to questions. You have about six minutes.

           L. Dryden: I feel very comfortable, having been before the committee before in Campbell River, to just respond to questions. I think Dr. Ashton has put our position very, very well.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. In your presentation you mentioned a 5,000-student increase last year. Do you see a spread of that increase over the province? We also heard that for some colleges they have challenges in terms of their numbers of students.

           L. Ashton: Yeah, that's true. In the urban areas in particular there's been an increase in draw. Unfortunately, it's tending to draw away from the rural areas.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           Part of the issue with respect to the colleges is that the government announced that every student with 75 percent or more graduating from high school should be able to get into a university. That, in effect, has drawn students away, particularly from the rural institutions to the university sector. It has had a significant effect on our rural institutions and their ability to be sustainable.

           L. Dryden: Could I just add, Mr. Chair?

           B. Bennett (Chair): Yes. Go ahead.

           L. Dryden: At North Island College — we're a rural college, of course, on the northern part of Vancouver Island — we have been working extremely hard on our enrolment and recruitment practices. This fall we've seen a dramatic increase in our enrolments. Individual student head count is up by 4 percent, and registrations are up by 9.8 percent. What's very surprising is that they're up in university transfers.

           I guess what we're seeing is what I term a rebound effect where students have gone to university, got in because of the lower admission criteria and have not been successful. One of the pieces of information I've been trying to get my hands on is the success rate of first-year university students. I haven't been able to get that yet, but we're working on it.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. Somebody had their hand up over on this side.

           J. Kwan: I did, and I think you just answered that question for me. I was wondering about the university transfer numbers and how that looked — from colleges to university. So you've touched on that.

[1155]

           Maybe I can ask this. In terms of support to the labour skills shortage — particularly in the sector in which I think the colleges would actually have a lot to contribute in trying to match up the skill demands that the province would require into the future in each of the different regions, whereby different colleges provide for different programming and so on — would it make sense for the provincial government, for example, to try and specialize the colleges' expertise in the different regions by way of funding formulas that will actually meet a projected demand of the labour skills shortage into the future? Would something like that make sense for the government to contemplate?

           L. Ashton: Well, I certainly have a comment, and I'm sure Lou will too. I think whenever we think about doing that, we have to think about the students and the additional cost for a student to have to move from one area of the province to another in order to be able to get training. That always needs to be something that's factored in.

           If one could target programming to an area where students are living and would stay after and work, then potentially that might be an answer. But I'm not so sure we can always do that.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

           It's nice to see you again, Mr. Dryden. We heard from you in Campbell River as well.

           Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch.

           Mr. Walton and Ms. Nevin, good morning.

[ Page 1312 ]

           K. Walton: This is my executive director, Caroline Nevin. We're here for the annual discussion about provincial sales tax.

           I'm going to tell you a little story. I'm going to tell you the $1.75 story, because next week I'm going to make the province $1.75, and I'm going to tell you how I'm going to do that.

           Last week a lady phoned me from a nursing home ten miles from here. I'm a local lawyer. The lady said that we have this lady in her 60s, and she doesn't have much money, and she's really worried about her will. She's going to be dying fairly soon, and she wants a will made even though she doesn't have very much in the way of assets.

           The lady who called me and got me out of the phone book said: "How much will you charge?" I told her what I would charge, and the social worker who called me said: "Gee, you know, the lady can't afford that." So we agreed I'm going to charge this lady $25 for this will. Now, it's going to cost me more than $25 to have my secretary do the work.

           Why am I pointing this out to you? Because the lady wants to be charged a fee. She wants to be charged a fee because that gives her some dignity. I'm going to do her a crackerjack will just as if she was paying full freight. But we're going to also charge her $1.75 in provincial sales tax because that's what we're required to do by law.

           Anyway, on to the presentation. I'm here to speak to you on behalf of the 6,000 practising lawyers from across B.C. who are our members. In actual fact, I'm here to speak to you about the hundred or so of your constituents that these 6,000 people service each year — buying houses, doing wills, notarizing documents, anything of that nature that requires us to collect 7 percent provincial sales tax. So it's not me. I'm not here to talk about lawyers, on behalf of lawyers. I'm here to talk on behalf of your constituents.

           Two years ago your committee recommended that the government examine the removal of PST on legal services, and last year the committee recommended that the government give consideration to applying the proceeds of the tax to funding legal aid services. Before I move on, I should thank you for allowing us to make this presentation again.

           My presence here today is evidence, though, that once again, despite your recommendations, despite our best efforts — we've talked to everybody under the sun — and despite the growing and compelling body of evidence in favour of removing provincial sales tax from legal fees, our dear government won't do it.

[1200]

           By now you no doubt know the origins of the tax. This was introduced in 1992, and one of the MLAs at the time said that he would be honoured to pay this tax. Slightly inaccurate. It's not he who's paying the tax — he was a lawyer, of course; it is his clients who are paying it.

           At the time of the introduction of the tax the late Fred Gingell called it one of the most discriminatory taxes that he had ever seen. In fact, we have the Hansard site with Mr. Gingell's speech on the subject. He was absolutely right on, bang-on insightful, and he said all the things that have turned out to be a problem with the tax over the years.

           When we were last before the committee, a further legal challenge was heard by the Supreme Court of Canada. This was by Dugald Christie, who was basically a poverty lawyer in Vancouver, at one time a member of a very large firm and quite a capable fellow who devoted his life to those who were most in need. So Dugald brought this suit before the Supreme Court of B.C., which found the tax to be not applicable to lower-income people, as it denied access to legal services.

           The Court of Appeal expanded that and said it was a denial of legal services to everybody. The Supreme Court of Canada said that you — the government of B.C. — have the right to tax anybody, and they didn't talk about access to justice. They just talked about the right of a government to tax anything, really.

           Now we're going to talk to you about why this is a bad tax. First of all, we the legal community feel a bit pilloried by it. Why? Because we're the only professional group that has to collect or remit tax to the government. When you go to the form — I do the form every month — it says "total amount of your sales." Well, sorry; we don't have sales. It's designed for the retail sector, not for the professional sector.

           It wouldn't make me feel any better if they said "total amount of your accounts." We just don't want to have the tax anymore. When we talk to people in government and outside of government, they can't tell us why lawyers should be singled out to collect the tax and remit it. Accountants aren't. Are notaries public…?

           Interjection.

           K. Walton: Notaries public do. Sorry; I'm talking on behalf of them too. Anyway, architects, those kinds of professional people, don't pay it, don't collect it.

           Secondly, we say the tax is bad for business. It inflates the cost of doing business in British Columbia relative to other jurisdictions. What we're talking about is our competitors in Alberta and Ontario, where there are no taxes. We're all, of course, provinces that are competing for big business to come to B.C.

           Now, we realize that big business is not going to make its decisions based on a 7-percent tax, but it's just another little nail in the old coffin, you know — another reason why you shouldn't come to Vancouver and have your head office, because if you go to Alberta, you don't have that tax. If you stay in Toronto, you don't have that problem.

           As it says here, we find it inconceivable that the British Columbia government, when it states that competitive taxes are fundamental to the province's fiscal health, inflates the cost of legal services and singles out and discourages the legal industry relative to the folks in Alberta and Ontario.

           Thirdly, we say the tax is an example of poor tax policy. The tax defies fundamental economic principles by taxing capital investment. Put another way, it's a tax

[ Page 1313 ]

on what businesses have to pay in order to do business. Taxing legal services is not a tax on consumption but a tax on investment, which is, as economists explain, uniformly the most inefficient form of taxation.

           The tax does not represent lost revenue for lawyers, as I've said before, although, as with everybody, when you render your account, as Fred Gingell pointed out years ago, the first people who get paid are the province of British Columbia. Whether you collect your account or not, we pay it. The CBABC commissioned a study by a well-known economist, Rosalyn Kunin, who verifies this.

           Fourthly, the tax is regressive. It has a disproportionate impact on low- and modest-income individuals. I just gave you an example of that, right at the beginning. You know, of the 10,000 lawyers in B.C., probably 6,000 or 8,000 are actual practitioners. Maybe a thousand of them work in the downtown Vancouver area, working for very large corporations, which I guess this tax was said to be partly directed at years ago.

[1205]

           That's what Mr. Clark said when he was Finance Minister. About half the revenue — $34 million at the time — was going to come from those folks. The rest of us are out here doing services for your constituents, and we're telling your constituents: "Gee, we don't really want to have to charge you this tax, but we just can't do anything about it."

           We say this is an access-to-justice issue. Why? Hardly anybody thinks legal fees are reasonable, and yet we're adding another 7 percent on top of them to make them even more unattractive for people.

           Perhaps that's the reason why we have so many self-represented litigants in the courts. We're always hearing from the judges or our members that 30 percent or 40 percent of people are there on their own, taking too much time, discussing matters which any lawyer would know pretty readily but which these folks obviously, not having legal training, have no clue about.

           In simple terms, the government has the power to impose the tax. That principle was upheld in the Christie decision. Governments, we say, must avoid taxing unfairly and discriminatorily. The objective has been to deliver greater fairness in B.C.'s tax system, not to perpetuate unfairness. We say this is unfairness. From the point of view of fairness, the government should weigh two options: either tax all professional services or none at all.

           In fact, no one inside or, as I say, outside the government has ever mounted a rational defence of the tax. It's commonly conceded that the tax is indeed discriminatory, unfair, bad for business. It does not make sense. Anyone you ever talk to says: "You know, Ken, if it was up to me, we wouldn't have this tax." But it's not up to me; it's government policy.

           Speaking bluntly, the tax remains for one obvious reason. It raises money — $120 million a year. But the government must also consider the damage the tax does and the unfairness of it. Many unfair taxes would be successful at raising money, yet alone that's not a justification for the tax.

           If we were looking at the principle that legal aid should be paid for by this tax, which of course it isn't, then you've got to also look at this principle. That means that the proportion of people in British Columbia who use legal services are burdened with the requirement that they fund legal aid, not the province as a whole. It's not every taxpayer, not my neighbour, not everybody in the city of Victoria or the province of British Columbia — just those who use legal services. These are the people that should fund legal aid. That's the corollary of the argument — that this tax should be used for that purpose. Right now legal aid is funded at about $55 million or $60 million. As I say, the tax collects double that.

           As the late Fred Gingell made these points 15 years ago, he was quite right. We at the Canadian Bar Association believe that adequate legal aid funding is the responsibility of all taxpayers, not just those who fund legal services or are required to have legal services. These are often people who are in the worst of circumstances — people who are seeking divorces and going through terrible custody battles and dealing with unreasonable people who they at one time loved and now hate with a vehemence. They're having to pay 7-percent provincial sales tax on top of everything else they have to pay, going through this crisis in their lives.

           This year, as in past years, the Finance Minister has asked you to examine the many choices that face our province in relation to the budget. To this we answer, again: eliminate this anomalous tax on legal services. We ask you to restore equity and fairness, contribute to the province's continued growth and competitiveness, uphold principles of access to justice, and show B.C. people that tax policy is guided by rational principles of even-handedness and sensible tax policy. We look forward to reviewing your report. If you have questions, I'm happy to answer them. I know a lot about the tax. I collect it; I remit it. I'm sick of doing it.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Point taken. Thank you very much, Ken.

           Questions from committee members? Any of the lawyers on the committee?

[1210]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Not only did Fred Gingell speak against it; Geoff Plant in opposition spoke in most vitriolic tones about it and gave many impassioned speeches in the House and as Attorney General did nothing on it.

           I've heard the present Attorney General talk about the tax in a very offhanded way. What direct discussion have you had with him on the tax, and what position has he taken on the position that the Bar Association is advancing?

           K. Walton: We've had discussions with Minister Oppal on several occasions about this. Really, it's a matter of government revenue policy. It's not really his baby in that sense. You know, he can be opposed to it, but….

           What we're asked when we come and talk to Finance officials is: "What will you replace the tax with? It's $120 million. What do we cut?" I thought you didn't have to cut anything, because you've got a $4.1 billion

[ Page 1314 ]

surplus. But maybe there isn't a $4.1 billion surplus. I don't know how that works.

           Carole Taylor told us, the public, in July that there was a $4.1 billion surplus. So it seems to me that if you took away $120 million, you'd still have a $3.98 billion surplus, but I don't know.

           Does that answer your question? Have I answered it, or what? I mean, Wally's…. What's he going to say? He's part of a government team. Government policy is that there'll be a tax, so there'll be a tax.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Perhaps someone on the other side will have a better answer than ours. I'll turn the floor over to someone else.

           I. Black: First of all, in thanking you for your presentation, let me also thank you for the citizenship story with which you started your remarks. Having come from the private sector, it takes all walks of life to make the community work, and the story you told about the service you performed for that elderly lady did not go overlooked, especially for a profession that takes its fair share of jokes.

           K. Walton: Yeah, we are rats, you see.

           I. Black: I've got a lot. We can talk after and compare notes. You can really notice the number of lawyer jokes. I've spent a lot of money on lawyers.

           Anyway, when you invoked the names of Fred Gingell and Dr. Ros in your presentation…. Those names, on the government side, are held with great reverence, especially Fred Gingell. I suppose philosophically your argument is pretty clear in terms of the taxation and whatnot. I suppose there's only….

           It takes a fair bit of time to undo ten years of draconian economic management. There's your rebuttal. So as to why that particular matter still remains, I will leave that to the brighter minds in the Finance Ministry.

           I do have a question for you, notwithstanding the philosophical positioning that makes logical sense from what you put forward. You mentioned once or twice that this represents an impediment to people gaining access to legal services, and you mentioned that there was a growing body of data in that regard. You don't actually reference any of that specifically.

           Can you give us a sense of what that looks like in terms of people not accessing the justice system as a result of this tax being in place?

           K. Walton: Did Rosalyn cover that in her report?

           C. Nevin: No. It was mostly economic-based.

           K. Walton: Mostly economic-based, yeah. Rosalyn's was a business argument, was it not? Well, we don't have anything that would show you that Joe Blow doesn't come to us because he's got a 7-percent tax that's going to defer him. It would be amazing if he knew that there was a tax. That's likely the last thing on the guy's mind.

           Lawyers are expensive, and that's probably the rationale behind why there's 30 or 40 percent of self-represented litigants in our courts. I can't tell you that the first thing they said to themselves as they walked through your door was: "Gee, there's a 7-percent tax here, so I'm sorry. I'm just not going to be able to do it."

           B. Bennett (Chair): I happen to be a recovering lawyer.

           K. Walton: You do, eh? Okay. We wish you well in your recovery.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I'll just make a suggestion to you. If the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. branch, could make some sort of a commitment — not that it would be a legally binding commitment, because I don't think you can do that — that lawyers wouldn't raise their hourly rates for a year after the removal of this tax, that might help your case.

           K. Walton: I don't think…. Who's going to raise their rates 7 percent? I mean, it's just not going to happen. We don't have any joy in collecting this tax. It just isn't there. So I don't think there'll be a connect between the two.

[1215]

           It doesn't mean that legal services are going to go up by 7 percent just because the tax is removed. It just won't happen. We can probably make that commitment without even having to worry about it. It's just not going to happen.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. I was just trying to help.

           K. Walton: Yeah, okay. Well, if you want us to…. What would you like us to do to get rid of this thing?

           C. Nevin: I would just say that lawyers' fees across the country are competitive to each other. It's the additional cost of the tax on the bill that is at issue, not the lawyers' hourly fees. In terms of competitiveness, it's not going to happen.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Yeah, I know. I understand that. That wasn't the point I was getting at.

           I'm going to give my Deputy Chair one last kick at the can here.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): On the issue of access to justice. If I just might lead the witness, I think that was the basis of the Court of Appeal decision — was it not? That was the finding — that the tax did restrict access to justice, particularly litigants, and that was the basis of the Court of Appeal judgment.

           K. Walton: Yeah. It wasn't just low-income litigants; it was all litigants. That's what the Supreme Court of Canada didn't touch upon. We just had a discussion with David Roberts last week, and he thinks there's still a possibility that you could go to the Supreme Court and argue that issue — to say that they just didn't deal with it.

[ Page 1315 ]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well, thank you very much. I'll make this commitment to you as Chair of the committee. I will try and get a unanimous commitment on the part of members of this committee to support your request, and we'll see how we make out.

           K. Walton: Okay, well, thank you very much for that. We can't ask for more than that. And I wish you good luck in your recovery.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you.

           Members, we're supposed to be back here by five after one. Is that going to be okay with everyone? Okay. Thank you.

          The committee recessed from 12:17 p.m. to 1:11 p.m.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           B. Bennett (Chair): We appreciate that you were here on time and that you're ready to go. You've been sitting there patiently, so I'm not going to ask you to wait any longer. Hansard is here behind us recording your every word, so that will go into our official record. I think you have provided us with a written copy of your presentation as well. Go ahead and proceed.

           S. McLellan: My name is Sandy McLellan, and I'm the executive director. My colleague here is Stephanie Capyk, the direct services manager. We're here today to speak on behalf of the Women's Sexual Assault Centre of Victoria, an organization that provides support and healing for those affected by sexual assault and childhood sexual abuse.

           For 25 years we have been committed to increasing public understanding of the impacts of sexualized violence and have been working to prevent this violence. In this past year we accompanied 112 recent assault survivors to hospital and provided support and counselling to over 1,200 individuals. Our prevention program for youth reached over 1,500 youth and over 400 adults.

           We receive 46 percent of our million-dollar budget from government contracts from the Ministry of Community Services and the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. We have established a diversified fund development program and have established partnerships with other agencies in order to provide the needed services. It is from this experience and knowledge that we speak to you today. Thank you for this opportunity.

           We know from our own experience with budget preparation that it's a complex task to balance all the needs with the available resources and to make sound decisions that have a positive impact today and for the future. In response to question 4 of the budget consultation paper, there are three issues we would like to address.

           The first is health care, which we know consumes a large portion of the budget. To address these costs, it's necessary to look at some of the factors that create health care needs.

           Individuals who have been sexually abused or assaulted account for a higher than average use of health care services. The cost of health care for survivors of sexual violence trauma is four times the population average after adjusting for age and gender. The average cost of medications prescribed was nine times the population average, and emergency room visits were one and a half times the population average. You'll note in your written copies that I have referenced all of these statistics that I'll be giving you this afternoon.

           The relationship between childhood physical and sexual abuse and the development of psychiatric symptoms in adulthood is very well documented. Childhood abuse is a significant causal factor in suicide and self-injury. Some 50 to 70 percent of all women and a substantial number of men treated in psychiatric settings have histories of sexual or physical abuse, or both.

           Up to 81 percent of men and women in psychiatric hospitals who are diagnosed with a variety of major mental illnesses have experienced physical and/or sexual abuse, and 67 percent of these men and women were abused as children. Adults who were abused during childhood are more than twice as likely to have at least one lifetime psychiatric diagnosis.

           We also know that homelessness is a significant issue for our communities to address and that one of the underlying causes of homelessness is dealing with mental health and substance misuse issues. Some 97 percent of mentally ill homeless women have experienced severe physical and/or sexual abuse, and 87 percent of these have experienced this abuse both as children and as adults.

[1315]

           The majority of women and a significant minority of men seeking treatment for substance use disorders are survivors of either physical or sexual abuse. Studies indicate that childhood sexual abuse is associated with early initiation of injection drug use. For adolescents and adults with childhood abuse histories, the risk of suicide increases.

           Clearly, all of these things add substantially to our health costs. Research does indicate that support and healing available soon after a sexual trauma result in faster recovery and reduced long-term effects. Therefore, in order to reduce health care costs and human suffering, we recommend that increased early intervention strategies be made available for survivors of sexualized violence.

           The second issue that we'd like to address is the issue of prevention. Both in terms of the costs associated and the human distress caused, it is a course preferable to prevent sexualized violence. Health care costs and criminal justice costs are considerable. In addition, there are the costs to the workplace and the disruption of families.

           One of the main definitions of primary prevention is that it works to change the attitudes, value, behaviours and social conditions that allow violence to occur. Some of the social conditions that allow violence to occur include poverty, privilege, abuse of power, sexism, racism, discrimination based on ability, victim blaming and the silence surrounding violence.

           Project Respect is the Women's Sexual Assault Centre's program aimed at preventing sexualized violence by

[ Page 1316 ]

challenging the factors that lead to this. The program engages youth aged 14 to 19 in a multifaceted program acknowledged as an effective prevention project by the B.C. Institute Against Family Violence, the B.C.-Yukon Society of Transition Houses and the B.C. Association of Specialized Victim Assistance and Counselling Programs.

           This program has been proven effective with rural and urban youth in school settings and community-based programs. Part of this program engages groups of youth to conduct prevention activities in their schools and communities.

           To date, this program has been funded through a series of one-year grants and the generosity of individual donors. Grants are great for initiating programs, but to develop solid, ongoing programming, longer-term funding is necessary.

           To effectively reach large numbers of youth and engage them in preventing sexual violence, some core funding is required. Therefore, we would recommend that ministries provide core funding for ongoing, proven prevention projects such as Project Respect.

           The third and last issue that we'd like to address today is around contract and grant management. Like many other non-profit social service organizations, many of which you have heard from today, we are continuing to deal with the effects of significant reductions in government contracts five years ago.

           To meet the service needs of our community, we reduced spending on infrastructure, including information technology, equipment maintenance and replacement, and adequate space for our work. These actions were effective for the short term but cannot be maintained, and we must now put money into infrastructure, which will reduce the number of clients we can assist. In fact, in this year's budget we have had to reduce our staffing by 1.6 full-time-equivalents in order to balance our budget.

           In this climate of shortages of skilled workers some provision for ongoing training needs to be included in contracts. This ensures an up-to-date workforce, aids in the retention of employees and therefore reduces the costs associated with recruiting and training of new staff.

           It is also necessary at this point in our history to have a well-functioning computer network to comply with the financial reporting requirements, statistical reporting, outcome measurements and evaluation, privacy regulations and other recordkeeping. These costs are substantial and ongoing.

           It's not only the provision of funding but the processes for establishing and distributing this funding that reduce costs and make service provision more cost-effective. Multi-year grants in contracts would reduce costs to agencies and government ministries to provide programs and services. Some ministries have begun to go in this direction, and that move is appreciated.

           Grants would also be provided to programs for continuing work rather than only for new programs and initiatives. This would enhance the development of best practices and reduce overhead costs.

[1320]

           Due to regulatory changes by the federal government, financial auditors are now required to conduct a rather lengthy process, even for smaller non-profit organizations. As a result, the costs of an audit have risen considerably in the last two years. Government requirements for audited financial statements need to recognize this increased cost.

           Contracts could also stipulate that evaluation of service is required, and funds could be provided to ensure that effective services are being provided to British Columbians. We would therefore recommend that contracts be increased to provide for the needed infrastructure costs and training of staff and that further contracts be multi-year for established services.

           Thank you for this opportunity to share our priorities with you. We will be happy to answer any questions you might have.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Sandy. We appreciate that. There's time for questions.

           D. Hayer: A very good presentation. Is the funding that you receive from the private sector from individuals? Or do you go to different organizations in the private sector to ask for the funding?

           Also, is the funding from the government mostly provincial funding? I think it's actually through the Solicitor General's department. Is there some federal funding in that, and is there some funding from the city?

           S. McLellan: Our provincial funding is in terms of contracts, one from the Ministry of Community Services and one from Public Safety and Solicitor General. We receive our private funding from a number of different sources. We receive a considerable amount of support from individuals in the community, for which we are very appreciative. We also have a number of businesses and organizations that support us.

           We do receive some direct-access gaming funding from year to year. We also apply each year for as many grants as we can possibly find. Some of those have been from the federal government, some have been from the city, and some have been from other foundations and organizations.

           We also do a couple of events a year. We did a Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event this year for the first time, and we do a triathlon every year. They have raised some money for us, which is great. They are also good public awareness events, because one of the big issues about sexualized violence is that it's a difficult subject for people to talk about.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I wanted to thank you for the references. An evidence-based presentation is sometimes more persuasive.

           Just judging from the submission that you've made, is there one ministry in particular…? I note in your annual report that you seem to have support from several different ministries. Is there one that is the lead ministry? I'm wondering what response you've had in your own representations thus far.

[ Page 1317 ]

           S. McLellan: I wouldn't say that there was one ministry in the lead. In fact, as I think you may be referring to in our annual report, we have established some great partnerships now with VIHA around serving people who have substance use issues and sexual abuse histories.

           I might just tell you that the way that came about was that we had a private group which funded a pilot project. In the second year of funding for it that group was willing to provide some funds again but said that they felt there was a responsibility on the part of VIHA to meet that. They provided two-thirds of the funding if VIHA would come up with the one-third that was required. It established that partnership, which is working very successfully now.

           I. Black: Let me add my thanks for the presentation and for the extraordinary work that you and your team do. This is very, very difficult work and oftentimes traumatic as well, I suspect.

           As you may know, about $47 million gets spent annually on things like transition houses and front-line services for women trying to escape violence, in about a hundred communities now, I believe.

           You mentioned one program I'd never heard of before, however, and I want to get you to expand on that and put it on the record, if you don't mind. You talked about a program that you're calling Project Respect. Could you tell the committee what that project is about? It rings of prevention, which is always one of my favourite areas.

[1325]

           S. McLellan: It is a prevention program, and it's one that is, as I stated, designed for 14-to-19-year-olds. The reason for that is that the highest proportion of recent assaults that we accompany to hospital and that we see through our services is in that age category. As we all know, prevention younger in life is far more effective than later in life.

           That project was started with a bequest by an individual some ten years ago. It's a project that was well researched. We looked at all of the prevention programs that were happening in North America and throughout the world. We looked at what was going to really address the causal factors.

           We also consulted with youth, looked at what was going to be effective for youth and, as a result of that, developed a program that is composed of school workshops, social marketing — a lot of messaging around prevention — and youth teams. We actually train teams of youth who then decide what project they're going to do in their school or community to prevent sexualized violence.

           B. Bennett (Chair): We did have some other questions, but we're just out of time. Hopefully, committee members can follow up directly with you. Thank you very much for your presentation.

           S. McLellan: That would be great. We'd be happy to do that. Thanks for your time.

           B. Bennett (Chair): The next presenter, the next witness is Kyman Chan.

           K. Chan: Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Kyman Chan. I'm a chartered accountant practising in a local firm here in Victoria. It's a pleasure to be here today to talk about some of the issues of importance to my firm and to my clients. I'll be fairly brief.

           As you can probably imagine, most of what accountants want to talk about revolves around taxes. I'll have a little bit to say about that. Then maybe I'll just briefly touch on investing, education and training and then look for questions, if there are any.

           In my practice most of my clients would describe themselves as small business owners, which isn't surprising as about 98 percent of businesses in B.C. are classified as small businesses. When I talk to my clients and colleagues about fiscal and economic issues in B.C., several issues come up — primarily related to taxes, as I mentioned.

           Provincial sales taxes. Firstly, I'd like to acknowledge the government's efforts in regards to simplifying the provincial sales tax through the provincial sales tax review. In my mind, anything that can be looked at as a way of simplifying sales tax administration is a good thing for small business, though I think expanding the scope of that particular review to include harmonization of PST and GST also might have been a good idea.

           The reason why I think harmonization makes sense — and I think would also be palatable to the public — is because it's not really about double taxation but rather a reduction in administration and red tape. When you look at it from a small business perspective, the current tax system for small business owners requires them to administer sales taxes at two different levels, a provincial and a federal level. For most businesses, this means more administration — separate recordkeeping, different forms to fill out, different auditors enforcing compliance — and, ultimately, higher costs.

           As a chartered accountant, I do see many examples of small business clients who spend entire days trying to sort out their separate tax remittances for any given month or, even worse, digging out records and answering questions for auditors of two different tax jurisdictions. Eliminating redundant costs would be a way to achieve better efficiency and, ultimately, lower consumer prices.

           The second area of cost-efficiency has to do with the provincial sales tax paid on supplies, materials, etc., for a business. This tax is not recoverable, as an input tax credit for GST purposes would be. That results in higher costs, which are ultimately passed on to consumers as well.

           As you're probably aware, the Atlantic provinces have had a harmonized, or HST, system for a while. My understanding, though this is really through anecdotal as opposed to scientific evidence, is that consumers in that region did see a drop in consumer prices after the HST was implemented.

[1330]

           Another tax issue that I'd like to I'd like to comment on is corporate income taxes and the rate in B.C. In

[ Page 1318 ]

recent years the government has responded to the competition fuelled by our neighbours to our immediate east in Alberta. Our general corporate income tax rate is now within a few percentage points of Alberta's rate.

           The B.C. Competition Council report last year was very reasonable, I think, when recommending that B.C.'s corporate tax rate be within 25 percent of Alberta's rate. However, in an effort to attract and retain business investment in B.C., it might be worth considering matching Alberta's rate.

           B.C. is no doubt experiencing boom times right now, and boom times are an ideal time to increase our tax competitiveness. I think this provides an excellent opportunity to increase our competitiveness and attract more investment, which could potentially help us manage through an inevitable drop in commodity prices down the road.

           Corporate profitability is important for many reasons, not the least of which is that it helps industry to invest in capital and innovation as well as in training. Both of these activities are very important to ensure that productivity is improved going forward and that industry does its part in managing the skills challenges facing the province.

           In terms of employment, the numbers say that over one million job openings will occur through 2015. Yet only 650,000 people will come out of our school system, leaving us with a deficit of 400,000 workers. We're going to have to work hard to attract skilled workers to B.C., while training and educating our own citizens.

           The government is on the right track with expanding post-secondary education spaces by 25,000 seats and creating the Industry Training Authority. However, the enormity of the labour gap will likely require government and business to do more.

           In conclusion, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C. prepares a report called B.C. Check-Up, which I'm sure many of you are familiar with. It will be published shortly for viewing by the public at large, and I believe copies will be sent to members of the Legislature as well.

           The checkup looks at essentially three different indicators to benchmark the province's economy. Those indicators are living, working and investing. In brief, some of the conclusions from this year's checkup are that our standard of living is increasing and has been for some time. There's no doubt, looking at the major variables there: real disposable income and personal-debt-to-income ratio. However, in both regards we're still behind Alberta, Ontario and the national average.

           In terms of working are key indicators like unemployment rate and real wage rate. Our unemployment rate, at 4.8 percent, is at a 30-year low, though it's still behind Alberta's. Our real wage rate, however, still lags behind both Alberta and Ontario.

           In terms of investing, the major indicator there would be business profitability — and also business-investment-to-GDP ratio, I suppose — where we are still growing but again sit behind Alberta and Ontario.

           What I would conclude is that most British Columbians and businesses in British Columbia are pretty happy with the state of the economy. Certainly, that's what I'm hearing from my clients. The government is currently doing many of the things, such as tax reduction or reviewing tax policy, that we as chartered accountants support.

           In going forward, we would just encourage the government to continue along the same course and maybe look even a step further to things like reducing corporate tax rates and possibly harmonizing the PST and GST, with the end goal of expanding the tax base and creating resources that would allow for more spending on social programs and that would see us through leaner times in the future.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Chan. I noticed that you focused on provincial sales tax, harmonization of PST and GST, and corporate income tax. You didn't mention property transfer tax.

           K. Chan: I didn't mention property transfer tax on purpose, because I suspect that the Real Estate Council will probably have something to say about property transfer tax. I know the issues around property transfer tax. Do you have a specific question about it?

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well, I just wondered if I could read into the fact that you didn't mention it — and you may have already answered this, but perhaps not — that you think that changes to the PST and to corporate income tax and harmonization would be more useful changes to tax policy than the property transfer tax.

[1335]

           K. Chan: The only comment that I made about rates was about corporate income tax rates and lowering them to be more competitive with Alberta. The discussion around harmonization is really meant to focus on reducing the administration and therefore reducing the burden, if you will, to small business owners.

           With respect to property transfer tax, I think that's a difficult question. I know there are a lot of dollars involved in property transfer tax, and a lot of decisions would probably have to be made in terms of spending if you didn't have those dollars. I'm probably not the best-qualified person to talk about what might or might not happen if you were to either eliminate or reduce or change the different tiers to which property transfer tax is applied.

           B. Bennett (Chair): The challenge for the Finance Minister, of course, is that every tax change normally has a cost, unless you're increasing taxes.

           We do have some questions now from members.

           H. Bloy: Thank you for your presentation. You talked about the looming labour shortage, which is huge. What is your profession doing to accept foreign credentials and other recruits, other than the way you've done it over the last number of years?

           K. Chan: Well, we definitely have an issue in terms of a shortage of skilled labour. There's no doubt there.

[ Page 1319 ]

We have a bit of an issue in terms of accreditation because different skills and accreditation received in different jurisdictions can mean different things. So we're working hard to look at and to support our members who hire from other jurisdictions in terms of making it easier for people to apply for reciprocity in terms of their credentials.

           That is one area where government policy could help us. I know there are many organizations in the lower mainland, for instance, that help businesses or help their members attract workers from foreign lands. Actually, what they do is give these people grants, if you will, to attend post-secondary education or colleges to get their training up to speed. That is something that government policy could probably look at.

           In terms of our own organization, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of B.C., like I said, what we're focusing on is just making it easier for people to see the similarities in the credentials from other jurisdictions to what we need here to be able to accredit them.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I understand — and correct me if I'm wrong — that your organization has spoken out against the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement with Alberta. Can you elaborate on that?

           K. Chan: Has spoken against it?

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Yes.

           K. Chan: To my knowledge, that's not the case. But I don't know whether or not there's an official position by the institute or not. I'm not actually representing the Institute of Chartered Accountants, just to be clear. I'm representing a local firm, Hayes Stewart Little and Co. I think there's actually a presentation by the Institute of Chartered Accountants to this group on Friday.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much. A very good presentation. My question is about sales tax — PST and GST harmonization. Is there any research on how the general community feels and the public feels about it? Are they in support of it? Are they against it? Are they neutral?

           K. Chan: I don't know if there's been any research done in terms of polling British Columbians on how they would feel. I do, again, just a straw poll of my own clients, and business owners who've done polling themselves and asking of their customers….

           Looking at that harmonization, most people don't see it as a double taxation. I think that might be a fear many provinces might have in terms of harmonization. Obviously, you go from a 6-percent PST to a 13-percent combined rate, and that sounds a lot worse. However, when you think about it in terms of the efficiencies gained on the administration side, it does make sense.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I just have a quick question. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we harmonize GST and PST, we would have to start charging PST on gasoline, which we don't charge today.

[1340]

           K. Chan: Well, there are definitely things that you would have to look at in terms of where the HST would apply, yes.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. Fair enough. Thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate it.

           Do we have anyone here from the Canadian Federation of Students, B.C. office? Come forward.

           S. Reid: First off, my apologies. We had a printing difficulty, so I have to read off my screen for this.

           I spoke with Matthew de Groot, who I understand spoke to you this morning. He just wanted to emphasize that Camosun College students are also looking for a 10-percent reduction in tuition fees. He asked me to make sure to note that for the committee.

           My name is Shamus Reid. I'm the B.C. chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students. To my left is Summer McFadyen, who is staff with our federation. I'd like to thank the committee today for hearing the priorities of B.C. students and their families.

           The Canadian Federation of Students is the voice of 150,000 post-secondary students in B.C., from adult basic education right through to post-graduate students. As I'm sure you're all aware, the last several years have been difficult for students in this province.

           I would like to thank the committee for its help alleviating some of that difficulty last year, in recommending that adult basic education be made tuition-free in this province. I'm sure you're all aware at this point that that recommendation was followed through.

           This year we hope to build on that in addressing the lack of access for students across the whole post-secondary system. Student debt has ballooned from amongst the lowest averages in the country to second-highest at $27,000 upon graduation from a four-year BA. It should be noted that that average does not include interest paid over the course of repayment.

           I'd like to ask everyone here to imagine the impact of a mortgage-sized loan of that nature on a 23- or 24-year-old graduate's life. What it means is spending years living paycheque to paycheque, only able to make interest payments, without the resources to pay down the principal on your student loan. It means setting aside academic goals to continue on to graduate school or get a teaching certificate, and putting off important life decisions like getting married, starting a family and purchasing a house.

           It means student debt that will last a generation and which impacts the ability of children of student loan borrowers to go to school themselves. Please consider also that 25 percent of post-secondary graduates will actually earn less than the average high school graduate over the course of their lifetime.

           What we have is a situation in B.C. where post-secondary education is a massive gamble, particularly for low- and middle-income students. What's worse is

[ Page 1320 ]

that this gamble is expected of individuals at a time when it's widely recognized that society needs to be actively encouraging more post-secondary graduates.

           Some 75 percent of all new jobs require some form of post-secondary education, and the B.C. government would like to make it a priority to have a highly competitive economy at the global level. In this context, when low- and middle-income families are looking at their pocketbooks, at their children's job earnings, and realizing that their sons and daughters can't afford to go to school, then as a province we do have a problem.

           The sad truth is that students and their families are turning away from B.C.'s colleges and universities at an alarming rate. Just one example is the College of New Caledonia, which has seen steep drops in programs, including a 30-percent drop last year in university transfer enrolment.

           Universities have trouble meeting their enrolment targets, and in fact, UVic has not met its internal enrolment targets for several years. Enrolment is down at Thompson Rivers University this year, with domestic enrolment down across all campuses and Thompson Rivers University Open Learning.

           There's also evidence of a demographic shift at our institutions away from low- and middle-income participation. The 2007 B.C. budget accounted for a major decline in expected student loan disbursements as a result of declining student loan applications. At a time when tuition fees have doubled, this decline in student loan disbursements is indicative of fewer low- and middle-income students going to school.

[1345]

           There are two commitments that we are asking for, which are urgently needed to address these problems. Our first recommendation, and our highest priority, is a 10-percent reduction in tuition fees.

           Our second recommendation is to increase funding for non-repayable student financial assistance by $100 million and to deliver the funding up front as a grant for students at the time of enrolment.

           Together, these two commitments amount to no more than an additional $200 million investment in our post-secondary system — 5 percent of the 2006 surplus.

           A 10-percent tuition fee reduction would have a number of positive effects. It helps stimulate enrolment at B.C.'s post-secondary institutions by providing an incentive for young British Columbians to get the training and education we need to secure lasting jobs and meet the demands of B.C.'s growing economy.

           Amounting to $500 a year for the average undergraduate, a 10-percent reduction would pay for books and supplies for an entire semester. For students with the highest need, a 10-percent reduction is the difference between using the food bank and buying groceries or the ability to pay for textbooks and course supplies.

           Unfortunately, with fees as high as they are, thousands of students will continue to need extra help beyond the 10-percent reduction we're asking for, which is why our second recommendation is to invest an additional $100 million into a comprehensive debt reduction program.

           The loan reduction program is currently B.C.'s non-repayable student financial assistance program. Through this program, following completion of an academic year of study, students with high need will see their loan reduced at the end of the year.

           Unfortunately, the funding for the program stays relatively static from year to year. With no guarantee as to how many students will qualify to have their loan reduced in a given year, there is also no guarantee that students will receive the funding from year to year.

           The program does little to encourage lower-income students to attend post-secondary education, given its lack of guaranteed funding for students who demonstrate the same need year over year and because it is tied to completion rather than delivered up front.

           Providing a guaranteed grant up front would go much further in addressing declining enrolment. Geoff Plant, in his Campus 2020 report, recommended a comprehensive review of student financial assistance.

           That review is now underway in the capable hands of senior staff members of StudentAid B.C., Merv Scott and Alison Bridges. Students are engaging in the review of student financial assistance, and from that, we hope to see a restructuring of the loan reduction program to the effect of what I've talked about to best meet the needs of students.

           The primary mandate of this committee, as I understand it, is to make recommendations on funding to be committed in the budget. So while the review process is underway, we still do need the adequate student financial assistance funding to reduce student debt committed to in the next provincial budget.

           In 2001, non-repayable financial assistance amounted to about $80 million a year. In 2007 it has fallen to just $60 million under the loan reduction program, despite tuition fees doubling in that time. With tuition fees having doubled, it is fair to say that non-repayable financial assistance ought to double as well.

           In addition to changes in how the funding is delivered, we are calling on this committee to recommend an additional $100 million in funding.

           Our third recommendation also relates to student financial assistance. Members may not be aware, but following graduation, student loan borrowers pay interest on their public student loans at 8½ percent to 11½ percent — well above the government's cost of borrowing.

           Our third recommendation today is that interest be eliminated on student loans. Fundamentally, it is an issue of fairness that low- and middle-income students — those who generally access student loans the most — should not be expected to pay more for their education than those who can afford to pay up front. As it stands now, with interest, student loan borrowers pay tens of thousands of dollars more over the course of their loan repayment than those who can pay up front.

           Finally, our fourth priority today in terms of post-secondary education is to see a $200 million increase in operational funding to the post-secondary system and a long-term base funding commitment on the part of this government. In this government's first mandate, per-student funding for post-secondary education

[ Page 1321 ]

dropped significantly. Since then, the deficit has been mostly made up, but funding is still slightly behind the rate of inflation over the last six years.

[1350]

           It's important that at the very least, the government commit to keeping pace with inflation and any enrolment increases. But it's also important to be meeting some of the basic operational needs of our post-secondary system that are currently not being met. So we have joined with the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators in calling for a $200 million increase in funding so that our post-secondary institutions can function at a higher level.

           In total, today we have four recommendations for the post-secondary system. Students are seeking a 10-percent reduction in tuition fees, an investment supported by 80 percent of British Columbians. We are seeking an additional $100 million in non-repayable student financial assistance to reduce student debt, as 87 percent of British Columbians support greater funding for grants. We are seeking the elimination of interest on student loans. And we are seeking an additional $200 million in operational funding.

           We are urging this government to recognize investing in the post-secondary education system this year as an investment in the province's future.

           I thank everybody for their time today, and I look forward to people's questions.

           I. Black: Thanks very much for your presentation. One of the key messages I took away from my university experience some 20-odd years ago was the distinction between correlation and causation.

           One of the challenges I have with some of the remarks that you made is that your observations and some of your conclusions kind of ignore a couple of the causative factors that are currently taking place at the same time as many of the observations that you've cited, such as the lowest unemployment in 35 years and such as the correlation — and, indeed, the causative impact — between a hot economy, which has its corresponding low unemployment, and student enrolment.

           Simply put, the seduction of making money in the workforce draws people away from the college and university system, and frankly, it's at a time when we really need them there — right?

           It also ignores, in looking for the 10-percent student fee reduction, that we have the third-lowest tuition in the country. And in the area of debt reduction, despite the comments about it not being available, there were over 8,000 students last year who took advantage of that, to the tune of $72 million.

           It's that issue I want to ask my question on. You've asked two things. One was that that $72 million be increased by about $100 million, if I heard you correctly, to about $172 million. You also asked that it revert from being a loan forgiveness program — call it a reward at the end of reaching the objective — to a grant system, where the money comes up front. I understand the difference between the two. But my question is….

           When I've entered into debate on this topic with constituents and friends, the question that gets posed to me is: "As the guardians of the taxpayers' money, how do you explain to people, or incent people, to appropriately finish their degree if the incentive is not there to complete it and get loan forgiveness after the fact, as opposed to getting a grant up front, where the money has been given whether that degree gets finished or not?"

           The taxpayers who fund the vast majority of the post-secondary education system need some sort of a safeguard in that regard. How would you respond to that and enable me to respond to that when I'm having those conversations?

           S. Reid: Absolutely. I would like to respond to some of your comments from the start. I think that some of the information might not necessarily be there, so I'd like to provide that information.

           In fact, we have seen enrolment declines at a number of institutions and institutions not meeting their internal enrolment targets — I'm not talking about the funded FTEs but about the enrolment targets set by the institutions themselves — for a number of years prior to the hot economy. It was, essentially, catching fire.

           The unemployment rate went down to record lows in about 2004. Tuition fees were deregulated in 2002, and that was when we saw some steep drops at a number of rural colleges. Okanagan College, for example, which at the time was Okanagan University College, and a number of the satellite campuses saw declines.

           We've actually seen that correlated to tuition fees being deregulated and not to the hot economy. In fact, in terms of the hot economy, I think there's certainly an argument to be made that given the higher wages that are available to less skilled workers currently under our economic system, for a number of students it's actually the hot economy that's keeping them in school right now, with their ability to make money at a part-time job while going to school and have that extra funding to pay the extra tuition fees.

           I certainly welcome the debate on that, but I think that in terms of your first point about enrolment being an issue only after the economy caught fire, the evidence speaks to the contrary.

[1355]

           In terms of the question on incentives to complete and whether an upfront grants program provides those incentives, I think the situation we're in currently is that we need to be providing incentives for students to go, and you certainly noted that. The hot economy does provide an incentive for students, perhaps, to stay in the workforce for awhile at a time when we need them to be going to post-secondary education as well.

           I think that an upfront grants program provides that incentive for students to enrol — provides that incentive for students to get the post-secondary education they need and that we as a society need in order to grow our economy.

           S. McFadyen: If I can just add something to that. I think it's worth looking at your own internal numbers, in that I would agree with you except for the fact that

[ Page 1322 ]

the loan reduction program isn't working. What I mean by that is people are not applying for student loans in the same numbers as they were previously, and that's reported in last year's budget and our own internal StudentAid B.C. numbers.

           The branch StudentAid B.C. is very concerned about this and does not report that average incomes are higher, allowing for a wealthier demographic of people going to school who don't need student loans. What they report is that the loan reduction program isn't an incentive to go to school. It does not provide an incentive great enough to induce people who are low and middle income through the post-secondary system to complete their degrees.

           I guess it would just speak to the experience that we've had with the loan reduction program and the overall decline in the student loan applications, which has been very substantive as the tuition fee increases have been put in place.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Folks, thank you very much for your presentation. Again, we've got questioners — many members on deck that would like to have asked questions, but we're out of time. We've got some committee members that need to catch flights after this committee meeting today, so I'm trying to keep things on time.

           S. Reid: Understood. If I could just add that committee members can expect a written brief from our federation that will go into a bit more detail on our numbers.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Victoria Real Estate Board is our next witness. Bev McIvor and Scott Kendrew. Thank you very much for coming to speak to us today.

           B. McIvor: I'm Bev McIvor, president of the Victoria Real Estate Board. This is the past president from last year, Scott Kendrew.

           Mr. Chairman and committee members, the Victoria Real Estate Board appreciates the opportunity to offer this pre-budget submission for the third year in a row for consideration by the committee. This year we are pleased to offer our ideas on how we may assist in meeting this serious challenge of the climate change.

           The Minister of Finance has asked British Columbians for ideas on how we think government should be setting the course for a greener future. We are pleased that our government is prepared to take a leading role in reducing our province's contributions to greenhouse gas emissions.

           We also agree with the Minister of Finance on the need to closely examine how we heat our homes, how we travel to work and how we continue to think about our household waste.

           We all have a very big challenge indeed if we are to reduce B.C.'s emissions by the government's goal of one-third. Our provincial association will meet before you on October 10 in Langley, and we know that they have been working on some ideas with the Canadian Home Builders Associations. Meanwhile, we are pleased to share with you some of our ideas.

           First, we've been speaking with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources about new ways to encourage homeowners to heat their homes more efficiently. In our view, it is time to let the marketplace take a bigger role. We volunteered to run a pilot project in Greater Victoria to inform buyers of the energy-efficient ratings of various homes. We think growing public interest will promote more and more sellers to do all they can do to get their homes energy-ready before they list for sale.

           Second, the Minister of Finance has asked what incentives might encourage people to drive less. We suggest the provincial government offer financial or other incentives to municipal governments to provide zoning that facilitates people being able to work, shop and play closer to home.

[1400]

           Finally, waste reduction is a critical element in enhancing sustainability. We have also volunteered, with the Minister of Environment, to run a pilot project in our board area to notify buyers of a home's waste conservative measures. We think realtors can play a key role by helping to rate a home based on its use of such items as low-flush toilets, low-flow shower heads, front-end-loading washing machines and the use of grey water and rainwater.

           We invite the government to work with us on these and other incentives, all of which will help improve the overall quality of life for our citizens.

           I'd like to close by thanking you for recognizing some of the advice we gave you last year and by offering a quick comment on our local housing market.

           In October of last year we advised you that the average selling price of a single-family home in Victoria's area in September 2006 was $545,172, and the median price was $455,000, both well above the $325,000 first-time-buyers-exemption threshold for the property transfer tax.

           Condominiums were, of course, generally more affordable. The average price of condominiums sold in September 2006 was $291,798, and the median price was $259,500.

           This year, as you surely know, the average selling price of both single-family homes and condominiums has gone up again. The most recent MLS data shows that the average selling price of a single-family home in the Greater Victoria area last month was over $584,000. The median price was $520,000 — again, well above the new property-transfer-tax-exemption threshold of $375,000.

           The average price of condominiums sold last month was $341,000, and the median price was $288,000.

           It is again clear that the government policy aimed at helping first-time homebuyers by exempting them from this tax is having, at best, only limited success. Government can argue that the threshold still nicely applies to the condominium market, but we believe that the intent of the program was not to restrict buyers to only buying condominiums.

           In addition, realtors and others believe this onerous tax makes it more difficult for British Columbians to compete with the jurisdictions for investments.

           Accordingly, we again recommend that the Minister of Finance find ways of making it easier for first-time homebuyers to purchase a home and avoid this tax altogether. Furthermore, we like the proposal by the

[ Page 1323 ]

Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver to link the household exemption formula to the annual median sales price on a region-by-region basis.

           Having said this, we would like to thank you for last year including in your final report to the Minister of Finance our recommendation to raise the threshold exemption in the budget of 2007.

           The Minister of Finance has also asked for ideas to provide additional housing opportunities for British Columbians. In the last fiscal year homebuyers contributed over $950 million to the provincial treasury through the property transfer tax. We suggest that more of these funds could be directed to provide subsidies for shelter allowances and to assist the homeless.

           We also suggest that the province could do more to help municipalities understand how other jurisdictions are responding to housing challenges. The initiatives now underway in such places as Portland, Seattle and Vancouver offer good examples of what can be done.

           We would also like to see consideration given to providing empty-nesters with incentives to renovate and develop secondary suites, where legal, to add to the availability of the housing inventory.

           Let us leave you with the following thought. Each year Victoria area realtors help in approximately 8,000 real estate transactions. Studies have shown that in British Columbia every home purchased typically results in expenditures of over $40,000 for extra goods and services. This means that in Greater Victoria alone the additional annual contribution to the economy from real estate transactions is an astonishing $320 million.

           The housing market continues to be a mainstay of the economy — locally, provincially and, indeed, across the country. We see every indication of continued strength and stability in the months ahead.

           Thank you for giving us the opportunity to address you. If there is time, we'd be happy to answer any questions.

[1405]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. Yes, there is time. I have at least a couple of questions for you.

           J. Horgan: Thank you very much for your presentation. I am the only member from the Greater Victoria area on the committee, so I was pleased to see that my housing values are going up year after year.

           B. McIvor: Just read the paper. It's what I say every month.

           J. Horgan: One of the challenges, and you've touched upon it…. I'd invite you to include Langford in your list of communities that are challenging and addressing the affordable housing issue in our region. It's a good case study.

           The minister's charge to us was to find new or innovative ways to include this committee in the budget-making process with respect to climate change. You will know that while there have been significant investments in public transportation in other jurisdictions in British Columbia, it has not been the case here in the Greater Victoria area.

           I'm wondering if the board is hearing from its members that it's more difficult to place people in homes outside of the core because of the absence of efficient, effective and green public transportation.

           S. Kendrew: That's an excellent comment. Thank you, John.

           What's happening is that affordability, as they move out, dominates over public transportation. Just going from Gordon Head to the Colwood-Langford area, and then if you go further to Sooke, the affordability issue…. They can afford to get a better home at a lower price than they could otherwise, and I don't think they really make that decision on the transportation.

           J. Horgan: If I could add to that, though, Scott. The challenge for us and the challenge for the climate is that affordability is driving people further and further away. Absent an effective way to move large numbers of people in a green way, they are staying in their single-occupancy vehicles.

           I see them going by my…. I always say that Sooke is being evacuated every morning because of the long line of cars that prevent me from getting into the line.

           It's a huge challenge, and you're aware of that. This is an opportunity for us as people from the capital region to make a statement on that. I am leading the witness as far as I think the Chair will allow me on this case.

           If you would please weigh in again.

           B. McIvor: We had a councillor from Colwood talking to us yesterday. He said that what they're trying to do is bring all their commercial — we have no more commercial land; that's another issue — more towards the village idea so there won't be as much transportation. Getting the people to work within the area that they're buying within is another big challenge for us in the future.

           S. Kendrew: To answer that, John, I think that the public is starting to realize that. We've said in the speeches that the environment…. If you go back to the mid-'70s and late '70s, all of a sudden Thermopane windows were the big thing.

           I think part of the environmental impact that we can have is that…. Bus service, the efficiency of a home — making them more efficient — are the kind of things that will become very important. I see it happening.

           All you have to do is look at Dockside Green and what they've done. They just came onto the scene with a huge bang, and it's been so popular. I think there is going to be more of that and more of the car-saving and different types of ways to try and look at getting people driving singularly off the streets.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. In this year's budget the government allocated $250 million for the housing endowment fund. Each year, that will generate about $10 million for innovative ideas for

[ Page 1324 ]

housing and for supporting those ideas. Do you think this kind of fund will help the real estate sector to encourage housing development in an innovative direction?

           S. Kendrew: I guess, partly, yes. But again, I think some of it is a buyers' trend that does more to change it. It's the buying public. I guess what we're looking for is more encouragement for that kind of thing.

           If you go back to the CHIP grants that the federal government did for insulation back in the '70s and '80s, it was big business. Then B.C. Hydro had its programs to get people to be more energy-efficient. I think it's the same kind of thing.

           We're looking at a number of different issues. Homelessness also. I mean, we sell communities. We feel strongly that if we have money to help the homeless in some way or the other, it makes it better for the existing citizens and brings more people into it.

           Did I evade your question, or did I answer it for you, sir?

[1410]

           R. Lee: One of the issues in developing more affordable housing is the regulations in the local government. Do you think that more changes in that direction will benefit the housing market?

           S. Kendrew: Interestingly enough, for the last two years the Victoria Real Estate Board has supported the Gaining Ground conference here in Victoria, where we've looked at Dockside Green presentations. We've looked at a huge one from, I think, North or South Carolina, where they're doing these kind of innovation things. Very, very few municipal or provincial people there have seen these kinds of innovations that are being done. It's hard for us to come forward into a rezoning situation and try to bring this kind of innovation in.

           It can be done. Environmentally sensitive areas can be saved through working with the developer and that. But I can tell you from personal experience that the municipalities are the most difficult ones to deal with because they're the ones that aren't as well educated as our provincial representation. They come in with different ideas. It is very, very difficult to try and get anything swung over that way. We need more of them.

           They're in for a three-year.… They'll start any time now. They'll quit making big decisions on things because they're coming up for election in a year's time. It's just a fact of life.

           B. Simpson: Thanks for the presentation. I'm particularly intrigued with the comments around the marketplace and taking a bigger role in energy efficiency at the household level. I wouldn't mind some information, if you've got it, around the pilot that you're proposing.

           What I'm curious about, though, is that most of…. Even though we're adding a whole bunch of new houses, new developments, the lion's share of the homes are built, and many of them are not energy-efficient as they are. If we're going to address the issue of energy conservation, we have to address the issue of the households that aren't energy-efficient.

           As a group, would you be predisposed to our providing incentives — whether it's tax relief, tax credits, program incentives — for the work that needs to be done to upgrade a lot of those homes? Particularly housing affordability, people who are below…. The poverty level is growing in the province, according to the Progress Board. Those are all the folks who just don't have the resources to do that.

           How do we make that happen? Do you have any thoughts on how that can happen?

           B. McIvor: Actually, that's going to be next year's mandate for my incoming president, to work with the realtors on those sorts of ideas for homes that are in the old estates. Any help we get from you would certainly be welcome.

           B. Simpson: So we'll form a partnership and figure it out.

           B. McIvor: Sure.

           S. Kendrew: But if I can add to that. I think the marketplace will drive that. I think the trend is going towards that. If there are any educational tools, you'd get support from that, and the buying public will swing over to that, if you can get them moving that way.

           B. Simpson: I take that point, when it comes up for the point-of-sale, but there are a lot of people living in homes who have no intention of selling. I just did a renovation in my house — only on the back side of it — that cost me an arm and a leg. I can't imagine what it would take to actually do the whole house to bring it all up to standard.

           That's why I think it's important that we address the issue of not just the ones that are turning over or being built. It's the 80 percent that aren't moving.

           It would be interesting to see what the thoughts are on how we address that issue.

           S. Kendrew: The Victoria Real Estate Board would be glad to work with you on that.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Folks, if you do decide that you want to respond to that very good question formally, we'd be happy to receive your response at the committee and share it with all of the members.

           B. McIvor: Great. Thank you

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation today.

           The next witness is the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association, Mr. Dauncey.

[1415]

[ Page 1325 ]

           G. Dauncey: My name is Guy Dauncey. I'm president of the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association. We have around 650 members in the province. We're engaged with B.C. Hydro, with the Ministry of Energy and Mines, with the cabinet's climate action secretariat on numerous other policy areas. The presentation today is focused really only on the budget issues.

           By way of starting, I was present at the Al Gore presentation on the weekend when he said to a packed house with Premier Campbell introducing him: "We have a planetary emergency, and we have to act." I have been immersed in the climate change field as a self-employed author, speaker and consultant for close on to 15 years now. When Al Gore said that every time you go to the science, the news is worse, I absolutely know what he means.

           Those of us who are closest to the science know that it's way worse than people are understanding. The projections are more extreme. When the climate skeptics have said, "Well, the models may be this way, may be it will be that way…." Yeah, there is uncertainty, but the uncertainty is all turning out to be more alarming than less.

           The global scientists like James Hansen, who's NASA's chief climate scientist, are saying that we have to get an entire global turnaround in our emissions within eight to ten years, which includes China, India, the U.S.A. and Europe. B.C.'s role as a leader in this is incredibly important. To put our leadership in context, we're currently committed to a 33-percent reduction below today's level, which is 10 percent below 1990.

           Two weeks after the throne speech in February the city of London came out with their climate action plan. They're aiming for a 60-percent reduction below the 1990 level by 2025, a five times greater goal than we're seeking. They're at sea level. A one-metre rise in sea level floods most of downtown London, so they know the level of emergency in this.

           What we're looking for is a budget that is totally in keeping with the world-class goals that the government has put forward, that we have a world-class budget that everyone can look to and say: "Wow. That's really a budget to be proud of, not one that gives a few green trimmings and a few bits and pieces but otherwise leaves the main pieces in place."

           On the positive side of this, in B.C. we have a very strong, educated population. We have a willingness to change. We've got a strong base of technological skill. We've got an active sustainable energy business sector. We've also got a large, sustainable resource base — whether you look at hydro, wind, solar, tidal, wave, geothermal or bioenergy — and now we've got the leadership as well. We haven't got the problems that places like India and China have that stop us pressing ahead with progress dramatically.

           Also in the big picture, if you took climate change out of the picture entirely, the world supply of oil is due to basically run out within 30, 40 years. The tar sands are making no difference, because we burn 84 million barrels a day. They're producing one million barrels a day, so it doesn't affect the global use of it. We know that as a civilization, we have to achieve a total changeover of our energy base from oil — and very soon gas as well — to non–fossil fuel alternatives.

           Sweden has committed to eliminate its entire dependency on oil within 13 years for financial reasons because they know their businesses can't afford to pay the cost of importing oil. The climate change stuff is a bonus.

           Then we look at specific programs. One of the overarching measures we really think is important is an overall carbon tax. One of the key problems with financing and economics is that the externalities are not captured. One of the things that Nicholas Stern said , the British government's top economist, was that climate change is the single greatest failure in the history of economics because it's admitting to capture the externality known as climate change, which has the potential to destroy what he put up to 20 percent of global GDP. If temperatures go to five or six degrees, the analysis is that there's nothing left on earth apart from the fungus. We just can't adapt to that level of increase.

           We're recommending a retail carbon tax, as Quebec has just done, of around $50 a tonne. You can either use this as a revenue-neutral program…. You take the income and reduce it entirely off employment taxes or GST or income taxes, or you could take half of it and put it into a climate solutions fund or a climate and biodiversity adaptation fund. We must prepare for adaptation as well as doing the mitigation issues.

           Then we come to the issues like transport, which is 38 percent of our emissions. We think the fundamental, best initiative here is to introduce road pricing. Road pricing is going to be introduced on the new Port Mann Bridge anyway to pay for the cost of building the bridge.

[1420]

           We would favour putting transit on the bridge as it is, which is totally doable within technical stuff, still doing road pricing and having the phenomenal income — which is 130,000 vehicles a day; if it was $2 or $3 a day — going entirely into a huge fund for transit, for long distance, comfortable commuter coaches, for cycling, for transport demand management and all the other initiatives that help reduce the traffic, reduce the congestion.

           We know from the experience of London and Stockholm and Singapore that when you put in road pricing, you reduce traffic flow by 15 to 20 percent. We're past the tipping point with congestion. When you go under the tipping point, suddenly the traffic can flow clearly again. When we build new roads, which is a huge budget commitment, what happens is that people think, "Now I can live further out," so their commuting range grows further out. Within five or ten years the roads are full again.

           We had that in Victoria. In 1992 we built the Island Highway to eliminate the Colwood crawl. Ten years later the Colwood crawl is back as full as and worse than ever. The investment was totally wasted. Now people commute from Ladysmith because they can get there in time. All that building new roads and bridges does is expand the commuting circle. So to not build the new

[ Page 1326 ]

roads and bridges but invest instead in road pricing — and to put the income into a major fund for transit, cycling and things like that — makes a lot of sense.

           Whether or not you do road pricing, we really would like to see the budget make a major commitment to expand transit capacities throughout B.C., including extended routes, cheaper fares, more hybrid buses.

           Electronic signage at the bus stops. You go to London now, and there's a thing up there that says, "The next bus comes in three minutes." You're not having to get glasses the size of that guy in the Trailer Park Boys to see what the timetable says because it's six-point typeface and covered in mud.

           Make the transit option really comfortable and friendly and usable. We have a great track record here in Victoria. Everyone who rides the bus says thank-you to the driver. Folks come from Victoria, saying: "What was that all about?" We have a great transit tradition to build on.

           We also want to see funding to develop a full 30-year vision of where our transport is going in the future so that we have a 90-percent reduction in emissions, not a 10-percent.

           We support vehicle feebates — fees on inefficient vehicles with the funding being recycled as a rebate for efficient vehicles. We also need to investigate putting a tax on aviation fuel. It's ludicrous that aviation is omitted. There is no tax on aviation fuel, but there is on every other kind of fuel.

           Then we come to the buildings, which are 11 percent of our emissions. I've got nine separate proposals here. Fundamentally, the problem is that if I want to lay out $5,000 to invest in making my home more efficient, I would love to have that as a tax credit, or I'd love to be able to access a loan fund where I can draw on the loan and have the cost of the loan repayments taken off my hydro bills or my gas bills. So we're looking at income tax credits for expenditures on retrofits and on green heating systems, such as heat pumps, solar hot water systems.

           If government funding were there to cover the cost of all eco-energy audits…. Right now you've got to pay $300 for an audit back and front, you know, with the federal system. Now in Ontario and, I believe, Manitoba they're covering that funding.

           Also, grants to match the federal eco-energy grants, to make them go further.

           Property transfer tax rebates, for energy-efficient and green buildings financed by increased property taxes on the houses, that are business as usual.

           Increased annual homeowner grants for houses that build and reach the EnerGuide 80 standard.

           Measures to encourage loan guarantee funds by the likes of Vancity or B.C. Hydro so that when you save on your fuel bill, it can come off your energy bill that you're paying each month as a natural incentive.

           We also want to see funding for the major solar roofs task team work that's been going on at the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Environment to have 100,000 solar roofs in B.C. by the year 2020 — baseline funding to match the NRCan funding and funding to support the training of building inspectors, public awareness programs and certification stuff.

           We can also just look at energy efficiency — local improvement charges and leaky-condo energy-efficient retrofit programs. Right now we're doing retrofits on the condos. It's a natural time to throw in the energy upgrade at the same time.

           Then we come to sustainable energy, the actual production of sustainable energy, and there are a couple of initiatives here. To encourage more investment, we'd like to see investors who are going out of their way to invest in the very technologies that reduce carbon emissions be able to have a tax credit for that investment, based on production over ten years.

           The use of European-style feed laws is extremely successful in Germany, Spain, Italy, France, Austria, where you have 20-year contracts for suppliers of sustainable electricity. This is similar to what's being done in Ontario. Here in B.C. it's called the standing-offer contract. We're looking for a standing-offer contract, phase 2, to introduce solar energy and tidal energy and small wind and stuff. Technically, that will be part of the utility rate bill, not the budget, but I think encouragement for that….

           We're getting revenues from oil and gas at the moment. This is a heritage revenue. We're drawing down on our capital base, a one-time resource. It's like cashing in the family silver. We should have a legacy fund where at least 10 percent of the oil and gas revenues go into a climate solutions legacy fund to pay for investment in freeing us up from those technologies.

[1425]

           We also think that we should see a phase-out of the subsidies and tax breaks used for natural gas and oil production. For the $25 million we're putting in the clean energy fund, we're putting $266 million every year to subsidize more of the very problem we're trying to reduce, which is oil and gas. We've got to phase that out. We can't be encouraging the contradictory impulses.

           We've got recommendations for carbon-neutral government, with grants for municipalities, a landfill tax.

           In the long run, just to finish, not for this year but for the future we do think that the process of accounting for the budget in B.C. should be done so that there's a separate budget line for our capital resources — the fossil fuels, the soil, the fish stocks — and for our income resources. We can't just burn up the capital that's available to one generation and that is never, ever there again without taking that into account.

           We shouldn't be thinking that we're having a great time in B.C. and we've all got lovely houses, because we're drawing down a one-time capital resource which, once it's gone, will never be there again. We need to separate our use of capital and our use of income to have ecological accounting for the province as a whole.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. We have a couple of questions here, at least.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much for your presentation. There are quite a few things that I agree with. One of

[ Page 1327 ]

the issues you raised in your presentation I have more questions about. You talk about the Port Mann Bridge.

           I've lived in Surrey since early '72. In the mid-'70s it used to take 30 minutes to drive from Newton to Vancouver. Now to my office, which is about five minutes to the Port Mann Bridge, it sometimes takes 45 minutes to an hour and a half to drive. People are putting out a lot of pollution and burning a lot a fuel.

           When my constituents talk, they say: "You know, you need roads. You need bridges. You need buses. You need bicycle lanes. You need a light rail system. You need a SkyTrain system — mass transit movers. You can't do without one, because of the way our geography is, compared to Europe." B.C. alone is much bigger than many of the European countries, I hear.

           Do you think that you can put buses on the existing Port Mann Bridge? In the late 1980s they shut them down because nobody can move over it. They could never keep a time schedule.

           I'm just trying to understand your point of view. In my constituency we have voted more than 90 percent in support of the bridge, including my colleague here from Whalley. He said the other day that he supports twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. And Harry Bains said that he supports twinning the Port Mann Bridge. He says it's needed and should be done as soon as possible — unless it's different. He can clarify it. That was the issue over there.

           I'm just trying to find out your side, which is different from Surrey's.

           G. Dauncey: I've not got chapter and verse on the technical. I've been told by people from the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation, SPEC, in Vancouver that it is possible to have buses running on the Port Mann Bridge and to do it timely and effectively.

           If you include road pricing, you're going to be reducing the flow because of the incentive for people to move out of their vehicles onto the bus. So I think we need to look at that.

           The drawback with building new roads and bridges is that you'll get five years' grace, and then people will be commuting from ten or 15 miles further away, and it'll be just as full as it was. You have this massive capital cost that you've got to deal with. It's never worked historically.

           In Britain we built the M5 around London. They said it would be good for 20 years. Within one week it was full because people who couldn't do trips previously now said: "Oh, now we can do a trip easily and quickly."

           We built the new Island Highway here in Victoria in 1992. Ten years later….

           A Voice: Started building it.

           G. Dauncey: You started building it. So when did we finish it? Maybe five years after that.

           A Voice: By '98.

           G. Dauncey: By '98.

           In 2007 it is worse than it was before because now people just commute longer distances because of the ease of travel. Making it easier to travel doesn't solve the congestion problem.

           D. Hayer: In Surrey's case the population south of the river went from around 80,000 to over a million. In Surrey's case it went from a population which used to be around 30,000 or 40,000 when the bridge was built to over 400,000. They're getting 12,000 people per year there — right?

           When you allow people to come here, you have to have some access so they can go to their work.

           G. Dauncey: Understood. But those numbers are nothing compared to London's numbers. The city of London has eight million. They had such congestion…. They put a ring around the centre of London. It immediately reduced transport by 20 percent. They put all the income into transit and on the underground, and it's working for them.

           They found it successful. They've got about six years' experience under their belt now. This works as a strategy.

           B. Simpson: Guy, thanks for this. I think it does what the government's asked people to do, and that's to give us a sense of what they think needs to be in a green budget.

[1430]

           I want to ask a bit of a higher-level question here. As I look at what you've got here, it's very aggressive. It's quite comprehensive in scope. You quote the planetary emergency quote at the beginning. Is it your sense that the time is now to be that aggressive, that deliberate — and as quickly as possible? Or do we still have scope for incrementalism? As a consequence, would your hope be that the so-called green budget is an aggressive sea change or an incremental plan for the next decade, where we'll chip away at it?

           G. Dauncey: I think that incrementalism is going to doom us to a fatal disaster. We need an absolute, radical sea change, and the public is waiting for it and ready for it. It's not just our members, because our members are partial to this, but the opinion polls say the public is ready for it. It's not just a climate change thing. They know that we've taken 90 percent of the world's fish out of the ocean in the last 50 years alone. Well, if our generation takes 90 percent, what's the next generation meant to take?

           There's a readiness for a radical sea change on this. I know that people are lining up to get plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as soon as they're available. I know we have the electricity to deal with it.

           If this is just incrementalism, it makes people feel that there's no leadership, no direction. It's exciting to have the level of leadership that B.C. is giving. It's exciting that all school boards, all institutions, all Crown agencies must be carbon-neutral by 2010 or 2012 — I forget what the number was — because that's going to lead them to the agenda. Incrementalism will make people

[ Page 1328 ]

think there's no hurry. We can take our time. It doesn't really matter.

           We're recommending on housing, for instance, that whenever a house is sold, there's a mandatory upgrade, as has been done successfully in San Francisco since 1981. They had six months of resistance from the real estate board. Now it's standard practice.

           Our building code with the current upgrade is only a 15-percent increase in efficiency, whereas in Germany, they've got new buildings at 95 percent less energy than regular buildings. They've got 6,000 of them built. No one living in them is complaining that the house is too efficient or their bills are too low. I guarantee it.

           All of the economics flow extremely well towards the consumer, and we've got to have special programs for lower-income people to make sure they are included in this, but it's lower costs, lower travel costs, more efficient housing, lower bills and resilience against rising oil and gas costs.

           Soon we're going to be importing natural gas from Iran and Russia. How crazy can that get? That just makes no sense when we can have houses using efficient insulation, ground-source heating, solar heating. We don't need to have imported gas from Iran.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Mr. Dauncey, thank you very much for your presentation. Very thought-provoking. We do have other questions that members have, but we're going to have to move along because of our time constraints.

           Colin Campbell and Jim Barlow.

           C. Campbell: My name is Colin Campbell, and today my colleague Jim Barlow and I are representing the Elders Council for Parks in British Columbia.

           The Elders Council is a group of retired employees from B.C.'s national, provincial and regional parks organizations and NGOs who have spent much of their lives working with parks. My last role in government was as director of planning for B.C. Parks, and my colleague Jim Barlow was superintendent of the coastal B.C. area for Parks Canada.

           Mr. Chairman, we very much appreciate this budget process and that you are here today to listen to our story about parks and their needs. Our provincial park system is loved by British Columbians. You would think that advocating for the needs of parks would be unnecessary. Why is it necessary for a couple of retired folks, who really should be out on the golf course, to be here today to plead for the needs of parks?

           The short story I will tell is about a provincial park system that grew in size, complexity and significance but that lost the ear of decision-makers.

           In the '50s, '60s and '70s, our provincial parks were mainly selected because they provided beaches for recreation and camping or beautiful alpine settings away from development. Campers who visited those parks were welcomed by lovely wood-engraved entry signs, made by beloved park rangers in crisp green uniforms, and they sat on rock-solid wooden picnic tables — the best in the country.

[1435]

           The public understood that parks were there for family enjoyment, fun, inexpensive family vacations, great wilderness hiking and a place to connect to nature and relax from the pressures of life.

           In 1970 B.C. Parks had a budget allocation of 0.069 percent — two-thirds of 1 percent of the provincial budget, which converts to an annual budget of $50 million in current dollars. In the '70s, '80s and particularly the '90s visitation grew, to a peak of 24 million in 1998. The size of the park system and the number of parks doubled from the 1970 level.

           In the '80s a well-managed transition to outsourcing and contracting reduced direct government costs and likely resulted in a more efficient, if less welcoming, system. In addition, the new, expanded and naturally much-improved parks and protected area system was created through the blood, sweat, tears and generosity of communities, businesses, first nations and government. It now embraces and has good representation of the rich diversity of the ecologies of B.C.

           Governments of all, or both, persuasions recognized that this was the time to protect these landscapes, which included the last intact remnants of the naturally functioning landscapes that we inherited from past generations. It was the right thing to do.

           Here we are in 2007, and we are beginning to fully embrace the wisdom of establishing this expanded park system. Now, in this new age of the environment and the economy, we appreciate that parks make remarkable contributions to reaching our carbon-neutral targets in a relatively painless way, enrich our atmospheres, bring us improved personal health, contribute to our species-at-risk priorities by taking pressure off other areas and freeing them from more intense activities, and allow us to develop recreation and tourism opportunities around the province.

           They provide a venue where we are developing true and respectful working relations with first nations. They offer a playground to foster the objectives of ActNow, to get our kids closer to active lifestyles and nature. They provide vital baseline environments to help us understand and cope with climate change, as articulated by the last speaker.

           Last year the government increased the Parks budget by $6 million, and in this fiscal year provided $14 million for multi-year capital projects to help address the 55 million backlog of deteriorating infrastructure. In addition, it has restructured the environmental stewardship division to allow B.C. Parks to emerge at least as a stronger marketing label. These are good things — a shift in the climate — but these actions are not nearly enough.

           The current operating budget for B.C. Parks, including the $6 million lift, is $36 million and represents 0.01 percent of the provincial budget — 10 percent of 1 percent — still $14 million less than the inflation-adjusted budget that B.C. Parks had in 1970. Surely, you say, this cannot be the funding level set for a system that has doubled in size, attracts more than twice as many users and is much more complex to manage. But we tell you it is true. This is the current sad reality.

[ Page 1329 ]

           Current operational funding for provincial parks and protected areas is completely unrealistic and inadequate. This surprising state of affairs is still with us despite two provincewide public review processes conducted by both political parties that recommended the urgent need for funding and funding devices to address this unaddressed issue.

           We in the Elders Council do not think that this inaction has come about as a result of malevolent intent by politicians. So why has this funding shortfall and relative neglect of the park system come about? Why has little been done to bridge the funding gap, to catch up with the operational needs resulting from this publicly and politically driven expansion?

           We have concluded that a number of factors have led to this. Parks and their wildlife inhabitants can't speak or vote. Parks have a well-meaning but sometimes a bit shrill environmental constituency that seems to reject at times, or did in the past, all forms of government action.

[1440]

           The new ecological and science-based parks have less of a community connection than the earlier, recreationally spectacular breed had. The instruments of education, such as the campground interpreter programs, have been cut. The community park connection has been damaged, if not severed.

           There have been real, compelling, competing health, social and educational priorities that have a strong, immediate human voice. There is a myth that no management of natural environments allows them to be natural, when oddly, more rather than less attention is needed to keep sustainable ecosystems healthy.

           The situation today is that the provincial parks and protected area system in B.C. receive an operational budget of $36 million, versus the allocation of $50 million they had in 1970, to run a system that is twice the size and receives twice the visitation. Is it like this in every jurisdiction, you might ask.

           Well, every park system is unique, and comparisons are not easy. Regardless, these figures give some idea of the situation. In B.C. we make an investment of $3 per hectare of provincial park. In Ontario the figure is $7.45; in Alberta the figure is $14.45; and the Parks Canada figure in 2000 was $7.37.

           Having served on the community advisory board for the new Gulf Islands National Park Reserve, I have seen the results of adequate stewardship funding. Park boundaries are defined, and the public know where they are. Neighbouring communities are involved in planning processes and ongoing management decisions. Scientific studies have been done so that the detailed ecological systems in the park are understood, and strategies are developed to sustain them.

           Areas that require restoration have been identified, and funding has been applied to bring them back to ecological health. The park is monitored so that park rangers, working with local communities, continually keep an eye on the park to make sure it is protected. Appropriate recreational facilities, trails and signage are carefully introduced into this new park to meet public needs.

           New ways the park can contribute to the local economy are thoughtfully explored through partnerships with local communities and with first nations. Relations with first nations and local communities are good because there is sufficient time for staff to build trust and respond to issues. There is no absentee landlord here.

           The dollar is up to par. Frankly, it's time to bring our provincial system up to par. We have a natural treasure house of global quality that is receiving inadequate care and attention. It is time to ask and act.

           Here is our ask. We respectfully ask you to act to include the following statement in your final report:

           "Our expanded provincial park system of 893 parks and protected areas needs an immediate infusion of funds in the amount of $30 million annually. This will provide the immediate care and attention necessary to restore ecological systems that function within parks and begin to create a management regime to manage our parks and protected areas scientifically to world-class standards. This will ensure their long-term health for the economic, environmental and social benefit of current and future generations."

           Now is the time for the province to step up and provide adequate stewardship for these parks and protected areas. It is a prudent investment. Given the province's environmental, economic and social goals, it is a timely investment. And it is certainly an overdue investment. It makes good business sense to protect this irreplaceable asset. This is a decision that will make your children smile.

           Premier Campbell's commitment to a strong climate change initiative is exemplary. His announcements at the UBCM demonstrate that this government is really making a commitment. This government is showing real leadership. Action on parks now would be well received by the public and would contribute to future election success, Olympian harmony and joyful celebration of the hundredth anniversary of the establishment of our provincial park system in 2011.

           Our generation has taken much from this magnificent land that is British Columbia, our home. Let us make sure that we leave this real legacy to our children: a parks and protected area system that is well tended, well understood, receiving the stewardship needed to make it sustainable.

[1445]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. That's a very compelling argument, well presented. I live up in the Kootenays where we have lots and lots of beautiful parks, so I really appreciate the practical approach that you've taken with your comments and, if I might be so bold as to say, your non-ideological approach to your presentation. I think it was very, very well done.

           I. Black: I just want to echo the comments of the Chair. I thought it was a great presentation. Both Mr. Simpson and I have very, very strong Scottish roots, so we were trying to figure out what….

           C. Campbell: So you heard what I said.

[ Page 1330 ]

           I. Black: Right, and it fit you perfectly, actually. My parents are Glaswegian, as is Bob. I'm guessing Dundee. Is that where you're from?

           C. Campbell: No. Elgin, actually.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Are you sure it's not Ireland?

           Mr. Ford with the Mary Manning Centre.

           F. Ford: I'm afraid I don't have an interesting accent for you this afternoon. You'll have to put up with my non-accent.

           B. Bennett (Chair): What makes you think you don't have an accent?

           F. Ford: Well, okay, maybe we can deal with that in the question period as well.

           First of all, I want to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak to you today. I have the privilege to be the executive director of a local agency that serves children and youth, called Mary Manning Centre. We are also known as the Child Abuse Prevention and Counselling Society of Greater Victoria.

           We're the primary agency in Greater Victoria that provides counselling for children and youth who have experienced sexual abuse. We also have a victim services program, one of only three victim services programs that have specialized in serving children who have to attend court as witnesses, often in sexual abuse cases but also in other serious crime matters.

           Our agency has operated in Victoria since 1984, at a time when there was very little recognition or public awareness or discussion of the issue of sexual abuse. Since that time, we've served more than 4,000 children in our community.

           As many of you may be aware, the prevalence of child sexual abuse is much greater than we might like to think. The research indicates that more than 10 percent of boys and 20 percent of girls experience sexual abuse during their childhood. That translates to approximately 150,000 children in this province, based on projected population of children and youth in 2008.

           One of the unfortunate realities is that two out of three of those children will not disclose their abuse during their childhood, but we know that the problems won't go away. If those children don't come forward, those problems will manifest themselves in a whole range of personal, social and health problems that span the full range of issues that we hear raised by municipalities and by families.

           Those problems include re-abuse, relationship problems, substance abuse, poverty, homelessness, unemployment, depression and even suicide. Just this last year the Ministry of Children and Family Development reviewed the suicide deaths of six teenagers on Vancouver Island, all of whom had made disclosures of sexual abuse prior to committing suicide. The majority of those teens were aboriginal. This is a problem that is deadly serious.

           The reason I wanted to come and talk to you today…. I know that the theme is the environment. Last year — or the year before; I'm not sure which — the budget was a children's budget. However, the programs supporting children who have experienced sexual abuse did not receive any enhancements through that.

[1450]

           If I could maybe back up a little bit, we're one of 50 agencies in the province. I'm here today not just to talk to you about my agency, because the issue I want to bring forward is an issue that pertains to the whole province, every region of the province. We're one of 50 around the province that do this kind of work. These agencies are funded under what is called the sexual abuse intervention program, or, as it's abbreviated, SAIP.

           The SAIP program was created in 1990. Unfortunately, as is often the case, it was created in reaction and in response to a tragedy involving child deaths. The SAIP program falls under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Children and Family Development as part of the child and youth mental health program.

           My purpose in coming today is to talk to you about the issue of child sexual abuse, the importance of timely and effective treatment for children and youth who experience this kind of abuse, and the status of this issue and these young people among the priorities of our province.

           I want to convey to you that child sexual abuse is a deadly serious issue that affects many children and youth; that for many years, as a result of inadequate funding, children and youth in this province have not had timely access to treatment; that our efforts to raise the profile of this issue within the Ministry of Children and Family Development have not yet been successful; and that the continued neglect and downplaying of this issue has immeasurable costs for children, youth, families and communities.

           The program was created, as I mentioned, in 1990 with a budget of $3 million that was cobbled together from various ministries. In the year 2007 the budget is $3.1 million. So in 17 years there have been no significant increases to that budget. And with the increases in staff wages and general expenses, the reality is that the capacity to provide services for those children has shrunk to an unacceptably low level. So waiting lists are a matter of routine around the province, and it's been almost an unofficial policy of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

           As you may know, the child and youth mental health plan has received a lot of attention over the last number of years. The funding to child and youth mental health, which is focused on children who have mental disorders, has increased from…. Five years ago when the plan began, it was $37 million. Today the budget is more than $85 million. It represents an increase of spending per capita — that is, per child and youth — from $56 to $122. Spending on child sexual abuse treatment in B.C. is a fraction of this — in the range of about $5 per child.

           How do those two things compare? The prevalence of mental disorders among children and youth in B.C. is approximately 15 percent, roughly the same as the

[ Page 1331 ]

prevalence of child sexual abuse. Child sexual abuse is recognized as a potential cause of mental disorders if untreated. It's one of the primary things that's identified. Yet we seem to be willing to spend a lot of money after the fact rather than preventing some children from developing mental disorders by providing treatment in a timely way.

           I want to be very clear. We support the increased spending on children with mental disorders. We're just very concerned that the status of children who experience sexual abuse remains very, very low in this province despite verbal commitments to the contrary. And the funding not having increased in 17 years, I think, speaks volumes to the fact that this remains a problem which is largely underground, that is kept a secret, that does not get a lot of public attention.

           You call a public meeting about a social issue, and you often will have a constituency of people that will come out to speak to that issue. Parents of children who've experienced sexual abuse are not going to come out and speak at public meetings and raise the profile of that issue. It's an issue which is still characterized by a great deal of stigma and shame. But if we don't come to grips with this issue, we pay hundreds of times more in consequences.

[1455]

           The law society of Canada did a study of the financial costs of child abuse in Canada. What they came up with was a figure of about $15 billion, roughly $525 per citizen of Canada. If we're only going to spend $5 per child in providing treatment, I think we really need to question our priorities. I think that it's costly and it's also cruel to not provide timely treatment.

           Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you for your presentation.

           I. Black: Thank you for that presentation. I'll echo the remarks that I made a little earlier. The type of work that your centre does is some of the most delicate and important — and, I imagine, traumatic — work that gets done in our communities. My thanks to you and your team for taking on that challenge on a daily basis.

           My understanding is that your organization gets about $320,000 a year from the government and that this year that represents about an 8-percent increase over last year. I also understand that in 2005 you got a one-time grant of about $150,000, if I'm not mistaken, to address a wait-list issue that existed at that point in time.

           Can you comment on the issue of wait-lists? First of all, was that money helpful? Did it address the need that existed at that point of time? Where do we sit today with respect to wait-lists for children in need at this time?

           F. Ford: Just to clarify, our budget from the ministry is $314,000. That extra $6,000 may not seem like much, but it would enable us to see two more kids. So if you can get that other $6,000 for us, that'd be great.

           In 2005 there were more than 90 children on the waiting list to get treatment in our agency, and that translated to more than nine months of a wait. As a result of some lobbying by an MLA in Victoria at the time, Sheila Orr, and some communications with the ministry, we were able to get $150,000 in one-time funding. That enabled us to eliminate the waiting list at our agency for the first time in more than 15 years. It made a tremendous difference in the ability of children to go through the agency more quickly, because they didn't have their problems compounded by trying to sort out the meaning of their abuse on their own, without assistance.

           This year we asked for an increase that would have brought us to a level that would enable us see all the children referred to us in a timely way, but that was turned down. Fortunately, the public responded very positively and came to our rescue and donated more than $130,000 between the beginning of May and the end of June. We had to lay off two therapists, but we've been able to hire them back with that money. So we are unlikely to have a waiting list for the rest of this year, but the issue will come back again at the end of March.

           Typically, around the province, as I said, there are waiting lists that are even worse. I want to speak on behalf of all of the SAIP agencies. I know that two of the members of the committee are from Surrey, and Surrey has the worst situation in the province, with waiting lists of more than a year. This is an issue that we ignore at our peril, and I really hope that you'll be thinking about these children and youth and the very small amount of money that we are asking for to ensure that those kids receive assistance in a timely way.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay, Fred, thank you very much for your presentation.

           The next witness is from the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. Welcome, Paul and Darryl.

           P. Servos: My name is Paul Servos. I'm the general manager of the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority. Darryl Anderson is our manager of business development and planning.

           We envision a harbour where people live, learn, work and play — a spectacular gateway into Victoria's past and into its future. It will be monumental in look and feel, linking communities together.

           Today is a very interesting day in Victoria harbour, because we actually have four large ships in port. The cable ship laying cable for the NEPTUNE project is in.

[1500]

           The cruise ship Mercury, with 2,000 passengers, is in at Ogden Point today. The pocket cruise ship Spirit of Endeavour is in the Inner Harbour this morning, for the day, with several hundred passengers and, of course, the USS Abraham Lincoln was just offloading its first senior officers as we entered the room here today. Approximately 7,000 to 8,000 visitors to Victoria are coming through the terminal today.

           The harbour authority was formed up as a not-for-profit B.C. society that was formed in 2002. At that time, from Transport Canada, we were divested four properties. The harbour authority society is made up of government

[ Page 1332 ]

agencies and local not-for-profit agencies, eight in number, including the two local first nations. We're basically a collective of agencies within the community to bring stewardship to the harbour.

           I'm here this afternoon to give you a brief summary of the efforts that we're making to build a world-class leisure port and how you, this committee, could help us. Victoria is a very important marine gateway for provincial tourism and leisure customers, much like the gateway in Vancouver is important for the movement of cargo and how Whistler is an important gateway for tourism throughout the province.

           The GVHA has accepted and taken on the province's challenge for 2015 of doubling tourism. In the last seven years we've experienced 25-percent annual growth in cruise passengers in Victoria. This past year we had 324,000 passengers come into Victoria through the cruise terminal.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           Cruise British Columbia did an economic review, and they have found that that represents an economic spending here in Victoria of $36.4 million in passenger and crew spending and $65.9 million in expenditure generated by the cruise lines in Victoria. That's $9.8 million in business tax and provincial taxes that were paid. It created 859 significant, high-paying jobs. That, combined with the Victoria shipyard, which is hosting five cruise ship retrofits this year, will generate an additional $60 million in economic activity here in Victoria.

           The growth of Victoria as a destination leisure port has been enhanced by the very positive economic conditions that the government has created for British Columbia. Other factors are: stable economic growth, a predictable regulatory environment, positive work relationships with the local governments and continued financial support for tourism marketing programs being initiated with Cruise British Columbia and the Ministry of Transportation through the small port strategy.

           Marine passenger transportation is also critical to the development of a world-class leisure port, and Victoria is very blessed to have this, as well as marine air transportation. Few cities in the world have this unique benefit of roll-on, roll-off and high-speed ferry service successfully operating in the inner city.

           Belleville terminal is an important gateway through which goods and tourists move beyond our local area and into the regional tourism markets throughout our province. Belleville terminal is a key hub in our international marine highway on the west coast. New investment in the Belleville terminal is critical to commerce and tourism on Vancouver Island.

           The province can be a leader in achieving both environmental and economic sustainability objectives, and the GVHA supports the government's policies that will help to build a world-class leisure port, one that is environmentally responsible, commercially viable and responsive to community needs.

           What you can do to help is invest in the infrastructure upgrades that will bring electric shore power to the cruise terminals. We ask you to encourage B.C. and other neighbouring jurisdictions to harmonize marine fuel standards and to agree to exempt or reduce the taxation levels on most environmentally friendly fuels, particularly marine bunker fuels.

[1505]

           We ask that you share in the funding for the pilot projects that showcase B.C.'s environmental leadership by demonstrating the use of hybrid motorcoaches to serve as ground transportation at the cruise terminals. This would encourage the purchase of hybrid vehicles and, perhaps, hydrogen vehicles and the use of biofuels.

           We ask you to extend the provincial fuel tax exemption for biodiesel blends from the current cap of 50 percent to 100 percent pure biodiesel. We currently burn 49 percent biodiesel in all of our shuttle buses at Ogden Point.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           Fifth and finally, extend the port property tax competitiveness initiative to passenger terminal operators and communities to encourage reinvestment and to ensure a level playing field with taxation.

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

           J. Horgan: Yes. I worked in the harbour on the Coho in the '70s, and I've been in and around this precinct since the early 1990s. I have to agree, Paul, that there are tremendous opportunities for Victoria and the harbour as a gateway.

           One of the challenges, of course, is getting provincial support for such initiatives as the Belleville terminal. So, I'm wondering…. You touched upon it in your presentation. There is some discussion, as you know, going on with some of the legs of the stool present.

           What, in your view, would the potential be were there full participation from all partners in the Belleville project over the next two, three, five years?

           P. Servos: I believe that we could find a partnership among the marine transportation providers and the levels of government, and the Greater Victoria Harbour Authority would be willing to step up to take on a leadership role on the Belleville terminal. We would be pleased to speak to Minister Hagen about that role.

           J. Horgan: I encourage you to do that.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. You mentioned about upgrades of the infrastructure to bring electric shore power to cruise ships. That's one of the proposals. Do you have a dollar figure for that?

           P. Servos: Yeah, we do. Here in Victoria, if Hydro could provide the power, we estimate the cost of bringing the infrastructure to the terminal is $12 million to service the Ogden Point facility.

           The implementation of shore power would significantly reduce the environmental footprint of the growing cruise ship industry that's occurring in Victoria.

[ Page 1333 ]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Paul, thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation.

           Our next witness is the Sierra Club of Canada, the B.C. chapter.

           L. Matthaus: I'd like to start by thanking the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation on behalf of the Sierra Club of Canada, B.C. chapter. My name is Lisa Matthaus, and I am the conservation campaigns director for the B.C. chapter here in Victoria.

           First off, I'd like to say that we are very pleased to hear that British Columbia intends to introduce a green budget for 2008 — music to our ears. We understand that there are a number of policy and regulatory measures aimed at reducing B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions that will be introduced before then, and of course, that's welcome progress.

           Government sincerity to meet its commitments is often best demonstrated by how it allocates its spending and generates its revenues — the budget. It's one of government's best tools for establishing a trajectory for our economy, by implementing incentives and disincentives in the near term, but also by providing explicit commitments about how those incentives are going to change over time to achieve specific goals.

[1510]

           The bold commitments of the throne speech earlier this year were very welcome. They deserve equally bold fiscal measures to ensure we meet them. B.C. has very deliberately put itself in a leadership position in its commitments to fight climate change, and we must rise to the challenge to meet them. To get there, B.C. needs a world-class climate budget for 2008. There's no question. But what, exactly, does that entail?

           I'm going to go through a few different measures. I'll warn you that the first one here is where I spend most of my time, but there are a few others towards the end. I'm going to start with the carbon tax — probably no surprise.

           First and foremost, B.C. needs to use the power of its tax system to shape our economy in a way that harnesses all of its innovative potential and entrepreneurial acumen to drive us towards the climate change goals and priorities that government has set for us all, and to do so in the most efficient way.

           The primary tool for doing this is, of course, a revenue-neutral carbon tax — one of the more powerful forms of what is often called ecological fiscal reform. In short, a tax is placed on the use of all fossil fuels proportionate to their greenhouse gas emissions. This causes the prices of a wide range of products and services, including the direct purchase of fossil fuels, to change in a way that reflects their relative carbon intensity.

           Those products that embody a large amount of carbon — from their component parts to the way they're produced to the means of transporting them to their final market — will cost more than those that embody relatively little. People's choices in the marketplace would, over time, respond to these price differentials and produce a preference for goods and services that use less carbon.

           Carbon taxes are generally introduced at a low level but with an explicit schedule to increase over time to provide both the signal to make adjustments in our choices in lifestyles and the time to make some of the larger changes and adjustments that become necessary.

           Carbon taxes also create a new and increasingly significant revenue stream for government over time. By design, this revenue must be used to reduce taxes or other cost burdens on individuals and businesses, such as income taxes, to mitigate the effect of the overall increase in prices. The goal is to change the relative prices British Columbians face in the marketplace to foster lower-carbon lifestyles, not to increase the total tax burden on British Columbians.

           Overall, British Columbians would find themselves with more dollars in their pockets after tax but face different prices when they go to spend them. In theory, there is a median British Columbian, you could call it, who should be able to live exactly the same kind of life that she had before the tax shift — neither worse off nor better off. But she would have an increasingly powerful incentive to shift her choices of products, services, transportation modes and other lifestyle choices to those that are less carbon-intensive and thereby make herself better off than she was before the tax.

           Of course, each person's and each business's experience will be different. But a well-designed, revenue-neutral carbon tax, introduced at a low level and explicitly scheduled to rise over time, provides the best incentive to start making adjustments in our lifestyle choices now. It also provides a strong and reliable signal to B.C. businesses and entrepreneurs that there is a whole range of economic opportunities expanding or being created.

           Realigning our tax system in this manner will have three far-reaching benefits. Firstly, it harnesses the power of our taxation system to inspire behaviour change.

           Secondly, it makes the best use of the market mechanism to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the most cost-effective manner from all sectors of the economy while providing a strong and reliable price signal for the entrepreneurial sector of our economy.

           Thirdly, the revenue-neutral aspect of the design provides the opportunity to make our economy more efficient and robust by lowering taxes on labour and income and by providing better support for those in our society least able to bear the impact of increased costs.

           Together this was called the double-dividend payoff from the ecological fiscal reform. By taxing a bad — something we want less of, in this case greenhouse gases — and reducing the taxes on something we want more of — in this case, labour and income — our economy achieves both environmental improvement and greater economic efficiency from the implementation of this one fiscal policy.

           The primary obstacle to implementing a carbon tax appears to be a concern within government that it would be hard to sell to the public. Yet a poll in November of 2006 indicated that half — 52 percent, actually — of Canadians agreed with the statement that Canada needs a special carbon tax to increase the cost of burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal for consumers and industry. This tax would promote energy efficiency and help the environment.

[ Page 1334 ]

           In fact, 24 percent strongly agreed. In B.C. this approval was even higher, at 55 percent, and even Alberta registered 54 percent — both above the national average.

[1515]

           This poll was done before public opinion on climate change issues shot even higher. The poll was done before debate had so strongly shifted to action, as it has here in B.C. after the throne speech. It also happened without the benefit of any concerted attempt by government or even the environmental community to promote the idea of carbon taxes. Given the usual response on tax measures, a 55-percent approval rating is already very high.

           This indicates that a well-designed, revenue-neutral carbon tax backed by an authentic and well-researched public education program would build support dramatically. There's also the opportunity to have these messages reinforced and amplified by the environmental community, which always polls very high in terms of credibility on these issues.

           There are several examples of carbon taxes already in place in various jurisdictions around the world. Norway, Finland, Holland, Denmark, Austria, Germany, the U.K., Italy and most recently Quebec have all introduced carbon taxes of one form or another. So there's plenty of experience to draw from in designing the most effective tool.

           Before moving on to my next points, I'd like to read a section from the throne speech that speaks directly to the benefits and desirability of carbon taxes. Again, I'd ask the committee to consider very strongly what steps could be taken in the 2008 budget to make good on this specific throne speech commitment.

           "Your government remains committed to putting more money back in people's pockets, which allows them more choice in personal spending. It remains committed to competitive tax rates that stimulate investment and job creation.

           "This government does not support new taxes on productivity that create disincentives to capital investment, but it does believe that our tax system should encourage responsible actions and individual choices.

           "The cost of climate change is directly related to our consumption. Over the next year the province will consider the range of possibilities aimed at encouraging personal choices that are environmentally responsible. It will look for new ways to encourage overall tax savings through shifts in behaviour that reduce carbon consumption. For our goals to be met, citizens must take primary responsibility and make choices that reflect their values."

           I have to say that for a trained economist, this is stuff that gets your heart racing. I love it. I love that part.

           While a revenue-neutral carbon tax is all-encompassing, and hence the most powerful of the fiscal instruments available to government in achieving its climate change goals, there are several other measures that will be important both on their own and in combination with a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

           Starting with transportation. Given that 40 percent of B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions come from transportation, addressing this sector head-on must be a priority for government. B.C. needs a long-term, integrated transportation strategy that deals with everything from public transit to private cars to commercial transport.

           Transportation investments are generally very large, long-lived infrastructure investments. As such, any investments made today must be conducive to achieving deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the future.

           The budget must provide resources to develop such a strategy that would direct transportation spending in a manner that achieves at least a 90-percent reduction in associated greenhouse gases by 2050 and establishes a steep trajectory to get us there now. This would highlight the folly of current initiatives like the expansion of Highway 1 and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge, initiatives which take us in the wrong direction.

           Direct expenditures on greenhouse gas reductions. Back in November 2006 Sir Nicholas Stern, the former chief economist of the World Bank, recommended that each country needs to spend 1 percent of its GDP on reducing greenhouse gases in order to avoid anywhere from a 5-percent to a 20-percent hit on our economies in the future.

           In the context of the B.C. budget, a proportional expenditure would be in the range of $370 million that should be spent directly on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. There are many great programs that have been suggested and are being explored, and every effort should be made to find the funds available to have them implemented as soon as possible.

           In particular, programs to motivate and assist homeowners and building owners to invest in significant energy retrofits to the existing residential, commercial and institutional building stock must be a priority. Some 11 percent of our current emissions come from these buildings, many of them performing well below potential standards of energy efficiency.

           Expanding incentives will not only help improve energy efficiency; it will create demand for better technology to be available on a large scale, which typically helps to drive down prices over time. As well, it will create thousands of jobs to do the retrofits, which also highlights the need to develop and fund related training programs.

           Biodiversity adaptation and land use. While there isn't the opportunity to go into great detail, I would like to flag with the committee that they need to consider the need for B.C. to develop a strategy for changing the way we manage biodiversity and our land base in general in the face of climate change.

           As we have already seen with the mountain pine beetle infestation in the interior, climate change will bring enormous impacts to our forests and to other ecosystems — ecosystems which provide us with significant economic benefits.

           It is imperative that initiatives such as the chief forester's future forest ecosystems initiative, where he's attempting to define what it means to manage our forests for resilience to give them the best fighting chance in the face of climate change, be supported and expanded to other elements of biodiversity management.

[1520]

[ Page 1335 ]

           Ensuring cross-budget consistency with climate change goals. All of the measures I've spoken of so far are new directions for the committee to understand, which will drive us strongly toward meeting the bold climate change goals set out by the Premier. However, we also need to address existing budget measures that are impeding our progress and, in fact, that take us in the wrong direction.

           I've already mentioned Gateway, and of course, subsidies to oil and gas take us in the wrong direction as well. Regardless of what happens to those subsides, however, the Sierra Club of B.C. calls on the government to establish a legacy fund with an escalating portion of oil and gas revenues.

           Oil and gas revenues currently generate about $2 billion per year, yet B.C. is one of the few oil and gas–producing jurisdictions in the world to not allocate a portion of these revenues to some sort of heritage or legacy rainy-day fund. Even Chad has such a fund. These funds are intended to recognize the non-renewable nature of fossil fuels, acknowledging that producing and using those fossil fuels now mean that future generations will not have similar support.

           There's a variety of things that this fund could be used for, for the future but also for fighting climate change now. It could also be used as a buffer fund for the implementation of a carbon tax. Given that there might be some uncertainty about what kind of an impact that could have on revenues, such a fund could provide something of a buffer in doing that.

           The last part is about bringing British Columbians on board. Government has set an ambitious challenge for all British Columbians, and the Sierra Club of B.C. welcomes the opportunity to help make sure we not only meet but exceed those goals. However, we all need to travel this path together.

           That means government needs to invest significantly in efforts to include British Columbians in the development and refinement of climate change plans and to educate the public on the broader benefits such change will bring. Investing in public outreach and education as a part of the climate change plan is a necessary part and should be funded as an integral part of the plan.

           Climate change is a challenge of global proportions, one that calls on each of us to rise to it in whatever capacity we have. As elected officials, you have an enormous opportunity and responsibility to use the myriad tools available to government to set the trajectory for our economy and society. That will ensure British Columbia is a leader in meeting the global challenge.

           We are counting on you and your colleagues to ensure that you use those tools to the fullest possible extent. With an unprecedented degree of public support for strong action on climate change, now is the time to translate that into the boldest fiscal action possible.

           My apologies for how long that took.

           B. Bennett (Chair): That's okay. Don't apologize. We asked for that kind of submission, and we appreciate the effort that went into preparing it.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You've spoken of a carbon tax or an emissions tax. The Premier, though, has advocated and entered into some preliminary agreements with western states and some western provinces on a cap-and-trade system which, as I understand it, is fundamentally incompatible with the approach that you advocate.

           Do you agree with that? And what would you say about the relative value of a cap-and-trade system as proposed by the Premier versus the carbon tax that you advocate?

           L. Matthaus: I guess I don't see them as fundamentally incompatible. A cap-and-trade system can be a powerful tool for the specific sectors that are involved in it, to drive them toward greenhouse gas reductions and to do so in a cost-effective manner. It allows the low-hanging fruit to be taken first, if you will.

           It can be quite powerful. Especially setting it up in a multi-jurisdictional way like that establishes a much greater market demand for those changes than we could do just here in B.C. on our own. However, I don't think that is fundamentally incompatible with a carbon tax, which would have a far broader reach into all of our lives and all of the businesses and all of the entities not captured by the cap-and-trade system.

           There might have to be some exemptions or paring issues dealt with for some of the industries inside the cap-and-trade system. But I don't think they need to be seen as fundamentally incompatible.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I guess the question would be: if the carbon tax system is simpler, more transparent and more far-reaching, why implement a cap-and-trade system at all?

           L. Matthaus: If there's an opportunity to drive certain sectors more quickly down that road and if that happens with the cap-and-trade system, I don't see why we'd avoid it.

           Because the opportunity exists in the multi-jurisdictional manner that it does with those western states, I think it is an opportune moment for B.C. to engage in that and to be a leader in that system and also, maybe with the carbon tax, be able to bring that into the system.

[1525]

           Maybe in the future one does get favoured over the others, but right now I think it's all hands on deck, all tools at the ready. Let's use them all.

           I. Black: I thought my colleague across may have addressed this one, but I'll take the bait on it.

           I need you to reconcile three issues for me, if you would. You've touched on a bunch of stuff. As you know from your own remarks, our government is in agreement with a lot of what you presented here today.

           The things that I need you to reconcile for me are three issues, if you will: the issue of public transportation and community planning reconciled with, secondly, the catch-up job that we've inherited with respect to a transportation infrastructure deficit — particularly for

[ Page 1336 ]

commercial traffic — and, thirdly, with the pragmatics of the current reality.

           Specifically, I'm talking about your agreement with the opposition leader vis-à-vis the opposition to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. We can't run a bus on that bridge right now. It can't keep to a schedule. Even if we put 500 buses on the street, they have nowhere to go. We've got a 20-year growth in population — enormously so on the south side of the Fraser River.

           Can you reconcile that for me a little bit? We've got the pragmatics of the current state with all these other goals, objectives and ideals — all of which are absolutely crucial to addressing this problem — kick-starting this whole thing and getting it moving. There are some things we need to do, though.

           Can you talk to that a little bit and just reconcile some of those things? They seem to be in opposition a wee bit.

           L. Matthaus: I'll try to do the best I can, not being an expert on the lower mainland transportation system. I live here in Victoria.

           I. Black: It's tricky even if you are.

           L. Matthaus: My understanding is there have been a variety of transit plans in the past, including some on the table, that have other means of accessing some of those communities. Extension of the existing SkyTrain is one of those options. It also doesn't mean that there can't be specific structures built for the public transit element of it.

           The concern with the Gateway project the way it's currently developed is that it is also explicitly about increasing opportunity for vehicles — both commercial and private vehicles — to be using those routes.

           My thought would be: if we were to address our transportation issues on a more comprehensive scale, incorporating things like carbon taxes and other measures that are going to change people's driving behaviour over time and the way the commercial goods are shipped and even how many are shipped in the future…. You start applying carbon taxes on a broader scale.

           We might find that all the massive increase — in overseas shipping, for example — that we're planning might not be quite on the scale we're imagining that far down the road.

           Looking at it in those terms and saying, "Should we be enabling this degree of growth in greenhouse gas–based transportation, or do we need to be setting the infrastructure goals now that take us in a different direction?" — still allowing economic growth in a variety of different ways but seeking ways to do it that do not necessarily require shipping goods around the world or even shipping them through a tight bottleneck of the lower mainland….

           I. Black: Fair enough. Thanks.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Members, I'm really sorry, but we're way over time on this particular…. It's obviously very interesting. John, do you want to do a really quick one? Is it really burning?

           J. Horgan: Well, I was going to take a shot at you guys, so I'll just save it for another day.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well, it's unfortunate that we've run out of time. Lisa, thank you very much.

           Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies. Sharon McKinnon, Hal Stovall and Bob Dawson.

           Committee members, you acquitted yourselves extremely well today. I'm very proud of everyone. This is our last submission.

           Sharon, Hal and Bob, welcome to our committee.

           S. McKinnon: Thank you, Chair and committee members. It's a pleasure to be here today. I am Sharon McKinnon. With me today are Bob Dawson and Hal Stovall. Together we are members of Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, B.C. regional committee. I work directly for Rx&D. Hal works for Eli Lilly, and Bob is with Pfizer.

[1530]

           Let me begin by providing a short background on Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, also known as Rx&D. Rx&D is a national association of pharmaceutical research communities representing over 22,000 men and women who work for 50 research-based pharmaceutical companies in Canada.

           Approximately 10,000 medical researchers are employed as a result of our member companies' investment in research and development, with about 4,000 employed directly by Rx&D member companies and an estimated 6,000 indirectly in universities, hospitals and research institutions.

           Hal, Bob and I are all based in British Columbia, and we are part of a large community of individuals from our industry who work and live in this province. In British Columbia alone, $488.5 million has been invested in research and development in the last 19 years, of which $207.7 million was spent in universities and hospitals.

           Our member companies share one single primary objective: to discover new medicines and vaccines that improve the quality of health care available for every Canadian. For many years, we have tried to demonstrate the value of the role our health care system plays in influencing economic development.

           As the government of British Columbia addresses the issues necessary to ensure a sound financial direction for this province, consideration must be given to new approaches that recognize the value of health, innovation, research and development.

           British Columbia can achieve new levels in economic growth and prosperity through these linkages. Our continuation of submitting to the Finance Committee is a testament of our commitment to this belief.

           I would now like to turn the microphone over to my colleague Bob Dawson, who will discuss the issue of silo-driven policy and the Rx&D code of conduct.

           B. Dawson: In our submission to this committee last year, and in our submission to the Conversation on Health, we have stressed that health care, economic development and scientific research are interconnected.

[ Page 1337 ]

           As a contributing stakeholder that participates in both the health care and the economic agenda for the province, Rx&D member companies look towards partnerships and collaborations that focus on improving patient health and enhancing our knowledge-based economy. For example, we have expertise and resources that allow us to collaborate with the government on solutions that help improve the health and wellness of British Columbians.

           We also have the capacity to partner in projects that contribute towards building a vibrant life sciences sector for the province, one that creates jobs, builds scientific infrastructure and opens new doors to the global research community. Yet for British Columbia to maximize its opportunities in these areas, it is critical for the ministries responsible for health, economic development, and technology and research to coordinate and complement their policy frameworks.

           For instance, there are few jurisdictions in Canada or around the world that have adopted aggressive medicine-rationing polices such as reference-based pricing or tendering in categories with unique and different products, because those types of policies can be viewed as creating barriers to a vibrant life sciences sector and limiting global private sector investment research.

           B.C. needs to present a united vision in its government departments that reflects the importance of both industry investments into research, including alliances with B.C.'s biotechnology sector, and the utilization of new, innovative medicines that result from that research.

           Before I pass the microphone over to my colleague, I just want to touch on another important issue that is critical for the committee members to understand about our association and its member companies.

           When we partner with government, we hold ourselves to a very firm and established code of conduct. We brought copies of our code, which we won't have time to go through with you — all the sections — today, but as an association dedicated to partnering in earnest with government and other stakeholders, we want you to be aware of our guiding principles.

           The health and well-being of patients and of all Canadians is our first priority. All interactions with health care professionals are to be conducted in a highly professional, businesslike and ethical manner. All product information that we share must be accurate, fair and balanced. Clinical trials that we conduct are developed to further science. No monetary or other consideration is to be given to health care professionals for the purpose of gaining access or influence.

[1535]

           The purpose of continuing education programs is to provide balanced and unbiased education to health care professionals. Grants, donations and service-oriented items are never to be provided to health care professionals to promote specific prescription medicines. All members must adhere to the code and its intent as a condition of membership to Rx&D.

           These are just some of the highlights of a very comprehensive code of conduct that we thought was important to share with you.

           I'm going to pass the microphone over to Hal, who will outline to you the specific recommendations for the committee's consideration.

           H. Stovall: I thank the committee for taking the time to consult with groups like ours and to share ideas and to recommended solutions. It's appreciated.

           Let me start by saying that some of the recommendations we are presenting today we shared with this committee in October 2006. Unfortunately, little progress has been made, so with your permission, we'll take this opportunity to restate the priority recommendations.

           Firstly, we recommend transparency and stakeholder consultation, including industry, in Pharmacare's health policy development. Rx&D supports the need for an efficient review process that allows British Columbians access to appropriate and cost-effective drugs in a timely manner.

           We strongly believe that the goal of any pharmaceutical review process must be to improve patient outcomes and ensure that Canadians have access to safe, affordable and effective medicines no matter where they live. It must be transparent and accountable and include meaningful stakeholder participation.

           Many of these features already exist with the British Columbia Cancer Agency drug-review process. The B.C. Cancer Agency is known internationally for its outstanding patient outcomes. We encourage the government and Ministry of Health to consider the cancer agency's processes regarding speed of review, transparency and working with cancer specialists and manufacturers.

           Secondly, we recommend more flexibility in Pharmacare funding for medicines that demonstrate savings in other areas of the health care system. The appropriate use of pharmaceuticals has been shown to result in fewer hospitalizations, fewer emergency room admissions and fewer physician visits. A Columbia University study shows that every dollar invested in new medicines reduces health costs in other areas by $7.

           Thirdly, we recommend the establishment of semi-annual budget-planning meetings with Rx&D members to improve the business-planning process. The Ministry of Health projects and manages the Pharmacare budget with little involvement from the pharmaceutical industry. Other industries, such as mining, have ongoing dialogues with government departments.

           Rx&D member companies believe that a similar collaborative approach, which allows industry to provide high-level information on its new technologies coming to market, along with detailed analysis on the utilization of its existing products, could assist government departments, including both Health and Finance, to more accurately predict future Pharmacare budget demands in B.C.

           Manufacturers are prepared to accept responsibility for their financial projections. When a new product is added to the formulary, we believe so strongly that we can help government with product-specific forecasting and management that we are prepared to develop product-specific agreements.

[ Page 1338 ]

           Fourthly, we recommend that Ministry of Health be more open to partnerships with industry and initiatives such as appropriate use and disease management programs. There are several examples in the literature of how these programs can offer significant savings to the Ministry of Health.

           We provided two examples at our last presentation. Of note, B.C.'s Ministry of Health has at its disposal a tremendous drug utilization database called PharmaNet. We believe that non-government researchers, health economists and industry should have better access to this resource for the design of programs to help ensure the optimal utilization of medicines, enhance the health of British Columbians and, at the same time, create additional research opportunities within the province.

           As an aside, we estimate that if B.C. were to undertake Ontario's policy as it relates to the management of generic copies, B.C.'s Pharmacare program would immediately save $30 million.

           In closing, we believe that some of the answers to the questions we face with regard to the stability of health care, enhancement of economic development, and creating a sustainable vision for the future can be found in new partnerships, new thinking and a new collaborative approach. We hope that you find our submission a guide to some of those solutions.

           Thank you, and we'd be pleased to answer any of your questions at this time.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thanks very much.

           The last points that you made. Are they brand-new for the Ministry of Health and for the government, or have you brought those forward previously?

[1540]

           B. Dawson: Yes, we've presented them before, and they're also in our submission to the Conversation on Health.

           H. Bloy: Thank you for your presentation. For the approval of drugs in British Columbia, what's your recommendation versus the process we go through now? I've heard from you before how long it takes in British Columbia versus anywhere else in Canada.

           H. Stovall: Well, where to begin? One of the things that we would recommend, as mentioned, is more transparency. Now when we put a submission in, it can remain there without much feedback for months and months, and sometimes years. We get very little information back as to what the status of it is.

           Secondly, there's very little legitimate consultation with specialists in a therapeutic area. They're the experts. Sometimes consultation goes on, but I think the specialists sometimes feel they're not really listened to.

           Thirdly, when a decision is made, right now what we are receiving is a letter back saying yea or nay, that your product is now covered or not covered, with very little information as to the rationale behind it. So we're kind of left hanging in the dark.

           There are many other things, but those are three that come off the top of my head.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much for your submission. We appreciate it. It was an excellent submission.

           That concludes the formal portion of today's hearing. We now go to the open-mike segment of our hearing, and we do have one witness. Our witness today is Katy Hutchison. Katy, you're here to talk to us, I think, about restorative justice.

           K. Hutchison: That's right, Mr. Chair. I respectfully appear before you not as an academic, a practitioner or a representative of any specific group, but simply as a British Columbia parent who cares passionately about the creation and the maintenance of safe communities.

           In 1997 my husband Bob McIntosh was murdered by two young men while trying to break up an out-of-control house party in Squamish. After a five-year code of silence, which included a costly two-year undercover investigation, an arrest was finally made.

           I shocked the police by immediately asking to meet the young man charged in connection with Bob's death. I did not believe that bearing witness to the justice process as an observer was going to do much to restore my sense of safety.

           I felt that if I was given an opportunity to sit face to face with this young man, I could get a closer look at starting to heal. I wanted to tell him about our devastation. I wanted to ask him some hard questions about what had gone on in his life to make him capable of such a horrific act and to challenge him to work with me to repair the harm that had occurred in our community.

           And I was right. I was given a voice, and I got back some of the loss of control that Bob's murder had inflicted upon me and my family. I was given a chance to find humanity in a situation that up until that point had been anything but humane. Most importantly, I was able to take an active role in breaking the cycle of violence for this young man.

           I'm pleased to report that, after serving three out of five years of his sentence and complying with all of the conditions of his parole, he is now working full-time, paying taxes. He's been clean and sober since the day that he was incarcerated. He's involved in a healthy relationship, and he is contributing to his community in a meaningful and positive way. Really, what more could we ask for?

           I did what, as a parent, I would hope anyone would do for my son. I did not know at the time that what we did had a name — and that name was "restorative justice."

           There was another individual involved in Bob's murder who ultimately appeared before a provincial court judge on charges of assault. The judge made the bold move of imposing, as one of the conditions of his discharge, a "victim-offender reconciliation." This is the formal name given to a restorative justice process.

           I waited to be contacted by Crown or by some local probation officer to arrange that meeting, but no such contact was ever initiated. I was forced to go looking for an agency myself to facilitate the meeting that the

[ Page 1339 ]

judge has requested. I could not believe that no formal infrastructure existed to support the wishes of the court.

           This experience launched me into a most unlikely career. For the past five years I have shared my story with youth and community groups across Canada and internationally. I've reached a total audience of over 200,000 people.

[1545]

           In British Columbia alone I have visited 50 communities. In many of these towns I've had the unique opportunity to meet numerous community-based restorative justice groups. Most of these groups focus on youth crime and offer what is known as volunteer-facilitated family group conferencing to victims, offenders and their supporters.

           I have become somewhat of a clearinghouse for anecdotal evidence. Time and time again I hear that the youth that meet those who are affected by their wrongdoings are motivated to change the potentially negative direction their lives are heading in. Many agencies are quoting a recidivism rate of only 5 percent. In other words, 95 percent of offenders who go through a restorative justice process do not reoffend. Those affected by their crimes feel heard, feel safer, feel a part of the process of repairing that harm.

           All too often we hear the "get tough on crime" rhetoric. I challenge you to think of what that statement really means. Does it mean building bigger jails to fill with more people for increasingly longer sentences? If that worked, I think the United States would be one of the safest places in the world to live. I agree that we need the existing traditional justice system and prisons to house offenders where incarceration is in the best interest for all concerned.

           But I believe we also need properly funded restorative justice programs throughout the province to address crime at a grass-roots level, divert young people and stem the downward spiral of criminal behaviour, build relationships where none exist, repair harm and empower victims, strengthen families and build a safe community.

           In 2002 the United Nations Economic and Social Council adopted a resolution calling upon member states to develop and use restorative practice. Over 80 countries in the world employ some form of restorative justice as an alternative to traditional justice. Currently, the province of British Columbia considers one-time start-up funding of $5,000 and annual contributions of $2,500 to restorative justice groups.

           I encourage you to, please, familiarize yourself with the restorative justice agencies in your ridings and listen to the challenges that they face in terms of training facilitators and maintaining operations on limited budgets. Listen to their success stories. Decide for yourselves if these meagre funding levels are appropriate, given the role these agencies are playing in creating and maintaining real justice in your communities.

           Please consider increasing the level of funding offered to support restorative justice providers in the province of British Columbia. I respectfully thank you for your time.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Katy; that was wonderful. You obviously timed yourself before you came. You were right, almost to the second, on five minutes. Thanks so much for that. I know all members of the committee look forward to learning more about restorative justice and seeing whether there's a way for us to help.

           K. Hutchison: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity.

           B. Bennett (Chair): We do have one other presenter. He'll be our last presenter of the day.

           Ted, would you like to come forward? Ted, I'm not going to try and pronounce your last name. I'm going to let you do that.

           T. Hawryluk: Thank you very much. It's hard to pull off without a heavy, sort of thick accent. My grandfather, when he immigrated here to Canada — he died in Burnaby — fought with the immigration officer over each and every single letter. It was important to him that it was spelled this way, because it was meaningful and significant. Over time that meaning is lost to us.

           I think it has something to do with the culture and the people of the region in the Ukraine, the breadbasket of the world. Austrians and Hungarians and Germans and Mongols, Turks…. Everybody went there and took over. There are only so many armies you can field. Eventually, what it comes down to is a matter of survival.

           It is alleged that this last name means a man from the village over there who cleans shit out of the barn. Unpleasant job, but through that, there was a bit of survival. So that's kind of why I'm here….

           B. Bennett (Chair): Excuse me. You've used up a minute of your time already.

           T. Hawryluk: I realize that.

           B. Bennett (Chair): So you have four minutes left to go.

           T. Hawryluk: That's not a problem, because I thought only maybe a minute or so.

           How can I convey this to you? Walk in my shoes. I'm a person on welfare disability. I've been disabled for eight or nine years now. Rent is $580 a month for me until the next increase, which is 4 percent. Work it out. It's about 25 or 30 bucks more a month. The rent portion of my welfare cheque is $375 a month. You know, I'm hard-pressed to find somewhere in Victoria where I can rent for $375 a month.

[1550]

           I've been on the B.C. Housing list for over five years. I think what my problem is, is that I need to become severely drug addicted or jailed — incarcerated for a short period of time — or be a woman who's raising a child. That would speed me up the list.

           I know lots of people that are worse off than I am, and they're entitled to that housing more than I am. I don't mind waiting, but it's hard. It's really hard to look at people that, you know, got a 29-percent wage increase.

[ Page 1340 ]

Where the rent portion prior to a $50 increase…. That was more of a handout. I don't know what $50 buys in your lives, but I understand for quite a few of you that that's what you give your children for a weekend sleepover.

           I'm not ungrateful about that. I just don't know where I belong. I used to be able to physically clean out the barns. I can't do it anymore. There's an earning exemption for $400 a month. I can't find anybody who can take advantage of the little labour that I do have. I'm an emotional basket case. So where am I going to work? It's all a fantasy. It's a worse fantasy than I had before, applying for welfare. That took a lot out of me to walk down those steps — socially, physically and knowingly that this is your only hope: welfare.

           If you would have increased the rent portion by 29 percent that would bring our rent up to $451.15, you know? That would really help out a guy like me who's paying $580 a month, but I don't know. What's next for me? Live on the streets? I can't. I can't do that.

           So how am I paying? Well, my food…. These shoes are, like, seven years old. I can't go to a store and buy a pair of shoes for $20. I can't afford it. I can't afford a $20 bill for a pair of shoes. These pants are, like, nine years old. I can't afford it.

           The fact that I'm paying $550 a month, according to welfare — not $375, but $550 — I'm not entitled to any kind of crisis grants or clothing allowances, furniture allowances or just the common things that I hear other people on welfare get all the time. What's wrong with my welfare worker? Is he retarded? He doesn't even know his business or something?

           I go to TAPS. Why would I have to go to an outside organization? Why can't I find out everything that I'm supposed to be entitled to in one office — one place, you know? But, again, if it wasn't for this publication here, which drags me out of my apartment every day, when I can get out, and gives me a little bit of pocket change…. It helps, but I can't buy a steak dinner. I eat hamburger. I eat macaroni, beans.

           There are billions of dollars. I can't imagine what it would look like if we took $4.1 billion and converted it into loonies, just piled them into this room. Would this room hold them all, stacked to the ceiling? It's hard for a person like me to get my mind around what $4.1 billion is. When I started out as a child, the fantasy — the ultimate goal — was to get a million dollars. Then you'd be on easy street. Now they're throwing the words "billions of dollars" around like it's candy.

[1555]

           We need some housing. We need the government to be my landlord. Right now they are the ones that are my creditor, so why should I have to pay rent to a stranger? My landlord should be the government. It should be the government. There are places to build. But if the government wants to be my landlord and compete with all the other landlords here in Victoria, good luck to them, because nine years ago the average house price was $250,000. The prices now are what — 540,000-some-odd dollars. It has doubled.

           I don't expect my government to go out in the marketplace and compete with these guys that keep raising the prices. That's ridiculous. I'm telling the government that they have enough money. They should be building — building out-of-market housing to house people that really need housing.

           I don't want to live next door to crack addicts. Or children. I'm a single person. I should be living somewhere. But to build a giant apartment complex like they did in the States to warehouse welfare people, that's not what it's about either.

           It's throughout the community. It's 20 suites here, 30 suites there. But make it add up. What's the total here for Victoria? It's 200, 300 suites this year bringing on line, while 250 were just shut down in Esquimalt.

           Condos. People are being kicked out of apartment buildings. Working people can't…. It's madness.

           I watched CNN before coming over here. They were talking about al-Qaeda and Islamic terrorists and those awful people over there and how youth are sucked into this mindset and are carried away. They become people that are horrible, that they don't want to be. But it's how everybody else is in that region.

           It's madness, and it perpetuates and perpetuates. Nobody can remember what it was like when things were good — right? What happened in that region? Well, we just let those people…. We abandoned them. They're not us. We're here. As we watch the world go to shit, it makes me wonder how long. How long are you guys going to wait before you see the emergence of these more or less philosophically driven people that are tired of being oppressed?

           Food banks are part of that whole Islamic connection. They offer out social services that the government is not offering the people. They offer out hope as well to people, which is not being offered out by their government.

           You guys got what — reduced hours now? There's no such thing as a filibuster. I'm sure I'm going over my time right now, and it's wonderful to be able to filibuster in a political establishment — a building that was established for such purposes.

           But, hey, it's easier for you guys to turn my mike off and send me home. I'm ready to go now. Back to doing nothing. I feel like I'm nobody.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ted, we're happy you came in to see us. I've given you double the amount of time that the rules allow for.

           T. Hawryluk: That's correct. I appreciate it so much.

           B. Bennett (Chair): If you're not finished….

           T. Hawryluk: I'm done.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I know that some members have to leave.

           T. Hawryluk: I let somebody once ask me a question. That's the other side of it. I can question my government, but I never hear them asking me.

[ Page 1341 ]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well, we can make an exception. We don't normally have questions for these open mike sessions, but I'll make an exception in this case.

           If there is any member that has a burning question, I can allow one.

           Everyone, I think, understood your presentation.

           T. Hawryluk: That's fine.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well done.

           T. Hawryluk: I just hope that something on the rent side…. Right now my rent is automatically deposited in my landlord's hands, so welfare knows how much I'm paying for rent. Why can't they put a cap, maybe $550, tell my landlord that $550 is it?

           But my landlord is expected to charge market values for his rent, and if he doesn't charge those market values, the income tax man comes along and says: "You know those improvements that you put in? Well, you're really not in business. You're a charity. You're being generous, and you don't deserve the income tax breaks that are for people that want to charge the market values."

           I'm at break point. I'm broke. Why isn't the government…? They don't need to compete. They're the government.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Ted.

           Members, the committee stands….

[1600]

           Interjection.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Oh, sorry.

           I. Black: Pardon me, Chair. There is a correction to the handout from the legislative staff. I noticed that in the directions they gave us for Friday, they made reference to being in the Fraser Room in the Best Western Mission City Lodge in Coquitlam. I believe that is meant to say "Mission." We don't want people driving to the wrong spot.

           B. Bennett (Chair): In the morning. That's true.

           I. Black: It's just a typo. The rest of it says Mission, but there's that one section that does say Coquitlam. So just for members' information, don't get confused, those of you who aren't locals.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Iain.

           We are adjourned, ladies and gentlemen.

          The committee adjourned at 4:01 p.m.

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

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

Copyright © 2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada