Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 56 — Tuesday, October 9, 2007 (HTML)

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES



CONTENTS

		Page

Presentations		1393
	K. Bonell
	I. Liepa
	N. Rubidge
	A. Jarrett
	K. Clarke
	T. Hromadnik
	D. Pallesen
	M. Calder
	R. Jackson
	A. Goertzen

Chair:	* Bill Bennett (East Kootenay L)
Deputy Chair:	* Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley NDP)
Members:	Iain Black (Port Moody–Westwood L) * Harry Bloy (Burquitlam L) * Randy Hawes (Maple Ridge–Mission L) * Dave S. Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead L) Richard T. Lee (Burnaby North L) * John Horgan (Malahat–Juan de Fuca NDP) * Jenny Wai Ching Kwan (Vancouver–Mount Pleasant NDP) * Bob Simpson (Cariboo North NDP) * denotes member present

Witnesses:

Kathy Bonell

Mike Calder

Kathy Clarke

Andrea Goertzen

Troy Hromadnik (Tembec Industries Inc.)

Robert Jackson (Castlegar and District Community Services Society)

Andrew Jarrett (Kootenay Boundary Regional Resources Co-operative)

Tom Kirk (Tembec Industries Inc.)

Ingrid Liepa

Denise Pallesen (President, Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce)

Dr. Nick Rubidge (President and CEO, College of the Rockies)

Chris Stagg (Tembec Industries Inc.)

B. Bennett (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I'm Bill Bennett. I'm the MLA for East Kootenay, and I'm the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. I'd like to welcome you here this morning.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Bruce Ralston, Surrey-Whalley and Deputy Chair of the committee.

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

B. Bennett (Chair): As you can see, we're full of enthusiasm and glad to be in Cranbrook.

By the way, welcome, committee members, to my hometown, Cranbrook, the greatest place on earth. It's good to have you here.

Also joining us today is our Clerk, Les Gönye. Les is actually from the Legislature in New South Wales in Australia. And Jacqueline Quesnel is at the desk in the back. Also joining us today are two folks from Hansard who will record this and stream this out over the Internet.

The Minister of Finance is required each year to release a budget consultation paper, which she did on September 15. That consultation paper gives the province a description of our current fiscal and economic conditions and identifies the key issues that need to be addressed by the public in preparation for the next budget. If you don't have a copy of that paper, it is on the back desk.

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 no later than November 15 of this year.

Everyone who's here, I think — our two presenters; I'm not sure about this lady — is here because they preregistered to present. There are other ways that your friends and colleagues can make input into this budget consultation process. You can go on the Internet and do a web-based presentation to us, or you can type something up and fax it, hand it in or mail it to us. Last year there were over 8,000 submissions in this prebudget consultation process. The deadline for all written and on-line submissions is Friday, October 19.

I'll say this, even though probably none of you will be here at the end of this meeting. At the end of the meeting today we will, if we have time, have what we call an open-mike session, which allows people who have not managed to find a time slot to come forward and speak for five minutes and tell us what they think. We'll do that at the end of the meeting.

K. Bonell: Welcome to the East Kootenays and particularly to Cranbrook. My name is Kathy Bonell. Although I am an employee of the College of the Rockies, I'm not here to speak to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services in this capacity.

Instead, I'm here as a citizen of British Columbia, an early childhood educator, a student, a parent, an instructor in post-secondary education, and an advocate for programs and services that enhance the lives of children, youth and adults across the province.

My views are influenced by what I witness as a union leader and as a member of community groups like the East Kootenay Childhood Coalition, which currently has 85 members and member agencies in the East Kootenay region.

Gail Brown has prepared a package for you, which I believe is being distributed. It's more supporting documentation to help you understand our particular position.

In preparing for this presentation, I noticed in the document A Balanced Budget Every Year that Balanced Budget 2006 was intended to concentrate on improving services for children. I can tell you that this has not occurred for those of us who work in direct-service full- and part-day child care programs. We would like the Committee on Finance and Government Services to reconsider shifting promises once again to fulfil the commitments it has already made, particularly to child care, as noted earlier.

This government has said that it is committed to child care in the words it uses, but direct child care programs need more than words from you. We need you to make the leap from theory to practice. We need you to financially sustain a publicly funded child care system that provides not only quality child care for working families but enhanced wages and working conditions for early childhood educators that reflect the level of responsibility that early childhood educators fulfil every day.

This province has been able to reap the benefit of an interconnected, articulated, licensed and certified child care system. It has reaped the benefit of a system that operates collectively, with professional standards and qualified practitioners. This government has reaped

the benefit of having these services because they have been, and continue to be, sustained off the backs of parents, early childhood educators, businesses and children.

All this system needs now is for this government to make the leap from promise to practice and to solidify a system so that early childhood educators, parents and allies do not have to carry the weight of the system any longer. I understand that this committee has the power to make this recommendation, and that's why I'm here speaking to you today.

It has the power to advocate for child care, which can result in secured funding for what has already been identified as a priority for this government. So I'm not telling you things that you haven't had discussions about already.

Child care is an investment. It is going to cost money. It is an economic investment in business and a social investment in families. The reasons for investing in direct child care services are simple.

First, investment in the early years cannot be purchased back at a later date. You cannot buy back quality early-year experiences. I am certain that you have access to information on child development in the early years and that you understand the significance of quality child care, so I will not spend time today revisiting this documentation. The research on the value of quality child care and early learning experience is clear, and it supports this government in its commitment to improve services for children, particularly in a publicly funded child care system.

The second reason is economic. Many parents want to work, and working parents are needed to sustain communities. It is particularly problematic for the East Kootenay region, because our child care centres are full. Families are calling agencies before moving to this region, inquiring specifically about access to child care services. Families are not coming, and others are leaving because the funding for child care services does not meet the needs of families in our region.

From what I understand, no communities in the East Kootenay region were prioritized by Linda Reid to receive capital funding for new child care spaces. I also understand — I just learned this on my way here — that this is the second time we've been passed over.

Families in rural B.C. do not see things improving. Employers are very concerned. These employers include, and are members of, chambers of commerce, unions, municipal governments, health authorities, educational institutions, large corporations and small business. There is an economic push to keep working families in rural communities, and these organizations are looking toward this government to make it happen.

Early childhood educators are quitting this profession. They're quitting a profession they love. We see that occurring almost monthly in this particular area. Many believe they can no longer make a difference when governments are not invested in doing the same.

Funding must be adequate. No more pilot projects. No more short-term initiatives. No more make-work projects that educators have to write proposals for and then compete amongst themselves to access. This government needs to create policies and secure them with required funding.

Funding needs to support quality direct-care services and enhance the wages and working conditions of early childhood educators in this province that are comparable to the responsibilities early childhood educators carry. Reinstating the wage compensation and contribution grant could be a starting place.

I understand that the provincial and federal governments are in negotiations about the transfer of funding and responsibilities in post-secondary education. In the past, under the employment insurance program, the federal government bought training seats in post-secondary education. The provincial government in its dialogues with the federal government could reinstate funding for ECE training and pay for course fees, travel, books and living expenses.

The East Kootenay Childhood Coalition recommends that the government of B.C. purchase seats at our colleges across disciplines, and one of the disciplines could be early childhood education.

We, the early childhood community, parents, business partners, government officials, do not have time for short-term, interim and pilot funding. We ask you to recommend funding that sustains child care long term, keeping in mind that children and families accessing these services change. They grow up and move on, and new families emerge.

I am the Chair, so I don't normally get involved in too many questions or anything like that. But I will tell you that I have spoken with the minister recently about the website and the fact that the East Kootenay did not show up formally as a priority area.

She has agreed that the East Kootenay is a priority area, that it will be treated accordingly and that we will get our share of the money. That doesn’t address all of the issues, obviously, that you raise. I'll leave it to committee members to ask any other questions they might have.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You mentioned the concern of other organizations in the community, and you mentioned chambers of commerce. I know we're having a presentation from the chamber of commerce later this morning. What support, if any, has the chamber of commerce voiced for these issues in your community?

K. Bonell: That's an excellent question. I'm probably not the best person to speak to that. Probably the representative from the chamber of commerce could. What I can say is that the mayor of Cranbrook and mayors around this region have stepped forward in their commitment.

I believe motions have gone forward to this particular government to do exactly what we're asking you to do here today, and that's to put long-term funding into direct child care, because they're noticing an impact.

They're hearing from families about the need for additional spaces. But it's not just additional spaces. It's quality child care, and it's enhanced wages and working conditions for early childhood educators.

So if I could, that would be a great question to ask the members of the chamber of commerce.

J. Kwan: Thanks very much for the presentation. Actually, just prior to starting with the hearings today, we took a very mini-tour with one of the deans of the college here. I believe his name was Gary Johnson, who took us on a tour. I did ask him the question in terms of a child care facility here, and he mentioned the critical crisis in terms of the lack of child care spaces as well as the issue of retention in terms of getting people into the child care arena.

So on that question, in terms of the needs in this community, what do you see the need to be in terms of attracting people and retaining people in the field? By the way, we're hearing this is a crisis that's emerging all throughout the province. I'm trying to get a better sense of what's happening here, from that point of view.

K. Bonell: Obviously, to create a publicly funded child care system. Early childhood educators are very skilled, competent practitioners. Many are licensed. They participate in articulated programs, but the working conditions and wages for early childhood educators keep them in poverty.

You know of many campaigns — the Code Blue campaign, and there have historically been many campaigns — asking for spaces. What we're saying is that we have to go beyond that. I suspect that if the government does not respond in a way that enhances working conditions and wages for early childhood educators, more qualified practitioners will leave the positions they already have, because other organizations see how competent they are. They're taking them, and they're paying them more than $12 or $12.50 an hour.

I've been an early childhood educator for 27 years, and I work alongside practitioners who have not had a wage increase in five or six years. They're still making $12.50 — not everyone, but that is a collective group — no benefits, no professional development money, no retirement plan. There are other opportunities for them, and they're taking them.

I could be mistaken — and maybe this is just a personal perspective — but I really think that if we don't address this, the next campaign will be an "I quit" campaign. I quit carrying the responsibility of early childhood services on my back; I quit having to make the decision about a profession that I love. I have to choose working with young children and community, or I have to choose to be able to support my own family.

So the "I quit" campaign, if it emerges, will emerge not because we don’t care about the work that we do but because we can no longer do it ourselves. Does that answer your question?

B. Bennett (Chair): Kathy, thank you very much for your presentation. It was excellent, nicely done. I'm sure it resonates with all committee members.

K. Bonell: Thank you very much for this opportunity. We love having you here.

B. Bennett (Chair): Ingrid, are you here on behalf of any organization or group or anything?

Good afternoon, hon. Members, ladies and gentlemen. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to address the committee today and to provide some input on the government's spending priorities for next year's provincial budget.

My name is Ingrid Liepa, and I'm a resident of Kimberley, B.C. I'm pleased to be able to present to the committee, sharing some key observations, insights and experiences about the College of the Rockies, its very significant role here in the southeastern corner of B.C. and the vital importance of an institution like this being maintained and supported in its growth and evolution.

I also applaud the committee's strong focus on climate change and addressing greenhouse gas emissions in these consultations. It is my hope that I can also make some useful connections for the committee between the importance of stable funding for B.C.'s rural colleges and the pressing need for action on climate change mitigation and adaptation.

As a matter of background, I am a graduate of the College of the Rockies, was a board member acting as a student representative on the board. I was an auxiliary instructor and am now working with the college as a possible community partner in delivering continuing education to the citizens of Kimberley and Cranbrook.

This latter is in association with my current role as the clean air and climate change coordinator of Wildsight Kimberley-Cranbrook. Wildsight is a non-governmental organization that operates in the East Kootenay. Its goal is around protecting biodiversity and encouraging sustainable communities, which is a very topical issue these days. As already stated, I am presenting to you as an individual.

There are three things I'd really like to bring forward to the committee today, the first one being that the college here is a vital core presence in the East Kootenay. It provides significant and multiple benefits across the region.

That's really a preamble to the second point, which is that funding of this college and B.C.'s rural colleges must maintain and enhance core programs to high levels of excellence and ensure continued innovation and evolution of programs and curriculum to meet what I would say are the more rapidly changing societal needs and demands that we're seeing today.

Thirdly, B.C.'s rural colleges can play a key role in supporting the provincial government's agenda on climate change and greenhouse gas reductions by being a delivery point for community greenhouse gas–

As a starting point, B.C.'s colleges and institutes do play a pivotal role within their communities, providing an array of services. Their impact extends from there in a multitude of forms — I would add, especially in a more rural area like the East Kootenay. They contribute to a higher quality of life overall. This dynamic is especially important in places like this that have historically had lower income levels and perhaps less economic opportunity and education levels than other areas of the province.

The economics are there, as a recent study…. I was very surprised by the numbers I saw there, a 21-percent rate of return in terms of every tax dollar spent. The college here represents 4 percent of the local economy, and it contributes $133.8 million in income each year to the region. This is actually very significant, and that's just the economic role of the college.

This is at a time when there have been some challenging factors. The demographics show that there's a declining population of young people. Those young people are being attracted away from this area, largely over to Alberta where you've got the prospect of higher-paying jobs.

The economic figures underscore the great investment that this college is for the people and communities of the East Kootenay. The economic benefits derived from the college's presence must also be considered alongside the benefits of supporting a more educated and skilled population, the college's role in knowledge and skills transfer to the region, building knowledge and skills networks within the communities, and the resulting improvement of personal and community economic opportunity and overall quality of life in this area.

As a student at the Fernie campus, I was very much struck by how such a small operation could have such a large impact in a community. It had full-time programs. It also had a very robust continuing education program. But I also saw the challenges in terms of budget, even when I was a student. I was very impressed by the level of resourcefulness and creativity I saw among the staff there, who were absolutely dedicated to doing the very best they could for the students and prospective students.

I also saw how being able to study in or near home communities meant a lot to folks living here. The savings are not insignificant — $6,000 for each year of post-secondary study — when you can stay home. I also noted that this is very much in keeping with the B.C. government's goal of ensuring that students will be able to take their post-secondary education closer to home.

I saw the same level of excellence as a board member. I saw the very high commitment there is to continuing to deliver and innovate the programs being offered, despite some of the challenges that were coming through in the funding mechanisms for the college.

Finally, I just want to speak to the community partnerships. Now I am in the process, potentially, of building a partnership between Wildsight and the college and delivering continuing education. These community partnerships run the gamut. They're really at the heart of how the college delivers its programs and services.

It begins at the governance level, with the community representatives on the board. It moves down to the operational level, where community organizations or leaders can be involved in different levels of delivering programs. It's all to say that these partnerships are equally valuable and important to the community members and organizations that participate in them, more effectively leveraging the limited resources for all concerned parties.

In my current role of looking at a partnership…. This is an exciting opportunity for an organization like Wildsight. It really has the opportunity to extend programming around climate change mitigation and adaptation to the communities and the individuals here in East Kootenay, which is very much aligned with what the province is thinking these days.

Again, the benefits — I just want to underline — of working collaboratively on projects or programs with common or overlapping objectives provide significant value to both parties in an area where resources for community-level programs can be scarce.

So this really is the background to the second point, which is that funding of B.C. rural colleges must maintain and enhance core programs to high levels of excellence and must ensure continued innovation and evolution of programs and curriculum to meet changing societal needs and demands. It's my understanding that the current funding mechanism and base funding levels continue to be inadequate for the college here to continue to sustain the high-quality programs and services it offers.

This is a serious concern, given what I've already outlined and its importance to the economy and well-being of this region. Adequate funding, I'm informed, would require a continuation of the one-time adjustment to base funding levels that occurred in 2006 and 2007, plus a 10-percent increase over the next three years in the equipment capital allowance. This would enable the college to purchase and replace outdated equipment and keep up with rising costs and inflation rates.

To add to that, to me this is about keeping the college as a going concern — building this as a centre of excellence so that it's an attraction not only for local students but for students across Canada, for the programs it offers, and also for students internationally.

There have been numerous criticisms of the province's FTE-based funding mechanism for post-secondary institutions.

I will move forward and say that the FTE system has definitely been a source of concern for this college. As I looked at the Campus 2020 work, it was apparent that there's some very good work being done there. There was a recognition that, given the more extensive role of community colleges, some additional sort of funding would be very useful in recognizing the multifunctions of the institution.

I encourage the committee to read on. I've pointed out some of the salient points from Geoffrey Plant's Campus 2020 work in my written submission.

Finally, I just want to bring things to a close in looking at some of the nexuses that can occur between the province's agenda on climate change as well as the College of the Rockies' and the rural colleges' in B.C. in general. As somebody on the front line working on climate change issues, I've noticed an absolute void in terms of what's happening on the ground. I know this is about to change.

The B.C. government has set extremely ambitious goals in terms of greenhouse gas emission reductions and action. I would submit that it's important to bring in all the partners and the community stakeholders and organizations that you can to realize these goals.

I'd say that B.C.'s rural colleges are exceedingly well placed to be delivery points on education and outreach related to climate change in their respective communities. B.C. citizens are generally aware that it's happening, but there's a gap in terms of action and what they can do about it.

Colleges can play, I believe, a strong role in terms of the outreach, the education and the demonstration projects showcasing what technologies or systems can produce significant greenhouse gas reductions. It's something that's available to students. It's something available for the public to see and observe and then be able to inspire other actions out there in the community, businesses and other institutions in the area.

To summarize, if the B.C. government is to realize its goals on climate change action, it will need to move quickly in recruiting its best resources and partners to work together on this issue. Post-secondary institutions could become critical partners in this effort and significant leaders and hubs in innovation and educational delivery at the regional level. This is an area of obvious opportunity that should be given close scrutiny with respect to next year's budget choices.

Just to conclude, I encourage the committee to look closely at the continued issues with the funding of post-secondary institutions, especially the rural colleges in B.C., recognizing their extended role within the region, within the communities. It's really important that these institutions be supported to be at high levels of excellence in terms of their educational delivery. Also, they become an excellent vehicle or hub around climate change action and public education and outreach.

In closing, I just want to applaud the B.C. government's focus on climate change and wish to thank you for this opportunity to address the committee.

Earlier today we had a chance to tour your college that's under expansion. I'm just trying to find out: what is your view about the expansions that were done in here? Were they worthwhile expansions or…?

I. Liepa: Absolutely. Those expansions are going to enable more programs to be run here, especially in terms of the trades — the new facility that was acquired up in Gold Creek.

I think it's very important that the college be viewed as a going concern and that it be supported as a going concern, because that's what's going to attract not only excellent faculty but excellent students — and that this is really the place to be. We're seeing, with the demographics, that the East Kootenay and West Kootenay and rural B.C. are becoming more and more of an attractive place to live for many people.

If we do not support our rural colleges, we're really leaving a pretty major gap, I believe, for the people who have lived here traditionally and for those who are coming to these areas because of the quality of life they offer.

B. Simpson: Thanks for the thoughtful presentation. I'm curious about the reflection you have on the climate change component to it. We've had presentations about program dollars and capital infrastructure from other colleges. You've added the climate change part.

Given that we're being asked as a committee to make recommendations around more program dollars and more capital for colleges, would you see the climate change component as being directed funding — so that it is actually directed to achieve the climate change targets as opposed to just some kind of additional dollars put into the post-secondary system to be used as seen fit?

I. Liepa: I believe that consideration needs to be given to those dollars in terms of how they can further…. Really, we're looking at two agendas converging. So there's a program that the colleges are running, but there's also a huge agenda there on climate change. How can those budget choices come together to really be leading-edge? That may be in terms of innovation of college programs, in terms of facilities, in terms of equipment that's brought in here.

Anything that can support leadership on the climate change front will also be of great benefit in the long run to the colleges as well.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Ingrid. I appreciate your presentation.

Our next witness for the committee is the College of the Rockies — Dr. Nick Rubidge, president.

N. Rubidge: Thank you very much. Before I start, did some of you members have an opportunity to have a tour?

It is indeed my pleasure to welcome the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services to Summit Hall and the College of the Rockies and your academic building.

When we talked earlier about climate change…. I should like to thank Ingrid for her comments. She has probably pre-empted most of what I was going to say. There was a question from Mr. Simpson about what we could do in terms of some of the dollars. For your information, the trades building that you had a look at has a solar-heated wall that should preheat the air going into the building, so that should save perhaps 10 to 15 percent of the operating costs during the winter.

This structure has got a fairly sophisticated heat recovery system built into it. With the level of funding that we were able to receive, we weren't able to go for the full LEED certification. As I'm sure you can appreciate, going full LEED certification is particularly challenging, certainly in this area. Within the total funding envelope, we didn't have enough to do full LEED certification. But I would agree with you that there's an opportunity there for us to model innovative and environmentally effective construction for the public sector.

Before I really start the presentation, I'd like to acknowledge and thank the province and, in particular, East Kootenay MLA Bill Bennett for their support of College of the Rockies through the $15.4 million investment in the expansion of the main campus, which you had a look at.

We've also got the $2 million acquisition of the Gold Creek campus, which is just ten minutes south of here. I'd like to thank you all for your vision and your investment in the college and in our community.

The budget consultation process is an important tool as the province builds its next budget. I trust I'll leave you with some thoughts as you develop your recommendations for the Finance Minister.

I know Bill is very familiar with the College of the Rockies, but for those of you who are not, perhaps I could just very briefly introduce you to us. We have campuses throughout the southeast corner of British Columbia: the main campus and Gold Creek campus in Cranbrook and five smaller campuses in Creston, Golden, Invermere, Kimberley and Fernie.

We serve a regional population of 83,000 people, and we live in an area slightly larger than the country of Switzerland. That, of course, is the challenge — small population, large geography.

We serve just under 2,000 full-time-equivalent students each year in a wide variety of programs: arts and sciences; university studies; adult basic education; literacy; health; child, youth and family studies; business admin; tourism; recreation; computer science; fire service; trades; foundations; and so on, to name just a few.

However, the term FTE hides the real level of activity. If we look at the number of registrations we receive in continuing education on-line learners alone, which are included in the FTE count, then there are 8,000 registrations in this region that are part-time, on-line, continuing education registrants each year.

We also have about a hundred international students from more than 20 countries. So in terms of introducing diversity and exposing the people in this region to other cultures, the college is the main vehicle through which that can be provided.

About 4½ percent are self-declared aboriginal students. Of course, the actual number of aboriginal students is likely to exceed that, but it gives you a sense of what our college looks like.

We offer students a quality education training that's close to home, personable and affordable. Small colleges have the lowest tuition fees in B.C.'s post-secondary system. College of the Rockies' tuition fees are the second lowest in the province. Our sister institution in Selkirk…. I think their fees are slightly lower than ours.

I'm sure that you can appreciate the many challenges a college like ours faces as a rural college serving a small population spread out over a large geographic region. We don't have a large pool of potential students to draw from, yet we must offer the same range of programs and services to our small regional population as post-secondary institutions who have the benefit of being located in much more densely populated areas.

Couple these challenges with the fact that College of the Rockies receives government funding below the average for comparable institutions, and you can see that we don't come to work wondering what we're going to do to keep ourselves busy every morning. I'll have more to say about the College of the Rockies' historical level of funding a little bit later in the presentation.

In order to continue to provide our East Kootenay residents with a wide variety of quality programs and instruction, we must be innovative, adaptive and nimble.

Some of the things we do exceptionally well include a range of innovative health programs. We rotate programs through our regional campuses. We bring these programs to area residents who cannot, for numerous reasons, come to Cranbrook for training. We train them on site. The local employers can hire people out of the local community that are trained rather than having to persuade people to relocate into rural parts of the province to take advantage of the employment opportunities.

We've got some innovative partnerships with business. The city of Calgary fire department, the mines in the Elk Valley, and the Interior Health Authority are all…. We have partnerships with them, and we provide training for them, and with other post-secondary institutions such as UVic.

We've got linkages and partnerships around the world in Australia, Sweden, Ecuador, Kenya and China, and we've just signed one with France, which can take our students out into the world and bring the world to our students and to the East Kootenay communities.

We contribute to the residents, the communities and society in a whole variety of different ways. In this respect, the College of the Rockies is no different from all the other colleges in the province. We're all trying to provide a range of services to a whole spectrum of people. Unlike our provincial universities, we have the added challenge of providing services to students who have a whole range of ability, across a whole range of programs from literacy to trades training and to those wanting to complete degrees. It's that spectrum of activity we offer that's a particular challenge.

Our students come from all walks of life and bring all kinds of past experience with them. Serving this diversity of needs, skill levels and geography brings administrative complexity and dis-economies of scale that aren't experienced by the larger urban-based universities.

I know that you've already had some presentations from my colleagues that talked about the economic impact, so I'm not going to repeat all of that. But just a couple of the high points. As you know, that study of the 13 colleges, including College of the Rockies, showed a return on investment across the province of over $7 billion — almost 4 percent of the provincial economy.

In our region, our impact is about $134 million annually from the activities of the college and the cumulative impact of the past students. Taxpayers see a real return of about 21 percent on their annual investment in College of the Rockies. For every dollar of provincial and local tax money invested in the College of the Rockies, the college returns about $3.90 to the same levels of government. The students themselves earn a rate of return of about 13 percent on their investment in time and money at the College of the Rockies. So the College of the Rockies and all rural colleges are truly educational, social and economic engines in the communities.

I think, as we look at the funding package for colleges, obviously we've done incredibly well in terms of our facility in the last few years. The challenge that we have now is in terms of providing the ongoing operating costs in order to keep the facilities maintained and to fill them with students.

Our students can expect the same level of support as they get anywhere else. I think I'll leave the rest of my remarks here unread.

R. Hawes: Thank you for your presentation. With the economy operating the way it is right now, on all cylinders, are you finding that enrolment here is falling because you're losing students to a hot economy?

N. Rubidge: It's very interesting. We do have some enrolment challenges. It's not across the board. Some of our apprenticeship programs are doing very well, but not all of them. Our entry-level programs to, say, carpentry have relatively low enrolment, because if you want to carry a hammer and you can walk onto any one of the contractors around here, you can get hired — just like that. So in that respect, there's a challenge.

But on some other programs, like heavy-duty mechanics, we've got wait-lists. Welding is continuing to be strong. Our health programs are very strong because, of course, you need the training for practice. It's those areas where the employer is prepared to take you just because you're a warm body, where the lure of getting a job right now and postponing access to post-secondary is…. That's the circumstance.

There's also increased competition from the lower mainland and from Alberta for students in the university area so that we have seen some softening of demand locally for university studies. We put that down to increased competition from both our neighbours east and west of us.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You mentioned in your paper that you have a number of arrangements with other colleges and universities outside the country. Aside from the benefits of having students here and able to take advantage of that, does that encourage a reverse flow of foreign students to this institution?

N. Rubidge: We're just in the process of establishing a lot of those. Yes, we're looking to see reciprocal arrangements — not just us sending students to Australia but, in fact, providing the opportunity for Australian students to come to College of the Rockies. That's certainly been the case.

We're also working on some exchanges in New Zealand that would be in the tourism area. If you think about how their years are reversed and if you're interested in winter tourism, then you can experience three winters in a row if you time your visits to those in the southern hemisphere.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You didn't get to it, but just so that it's clear for the members of the committee…. In the written presentation you said that your share of the adjustment would be $730,000. I think that was on the second-last page or third-last page — they're not numbered — right at the bottom.

N. Rubidge: That's right. What we haven't had in the college sector is an inflationary adjustment for a decade or more. If we were able to address that issue, then that would really help significantly in terms of meeting some of our ongoing operating cost challenges.

Of course, because we have been a high-producing college, we've had to cut services across a variety of other areas in order to maintain our focus on delivering FTEs. What we've done is sort of robbing the service side of the institution in order to accommodate that.

B. Bennett (Chair): Nick, thank you very much. You'll be happy to know that the Hansard folks this morning said that this is the best technology they've run across in terms of streaming this out over the Internet.

Next witness is the Kootenay Boundary Regional Resources Cooperative — Mr. Jarrett.

A. Jarrett: Good afternoon. It's still morning, my time. I came from the West Kootenays.

B. Bennett (Chair): You've got two more minutes before it's afternoon there.

A. Jarrett: I wish I had time to shake everybody's hands and meet you individually, but another time perhaps.

I'm here representing a cooperative of small social service organizations mostly operating in the West Kootenay and Boundary region — from Grand Forks to Nakusp, Kaslo and down to Salmo, with Trail, Castlegar and Nelson in between.

We got together a few years ago and formed a cooperative to do some things together that we thought would be better done together than separately. Building on a history of small "c" cooperation, we have built a formal cooperative organization.

I'm not here to actually ask for anything specific for our organization. I'm here really wanting to tune you folks into what it's like to run a small community service organization in the rural areas of the province, and perhaps help inform your decision-making when those kinds of issues come up.

This is not only about the West Kootenays. It's about Dawson Creek, Cache Creek and all the small rural communities in B.C. and the community service organizations that operate within them.

The message I want to deliver is to try and increase support for community service organizations. Your picture of them may be organizations that perhaps deliver counselling, operate a food bank, do some community education or do some addictions counselling. In fact, we do all of those things, sometimes under the same roof, depending on how large or small the organization is.

In the rural areas that kind of situation is characterized by part-time staff and not much in the way of a management structure. I should step back one second and say that I am the coordinator of the cooperative, but I also run one of the member organizations. One of the member organizations — for instance, Salmo Community Services, which I run part-time — has eight staff. All of them are part-time. Several of the staff run different programs.

To give you an example to illustrate some of the challenges we deal with, one of our programs is called child-youth mental health. We have a counsellor who deals with children struggling with mental health issues. The contract for that pays us enough to get one person one day a week. The added challenge is that the position requires a master's level of education. So you can see that there are some wrinkles in terms of recruitment issues. How do you get someone to a place like Salmo?

Anyway, we do that. Usually, people work a couple of jobs. That person, in my case, is also a counsellor at Selkirk College in Castlegar part-time and works for us part-time in Salmo. That's a couple of characteristics of community organizations in a rural area.

Another is that we're multiservice, which I did allude to earlier. There's a whole range of programs. Again, in our small organization in Salmo we do addictions and mental health counselling. We do women's counselling. We run a food bank. We do family counselling. We run a family resource centre. We're trying to get together a little fathers group, and on and on.

What we get funded for from mostly government contracts…. They come in at all levels. We have federal money. We have provincial money from different ministries. Children and Family Development, Community Services, Public Safety and Solicitor General are all funders of our little organization.

That leaves me with the job of being what we might call a knitter. My job is to knit together the threads and patches of service into something that actually serves the community as a whole.

Therein is perhaps the core of my message. That job — and I don't mean for me, but for my colleagues, for our kinds of organizations — is, in our belief, a really important job around community development but essentially an unfunded job. We get enough money in that children's mental health contract to pay that person, a little bit for overhead so that person has a desk and a room to work in, and a little bit of that goes towards bookkeeping and some supervision of that program.

What's not funded in these kinds of organizations is the job of putting what that counsellor is doing together with what the family counsellor is doing, together with what the people in the schools are doing, together with what the doctors in the community are doing — and creating a social well-being network in the community. We do that. We do that essentially off the side of our desks.

We're not the only people who do that. There are people in the health industry who do that. There are people in education who do that. But my message here is really — to come back to that — that rural organizations require a little bit extra to do that.

So my request to you is that when you're looking at the funding for social service organizations that you have some appreciation of the community development work that gets done through those organizations when we partner with many other organizations, and we're doing that all the time. Community development is not about economic development. It's not just about social planning. As I'm sure you have all figured out by

now, it's about all those sectors working together to boost the well-being of any community.

I didn't really look at my script here, so I probably missed a few things, but I probably hit the highlights of what I wanted to say. Maybe I'll even stop there and ask if there are questions. You've got a written piece there that fills in some of the blanks.

J. Kwan: One of the issues that we've been hearing with other groups was the issue around cost-of-living increases — in fact, raising the issue that it has not been included in the last number of years. That alone was a significant impact, let alone additional resources into the sector.

I wonder if you can shed some light in terms of…. When you say that you're looking to government for more support, can you be more specific in terms of what your ask is?

One of the key pieces that we have to consider for the Finance Committee is to try and narrow all of that down into dollars and cents and then to be able to put forward a case to the Minister of Finance for her consideration.

A. Jarrett: My response to that would be twofold. One is around the cost of living. As with many public sector organizations, there essentially have been no cost-of-living increases for about ten years now. So we have been absorbing, I think, 1.6-percent to 2.4-percent annual increases one way or another.

The effect of that is that our organizations are, I think, as lean as they can be and as effective as they can be. On occasion people have had to cut service hours, and that's what we're into at this point — cutting service hours. That would be a good thing, to be part of our funding package.

The other thing would be the rural community service organization piece. The accepted formula, although it's not written down all the time, is kind of 10 percent towards administration. To run an effective community service organization in the rural areas of this province, our research says that that needs to be at least 15 percent and ideally closer to 20 percent. That would be the other hard number that I would give you in response to the question.

B. Simpson: Thanks, Andrew, for the presentation. There's a similar cooperative in my riding in Williams Lake.

B. Simpson: Yeah. They went through a similar process of trying to get efficiencies of scale, centralizing administrative services and so on and have expressed similar concerns to me.

We had a presentation in Victoria that raised concerns for us around the centralization and corporatization of a lot of these services on a provincial-wide level — you know, one or two providers getting contracts throughout the province.

Are you seeing that in this area and in some of the areas that formerly would have been served by members of your cooperative?

A. Jarrett: Yes, would be the short answer. That's one of the reasons we formed a cooperative, not to centralize anything but, in fact, to maintain the local presences in small communities like Salmo and Kaslo and Nakusp and Grand Forks. This created a vehicle for us to be able to work together and do some things together, like coordinate training and things like that, and yet not lose what we consider a really fundamental value in community service organizations, and that is local decision-making about local programs.

One of the galvanizing incidents for us was that, just as we were forming the cooperative, there was an RFP on B.C. Bid for a particular service. We tried to get in to do that — weren't quite organized well enough. A Kamloops-based organization got that contract. It's a good organization, quality. No complaints there.

The value issue, the principle issue, for us is that that means the accountability for a service that's going on in Salmo or Nakusp or Kaslo is to a group of people in Kamloops who don't know the communities. That's the concern we have about centralized….

I mean, it could have been an organization from Dallas — right? With North American free trade, that's allowable. Again, it's not that private operators or big organizations don't provide good service, but we would worry about the accountability to communities. That's central to our value system.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I had one question myself. On page 6 you talk about this percentage — I think it's a very articulate expression of the concern — that you say is essential for good administration in rural areas.

Has there been any response? Presumably, you've taken this to the provincial government or the ministry that administers these kinds of contracts. What has been the reaction, official or unofficial, in your view?

A. Jarrett: I don't know for sure about the official reaction. We are part of a larger organization which you either have already heard from or may hear from, which is the Federation of Child and Family Services of B.C.

They rounded up some information from member organizations and did a presentation directly, I believe, to the Ministry of Children and Family Development in August. That's their principal relationship, and I think that's a good thing. We're lending our voice to that and sharing information, so we've done a little bit of that formal presentation in that route.

Again, the challenge for us in, say, the organization I run in Salmo is that we're also funded by Health Canada, by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, by Community Services and so on and so forth. We're multi-funded, and what we try and do is bring all of these things together and, as I say, try to

It's challenging for us to create a concerted message to all those different ministries, which is why I appreciate this opportunity. At least you have the purview of all of the B.C. government ministries.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): It will. Andrew, our time that's available for you has now run out, but thank you for making that presentation. We have your written presentation, as well, which we will consider in our deliberations.

Good afternoon. Are you representing any particular organization, or are you here on your own behalf?

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): There's nothing wrong with that. We just like to make that….

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): He just stepped out, but he should be back shortly, I think. You'll have to contend with me for the time being.

K. Clarke: Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to share my experiences with education in the East Kootenay. I'm offering both a personal and professional perspective of how education has enhanced all aspects of my life.

My name is Kathy Clarke. I was born and raised in nearby Kimberley. Growing up as an owner and partner in a family business made me understand and appreciate the opportunities education can provide. My life since high school has taken me to Montreal, to the university in Grenoble, France, to Norway for seven years and back to Canada, where I eventually decided to become a nurse.

I have several friends who are nurses — some educators, community nurses, hospital nurses, nurses working abroad. They encouraged me to be part of the challenging and rewarding field of nursing.

My next step was to upgrade the needed sciences at Selkirk high school in Kimberley, alongside my teenage daughter. She thought it was great that her mom attended high school with her, which is unusual.

Then on to college in Cranbrook. My goal of becoming a nurse was attainable only because of our community college. It would not have been possible to study elsewhere, since I was a working single mother with two teenage children.

Being at the college was a wonderful experience. There were students of all ages working towards their educational goals — as there are now, and even more so.

My registered nurse diploma was completed at BCIT. I worked in Vancouver in cardiac care at Vancouver General and Lions Gate hospitals for two years before returning home to Kimberley, where I belong. I'm just not a city girl.

On-line education allowed me to complete my bachelor of science degree in nursing through the University of Victoria. I graduated in 1992, the same year my son graduated from the University of Lethbridge with a bachelor of kinesiology. He also started his studies at the College of the Rockies.

I worked at various nursing jobs in Kimberley and Cranbrook. The 12-hour night shifts were most challenging, since I was definitely not a young nurse.

One job was at the Aq'am Community Care Home on the St. Mary's reserve. For some reason, I've always been drawn towards first nations culture and history, so working with the elders was particularly gratifying. Mr. Bennett has been there before.

K. Clarke: The intent of the community care home was to have community members trained to care for their elders on reserve. At that time I also helped teach eight women from the St. Mary's band to become trained care aides.

Unfortunately, between funding problems, union issues, and on- and off-reserve regulations, as well as a number of other concerns, the Aq'am Community Care Home was closed. The building now houses the Ktunaxa Kinbasket Child and Family Services, as well as Ktunaxa health, where I now work as the nation's community health nurse.

Community health nursing is like public health nursing; however, there's a strong educational and advocacy component to my work. Capacity-building is a very important goal for the nation's people. Of course, this includes upgrading, skills training and further education, all of which can be made possible at our local College of the Rockies.

Over the years Robyn Beattie-Laine, the aboriginal adviser here at the college, has worked hard to offer courses specific to first nations students' needs. We're presently working on a new program to train more home support workers. Our elders need qualified people to help them stay happy and healthy in their later years while remaining on reserve in their homes.

We're hoping to train several first nations people interested in health care to work in our home and community care program, which is a federal program. This course could be a stepping stone for students to continue on with further health education.

As you know, we need more care aides, licensed practical nurses and registered nurses all over B.C. Again, students are able to receive most of the education they need for many skills and professions at the college.

The Ktunaxa Nation's people have also benefited from short courses offered at the college, such as first aid, firefighting and many others. East Kootenay residents are very fortunate to have the opportunity for further education and training so close to home.

As a past student, I appreciated being able to access most of the programs I needed to become a registered nurse. Now, as a health educator, I value the many opportunities offered to all students wishing to further their education. My personal and professional education continues to evolve, as does the College of the Rockies. The college can provide a foundation for many career goals, as well as practical training and skilled labour, all done locally.

I'd like to just clarify that my position as community health nurse is a federal position, but I work closely with the local public health nurses in providing care for all residents of British Columbia.

One problem that I have is that I am funded for people on reserve, but at the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Child and Family Services we try to provide holistic care for our people. That involves holistic care through child and family services as well as health care. In essence, I end up providing care to many people who are off reserve, with no funding.

I would really like you to consider somehow looking at that issue. I don't know how it would be done. I do provide lots of the services that public health nurses would have done, but they're first nations people, and they would rather receive services on reserve. That's one issue that I would like you to consider.

As far as the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Child and Family Services, I work in the same building as this organization. Mr. Bennett knows quite a bit about this organization. He has been very supportive. I don't have a lot of specific information to give you about that, but we do offer holistic health services to all first nations people, including Métis and Inuit people.

I have confidence that the College of the Rockies will continue to be recognized as a valuable asset to our communities.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Kathy. The only question that I have, Kathy, is with regard to the public health nurse–type activities that you do on reserve. Is that not federal jurisdiction? Do you think there is a provincial funding envelope that could apply there?

K. Clarke: Well, there is. The funding that I get as a community health nurse through the feds is meant to cover only people who live on reserve. We service people all over the East Kootenays. If they come to our building and they want services…. For example, if they come and there are children in care…. The foster parents are there to see the social workers. Because I'm across the hall, they like to come to me to get the children immunized or for information about child rearing or anything particular to public health.

In the meantime we sort of make that fit into our office, but the funding isn't there for that. I'm providing service for these people with no funding.

Our next witness is Tembec Forest Industries. Are all three of you guys going to come up? Come forward, gentlemen.

I have copies of this. Maybe it's being handed around. We wanted to talk about three primary issues that are affecting our industry.

By the way, this is Chris Stagg, chief forester for Tembec, western Canada; and Tom Kirk, director of human resources. We're here on behalf of Tembec Enterprises, a large forest company in the region and internationally as well.

In our B.C. softwood component, we have three issues right now that we believe are either largely responsible for the financial challenges we have or, certainly, are primary indicators as to the state of our industry right now.

The first one is the decision on softwood. As you're all aware, the B.C. government, unlike some other governments in Canada, has chosen an export tax model over a quota system. The decision for that was largely a result of not limiting access to salvaging the mountain pine beetle stands in the central interior.

There are a number of indicators or a number of reasons why lumber prices are where they are today, but one of them is certainly supply. Massive amounts of lumber are heading across the border right now with no relief in sight. As a result, our lumber prices are at a 30-year low.

This morning we were at $225 a thousand, which for you folks probably means nothing. In perspective, a $350-per-thousand lumber price is something that we look at as being reasonably profitable, and $325 is a break-even price. So $225 is a very, very low price.

The Canadian dollar, as you're all aware, is at a 30-year high. Because of the low lumber prices and the way the export tax system works, we are still paying a maximum export tax of 15 percent on top of this $225. There is just no pricing relief in sight.

American housing starts are half of what they were two years ago, and lumber prices just don't seem to be moving up. Yet lumber exports continue to be very, very high. We're actually confused about that, to be honest with you. We have two of our mills down right now, as a matter of fact, to control the amount of wood on the market. All said and done, it is truly the perfect storm for industry right now.

With respect to the softwood decision, we honestly believe that a quota system that would limit the

amount of wood from the province to a reasonable extent would have a more influential impact on price than would the export tax. We don't think the export tax is responsive enough to the current situation, where we don't think prices will come up as quickly as they would under a quota system.

We're requesting that the B.C. government revisit their decision of an export tax versus that of a quota. We think the first step in that is to complete a detailed analysis of what exactly a quota or an option B environment would look like in the province. That's our first request.

Our second big challenge with respect to our operations is the stumpage system. These three issues are massive issues, and they're very difficult to solve. The issue we have right now with respect to our tenured or licensed wood is that although stumpage prices are reasonably fair, there is no significant variation between northern and southern operations. So what I'm saying is that Williams Lake right now is paying relatively the same stumpage that we are in Cranbrook.

The problem with this is that it's not reflective of the regional challenges that we face here versus Williams Lake. Look out the window. There are mountains, and we have cable systems and alternate harvesting systems, whereas in Williams Lake, on the Chilcotin plateau, it's flat. It's one species. It's roadside logging — no landings. They're separate phases. So they cut the trees down, stack them on the roadside, throw them on a truck and leave. Our systems are much more complicated.

The stumpage system was developed to reflect higher-cost development, and currently it's not doing that. While we believe that the actual absolute number may not be unreasonable, there is no disparity between the two. That puts us at a competitive disadvantage.

On top of that, you have a beetle problem in the north. I've seen it recently, as you all have. It exacerbates the problem because their wood is deteriorating very quickly, but it is still a usable product for lumber. You have stands up there where 30 percent to 40 percent of it is considered off-grade, which is not sawlog material, yet you can make a sawlog from that.

But the way the stumpage system works is that you pay 25 cents a cubic metre for that wood. When you have 40 percent of your wood coming in at 25 cents, that gives you an added advantage. Right now — we looked at our numbers — we're at about 5 percent off-grade, so that's a significant issue with us.

On the stumpage system, Tembec is requesting a review of timber-pricing mechanisms that balance harvesting chance and competitive positions within the industry. What we're saying there is that essentially it's a complicated system, but make something that's fair, that does not provide a competitive advantage for somebody else, because that is what's happening right now.

The last one is probably our biggest challenge and probably the most difficult to solve. You have B.C. Timber Sales volume and alternate tenure volume — woodlots, community forests and such. You look at current pricing of those products and the volume availability. If you go to the central interior, you'll notice that there are substantial variations in pricing of this volume.

Delivered costs. That means from standing in the bush to in our mill yard. In the central interior right now they're paying $45 to $49 for that wood to get it to their mill yard. That's the benchmark price, so that sets the price for everybody. They won't buy it if you can't get it for that.

If you come to our part of the world, the standard price is $63. Doing the math, that puts them…. Before we get out of bed in the morning, they have a 20-percent cost advantage over us. A concern is 2 percent; 20 percent is a nuclear weapon. It scares the pants off us, to be honest.

A bigger problem is that there are massive volumes available. No fault of anyone in the room but of a little critter called the mountain pine beetle. There are massive volumes available, and it's going to be there for two to three years, if their predictions on shelf life of this product are true.

Nothing is done. We have this environment to work in for the next two to three years. It results in us being much less competitive. I'll be honest with you. I seriously question whether the southern operators, whether it's Weyerhaeuser in Merritt, Tembec in Cranbrook, Pope and Talbot in Midway or you name it…. I don't think they can weather a two-year storm if something isn't done about this problem. I don't think they can do it.

This is a vague request, but it's something I think government has to get its head around and say: "Okay, how much do we value this industry in the southern interior of the province?"

If it is a valuable industry, we have to do something about this. We're requesting that the government review the B.C. Timber Sales and alternate tenure stumpage models such that they eliminate the current competitive advantage, because honestly, it is a huge issue.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Troy. Good presentation. Committee members?

B. Simpson: Hi, guys. Thanks for coming in and making the presentation. You've captured very complex issues in a very succinct way.

I've got some questions. We've had some of these discussions, but I do have some questions that I want on the record. One of them has to do with the softwood lumber agreement and the quota system, because there are people in the industry who would argue that the last thing we want to do is go to quota, particularly those who've tried to get volume offshore or in Canada who've then lost some ground there.

Are you suggesting that we go to quota, or are you just simply saying we need to redress this issue, given the current market conditions? Then I have another question on stumpage.

T. Hromadnik: If I had to pull a six-shooter off my hip and give you an answer right now, it would be go

to quota, because right now the export tax is not doing what it's intended to do.

The other thing, Bob, is that we've got some internal economists that looked at the export tax versus the quota, and they said that the export tax will not be responsive enough to lumber prices. It won't get you what you want to get. This was their advice to us before we went into negotiations, and it looks like they're right. Like I said, I never argue with really smart people, so that is the situation we're facing.

B. Simpson: Yeah, and again, the Dunkleys and others would argue the counter-argument because it's punitive to some of them.

T. Hromadnik: There are senior members within the government ministries that would argue that as well, because there is the perception that it could limit our ability to deal with the mountain pine beetle problem. But if you look at recent shelf-life estimates, it's not ten years anymore; they're saying five. Maybe it's three now.

Do you want to sacrifice an industry for two years of salvage operations or to do something that I would consider more responsible?

B. Simpson: On the second question, then — with some leave from the Chair — on the stumpage system and the volume component. It all comes together. I heard loud and clear when I was down through the area that we need to recognize this area as a particular area like we recognize the coast. We differentiate the coast's operating costs and so on. It's time to do that down here.

But given what you're saying, you're going further in terms of that time frame of a couple of years, not being able to weather that kind of thing. We need an immediate intervention.

Would you say it's time for us to actually just take a look at forestry in general in this province and ask what the future holds? Not just curtail it to a few quick fixes here and there, but ask ourselves what the future of forestry looks like, and then reconfigure the playing field, if you will, for a future.

T. Hromadnik: It would be interesting to see a government policy statement on what they envision the industry looking like in a couple of years. That would be interesting. I'd be fearful of revisiting forestry in general because in 1995 we got the Forest Practices Code. Four years ago — whatever it was — we got FRPA. I don't want to go through that again.

I think there are two or three fundamental problems right now that we're faced with. They're not easy fixes, but they need to be fixed. We've got the Americans looking over our shoulder as well. I would be very interested in a policy statement from government saying: "This is what we envision our industry to look like in two to three years."

B. Bennett (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you very much. I'm sure you know that your local MLA is working feverishly on this behind the scenes, had a recent discussion with the minister and the deputy minister, and will continue to plug away on it.

B. Bennett (Chair): Our next witness is the Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce — the president of that organization, Denise Pallesen.

D. Pallesen: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairperson, ladies and gentlemen. As you know, I'm Denise Pallesen, and I'm representing the Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present our comments and suggestions to your committee regarding the budget and financial plans for the province of British Columbia.

We appreciate the opportunity that the government has given the citizens, businesses and concerned groups by holding these meetings throughout the province. We believe the budget should not be a band-aid solution, and I believe you're proving that by doing this and by taking our thoughts and concerns into consideration.

I have a couple of suggestions. May we suggest that the interest savings from the surplus revenue be utilized as a means of continuing to fund core services. Also, having a reserve is beneficial to a healthy economy and continues to have a positive effect on a province. At this point in time British Columbia is enjoying the second-lowest debt in the country, and we would ask that the provincial government continue to work toward this.

We will continue to request that the provincial government work toward lowering or harmonizing the social service tax. We feel that by lowering this tax, more money goes back into the consumers' pockets, which in turn increases spending, realizing a positive attitude and continued healthy economy.

By reducing reliance on this tax, a plan would need to be established, if that were feasible in your eyes. A suggestion would be to work toward this goal over the next ten to 15 years.

With respect to harmonizing the tax, it would be at a lower rate but affect a broader base of consumers, thereby increasing the amount of tax collected. Harmonizing would also simplify tax calculations for businesses.

Our chamber was asked in July by the Cranbrook mayor and council to survey our membership with respect to requests by the labour council to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour. Our survey showed that our members felt that a $2-per-hour increase

would be more than they could afford. They did not oppose a wage increase, simply one that would cost them 25 percent more.

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has also expressed serious concern over the Leader of the Opposition's call for this increase as bad for small business. The chamber expressed concern that the commitment to cut the small business tax rate to 3.5 percent to offset this cost significantly underestimates the cost to small business of a 25-percent increase in the minimum-wage level.

The provincial consultation paper has suggested that environmental issues are one of the main themes for the coming budget. May we suggest that a plan be formulated to give tax breaks to start recycling in the area to municipalities that do not currently offer recycling. This would aid the province in their goal to reduce B.C.'s current greenhouse gas levels by 2020 and set the course for a greener future.

The Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce would like to thank the provincial government for continuing to work toward a very healthy economy. We have seen the landscape change from very little opportunity and huge debt to what we enjoy today.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thanks, Denise. I appreciate the conciseness of that presentation.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Denise, for your presentation. I'd just like to perhaps clarify your third paragraph. You talk about the lowest debt in the country, which I think has been a constant for some period of time. But you say that rather than put the surplus towards further reducing that debt, it should go towards core programs? That's how I read it.

D. Pallesen: I'm so sorry. There's a balance. Now, what that balance is, I'm not sure. It depends on what the government decides it wants to do. This was merely a suggestion that it could be done that way.

J. Horgan: So if you were selecting the balance, what would your balance be?

D. Pallesen: I think that in order to give you a percentage, I would have to know exactly what the surplus was, what we needed for infrastructure — all those sorts of things.

I don't have a percentage balance. I'm sorry. That's more than I would be comfortable suggesting.

R. Hawes: Just a quick question on your last point. Actually, first, for my own mind and further to John's question, you're suggesting the interest savings from surplus revenue utilizes the means…. So I'm assuming that when you're saying "interest savings," you're saying: "First reduce the debt, and then use the interest savings to fund core services."

You're talking here about municipalities which do not offer recycling getting tax breaks. I'm not sure what tax breaks you're talking about. I live in a municipality that has recycling, and as a taxpayer, I paid for it. I'd be a little miffed, actually, if the government jumped in and said: "You paid for yours, but now through your provincial taxes, you'll pay for other cities as well so that their taxpayers can get a break."

D. Pallesen: I understand what you're saying. To be honest with you, I hadn't realized that you were being taxed for it. I have lived in Cranbrook for, I guess, too many years, and I hadn't done my homework. I didn't realize that it was added on as a tax.

I'm just trying to think of ways that might encourage smaller centres who don't have a large tax break — if something could be done to help them initiate this type of recycling and cutting back into greenhouse gases.

Yes, certainly, once it's up and running, then tax the people. I don't think anyone has an issue with that. To me, it would be the capital costs involved — or maybe not capital costs, but the costs involved in setting something like that up.

J. Kwan: I was going to ask the question about core services, but given that you don't have an answer for us on that, I'll move on to another area.

Earlier today — and also, actually, throughout the province as we travel — two key issues emerged both from chambers of commerce and other organizations as well. One was on the labour skills–shortage front and the concern around that and the need for the government to step up to help address the pending crunch and the crisis that's already here.

I wonder whether or not the chamber of commerce here has a point of view around that and what your opinion is that the government should be doing to address the labour skills shortage.

Supplementary to that is the issue around the lack of child care spaces. Earlier today we took a tour with one of the deans at the college. One of the things that he advised me was that it was difficult for Cranbrook to attract people to the community because of the lack of child care spaces. In fact, they've also lost skilled people because of the lack of spaces in the community. We also had a presentation from an early childhood development worker who advised us of that crisis.

Does the chamber of commerce have a point of view around child care services and the need for the government to step up with, perhaps, a universal child care program or some mechanism to address this crisis, to help allow for workers to enter into the workforce and to also attract people to Cranbrook?

D. Pallesen: I agree that child care services is an area that everyone needs to look at, not just the government. It doesn't appear to be a job or a business that many people want to open up. Possibly, the government could look at introducing more incentives. I know they've worked very hard up to this point.

I don't know if part of the issue in Cranbrook isn't because we are a smaller town. We don't have the reserves that larger centres have, as far as skilled workers to open up a child care home. It's expensive. I'm not familiar with the credits that they get at this point in time, to be honest with you. But, yes, we certainly have to do something about child care.

Even for the mid- to higher-income earners it would cost quite a bit of money for a month of child care. My understanding is that it's about $700, which if you're making good coin is not out of the ordinary, but if you have two or three children, you're taking skilled workers out of our workforce to look after their children, because they can't afford it.

That's something that could be addressed. That's not in my presentation so that's just from the chamber's point of view.

B. Simpson: With respect to the consultation around a green budget, I guess I'm curious what the chamber's position is on the relationship between recycling and greenhouse gas reductions — that being the only thing that it is being suggested municipalities need help with.

Are there other things that the chamber would support municipalities getting assistance with in order to reduce their carbon footprint, beyond recycling?

D. Pallesen: At this point our chamber has not addressed that issue. As far as the B.C. chamber is concerned I would have to check with them to find out what their footprint is for the entire province. We're just suggesting, from our chamber and district, a possible way to start a recycling program to get us into the greenhouse gases, to lower it.

We're talking basic elements here. We don't have the base for the taxes, like was suggested.

B. Simpson: So as a chamber…. One of the things that we're getting feedback on is that small and medium-sized businesses are going to have to struggle with reducing their carbon emissions. Often when you come in with programs as grand as a climate change program, large corporations, large organizations get the benefits. Small and medium-sized ones tend to get left behind.

As a chamber, I just find it surprising that you're talking about tax breaks — and we're trying to figure out what the tax breaks for municipalities might even look like for something like recycling — rather than a program that comes forward and says: here's what we would like small and medium-sized business assistance to be to get their emissions down.

I think that would be very helpful for us to understand what that might look like.

D. Pallesen: Okay. If you like, I can put something together and e-mail it to you.

D. Pallesen: I don't have anything at my fingertips, but I don't mind putting that together.

B. Simpson: Jacqueline at the back can tell you how to get that to us. That would be great.

B. Bennett (Chair): Denise, there was a survey that I read just last week that shows Canadians think that something ought to be done about greenhouse gases, as that relates to climate change. But in the same survey, although the majority of people said they thought something should be done, the majority of people also said they didn't want it to be a cost to them.

I reflect back to when the city of Cranbrook proposed water meters on all new homes. There was such a fuss created, such blowback, that they decided not to do that, not to force developers and homebuilders to put in water meters.

I'm just wondering. I know that you can't give me a scientific answer on this, because I assume you haven't polled your members. As a small business owner yourself and as president of the local chamber of commerce, is small business prepared at some level, do you think, to treat the containment of greenhouse gases as a cost to their business?

D. Pallesen: From my own personal point of view as a small business owner, I would say yes. This is not something that is going to blow over. We need to address it, and the longer we leave it, the harder it's going to be.

Now I might be speaking out of turn, but if it's not expensive, I think the small and medium businesses would go for that sort of thing. I think that the chambers at large would do that.

I can just give you my own opinion. I would certainly do that, because I think we need to address it, and the sooner we address it, I think, the cheaper it's going to be.

D. Hayer: Denise, thank you very much for your presentation. I have a question about your population base. You see the economy in British Columbia, in most places, really booming and the population growing. How is it in this town? Is the population starting to grow again, or is it still going downwards? Have you seen the businesses also starting to prosper, or they are still stable?

D. Pallesen: I think this area is growing. We can't seem to pin our population down. It's somewhere between 18,000 and 20,000 — I think closer to 20,000 at this point. It's just gone up in the last few years. Our housing is at an all-time high. The growth is at an all-time high. Development is at an all-time high.

I think that you'll see this area turn from one of the hidden treasures of the province to an international area. I think that business is growing. I see nothing but positive growth, positive comments from my members. Our chamber is experiencing a higher membership than we have had in the last few years.

All in all, yes, our corner of the world is growing and developing. We have a drawing power of 50,000 people. It might be a little bit higher than that. Our shopping or our service sector services from Golden right through to Creston and up to Sparwood, so it's a fairly large area. Yes, we are definitely growing.

J. Kwan: This is just a follow-up question from Bill. Your response to his question was: "If it's not expensive." This is in terms of small business contribution towards a greenhouse tax, I guess, of some formula.

What would you deem to be inexpensive? What is the range in terms of that figure that you'd be talking about?

D. Pallesen: I couldn't give you a specific dollar amount. I think it depends on what it would cost our municipality to do that sort of thing, based against the number of businesses we have in town. There'd be a number of different criteria that you'd have to take into effect.

As far as a certain dollar amount, I don't know. If it cost $50,000, divide that amongst the businesses. It's a low amount. If it's $200,000, divide that. Okay, now it's a little bit higher. Then we have to look at how we're going to handle this. I think it depends on what the cost would be.

I'm sorry. I'm unfamiliar with what it would cost to set something like this up in a community of our size. So as for a hard and fast dollar amount, I don't know. I can't say that a hundred dollars would be too little or $5,000 would be too much. It might be somewhere…. And it depends on what services we're going to be receiving.

B. Bennett (Chair): Denise, thank you very much. I think your members will be pleased with that answer. You obviously don't know what small business would be prepared to pay, but you've given us your best personal guesstimate, I guess, that small business is prepared to pay something.

Mike, I understand that you're here on your own time and that you're not here representing BDO Dunwoody, although I know that's where you are employed.

Good afternoon. I'm a chartered accountant here with BDO Dunwoody. Because I am in the business I am in and have the diverse clients that I do work with, I wanted to come and speak, share my thoughts with respect to a few topics that I've seen impact many of our clients.

In the past six years the East Kootenay region has seen significant economic improvements, such as the drop in the unemployment rate of 3½ percent in the five-year period of 2001 to 2006. Interest and increase in investment in entrepreneurial activity have gone up, with incorporations almost doubling in that period as well. The number of business establishments has gone up about 14 percent in that same period.

There have been a lot of positive economic changes that have happened over the last six years, and this is due in part to the lower tax rates as well as the provincial pro-growth policies.

Although there was a small increase in the population in the East Kootenay in 2006, which is the first in the past ten years, our population in that five-year period has declined by 1.7 percent, while the province's population has grown by almost 6 percent.

As our region borders Alberta, a province with no provincial debt, no provincial sales tax and low income tax, our area in the East Kootenay faces challenges and feels effects that most British Columbians do not.

It's important that the provincial government is mindful of Alberta and ensures that we remain competitive, as the lower business and lower personal tax rates are important in attracting investment and workers to the province and to this area.

With the vibrant economy that we have here, there are many sectors where there is a shortage of labour, as with other areas around the province. It's not just one. It ranges from trades people and other professionals, and it will only get worse, obviously, as the population ages. So it's important to continue increasing spaces for post-secondary students as well as providing other incentives and tax relief.

One positive step is the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement that's signed with Alberta. If it works as intended, it will reduce the barriers to trade and increase the ability to work in the province and, hopefully, alleviate some of the labour shortages.

I'm fortunate in my profession that I can go anywhere and not have the restrictions. For instance, my wife is a teacher. She comes over here, and she has to take courses which deter some of these teachers, in her case, from continuing on with that career path. Some potential teachers have now stopped teaching.

Sales tax harmonization is another area where I think it would assist the small business sector in becoming more competitive. While the government is not in a position to eliminate the sales tax, I believe it would ease the administrative burden of the PST on the small businesses if it is harmonized with GST.

As a number of taxpayers already file both PST and GST returns, sales tax harmonization is not only beneficial administratively but financially as well. It allows the business owner to invest more of their time as well as cash, if they don't have to record and file PST returns or pay somebody else to do it — a tax adviser or their bookkeeper.

To deal with the broader base if the GST does apply, such as children's clothing where no PST is charged, we recommend you could increase the B.C. child tax credit — it be adjusted — and/or the sales tax credit be used to alleviate some of the additional tax that lower-rate taxpayers may incur as a result of this. The harmonization would also reduce the administration cost to the provincial government.

As with the PST, the government is not likely in a position to eliminate the estate or property transfer tax. However, there may be, again, some opportunities to alleviate some financial burden on taxpayers.

As one can see, the real estate market is quite active in the province. This area, as well, has picked up quite a bit. So the tax is not a deal-breaker. There is still lots of activity there. Currently, that tax is 1 percent on the first $200,000 and 2 percent on the balance. The value of houses has gone up substantially over that since it was first brought into legislation. Now it's difficult for many people to find housing under the $200,000 limit.

One thought would be for the government to look at possibly increasing that 1-percent threshold a little bit, similar to last year where it was done for the first-time homebuyers.

Finally, another topic that we see a fair bit is with respect to probate fees. Although the fees are not as costly as, say, income tax on death with respect to a taxpayer's estate, it does have significant implications on the taxpayers. Psychologically, they don't like it, and they don't want to pay it.

We have seen numerous situations where taxpayers have taken steps to avoid probate fees, such as unnecessarily transferring their assets to children, which creates negative tax implications to them now, and other issues with respect to ownership of assets and family law.

It's also, potentially, another area where it can maybe become a little more competitive with Alberta. The maximum probate fee in Alberta is $6,000 for a million-dollar estate or more. It's capped at that limit, whereas in B.C., if you're looking at a million-dollar estate, the probate fees could be in excess of $13,000.

In conclusion, we've seen lots of positive changes since 2001 with respect to the economy and lots going on. I believe it's important to continue to stay the course and not do anything too drastic, like slashing the income taxes, or if there's a large surplus, pay down the debt.

It's good to have a balanced plan, I believe, to sustain the economic growth for years — a plan where the debt is gradually paid down; capital projects are invested in annually; and the provincial, personal and corporate income tax rates are monitored to stay competitive, particularly with Alberta.

All of those areas will have a positive impact on East Kootenay residents and British Columbians as a whole for the present day and years to come. That concludes my presentation.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Mike. We appreciate your taking the time on Thanksgiving weekend to put together a submission for the committee.

R. Hawes: Thanks, Mike. Just one quick question. The last presenter spoke in opposition to any consideration of increasing the minimum wage to $10. There's quite a movement provincially to do that.

While today the economy is pretty hot and not many people are making, perhaps, less than $10, if the economy were to cool down, what do you think would be the perspective from your clients with respect to a change in the minimum wage?

M. Calder: Yeah, like you say, it is pretty good right now. The economy is good. However, one of the bigger industries in our area is the forest industry, which has taken a bit of a hit. So we'd see a fair bit of that.

If it continues similarly with other sectors, I think a wage increase probably would have a negative effect. If the economy does cool down, the margins may not be as good as they used to be. There's lots of competition out there, which possibly is taking away a bit of their margins. If the wage comes in, then it might negatively impact them if it's a slower economy down the road.

J. Kwan: As long as we're talking about wages, let me ask this question of you.

Earlier today we had a presentation from the child care sector which advised that the average early childhood development worker is getting paid about $12.50. Now they're starting to lose their staff, because obviously, other sectors are attracting highly skilled people into different sectors and creating a situation whereby not only is there a lack of space in terms of child care spaces for people looking for child care services for their families, but also, they are having a harder and harder time retaining workers and attracting workers into the field.

Other delegations that we have met with also advise that in fact, they have fewer students coming into the program to get trained, because it is simply not one that pays well, even though they love the opportunities

which the job offers. Do you have a point of view on whether or not the wages for early childhood development workers should be increased?

Just by way of an example, the presentation illustrates that in Cranbrook, child care spaces have actually dropped significantly from 2006 to today, from 1,650 to 1,144 — a significant drop in terms of spaces. Information that was given to us illustrates that there is a need right now for over 3,000 spaces here in the Cranbrook region, the East Kootenay region, where there are only 800-and-some spaces available.

To that end, what do you think should be done, if anything, by anybody to create the spaces, to attract the workers and to retain the workers so that people can enter into the workforce to keep the economy competitive?

M. Calder: Yeah, we see that a bit with different clients or even in our profession. We're short-staffed. It's a vicious circle, I think. Child care workers…. Wage obviously would attract more people to enter into the profession. There is a big-time need for it here. Then that's also going to drive up the day care costs.

What the answer is, I don't really know. I think they obviously need to attract more people. Usually it is by increasing the wage to get people in there. We see in our profession where the students are driving up the wages because there is a shortage, and usually, that's what gets more people into it.

The other thing is if there are tax benefits, or tax relief, maybe, for those types of students. But then to specifically keep those people here with a tax credit — to isolate those ones — would be challenging as well, I think, because everybody's looking for work in the various industries.

J. Kwan: Can I just follow up with one other, please? Would a universal program put forward by the province to address the child care crisis that's happening across British Columbia make sense to you? That would be to invest some of the $4.6 billion surplus into a universal child care program for the province. Would that make sense to you?

M. Calder: Yeah, I think that would be an option for sure. I think that to get more people in there and to get more…. If that'll get more child care workers out there — to get more people back working, to reinvesting in the economy — it could definitely be a good option. That then might get more people out in the workforce themselves and generate more income, as well, in reinvesting and paying it back in.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Mike. Appreciate your presentation, and hope you didn't spend the whole Thanksgiving weekend working on it.

R. Jackson: I'm going to read from a condensed version of the written submission that you have because I couldn't possible read that in ten minutes.

My name is Robert Jackson. I'm here this afternoon on behalf of the Castlegar and District Community Services Society, of which I'm the board chair.

I think you heard a submission from the Kootenay Boundary Regional Resources Co-op earlier today. That gives a broad picture of the situation that we face as one organization. I want to try and tell you how one organization is affected by underfunding. I think it's possible to generalize from this to many other small non-profit social service agencies in the province.

Castlegar and District Community Services Society is a non-profit community social service agency that has served the Castlegar area for 27 years. A total of 12 employees deliver or support its services, of whom five are full-time. In addition, 44 unpaid volunteers provide assistance with fundraising, administrative support and various program areas. Our primary interest is, of course, supporting our clients.

Most of our work lies in delivering services under contract with the provincial government to people of all ages who have economic, social or psychological vulnerabilities or who are at risk of falling victim to such pressures. Rather than list our programs, I have provided our Programs at a Glance brochure, and I think everybody should have a copy of that.

As a community-based agency, we offer clients the reassurance of dealing with counsellors or advocates who are themselves part of the community. In addition, we're able to identify and, given the resources, respond to community needs. We're well placed to develop partnerships with local governments and with other non-profit organizations through the community social planning council.

Examples of our response to community needs are the volunteer driver program, now funded by Interior Health and expanded to Trail, Nelson and Castlegar; the HandyHands program, supported by local fundraising; and the Dinners at Home program, in partnership with Interior Health.

In 2000-2001 provincial government contract payments amounted to 95 percent of the society's total revenue. In '06-07 it was 74 percent, while the number of files opened under government and health authority programs has increased by approximately one-third. In other words, the society is doing a lot more with a lot less. One consequence is that resources that would otherwise go to community initiatives are used to subsidize provincially funded programs.

The table on page 2 of my written submission summarizes the financial changes over the last seven years.

The only cost for us that has dropped significantly is the cost of housing, and that is because we own our building, after paying rent and GST on the rent and full property taxes for about 16 years. But a good deal of the difference is eaten up by having full responsibility for maintenance and upgrades. As an old, energy-gobbling building, it requires a lot of both. But we

believe that a safe, accessible, efficient and comfortable building is necessary so that staff can work effectively and clients feel welcome.

Staff wages and benefits aside, many of the agency's operating costs are not the direct result of the number of programs it provides or the amount of funding they bring in. These so-called fixed costs in fact are subject to inflationary pressures over which the agency has little control and may well exceed usual measures of the cost of living.

To make the struggle worse for us, ministries have arbitrarily decided that administration should cost no more than 10 percent of a contract price. This was unrealistic to begin with and is even more so now that it is 10 percent of a contract price that is actually less in real dollars. The effect on the agency's ability to deliver services will soon be dire.

In response to diminishing revenue, Community Services Society first cut costs. We cut a reception area position. We managed to buy our building, as I mentioned before, through the generosity of a variety of donors, both corporate and individual. Beyond the reception position, the agency looked at other administrative costs.

Secondly, we stepped up fundraising in the community and elsewhere to cover operating and capital costs. Capital aside, the money collected supported administrative functions that overlapped into the area of contracted programs — thus, our claim that CDCSS fundraising is subsidizing government programs.

Fundraising faces very serious competition, and fundraising itself is not cheap. Residents receive endless solicitations for funds, and businesses tell us that they're approached five or six times a week for support. Despite these impediments, we have come very close to our modest fundraising goals, but it's clear that passing the hat is not going to save our services or serve our clients in the long run.

In August this year we learned that the long-promised non-union wage settlement, retroactive to April 1, 2006, was finally to be awarded in the amount of 1.6 percent a year, but with no provision for the signing bonuses government gave its own employees.

In the meantime, staff have joined the BCGEU and are now under the master collective agreement. I tend to be amazed that they were patient for so long over the meagre wage adjustments and benefit rollbacks of the previous seven years.

Some staff, however, departed because other employers, including government agencies, offered better compensation, and it became very difficult to recruit replacements.

I should add that some staff were also lost because programs were "repatriated" by the contracting agencies. An example is adult drug and alcohol counselling, which was taken back by Interior Health under its mental health programs.

Unionization is a two-edged sword. Our compensation is now comparable to the public sector, which may help us to retain staff. On the other hand, it imposes extra costs. The cost of negotiating the local provisions of the collective agreement is estimated at $40,000. And none of the agency's government funders are willing to fund the increased labour costs under the master agreement. In effect, the agency is being penalized for its workers joining a union.

Community Services is now looking at service cuts. The first casualty will be Dinners at Home, the partnership with the Interior Health Authority which provides low-cost frozen meals and is a boon to seniors and people with disabilities but which has been a consistent money-loser. Soon we will be looking at cuts to contracted services, and the impact will be felt widely among clients and in the community.

Our services can be described as preventative, corrective or supportive. A significant aspect of their success is a reduced community need to deal with criminal or other misbehaviour, with a corresponding reduction in the cost of police and other machinery of justice. Not only will cuts to services be detrimental to individuals and families that have to wait much longer for help, if they can get it at all, but to the whole community.

In conclusion, if Castlegar and District Community Services is to continue providing services on behalf of government, it needs a 39-percent increase in the overall amount paid under each contract to compensate for the ground lost since 2000, to guarantee the same level of service and to provide for new and pending obligations, such as accreditation.

Within each contract, fund the real cost of administering the programs and maintaining an office, which we estimate to be 18 percent to 20 percent of the contract. Fund wages and benefits imposed by the collective agreement, and commit to doing so in the future. Engage in multi-year contracts with a commitment to annual inflation indexing.

Before renewal, review with the agency the real costs of administering and delivering services, and negotiate funding adjustments accordingly upon renewal. Develop consistent policies between ministries with respect to contract language, funding and renewal procedures.

We believe that these reforms are easily affordable, given the government's financial situation. They are also necessary so that the clients who deserve and need government programs can continue to receive them.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. I appreciate that you've had and will receive a lot of information from many sources during your hearings and deliberations, and we're grateful that we can be part of that process.

D. Hayer: What will the total cost be of what you're asking for — the total budget?

R. Jackson: Totalled — you want a dollar cost. I'm not sure I can give you that because I haven't worked it out. It's not in my long presentation. I'm sorry. I can't

J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Robert. That was a very good presentation and one that covered an awful lot of bases in a short period of time.

We have heard similar presentations in other communities as we've been travelling, but you're the first one to raise, at least within earshot of me, the possibility that collective agreements will not be funded by particular agencies that are responsible for them. Could you expand on that a little bit?

R. Jackson: We have approached the ministries that fund our programs — the Ministry of Children and Families, the Ministry of Community Services, the Ministry of Solicitor General — and have been told that no, they won't fund these increases because we came into the master agreement while it was already in effect.

J. Kwan: One of the programs that would be on the chopping board if you don't get additional funding from the government — you mentioned it here — is the Dinners at Home service. Do you have any sense what a program like that, which provides services for seniors and people with disabilities, would save in terms of cost analysis for the government — in terms of home support services?

R. Jackson: I don't know that I could do that without getting into the realm of speculation. There are many people who use that service. We understand that some of them are seniors who buy their own meals. Some of them are children of seniors who will buy them cases of meals. These meals come in cases of 16, normally. Some of them are purchased by people who are just out of the hospital, perhaps, and are not yet able to prepare meals for themselves. Some of them may be simply purchased by people as a convenience.

In my own mind, I think that if this service was to cease, it would become difficult for some of those clients to eat at least one good meal a day. That could put them at risk of either needing increased home support or possibly even needing acute care, winding up in emergency rooms and getting into the health care system that way.

R. Hawes: Just on the same topic, Mr. Jackson — the Dinners at Home program. I take it from reading your presentation that it's actually funded by the Interior Health Authority. Is that…?

R. Jackson: Well, it's not funded…. The way it works is that Interior Health Authority sells us the meals at $5 each — these are frozen meals — and we sell them to the clients at $6 each. Out of that dollar difference we have to cover all of our costs, including the cost of a coordinator for the program — we had a freezer donated — the costs of publicizing the program in the community. Those would be the major ones.

R. Hawes: So in their case, they do provide 20 percent administrative coverage.

R. Jackson: Yeah, they do, but the $6 sales price is fixed by Interior Health. The $5 price that we pay is fixed by them. These meals are frozen. They come from the Penticton Hospital kitchen, I believe. And they're not hospital food. I've tasted them. They're okay.

B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson. We know you don't live in the area. We appreciate your coming and presenting to us today.

B. Bennett (Chair): That concludes the formal portion of our hearing today. We now go into the open-mike portion of the hearing. We have one person who has expressed interest in presenting during the open-mike portion.

A. Goertzen: I didn't plan on speaking today, so I kind of wrote this up during the whole thing. I was hoping somebody would be here with letters behind their name and something brilliant to say on this issue, but you're left with me. In one word, it's housing.

My name is Andrea Goertzen. I work for the Free Press in Fernie. Recently I've been working on a story regarding the lack of affordable housing in my community, and I'm here today as a concerned citizen. Recently I've had the opportunity to meet with federal MP Jim Abbott, and I've spoken with Minister Taylor, and she recommended that I bring my concerns here.

I know I don't need to tell any of you about the housing crisis that we're facing across the province, but what I can tell you about is how it's affecting my community and many long-term residents of my community — the most vulnerable residents in the community. With the owners of two low-income apartment complexes recently evicting our most vulnerable citizens and a zero-percent vacancy rate in Fernie, our community is faced for the first time with the possibility of approximately 30 people being homeless come October 31.

I just simply want to say that there has to be more funding for affordable housing. I've heard a lot today about wages and not enough people to fill jobs. I actually talked to Mr. Abbott regarding this and regarding the foreign worker program. My concern — and I asked him — is: where are these people going to live when they come into our communities?

I earn $12.91 an hour at my job. I love my job. I qualify for low-income housing. There's no middle ground for me to go in my community. There is a two-tiered society now, and our mayor will admit to that. There are the very wealthy — houses go for at least $350,000 up to a million and a half for some of the new developments — and there's low income.

Theoretically, I could move into a mid-ground and open up a space for one of these people who are on social assistance, disabled and unable to work, but there's nowhere for me to go. Mr. Abbott's response to that was that I should probably get a better job, maybe a PR job where I could earn more money and have a better quality of life.

With that said, I've done some research on the Internet with the United Nations:

Basically, I'm here on behalf of those who can't speak for themselves adequately. We need help. I'm not willing to sit back and see 30 members of my community out on the street. Their families helped build our community. Now with all the new development and everything coming in, there's nowhere for them to go.

I implore this government to help us. Everyone needs a place to live. We can talk about jobs, we can talk about everything, but we need shelter.

B. Bennett (Chair): Well, you got it within five minutes. We appreciate that, but given the content of your submission, we certainly would have given you more time if you needed it.

We don't ordinarily have questions in this section of our hearing. I can tell you that I think everybody on this committee recognizes that this is a — if not the — big social issue in the province today.

The one that you speak of I am intimately familiar with, and I'm certainly going to do my best as the local MLA to make sure nobody is out on the street. Your mayor and I are working together to try and turn over every stone to try and figure out what we can do to assist.

To some extent, Andrea, we're a victim of our own success in the province and in this region. We have been discovered. All these folks are bringing their oil money over here from Alberta and driving up the cost of real estate. It's created this unforeseen circumstance and many others as well — pressure on the land and so forth.

We do appreciate the fact that you stayed here all day long today and prepared your submission on this. I'm grateful that you did that, and I'm sure the committee has listened to every word that you've said.

I have reasonably good peripheral vision, so I can see that Jenny Kwan would really like to ask you a question. I'm going to let her.

I think Andrea's point of view is shared by many British Columbians and certainly by the opposition caucus. There's no doubt about that.

Since 2002 in the province we've experienced homelessness rates more than double, not just in the lower mainland where I come from but really across the province, as you're experiencing now in your own community.

Of course, since 2002 we also have what we call a housing gap that's been created. That is to say, a Homes B.C. program that used to exist was cancelled. As a result, some 3,700 units of affordable housing have not been built since that time for the province that would have otherwise been built had Homes B.C. been in place. Even if the government announced 4,000 units today, they would just about come close to making up the housing gap created in the province since 2002.

My question, then, is this. Would it be a good start for the government to commit today and for the Finance Committee to recommend that the government reinstitute the Homes B.C. initiative and build 4,000 units of affordable housing across British Columbia to avert a homelessness crisis that we now experience in this province, and to continue to have a Homes B.C.–like program in the future?

I know very little about the politics behind all of this, and I wish that I could sit here and give you recommendations myself. All I can do is say that we need this. You guys all know better than I how we can solve this problem. I'm just bringing it to you on behalf of the people who need it desperately.

B. Bennett (Chair): As Chair, I appreciate the fact that you don't want to politicize this issue — that it is more important than politics. With that, again, we do appreciate the presentation that you made to us today. Thank you.

Committee members, ladies and gentlemen, I think that concludes our meeting today. We are adjourned.

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.

1)	Kathy Bonell
2)	Ingrid Liepa
3)	College of the Rockies	Dr. Nick Rubidge
4)	Kootenay Boundary Regional Resources Cooperative	Andrew Jarrett
5)	Kathy Clarke
6)	Tembec Industries Inc.	Chris Stagg Troy Hromadnik Tom Kirk
7)	Cranbrook and District Chamber of Commerce	Denise Pallesen
8)	Mike Calder
9)	Castlegar and District Community Services Society	Robert Jackson
10)	Andrea Goertzen

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES