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

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES Thursday, October 11, 2007 9 a.m. Salish Room, Holiday Inn Express Hotel and Suites 15808 104th Avenue, Surrey

5. The Committee adjourned at 4:48 p.m. to the call of the Chair.
 

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

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON 
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1485 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2007

           The committee met at 9:03 a.m.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I just want to warn you that we are on the air. All of your comments are now being recorded.

           My name is Bill Bennett, and I'm the MLA for East Kootenay. I chair the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Since, Susan, you are our audience this morning, I'm not going to run through all of the things that I normally run through. We're very pleased to have you here this morning. I am, however, going to ask the members to introduce themselves.

           R. Lee: Good morning, Susan. I'm Richard Lee, as you know — MLA for Burnaby North.

           I. Black: Good morning, Susan. Nice to see you. My name is Iain Black. I'm the MLA for Port Moody–Westwood.

           J. Horgan: Good morning. I'm John Horgan, MLA for Malahat–Juan de Fuca.

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

           D. Hayer: Good morning, Susan. I'm Dave Hayer, MLA for Surrey-Tynehead. Welcome to Surrey-Tynehead. This is my constituency that you're speaking in. To the whole committee, welcome to Surrey-Tynehead.

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

           Susan, we also have Harry Bloy, who has just stepped out for a minute. I see his coffee is steaming there, so I know he's here. Jenny Kwan will be here, and Randy Hawes will also be here, possibly during your presentation. They're driving in.

           You can proceed.

Presentations

           S. Lambert: Thank you for allowing me to represent 41,000 B.C. teachers here today.

           Your question that you are posing is: "What choices would you make for a greener future?" Of course, the choice that the B.C. Teachers Federation and educators across this province would make is to prepare citizens for that greener future. To do that, you have to have citizens who are capable and knowledgable, who have an ability to critically analyze and then take agency to shape a better world, a greener world, a more environmentally sustainable world.

[0905]

           That means the education system has to be robust. We're very proud of the education system that we have built in this province. We believe it may be the best in the world, so when we see funding policies and education practice policies that seem to undermine that quality, we get very anxious and concerned.

           I'm not going to walk you through the brief. You can read it at your leisure, but I'm going to kind of scan it. Bill 33, as a result of our 2005 two-week strike in this province, was an attempt to address the worsening class-composition and class-size conditions in schools. Summarily, I think we have found it to be a broken promise.

           Although there were gains to be made at the elementary level through the class-size provisions of Bill 33, the promise to cap the number of children with special needs in each class at three has largely been broken. There has been a sign-off across the province last year for classes with four or more students who have special needs. I think the number is 9,559 classes with four or more children with special needs. It builds a cynicism when those classes are deemed as educationally sound.

           We're asking this committee to revisit the promise to review Bill 33. When Bill 33 was presented to the House, the promise that was inherent in that passage was that after a year the legislation would be looked at, revised and reviewed through the Learning Roundtable process.

           Now we're finding that the revision is restricted to regulatory practices. There is no commitment to any kind of real revision of Bill 33. Teachers across the province are absolutely at the edge and are crying out to us and to you every day.

           I know Richard and Harry have probably read the Burnaby Now edition of a couple of days ago with the letter in it by Ila Chapman, a Burnaby teacher, talking about the conditions that are worsening in her classroom. She can no longer stand by mutely. I have an e-mail here from a Cowichan teacher who talks about the empty promise of Bill 33 and the absolute cynicism that is building for teachers around the legislative process in this province.

           We also had huge classes in secondary…. Secondary teachers are not even willing to comply anymore with the consultation process envisioned in Bill 33. They see it as an empty exercise that has no reward.

           There's no improvement to the numbers of special needs teachers. What we're now seeing is an absolute crisis in special education, where we cannot meet the needs of the children that we're teaching in our classrooms. If we want an inclusive education system where everyone takes agency in building a civil and greener society, we need to pay attention to those needs of the most vulnerable in schools.

           We do not want to segregate children with special needs. We feel that a collaborative, cooperative society is built when everyone participates in their local community public school. We do not want to see segregation happening. We want to include everyone, but we need the resources, the materials, the expertise and the support to address all those children with special needs. That means more resourcing, more targeted funding.

           In conclusion, what we are asking you to do is increase the budgets for public education in this province so that they match the kind of ratio we had in 1995. One wonders what's happened to the value system in

[ Page 1486 ]

the province. The provincial GDP that was spent on education in 1995 was 3.8 percent, and now we're down to 3.2 percent — a $980 million difference, if we were to value education today as much as we did in 1995.

           We are the highest jurisdiction across the country for pupil-teacher ratio — the highest pupil-teacher ratio in the country is in B.C. — and the only province to increase its pupil-teacher ratio over that intervening period.

[0910]

           We need targeted funding for students with special needs; we need to return to that system. We need to decrease the bureaucratic demands — the paperwork, the burden on the curriculum — that have increasingly got in the way of good teaching. We now get reports from classroom teachers and resource teachers. They cannot provide direct service to children until after November because of the bureaucratic burden and the paperwork they have to fill in.

           We need more funding. We need increased targeted funding for low-incidence children, those very rare and very vulnerable children. We need increased targeted funding for high-incidence children, those children in the grey areas who struggle with learning. We need to make sure that shops and lab classes are safe and that class sizes are kept down in those areas. We need more special non-enrolling teachers. I am a teacher-librarian. We need counsellors.

           We need to value public education in this province so that we can continue to be the most literate and have the best public education system in the world.

           I'd love to answer some questions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. I'm sure we're going to have lots of questions.

           J. Horgan: Thank you, Susan, for your presentation. Prior to the tabling and passage of Bill 33, the Premier and the Minister of Education made a commitment to an entity called the roundtable on education. There was much fanfare. There were a lot of cameras, front-page stories about commitment and passion about education. That was several passions ago, and I'm wondering if the round table continues to function.

           S. Lambert: It seemed to be the flavour of the month. We were very pleased to participate in the round table initially. The Premier chaired the round table, as you know — the first three or four meetings. We haven't seen the Premier lately. I haven't had a round table meeting this fall. We don't have one scheduled.

           The round table was designed and implemented to address class-size and composition issues. We would like it to reconvene, and we would like to bring to that table the utter frustration of teachers with Bill 33 — how it has not addressed the needs that we see in classrooms. We would call on the Premier to reconvene that table.

           I. Black: I take a bit of a different view in the characterization of some of your remarks, as you can imagine. Rather than challenge you on them, I want to ask you a little bit of a 90-degree-angle question, if you don't mind.

           When you speak of the targeted funding — I believe that was the phrase you used — whether it's for special needs educators, librarians, etc…. How do you reconcile that with a debate that I get into within my own community, where in my school district we're down about 8,000 kids and up about 17 percent in funding? Those numbers, on the face of them, certainly don't suggest that funding per se is the issue.

           We get into the issue of governance, where we've got a school board duly elected to make decisions on behalf of the local residents with respect to staffing in the school system — whether there should be five teachers in one school, four in another, 20 in another; whether there should be librarians in one school, dedicated music specialists or dedicated phys ed specialists, etc. We've got a duly elected body called the school board that makes those kinds of dedicated HR-type decisions on a school-by-school basis. That's what they're elected to do.

           How do you reconcile their responsibilities as duly elected and autonomous governing bodies with requests to the provincial body, which has the overseeing responsibility of executing the School Act for dedicated funding on a school-by-school basis with respect to that kind of dedicated funding request?

           S. Lambert: I think that the school boards are the community body and that strong and effective school boards are what we all want. The provincial government is the funding body. I think we have to set targets for the provision of basic services, and then we have to fund that so that school boards are able to implement that funding and provide those critical areas of service for children.

[0915]

           Neither level of government should be able to duck the responsibility of providing quality education to kids. If we say that it's not the province's responsibility to provide counsellors sufficient in number to meet the needs of children, and the school board says it does not have the funding to meet the needs of children, then where are the citizens to turn?

           Somebody has to take the responsibility. I believe there has to be adequate funding from the provincial level, and it has to be targeted. We used to have that in this province. That meant there was a standard provision of service across areas that were deemed valuable, I guess, through a public policy process, where we decided that counsellors, teacher-librarians and the services that we provided to children with special needs were valuable and needed to be protected.

           The province at that point said: "This is how we will protect them. This is the funding formula for this, and this is the funding formula for that." If you duck that responsibility and pull back on the funding envelope or the total dollars, then you'll inevitably come to the situation we're at today. In Cowichan, for example, the superintendent is saying that we certainly do not have educationally sound classrooms in that district.

           When you talk about funding being adequate…. You're talking about declining enrolment and such.

[ Page 1487 ]

The PTR would not go up if your funding was adequate.

           I have a household that used to be four people — two children and two adults. I spend the same today on that household of two. Both my kids have gone. You can't compare the costs today to the costs we had prior to declining enrolment, because costs have gone up. They've gone up, and they've eaten all of those dollars that we've saved through declining enrolment, because you've got inflation.

           It's beyond inflation. You have to maintain a building whether it has 400 children or 350 children, so it's very difficult to accrue the same kind of savings from the reduction in student numbers as you would, say, if you cut half a pie. It doesn't work that way. The ratio isn't the same.

           We have not increased education funding satisfactorily in this province to keep up with the increased costs. We need to do that. We need to give school boards sufficient funds so that they can provide the services.

           We need to target service levels so that we maintain an equity across the province and every child — whether they go to school in West Van, where they raise so many private dollars, or Prince Rupert, where the private supplement is not there — wherever they go, gets the same quality public education. When you do it another way, what you're doing is breeding inequity across the province.

           I. Black: I just want a clarification, if I may. I'm not sure I understood the answer.

           It was a passionate speech, but my question is: what is left for the school boards to do if the province starts dictating to them how they should be spending the money that we're giving them with respect to particular staffing elements? Are you not undermining the role of the school boards?

           S. Lambert: No, not at all. In fact, school boards were robust and community government was robust when the targeted funding was in place.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Fair enough. A good exchange. Thank you very much, Susan. There is obviously lots of interest at the table here, but we are out of time.

           S. Lambert: Thank you. Have a good day. I know it's a long one ahead of you.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thanks for getting up early to come in.

           Our next witness is the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board — Scott Olson and Debbie Jay.

           S. Olson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, for the opportunity to highlight the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board's recommendations. Your time and commitment to the consultation process is appreciated.

[0920]

           My name is Scott Olson. I'm a director at the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board and a working realtor in Surrey. I represent over 3,000 realtors who live and work in North Delta, White Rock, Surrey, Langley city and township, Abbotsford and Mission. I'm here with Debbie Jay, who is a communications coordinator at our board.

           We'd like to start to by thanking you for the housing initiatives contained in Budget 2007. Fraser Valley realtors believe that housing is the foundation of an individual's quality of life. Whether they own or rent, everyone — including children and families — needs and deserves housing that is safe, suitable and affordable. We support initiatives such as the expansion of the rental assistance program and the development of a housing endowment fund to support innovative housing solutions. These initiatives recognize the diverse housing needs of British Columbians.

           Along with the B.C. Real Estate Association, its 12 member boards and the 17,000 realtors across B.C., we applaud your efforts. We want to work with you to build a housing legacy in the province.

           In my presentation I'd like to talk to you about the three recommendations in our written prebudget submission on illegal drug operations, housing affordability and realtors' ability to form personal corporations.

           As you may know, the Fraser Valley Real Estate Board promotes high ethical and educational standards. Our members have the knowledge and expertise to help the public make one of the most important decisions of their lives. However, realtors often face an enormous challenge when trying to ensure that homes are safe and suitable.

           The proliferation of marijuana grow ops and meth labs, to name a few illegal drug operations, put the health and safety of children and families at risk. The RCMP estimate there are at least 20,000 homes being used as marijuana grow ops in the lower mainland. As you may know, marijuana grow ops usually contain mould, poisonous gas and chemicals. Often they also house electrical and fire hazards, and booby traps.

           Even when a grow op has been remediated, property owners are at risk of grow rips or home invasions by criminals looking for drugs. We're very concerned about the overall impact of illegal drug operations on the safety of individuals and families.

           We want to be able to confirm whether a property was used to produce drugs. However, obtaining access to this key information has proven difficult. Even when a property has been remediated, we do not know for sure if the property is suitable for our clients. That's because the standards of disclosure and remediation of illegal drug operations vary across municipalities, and privacy legislation limits the amount of information available.

           We recommend that the B.C. government coordinate a provincial task force to examine the best practices in making B.C. less attractive to those involved in illegal drug operations. We also recommend that you work with the police and municipal governments to standardize remediation and reporting of information on identified illegal drug operations for the protection of the quality of life of both residents and homebuyers.

[ Page 1488 ]

A strategy we would urge you to explore is passing legislation to exempt information on former illegal drug operations from provincial privacy legislation.

           In addition to being safe and suitable, realtors believe that housing should be affordable. Although we appreciate the many things you are already doing to make housing more accessible, home-ownership still remains firmly out of reach for people in the Fraser Valley. For example, the cost of an apartment in our area has gone up 101.2 percent since 2001; a townhouse, 84.2 percent; and a single-family detached home by 100.2 percent. These high prices have forced many individuals and families to make personal sacrifices and compromises in order to find a home.

           Here are a few more observations. More first-time homebuyers are buying a condo instead of a detached home, even though they may need the space for children and families. For many, getting into a detached home can only be made possible by accommodating a secondary suite. Some who can get into a detached home are giving up privacy to buy a home on a small lot in a dense community. Those who cannot afford to buy any type of home are forced to look for shelter in older rental buildings or secondary suites.

           We see that local governments are trying their best to provide more affordable housing options, but they need help. We feel there's an opportunity for the B.C. government to make housing more affordable in the province regardless of changing real estate prices.

[0925]

           We wish to remind you of our longstanding recommendation on the property transfer tax. We'd like to see you consider adjusting the tax's exemption threshold annually to reflect changes in the consumer price index as a possible strategy in further reducing the tax's burden on first-time homebuyers around the province, with a goal to eventually eliminate it altogether to enable families and individuals throughout B.C. to have access to more housing choices.

           The last topic we'd like to touch on involves realtors' ability to form personal corporations. We are encouraged by your ongoing discussions with the Real Estate Council of B.C. and B.C. Real Estate Association on this matter. However, we would love to see you introduce the enabling legislation in the near future.

           The ability to form personal corporations would allow us to plan for peaks and valleys in the local real estate market and attract newcomers to the profession. As many of our members consider retirement, we will need to encourage more young people to consider adopting real estate as a profession.

           This concludes our presentation. Please review our written prebudget submission for further details and our recommendations. Many of our recommendations support concerns already raised by the B.C. Real Estate Association. We thank you for listening and responding to our profession's concerns.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Scott. Dave Hayer has a question.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much, Debbie and Scott, for making a very good presentation.

           You talk about affordable housing. You talk about the property purchase tax, which is an issue. On the other hand, when I talk to many of my constituents, they also say that maybe the cities have to look at a different type of higher density to bring the pricing down, and probably smaller-sized lots and all that.

           Have you talked with the cities to see how they can also help? Even the property purchase tax cost…. Proportionally, it's much smaller than cases you have seen in the cost of the housing.

           S. Olson: Well, we have talked with cities and municipalities on an ongoing basis about this. There are things they can do as well, but when it comes down to it, the cost of the tax these days as compared to when it was first enacted many years ago…. The average price of a home was substantially less.

           I don't have the exact number, but I believe a house at that time was $85,000 to $90,000. The point where the tax jumped was to reflect the fact that people were buying a luxury home. Well, it hasn't changed in all these years, and a condo is over $200,000 now in many cases. There are people who are buying homes, where they're first-time buyers, but they don't get any benefit from the exemption at all, because the threshold is lower than the price that they are buying at. The simple fact is that it really needs to be reviewed and looked at.

           R. Hawes: I understand your point totally on the property tax, but along the same line as Dave…. Tomorrow, I think, Maureen Enser from the Urban Development Institute is going to come and speak to us. They have for a long time said that one of the biggest components of adding cost is the time delays that the development community often sees at the municipal level in getting subdivisions done, etc., and getting building permits in place.

           I'm wondering: are you also making submissions along those lines to municipalities to try to work with them — time is money — to get the time frame sped up somewhat?

           And then my second part of the question would be with respect to…. You've mentioned in here young families having to use secondary suites. Do you have a position on whether or not secondary suites should be actually encouraged as a form of lower-cost housing for some and as a mortgage helper for others?

           S. Olson: What was your first question again? Sorry, I only have room for one question in my mind.

           R. Hawes: Just whether you're also actively….

           S. Olson: Right, the municipalities. Thank you. Yes, we are talking to them. I mean, we talk about this on an ongoing basis, because you're absolutely right. The fact is that time is money. When you look at what a developer has to go through to take a project from start to finish…. On a larger site it can take two years. They

[ Page 1489 ]

spend a lot of money on development cost charges and that sort of thing.

[0930]

           Anything that can be done to speed up the process is obviously a good thing — right? So yes, to answer your question. We are talking at all levels. We'd like to see things speeded up as well as a reflection on the change in the property transfer tax.

           Everything helps. You can't look at one thing and say that this will solve all the problems. It's one piece of a larger puzzle, so we need change in a lot of venues. This is just the one we're targeting here.

           With respect to secondary suites, it's kind of a convoluted answer. The truth is that secondary suites came about when rental housing was not being built because of changes to the tax structure 20 years ago. There are not a lot of apartment buildings being built for rental housing, but people still need a home, so where do they go? What happens is that the market finds a way.

           Whether it's correct or not, legal or not, appropriate or not, people need housing. If prices go up, people find there's that space in the basement for that single mother. Is it right or wrong? Well, all I can say is that where it's legal, we support it. Where it's not legal, we have to discourage our clients from buying places where they know that their place could be shut down, because they could be put into a financial hardship.

           R. Hawes: I was curious whether the board had a position for those municipalities that are not running programs of regularizing basement suites. Are you encouraging them to do so?

           D. Jay: We don't have an official position. However, the city of Langley, for example, just started legalizing suites and encouraging people to do so by waiving some of the fees. We let our members know that that is happening, and we encourage them to take advantage of programs like that to legalize suites.

           S. Olson: Different cities do different things. Surrey, for example, is operating on a negative-billing campaign, so to speak. They will increase taxes on the property where they suspect there's a suite, and if you want your taxes reduced, you will call for an inspection. If you don't call for an inspection, it's a de facto admission that you have a suite.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You are asking for legislation to exempt information on former illegal drug operations from provincial privacy legislation. Just to get a sense of the problem, how do people find out, if at all, about the existence of a former drug operation on a property? Is it simply word of mouth or happenstance?

           S. Olson: That's probably the $64 question: how do they find out? To a certain extent, realtors can tell from seeing a place. In some places, it's obvious. The place is just ripped apart. Sometimes it's telltale signs, that you can see that there has been a grow op. Other times the property inspector will make some allusions, although they don't like to stake their reputation on it because they're not licensed to do that sort of thing.

           Really, we don't have any one way, and that's part of the problem. You see, as realtors, we are responsible to disclose to our clients the condition of a property, and we don't know. There's no standard throughout our area, throughout the province. What we would like is a standard method of reporting to us, so we can pass that information on.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Is there a practice of putting it on the property disclosure document that the realtor would prepare?

           S. Olson: That would be an interesting observation, if the person who has an illegal drug operation would put that on the disclosure.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): No, the former one.

[0935]

           S. Olson: The former one wouldn't know. If they do know, they should put it on — right? But they may not know, because when these people do an illegal grow operation, they will perform some surface remediation so it will look, to all intents and purposes, like a house ready for habitation. However, the damage is behind the walls. It's in the back yard. These people are criminals. Let's face it. They're not concerned about the health and welfare of people, so they'll throw the chemicals in the back yard.

           The short answer, then, is that we don't get the information in a manner that's satisfactory for us and for our clients. We're looking to you to help us do that.

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

           Our next witness is the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon Division, Cathy Adair and Kathryn Seely.

           Good morning.

           K. Seely: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to present our views today.

           My name is Kathryn Seely, and I'm the public issues manager. With me is Cathy Adair, who is the vice-president of strategic initiatives. We're here today representing the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. and Yukon Division.

           We are a national, community-based organization whose mission is to eradicate cancer and enhance the quality of life of those living with cancer. This committee is empowered to make recommendations on next year's fiscal policy and budget. Specifically, the committee wants to know how we can sustain health care and how we can make environmentally responsible choices.

           In our submission today our answer to you is twofold: firstly, invest more in prevention, and secondly, reduce environmental carcinogens.

[ Page 1490 ]

           Turning towards prevention, there are three submissions we'll make under that. One is in the area of tobacco control, one is in the area of physical activity, and one is in the area of colorectal cancer screening.

           Prevention has the biggest potential to reduce the burden of cancer. Up to 50 percent of cancers can be prevented by healthy living and by public policies such as smoke-free places and offering fruits and vegetables in school. I see you've got some apples at the front door. That's an excellent idea. Thank you.

           With respect to tobacco, we are reminded every day this month as we go into stores — and we've left some of these for you; I think you'll receive them at break or lunch — that this month is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Breast cancer takes its terrible toll, and we must do more to increase the prevention and treatment of breast cancer. But we cannot forget about the scourge of tobacco.

           Tobacco is responsible for 30 percent of cancer deaths, 85 percent of lung cancers. More people die from lung cancer annually than breast cancer. Each year 6,000 British Columbians die from tobacco. It costs the economy $2.3 billion.

           We commend this government because it did recently adopt Bill 10, or the new tobacco control act. However, the Canadian Cancer Society would like to see the new tobacco control act strengthened in three places.

           Firstly, sales of cigarettes should be banned from pharmacies. Places of health should not be allowed to sell products which kill when used directly as intended.

           Secondly, smoking ought to be banned from the patios of hospitality suites, bars and restaurants. We now know that outdoor smoke drifts as far as seven metres, just as much as it drifts indoors. Outdoor secondhand smoke is as dangerous as drifting indoor secondhand smoke.

           Thirdly, the proposed regulation is proposing a buffer zone of three metres, which is not evidence-based. We are proposing that that buffer zone be increased to 7.5 metres. Two weeks ago at the Union of British Columbia Municipalities the delegates endorsed a resolution coming from White Rock that asked the provincial government to increase the buffer zone to 7.5 metres and prohibit smoking from patios.

[0940]

           Our next submission under tobacco control is that tobacco taxes ought to be increased. This is the single most effective intervention we know of to reduce smoking rates. Studies show that increasing tobacco taxes by 10 percent can reduce smoking rates by 3 percent to 5 percent, particularly amongst teenagers, who are price-sensitive.

           The last tobacco tax increase the provincial government introduced was in December 2003. On page 8 of our submission we have some of your tobacco tax tables, which show the tobacco taxes in British Columbia compared to some of our neighbouring provinces. Public opinion supports tobacco tax increases.

           With respect to cessation, nicotine replacement therapies ought to be subsidized or be made tax-free.

           Turning now to physical activity, our second submission under prevention, physical inactivity and obesity are risk factors for cancer. That is why we applauded the recent announcement by the Minister of Education when she said that students next year will be required to spend 30 minutes a day doing physical activity in all grades.

           We would urge this committee to recommend to government that it ensures that the necessary infrastructures and supports are put in place so that the teachers in the schools are able to provide that for students. We would also urge this committee to recommend to government that it implement the necessary infrastructure and capital to increase safe walking routes to school and implement walkways, multi-use transit ways and greenways so that more people are getting out of their cars and walking, which would not only reduce our carbon emissions but also improve physical activity rates.

           Lastly under prevention, a colorectal cancer screening program can be cost-efficient, and it should be done. Other jurisdictions — Ontario and soon Alberta — are doing it. The Canadian Cancer Society has been advocating for four years that it be done. The B.C. Cancer Agency has a draft model in place. It's waiting for approval from the Ministry of Health. The opposition Health critic is calling on government to do it. We urge this committee to recommend to government that it implement a provincewide colorectal cancer screening program.

           Turning now towards our second umbrella submission, reducing environmental carcinogens should be a priority of the B.C. government. The Premier has said: "We must make our changes. We want to make B.C. a cleaner, greener British Columbia." That's a laudable goal. Reducing carbon emissions is a laudable goal. We support the reduction of carbon emissions, as air pollution is linked to some lung cancers.

           The change we'd like to see is this. It's not just about reducing carbon emissions, but rather it's protecting our environment as a whole. The linkage between protecting the environment and protecting human health is intertwined, as our healthy lawns impact our waterways, which impact wildlife and birds, which impact our forests, which ultimately absorb carbon dioxide from the air.

           Under reducing environmental carcinogens, we soon will be advocating to provincial government to implement right-to-know legislation, which would be something like a "C" on a label of consumer products so that when you go to buy a consumer product, it would show that something contains a possible carcinogen.

           The area I'd like to emphasize today under reducing environmental carcinogens is the area of cosmetic pesticides. The evidence is suggestive but growing that some substances in pesticides are known, probable, possible carcinogens. The public is concerned about it. Witness Wendy Mesley on Marketplace last night, David Suzuki's recent report on making a greener Canada to the federal government last month and the study out of SFU last week by David Boyd showing the environmental burden that pesticides are placing on us.

           Cosmetic pesticides — that is, using pesticides on lawns and gardens, public parks, golf courses — are non-essential, and they have the potential to cause

[ Page 1491 ]

harm. Therefore, the Canadian Cancer Society actively endorses the precautionary principle in this area and says that if cosmetic pesticides are unessential and they have the ability to cause harm, why don't we just phase them out? It's better to be safe than sorry.

           Over 130 Canadian municipalities have banned the use of cosmetic pesticides. The province of Quebec has banned the sale and use of cosmetic pesticides. If any of you saw Marketplace last night, Ontario will soon be doing it, now that Dalton McGuinty has been re-elected. We urge this committee to recommend to the government that it join the growing momentum and ban the cosmetic use of pesticides.

           In conclusion, I'd like to thank you for allowing us to expand upon some of the views that are important to our organization. We think that investment in prevention and reducing environmental carcinogens will go a long way towards making British Columbia a cleaner, greener and healthier place for the world to see in 2010.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Kathryn. Thank you, Cathy.

[0945]

           R. Hawes: Thank you for your submission. I can agree with pretty much all of it, except I have one…. I have talked — and you may know this — many times with the College of Pharmacists about banning tobacco sales. I have a problem with that, because while I agree with you that they are places for health, the places that would be left selling cigarettes are not the places for health.

           I think it's better to have smokers going into a place where they might get influenced by smoking-cessation products, which you won't buy at the corner store.

           The College of Pharmacists did agree that they thought a good compromise was putting all tobacco products under the counter, completely out of sight, and removing the power wall — hopefully, replacing it with smoking-cessation products. That way at least it would be an opportunity to talk to smokers about stopping smoking, which I think pharmacists can do. Otherwise, you won't have smokers going to the pharmacy. They often will go there just to buy a pack of cigarettes, and they might be influenced.

           I don't know whether you would agree with that, or if you would think that's a compromise that would work.

           K. Seely: In our mind, it's a compromise that wouldn't work. We'd like to actually see both done — that the sale of cigarettes be banned from pharmacies because they are places of health. The Quebec Order of Pharmacists has deemed it unethical for a pharmacist to sell cigarettes. It's practically unheard of outside North America that pharmacies would sell cigarettes.

           The other important thing that you suggested was about power walls, which we are also advocating towards. The legislation — Bill 10, the new tobacco control act — will restrict power walls in places where children can enter, but it's our position that power walls should be restricted from all places, not just where kids have access.

           R. Hawes: I don't know of anywhere they are where kids don't have access, to be honest with you.

           K. Seely: Well, there are power walls in London Drugs, for instance, and kids have access to London Drugs.

           R. Hawes: No, but I mean where are power walls that kids are not allowed to go? They're not in the beer parlour. They don't put up big cigarette ads, I don't think. I'm not sure where they are.

           C. Adair: That's probably true, because the whole point of power walls is marketing, and that's who you're trying to get at — the youth, in particular.

           R. Hawes: I know, and I think we've wiped them out, pretty much, with the legislation. I think power walls are gone. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd love to know where they are, then, because maybe we can do something about that too.

           K. Seely: I guess we'll see that when the legislation comes into place, but there is some concern that places like drugstores could then move cigarettes to the back of the store and have a collapsible or removable wall where only adults can enter, which doesn't get at the impact of the legislation.

           J. Horgan: Thank you, Kathryn, very much for your presentation. I'm a reformed smoker. Every opportunity I get, as a legislator, I try and advance your issues.

           British Columbia has led Canada since the 1990s — British Columbians, our Legislature and our governments — in trying to combat smoking. I'm wondering if, as a compromise or as an alternative to your proposal to increase taxation on tobacco and reduce taxation on cessation programs, there could be some recommendation that you could cobble together before the 19th of October which we could use as the form of a recommendation to the minister that there be a fixed increase that would compensate for any loss of revenue by eliminating taxation on cessation programs.

           When I was a smoker, because I had a prescription from my doctor I didn't have to pay tax for my patches. When I no longer got the prescription, the taxes were added on, and they were more expensive, as you say, than buying the cigarettes. If you're going to encourage people to stop, you have to make it cost-effective for them to do so.

           My question is: could you put together a recommendation for the committee before the end of our consultation that would make it a revenue-neutral undertaking rather than a cost?

           K. Seely: We could do that. Thank you very much. Our present recommendation was that cigarette packages be increased by 40 cents per package, or $3.20 per carton. Let me look at how that would then balance out if we made nicotine-replacement therapies tax-free.

[ Page 1492 ]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Could you also, when you do that, address your minds to perhaps approaching the problem from a different perspective and look at incentives, in addition to tax policy, to see whether there's some way of incenting people to use these products?

[0950]

           K. Seely: With respect to tobacco or with respect to pesticides?

           B. Bennett (Chair): With respect to nicotine-replacement therapies. I think that's what we were talking about.

           K. Seely: Okay. We can look at that as well. Thank you.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. I'm afraid we're out of time. Thank you very much.

           B.C. Trucking Association, Paul Landry.

           P. Landry: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity to be able to make a presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services today.

           By way of a quick comment, the whole purpose of my presentation today is to present opportunities for our industry and government to work together to both improve air quality as well as reduce greenhouse gases.

           A little bit about our association. We represent about 800 bus and truck fleets in British Columbia. They operate about 13,000 large commercial vehicles, employ about 26,000 people and do in excess of $2 billion in business. We also represent over 250 suppliers to the industry — the people who sell trucks, tires, fuel, and so on.

           A little bit about our industry. Since deregulation in British Columbia in 1997 our industry has spawned thousands of new trucking companies. Unlike air, rail and marine, in which case there are a few large players, our industry has approximately 23,000 players. As you can appreciate, in terms of any public policy initiative, when you're dealing with 23,000 players, that's quite a challenge in terms of communications and whatnot. In a lot of what I'm going to talk about today, keep that in mind.

           The challenge is that most of our industry involves very small one- and two-truck operators — uninformed, disconnected from what is going on and often very cash-strapped — getting up in the morning and just trying to survive till the end of the day, getting up the next day and doing the same thing all over again.

           In terms of the environment position that our association has taken, we feel a strong obligation to work with governments and other stakeholders to reduce the impact of greenhouse gas and smog emissions made by our industry. We propose to provide advice to government that would result in the largest positive impact with the least cost, both financial and administrative, for both industry and government.

           I'm pleased to say that over the course of the last several decades we have witnessed dramatic reductions in smog emissions from large diesel-powered trucks. Importantly, the past year has seen the industry really on the cusp of historic reductions in smog emissions.

           Table 1 in the package that was circulated illustrates where we have been in terms of the late '80s and where we will be in 2010. Smog emissions will have been virtually eradicated from trucks. We will be clean-air machines by 2010. You can see both soot-forming gases as well as, essentially, smog-forming gases virtually eradicated by 2010.

           That has been accomplished through cleaner engines as well as through cleaner fuels, but there has also been a cost associated with that. As fuels and engines were improved, we lost energy efficiency. Smog emissions were going like this, and greenhouse gases were going like that.

[0955]

           Essentially, everything that we've been doing has caused us to burn more fuel — most recently 3 to 5 percent this year alone. If you look at that over the course of the last several decades, it's been fairly dramatic.

           The other problem we're seeing is that the price of the new engines, the 2007 engines, is about $8,000 more expensive than the 2006 engines, and of course when we get out to 2010, the new engines will be even more expensive. They're more expensive to maintain, and of course the engines weigh more. When a company or an individual purchases one of the newer trucks, they're losing the ability to generate revenue, as well, because of particulate traps that can weigh 400 to 500 pounds.

           What happened is that in 2006 and 2007 there has been, essentially, what we describe as a pre-buying binge. People ran out and bought the old equipment — old new equipment, if you like — to avoid the new engines and the costs associated with those. What we're going to see in 2007 and later on is quite a decline in the acquisition of the new trucks. What this does is decrease the penetration of the newer-model trucks into the marketplace. I'll talk about that a little bit more later.

           One of the things you should understand about the life cycle of a truck is that the newer trucks are out on the highway; the older trucks are in the city. That makes sense. You need dependability on the highway. As the larger companies purchase the newer equipment, they use it up after four or five years. They churn it over. It goes into the local markets.

           We have challenges both in terms of how it is that we can reduce smog emissions and greenhouse gases on the highway as well as for local trucks, but how we do that is different based on market conditions. To give you a profile of our industry, there are about 61,000 diesel-powered vehicles in the province. Of those vehicles, 25 percent are 25 years or older and about 44 percent are ten years or older, so there's quite a legacy fleet out there.

           In considering how it is we deal with the emissions issues facing our industry, we have to again consider the makeup of the fleet. Our national association, the Canadian Trucking Alliance, has asked the federal government to work with our industry in terms of promoting something we call the enviroTruck, which will promote the acquisition of the newer trucks.

[ Page 1493 ]

           Essentially, we're asking the federal government for financial incentives not only to acquire newer truck equipment with the newer engines but also to provide us with financial support in terms of acquiring fuel-saving technologies — things like APUs, which are alternative power units. They're small, diesel-fired generators that are on trucks which can reduce idling emissions by up to 92 percent when activated at truck stops.

           We're also asking for support for aerodynamic devices and for other anti-idling measures. Of course with respect to our provincial government, we have encouraged the provincial government to look at things like mandated speed limiters for trucks, to limit the speed of trucks to no more than 105 kilometres per hour. A truck utilizing those strategies and technologies would receive favourable tax treatment from the federal government.

           I believe that table 3 outlines what it is that some of these fuel-saving approaches can achieve. Aerodynamics can achieve, for a highway truck, as much as a 14-percent reduction in fuel consumption. I mentioned the APUs already at up to 92 percent in terms of reducing idling fuel consumption. We have other issues like wide-based, super-efficient truck tires that can reduce fuel consumption by up to 5 percent.

           A well-equipped highway truck can reduce its fuel consumption by upwards of 30 percent, and when you think of what the provincial government's target for reduction of greenhouse gas is, we have an opportunity as an industry to get there with the support of government. Obviously, not every piece of equipment is going to be able to achieve gains like that. Older trucks won't be able to do so. But we think we can certainly make substantial gains.

[1000]

           I'm trying to get through this fairly quickly.

           Highway trucks, I think, can benefit the most from fuel-saving approaches. Local trucks are a bit more of a trick. Obviously, aerodynamics don't work when you're operating at ten or 20 kilometres an hour in congested traffic, but there are other strategies in terms of driver training. In some cases, actually, alternative power units will work in a local situation as well. There's monitoring inflation of tires. Tire inflation is….

           I'll jump ahead. We think that the provincial government should be working with our industry in terms of the penetration of the market by the newer trucks as well as through the financial support for the acquisition of energy-saving devices that can be applied to the industry. We're talking about possible rebates, low-cost loans, forgiveness of sales tax for the fuel-saving devices.

           Essentially, as an association we would like to work with government to develop a package of proposals with the objective of improving air quality and reducing fuel consumption on the part of the trucking industry.

           We think there's a special need here, particularly given the nature of the trucking industry. There's a special challenge in terms of communicating what can be done, how it can be done, how the industry can play a role and, of course, what government can do on our behalf.

           Mr. Chairman, I'll just stop there and take any questions that you might have.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. That was a very interesting submission with lots of very concrete suggestions for us.

           J. Horgan: Concrete?

           B. Bennett (Chair): No pun intended.

           R. Lee: A very interesting presentation. When I look at table 3, with a battery or electric device, you can actually save fuel by 92 percent.

           P. Landry: Idling fuel, yes.

           R. Lee: Idling fuel. That's with a cost of almost $4,000 for equipment.

           P. Landry: Yeah.

           R. Lee: Do you think this is a good investment, say, for the trucking company?

           P. Landry: Absolutely. Why wouldn't they do it?

           R. Lee: Yeah, why?

           P. Landry: I guess it's really the same reason as why people won't invest in energy-efficient furnaces for their homes. As I say, we're dealing with the owners of 60,000-some trucks, many of whom don't fully understand what it is they can do to achieve the benefits here.

           As an association, our challenge is to communicate to them what they can do and should be doing. The problem is that in our marketplace there's a lot of noise in terms of what works and what doesn't work, and a lot of misinformation. A lot of truck drivers, for example, still believe today that idling is a good thing. The exact opposite is true, but we're really struggling to get the message out that those engines should be shut down.

           You're right. The return on investment can be very good over, actually, a fairly short period of time. How do we get their attention? How do we get people to make the changes? There are several large trucking companies operating in British Columbia that have done several things based on the return on investment to their fleet, and they're enjoying the benefits.

           J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Paul. I'm wondering: does the association have any position on biodiesel as an alternative? Have you been exploring that? I don't see any reference at all in your brief to moving toward biodiesel as an option in terms of GHG reductions.

           P. Landry: We're supporting the provincial government's target of B5 by 2010. We'd like to see our fleets use a higher blend where possible and appropriate.

           We still think there are some problems in terms of the guarantee on the quality of the fuel. Once you make

[ Page 1494 ]

the conversion, you need to know that you're going to be able to get it everywhere you go, and you're going to need to know that it works all the time in the conditions that you operate in. A few quality assurance problems, which I'm sure are going to be overcome.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thanks very much for that. That was a great submission. I appreciate it.

[1005]

           Do we have the Canadian Bankers Association here? Okay, the B.C. Medical Association is here.

           Dr. Appleton, it's good to see you.

           G. Appleton: Good morning. Thank you very much for this chance to do this presentation. As you see, my name is Geoff Appleton. I'm the present president of the B.C. Medical Association for this year. My real job is a family practitioner in Terrace. I've been there for 33 years. I basically represent about 9,000 physicians in this province for the association.

           I'd like to briefly raise three issues for this committee as you go into this budget process. The first one is going to be on the health infrastructure, the second one is on drug policy in B.C. and the third is on the Premier's Conversation on Health.

           The first thing I want to raise with you is what going green means for our health care system. I really commend you for focusing on this issue. When a doctor like myself hears about somebody going green, it's not usually a good sign. However, one only has to look at increasing rates of asthma and skin cancer to understand the long-term impact of this on Canadians and British Columbians.

           First and foremost, our association is again calling for strengthening our health care infrastructure. This must be or should be a top priority for the budget in 2008. This not only contributes to the goals of a greener B.C., but also meets the needs of our growing and our aging population.

           Our system requires greater capacity, literally across every part of the system. We need more acute care beds, we need more operating rooms, and especially, we need more long-term care beds. We fully acknowledge that lots of steps have been taken in this regard, but we continue to play catch-up with the lack of investment in the '90s.

           We've all heard the numbers. In 2000 there were 130,000 seniors over the age of 80 in this province. By 2011 there will be almost 200,000. By 2025 that number will be almost 270,000. We need to focus on being green in our province, but we also must recognize that the projected needs of a quarter of a million octogenarians in B.C. should not be far behind that.

           B.C. needs to maintain an adequate acute care capacity in its hospitals. We need to make sure that the average occupancy in our acute care hospitals does not exceed 85 percent in the coming years. Anything less than this means that patients will continue to be treated in hallways and in emergency rooms.

           Health care professionals, like physicians, spend considerable amounts of time and resources in our system caring for patients who should move through our system faster, but there's nowhere else for them to go. This is an expensive way to run a medical care system.

           As we continue to build and prepare for our aging population, we need to ensure that our new facilities and our existing ones meet more strict environmental standards. Many health care facilities, hospitals in B.C. are 40 or more years old. In some communities, especially rural ones, the hospital is the oldest public building in town, short of historical sites.

           Hospitals in particular use tremendous amounts of energy — heat, light, water — and we need to ensure that our hospitals have been inspected and shown to be power smart and meet strict environmental and energy standards.

           As physicians we're also taking these measures to heart. Our association's environmental health committee has produced a guide for physicians' offices, entitled: Ten Steps for an Eco-Friendly Office. This guide is helping physicians reduce their energy use and carbon footprint around the province. A copy of this will be included in the materials you have.

           Now I'd like to turn to two major policy issues: prescription drugs, and as I mentioned earlier, the Conversation on Health. This summer, 2007, we released two major papers.

           The first, in June, was our submission to the Premier's Conversation on Health entitled Physicians Speak Up. In July we released a prescription drug paper. We named it A Prescription for Quality. There are many recommendations in these papers, but I'd like to focus on just a few key ones.

[1010]

           First, on drug policy. I'm sure that most of the people presenting today are talking about where to spend more of your taxpayer dollars. This budget consultation challenges British Columbians to make budget choices.

           In Prescription for Quality, our drug paper, the BCMA has identified two issues that have the potential to save literally millions of dollars in the fastest-growing area of health expenditures, and that's prescription drugs. Over the past 20 years prescription drug expenditures in B.C. have increased an average of 11.3 percent every year. We have recommendations around controlling these costs.

           The first is around bulk purchasing. B.C. can do better in the methods used to purchase medications. If Pharmacare negotiated directly with wholesalers and drug manufacturers, then it could secure the best prices for Pharmacare-insured drugs. Experiences from places like New Zealand have demonstrated considerable cost savings, literally hundreds of millions of dollars, without compromising accessibility or quality.

           The second recommendation, an interesting one, is around providing education, and the BCMA is stepping forward to do its part in this. A project is underway entitled education for quality improvement in patient care, or EQIP for short. It's a collaboration between the BCMA and the Ministry of Health, started in 2004, and it provides educational materials for physicians on the cost of prescription medications.

[ Page 1495 ]

           One of problems is that most physicians, like me, do not know what every drug is going to cost. One part of this system uses a wonderful speedometer — again, you have an example in your package there — which gives physicians information on the cost of various types of medications.

           The example you have is the first one we've done, and it's basically a prescription for high blood pressure, for hypertension. We now know that one of the simplest and first drugs used for hypertension is actually the least costly.

           This program works because it's collaborative, it's evidence-based and it's done in consultation with practising physicians. Early estimates indicate this could result in sustained savings of $50 million per year on this one drug category alone. This is just the first of many that could be investigated.

           Finally, on the subject of our Conversation on Health, last month this conversation wrapped up. The BCMA made its official submission, which you have in front of you. We are hoping for meaningful change to come out of this process. I want to highlight two recommendations which we feel should be part of the plan for 2008.

           The first is an issue that no one can ignore, and that's wait times. Unlike the environment, we simply cannot buy carbon offsets for a bad hip. We know that delaying procedures worsens long-term outcomes and often ends up being much more costly to the system, not to mention the pain and suffering of the patients themselves.

           While some work is being done in this area, we need to take it further than this. We are again calling on government to introduce maximum allowable wait times for major diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical services.

           The Premier challenged British Columbians to meaningfully define the Canada Health Act principle of accessibility. The physicians of B.C. are here to say it should be based on the clinical evidence that outlines the maximum allowable amount of time a patient should wait for defined specific procedure — full stop. At its core our system is founded on a social contract between government and its citizens. It's time for our system to live up to that contract.

           The last area I'd like to address is one on multidisciplinary care. I don't need to tell anybody in this room that B.C. faces a shortage of health care professionals across the spectrum. We are making efforts to train and recruit more — medical students are a good example — but there are steps B.C. needs to take now to make our system run more efficiently.

           Primary care is where we need to meet most of the challenges of our aging population head-on, and we're not really structured yet to do this properly. As a primary care physician myself, I am continually frustrated by an inability to incorporate other health care professionals within my practice. There are simply no mechanisms set up as yet to fund or pay these professionals to work with my patients and me, despite really good evidence that it works.

[1015]

           Over the past two years our association has worked with government on the diabetes collaborative, a project to improve the care of diabetics in this province. Through increased use of dietitians on the health care team and our own medical office assistants, we have been able to improve not only the quality of care provided for that chronic disease but achieve significant savings, reducing hospital visits and emergency room visits.

           There are very many recommendations in our reports, and I really encourage you to read them…. In the meantime the BCMA awaits the response of government to the Conversation on Health with great interest.

           In conclusion, I've covered a lot of different points today, but I do want to say that I applaud the focus on sustaining our environment. I only ask that we apply the same enthusiasm to improving our health care system.

           Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate the opportunity.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Dr. Appleton. We have at least one question and maybe more.

           R. Hawes: Thank you, Dr. Appleton. There's probably enough information here that we could ask you questions for a couple of hours.

           I want to ask you about the multidisciplinary approach, and I'll use diabetes as an example. Pharmacists in this province are not permitted to break the skin, and yet it seems to me that glucose testing in the pharmacy at least is an indicator and may push some people, rightly, to see a physician for the indicator that would be revealed.

           Would you support allowing pharmacists to break the skin and, also, to provide things like flu shots? In the event of a pandemic, pandemic planning, they would likely be one of the first people out in the field providing inoculations.

           G. Appleton: Absolutely, yes.

           R. Hawes: So the BCMA would have a position that would say that pharmacists should be allowed to break the skin?

           G. Appleton: If you're talking about just glucose testing, it's being done as far as I'm aware. My patients tell me that they've been to a pharmacy and had a skin test done.

           R. Hawes: I'm told by the College of Pharmacists that they cannot do that because they can't do anything that would break the skin, and of course that testing does break the skin.

           G. Appleton: Not only that, but they actually demonstrate the use of the glucometer to patients. I'm not sure…. That surprises me.

           R. Hawes: The patient may be allowed to do it themselves, but I don't think the pharmacist can do it.

           G. Appleton: Okay. The patient can do that in front of the pharmacist and get the result. I'm surprised that

[ Page 1496 ]

that's what they're saying about it. That's news to me. I thought it was being done. I certainly have no problem with that.

           The problem is more the long-term care of that patient, if the pharmacist doesn't have access to all the records and all the medication, etc. Certainly, to do it as a test….

           R. Hawes: I'm also interested in, for example, flu shots and inoculations, for pandemic planning purposes.

           G. Appleton: For my MOA to give a flu shot, she or he would have to be trained to do that. There's special training that has to be done. An injection is a different matter altogether than a blood test.

           R. Hawes: I agree with you. But with the training, pharmacists…. You'd spread that around?

           G. Appleton: With the training, yes. Where I come from, public health does all that anyway. It certainly would be possible with adequate training and supervision, yes.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much. My question is regarding foreign-trained doctors. We talk about skills shortages and finding professionals here. In the meantime we have many doctors from many parts of the world — India, eastern Europe or other parts of the world — who have a lot of experience there. If they were to go to the States, they could practise there, and if they go to England or Ireland, they could practise, but here they seem to have a very difficult time.

           Would your association support maybe making an easier way to find those doctors who get their licences here, maybe starting as assistants to doctors, and do the proper testing so we can make sure they're trained enough to handle our type of patients here, with safety in mind?

           Many of those doctors are driving cabs, or they work in restaurants, as security guards or something. They should actually be able to help in our health care system.

           G. Appleton: The licensing of physicians is done by our college, not by the B.C. Medical Association.

           D. Hayer: But would your association support making it easier to get them the licence?

           G. Appleton: Yes, and we mention that in one of our recommendations — that it should be made easier and more streamlined. In this province already there are a number of spots set up — that's at St. Paul's Hospital — for a retraining program for some of those physicians that don't quite qualify for all the bits and pieces that are needed. That has been very successful. We want to expand that some more.

           Our association does support them — they have an association, by the way, in B.C. — in practical ways, contracts and this kind of stuff, and we certainly have been asking the college to try to streamline the process.

           Personally, what I'd like to see is a cross-Canada licensing position, but that may be many years down the line. I'm very sympathetic to their position.

[1020]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Dr. Appleton, thank you very much. We didn't have a lot of time here today, but we have your submission, and we'll have lots more time to go through it.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The next presenter is the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver and the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia.

           I gather you're sharing the slot. Good morning.

           J. Cunningham: I'd like to take a moment and imagine our province ravaged by hurricanes, where wildlife species are going extinct and where we have record snowfalls, rains and floods. This shocking future happened last winter here in B.C., a province where we're known to be the best place on earth.

           How did this happen? It's at least partly the result of our carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, which are threatening the quality of life for British Columbians.

           We're told that 11 percent of greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed to buildings, including our homes and offices. This surprises me. I was also amazed to learn that a further 15 percent is a result of construction and another 8 percent the result of construction waste. This is far too much.

           The real estate profession was so concerned that we decided to do something about it. We partnered with the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. to brainstorm solutions. The result is this submission I'm presenting today.

           We're optimistic. We believe that fortunately, there's still time for us to make choices that will lead our province to a more sustainable future.

           I'm Janet Cunningham, and I'm the chair of the British Columbia Real Estate Association's government relations committee. I appreciate being given the opportunity to speak to you today.

           The B.C. Real Estate Association represents 12 real estate boards and their 18,600 residential and commercial realtor members. With me today is Sylvia Sam. She is the chair of the government relations committee for the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver. That's the largest of our boards, representing 9,700 realtors in the Metro Vancouver area and beyond.

           Also with me is M.J. Whitemarsh, the CEO of the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia, the voice of the residential construction industry in B.C., which represents more than 1,400 member companies with ten offices throughout B.C.

           We're here to tell you about how we can create a future where homes and commercial buildings are bought, built and renovated in a way that's good for our economy, good for our environment and good for our neighbourhoods.

[ Page 1497 ]

           Both the real estate and home-building professions care deeply about the quality of life in our communities. We're focusing on how we can help reduce emissions from homes and commercial buildings to assist the government to meet its greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.

           Everybody understands the benefits of green buildings. They're more energy-efficient. They're environmentally sustainable. They're healthier. And in the long term they save our owners and tenants money on operating costs. They also create new jobs in new fields, such as recyclables. In turn, this generates spinoffs into our communities.

           As we all know, a key challenge for us right now is that green homes and commercial buildings cost more. How can we encourage people to build, buy and renovate houses and buildings that have the least amount of environmental impact? We can provide builders, buyers and renovators with incentives and rebates. That would be a good place to start.

           We're here to recommend that the government implement a two-year pilot program that reinvests revenue from the property transfer tax and the provincial sales tax in an initiative we have named the green building tax incentive and rebate program. We have five recommendations. They're on page 3 of our submission.

[1025]

           Our first recommendation involves the government reinvesting revenue from the PTT to provide a rebate to buyers of homes that meet or exceed the Canadian Home Builders Association's Built Green B.C. program standards for homes and multifamily units.

           How would this rebate work? A buyer of a home built only to the B.C. building code would not receive a rebate. A buyer of a Built Green B.C. bronze-level home would receive a $2,500 rebate on the PTT program. A silver-level home would receive a $3,500 rebate, a gold-level home would receive a $5,000 rebate, and a platinum-level home would receive a $7,000 rebate. If you're not familiar with these ratings, please see page 3 of our submission.

           Our second recommendation is targeted to homeowners who are renovating. We recommend the government provide a PST rebate on green products for homeowners renovating to meet the standards set by Natural Resources Canada's ecoEnergy retrofit program. There is an explanation in our submission about this.

           What renovations would qualify? Any items on the Built Green B.C. checklist — for example, energy-efficient appliances, heating equipment, cooling and ventilation equipment, windows, doors, skylights, lighting and landscaping.

           We understand that the provincial government has had various programs for PST rebates for windows and heating equipment. Our program would be more comprehensive and would last for a full two years, and we would urge the government to make it permanent.

           Our third recommendation is geared to buyers of commercial properties. We're recommending that the government use PTT revenue to provide a rebate to a buyer of a commercial building that meets or exceeds the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, green building rating system certification levels.

           LEED certification is achieved through a point-rating system with categories certified silver, gold or platinum. The rebate program we recommend is similar to the residential program, except the rebate amounts are proportionally higher.

           Our fourth recommendation is geared to renovators of existing commercial buildings. We recommend the government provide a PST rebate to renovators, making their commercial buildings more energy-efficient and environmentally friendly according to the LEED system.

           Our fifth and final recommendation is that the provincial government provide incentives to local governments to promote green development.

           How important is it for you to consider our recommendations? It's very important. Right now in all of B.C. there are only 828 Built Green B.C. homes. While this year the number of homes is expected to increase to 1,200, I think you'll agree that this is extremely low.

           We know the value of going green. Each Built Green B.C. home saves 2.5 tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. One 60-lot subdivision is the equivalent of taking 40 cars per day off the road every year.

           How much will our pilot program cost? Because of our lack of data, we were only able to cost out our first recommendation. Last year 36,443 new homes were built in B.C.

           If just 5 percent or 1,820 new homes had been built with the Built Green B.C. gold level and received a $5,000 PTT rebate, it would cost the government $9.1 million. This is less than 1 percent of the $1 billion in revenue that the PTT will generate this year. As a result, 4,550 tonnes of greenhouse gas would have been prevented from entering our environment.

           Green homes and buildings are vital to improving the quality of life in our communities, renewing and revitalizing our neighbourhoods and restoring our environment. Our recommendations are good for our economy, good for our environment and good for our neighbourhoods.

           We can do this. Let's start as soon as possible.

           Do you have any questions for the three of us?

           R. Hawes: Thank you for the presentation. I know you're saying that 1 percent of the homes right now would meet the Built Green standards and that the target would be 5 percent. What I didn't hear…. Maybe you said it and I was looking through the material. How many builders do you now have that are on a Built Green program?

           M. Whitemarsh: We have over 400 builders right now in British Columbia who are enrolled in the Built Green program. It's a process that goes through, Randy, but there are over 400 — about 438, I believe. There are five courses for training that are planned between now and the end of January. That will add about another 150 to that number.

[1030]

[ Page 1498 ]

           R. Hawes: In terms of the cost of the house, what does it do to the price of the house?

           M. Whitemarsh: Depending on which level they go — whether they do bronze, silver or gold — in B.C., we have a pretty high level to reach building code anyway. When they do the plan, most of the houses are coming in at around a 70, 71.

           If they go up to a Built Green bronze, it probably costs anywhere in the neighbourhood of $1,000 to $1,500, depending on what they're doing. There is a checklist. It's quite comprehensive.

           R. Hawes: Yeah, I'm looking at it.

           M. Whitemarsh: Yeah. It goes on and on. If you look on our website, you'll see how comprehensive it is.

           We've got quite a few subdivisions. When we're saying that there are only that many houses that are done right now, there are quite a few subdivisions that are started. John, you would know….

           J. Horgan: Westhills.

           M. Whitemarsh: Westhills is starting. Yeah. We have a big opening there on Saturday. Also, Sunriver in Sooke is now a Built Green builder. So we have these subdivisions that are starting, and they will go.

           The other thing that building to Built Green standards means is that, for municipalities especially, the impact on the grid is lessened greatly. You're looking at less grey water going into the environment. You're looking at less hydro use. Janet did mention that you saved the greenhouse gas emissions. What we didn't put into the report is that 50 gigajoules of energy are saved with every Built Green gold house too.

           That's huge, especially, again, on the Island — I keep saying this because I'm from Sooke — because we had that big storm last year, and it scared the heck out of all of us. We do need to start looking at this right away.

           J. Kwan: My question centres around the home renovations program, where your suggestion is to expand the PST-exemption cost instead of going to a rebate kind of program, where some other jurisdictions, other provinces, have actually had quite an extensive program on the home renovation front.

           I'm just wondering why your recommendation is based on a PST-exemption as opposed to a rebate — or have you looked at other jurisdictions and what they have done? — and why you chose this option instead for B.C.

           J. Cunningham: Jenny, I think we are asking for a rebate. If you see, it's "Number 2: Renovated Homes." It's a rebate on green products. So we are looking at the rebate program to expand the existing program that is on windows and furnaces, per se. We're asking to expand that.

           J. Kwan: Sorry. And the rebate is based on PST?

           J. Cunningham: Yes.

           J. Kwan: Right. I'm talking about a larger rebate, beyond PST.

           M. Whitemarsh: You're talking about like what B.C. Hydro last year had for buying energy-wise windows and appliances.

           J. Kwan: Correct. Or even for assessment fees — for it to have some sort of rebate on their assessment fees, for people to do that initial assessment and then to move on to some sort of a renovation program.

           M. Whitemarsh: If they use the NRCan ecoEnergy program, they pay $350 for the energy adviser to come into the house and do the initial blower door test. That gives you your EnerGuide rating.

           After the energy adviser gives the person that wants to renovate the EnerGuide rating, then that person can decide what things they want to do, whether they want to replace their windows, just upgrade their insulation and all that kind of thing.

           That $350 is something that the homeowner pays themselves, and then the rebate back from the ecoEnergy fund is dependent upon how far they go and when they have that blower door test done again at the end.

           What we're suggesting is that in addition to that…. Because it looks like it's big, but it's not. The maximum ecoEnergy grant is $5,000. To do that, you'd have to replace your windows that are going to cost you probably $3,500.

           What we're suggesting is that we would be able to get more people into the renovation frame of mind, to get more green products into their homes, if there were small incrementals coming back. By doing it through the sales tax, then you're going to get that many more people involved in doing it.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           D. Hayer: Approximately how much extra would it cost for the new construction of the home if they were built to Built Green standards? I mean, I know you have different levels, but would it be 10 percent extra, 20 percent? Or less or more — construction costs?

[1035]

           M. Whitemarsh: An R-2000 home, which is the highest level you can probably go with a home, is less than 10 percent. You're in small incrementals.

           It's probably, Dave, up to about $5,000. We did a subdivision last year out here in Langley for Morningstar Homes. That subdivision, the upgrades in those houses, was between $3,500 and $5,000 in incremental costs, to go to Built Green gold.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ladies, thank you very much. We're unfortunately out of time. Thank you for your submission.

           I understand that Mr. Griffin with Canadian Bankers Association is here. Good morning, sir.

[ Page 1499 ]

           P. Griffin: I brought some other members. I'm just going to ask them to join me, if I could. I just wanted to introduce myself. First of all, thank you very much for allowing us to appear before you this morning. We very much appreciate it. I'm Paul Griffin, the director of western Canada for the Canadian Bankers Association. Immediately on my right is Greg Sprung. Greg is the vice-president, regional manager, with Canadian Western Bank. Over at the end is Mark Smith, regional vice-president with our RBC Financial and then, in the middle, is Clark Winder, general manager, operations, Vancouver–lower mainland market, with CIBC.

           We're going to try to keep right to time. We'll say a few words, and then we'll leave a few minutes for questions and answers.

           First of all, we want to congratulate the government. We believe it really does deserve congratulation on the strong economic performance over the last several years, largely due to the sound and prudent management of the province's finances. Balanced budgets, tax reductions, debt repayment and targeted investments will enable B.C. businesses and employers and employees to prosper.

           CBA supports the government's view, in its 2008 consultation budget paper, that when times are good, it's important to use that surplus in ways to look forward and generate benefits for years to come. The record surplus of 2006-2007 demonstrates that government's policies of cutting personal and corporate taxes are working, and we're saying that we believe that B.C. can continue to foster economic prosperity and improve the province's performance economically by addressing the tax regime further. So we're making some key recommendations in our submission, which we've left with the Clerk. I'm only going to summarize the submission in this presentation.

           First and foremost, we think that the B.C. government should address the issue of the capital tax on financial institutions. It's time to take that step.

           Secondly, B.C. should remain competitive on corporate income tax.

           Finally, we think the government can help B.C. businesses, especially small and new businesses, raise capital effectively and efficiently by addressing our cumbersome, patchwork system of securities regulation.

           First of all, a little about the banking industry. Everybody is an owner of Canada's banks. British Columbians are certainly no exception. The Canada Pension Plan has about 13 percent of its equity holdings in bank shares, and we all have an interest in that.

           The B.C. Investment Management Corporation, which looks after some of the pension funds for B.C., has about 17 percent of its equity holdings in bank shares. And of course, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of British Columbians have their own private holdings in RRSPs. A lot of the good performance that's reflected in those holdings is the result of equity stance in bank share.

           We all have an interest in ensuring that the banking industry performs well. B.C.'s banking sector is a significant contributor to the provincial economy.

           It's a significant growth industry here. The six largest banks paid $217 million last year in B.C. — $75 million of that was capital taxes. But Canada's banks paid over $6.4 billion nationally. That, by far, is the highest corporate income tax rate in Canada. We pay more taxes than any other sector in Canada.

[1040]

           Banks employ 27,000 British Columbians; 1.24 percent of B.C. employees work in banking. That compares to 1 percent in forestry and 0.6 percent in mining, oil and gas. According to the B.C. Ministry of Labour, every bank job results in another spinoff job, and these are not inconsequential jobs. They're lawyers, accountants, software developers — that sort of thing. If the banking sector is investing and growing in society and in B.C., the B.C. economy will do well. It's an environmentally friendly industry with knowledge-based jobs.

           We believe, as we said, that British Columbia is moving in the right direction with its corporate income tax reductions over the years and eliminating the capital tax five years ago on general corporations. We believe the time is right to take the next step: remove the capital tax on financial institutions. We believe this should be a key priority.

           There has been much talk in British Columbia about making Vancouver an international financial centre serving the Pacific Rim, but capital taxes are a disincentive to investment in Vancouver as a financial centre. They undermine investment and employment because, first of all, they're neutral in terms of performance.

           If we don't make a profit, we still pay capital taxes in that year. It's like an overhead cost. So there is a disincentive to invest. If you suspect there might be a bad year, you're going to be paying those overhead costs. It is like an increased overhead cost every year.

           They are actually a tax on employment. The attribution of capital in B.C. — that is, the calculation of how much tax we pay on capital…. A large part of the calculation is based on the wages and salaries that are paid by banks and credit unions in the province. In other words, the more jobs we create and the more salaries we pay, the more capital taxes we pay.

           The decision has to be made. Should we put the jobs here in B.C., or somewhere else where they are not going to be taxed and they are not going to have that compound effect of affecting the amount of capital taxes we pay?

           Capital taxes are virtually unique to Canada in the western world. Canada is out there and enjoys having the notoriety of being one of the few western, developed nations that has capital on investment.

           The B.C. government recognized this some time ago when, back in 2001, it eliminated the capital tax on general corporations and said: "This move will free up more than $100 million and leverage significant new investment in our province…. It will also bring B.C back in line with most of the developed world, where capital taxes are recognized as disincentives to growth."

           Right now capital tax does apply to the financial services sector only. Other jurisdictions have recognized this already, and they have begun the process of eliminating capital taxes on financial institutions in all areas.

[ Page 1500 ]

           The federal government has eliminated it. Ontario is eliminating it effective January 1, 2010. It's phasing it out. Quebec is scheduling its capital tax elimination by January 1, 2011. Alberta totally eliminated it in 2001. So B.C. stands out there as the last remaining substantial economic entity in Canada, in terms of our nation, that employs a capital tax on every job that's created here — 3 percent annually.

           A lot of different organizations have realized that it is now time to address this, especially given our economic situation. Here is a list that will be making this recommendation this year as they appear before you: the Business Council of British Columbia; the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia; the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; Credit Union Central of British Columbia; International Financial Centre British Columbia; and, of course, us, the Canadian Bankers Association.

           We should remind you that the Premier's own B.C. Competition Council recommended the capital tax elimination more than a year ago now.

           That's it on capital tax. On corporate taxes, B.C. has been a leader in this area since 2001 — no question. You've done a very good job. You went from 16½ percent to 13½ percent. Back in July 2005 you went to 12 percent.

           We'd say it's time to take another look, because other jurisdictions are moving. Alberta isn't standing still. It's currently at 10 percent. Quebec is at 11.9 percent. There are indications that they are going to be reducing their corporate income tax rate. We do believe that while it is able to do so, B.C. should now take the necessary steps to lock in this long-term financial security with attention to its corporate income tax competitiveness.

[1045]

           In terms of affordability, we did mention…. I'm going to skip a little bit here. Of course, there are all sorts of studies that show that reduced capital taxes pay for themselves. We've cited a few of those in our submission, so we'll leave it at that. There are just numerous studies to show that it is clearly the most effective tax cut that government can make.

           I would mention and repeat that the federal government has initiated an incentive program in its spring budget. This program, announced in the spring, will ensure that a portion of capital taxes eliminated or reduced by the provinces will be rebated to the provinces up until 2011, so a good, substantial chunk of money will be coming back to the province that eliminates or reduces capital taxes. That's something that we'd encourage you to look into.

           Finally, I'd like to address the issue of securities regulation. Canada's patchwork system of 13 regulators and 13 jurisdictions imposes a lot of unnecessary costs and complexities on Canadian businesses trying to raise capital. This has a particularly negative affect on smaller and startup businesses that want to reach out across the country to raise capital. They have to deal with 13 different jurisdictions.

           The passport model that has been proposed by a number of provinces, B.C. included, helps address the situation somewhat, but it doesn't go anywhere near where we think we should be. We're the only country in the world — next to Bosnia-Herzegovina, I think it's called — that has multiple regulators for financial services. We're notorious in terms of that area, and we really should address this.

           We think that B.C. has shown leadership in this area in terms of innovation in economic areas in the past. Being one of the nation's leaders in terms of the economy, now's the time to take the next step and say: "We're going to address this issue because it's important to businesses. It's important to investors. It's important to small businesses who want to raise capital."

           We urge the government to consider the issues of securities regulation as a key component of the province's long-term economic strategy and include it in your recommendations to the minister as an issue to address in the forthcoming budget.

           That's it, Mr. Chair. We'd be pleased to answer your questions, if you have any.

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

           H. Bloy: Thank you for coming, gentlemen.

           With the elimination of the capital tax, how will that benefit British Columbia?

           P. Griffin: I'm convinced and we are convinced that you will see more and better job creation in this province in terms of financial services. Right now, if decisions are made to invest in the province, they have to look at capital taxes as one of those overhead costs — not only domestically — in terms of investment. There are smaller banks here that are looking at growing and putting more money into the province, and every dollar they invest is going to be taxed if they do so. That's one of the things.

           Internationally, we really do believe that British Columbia, and Vancouver in particular, has tremendous potential in the Pacific Rim for foreign investment, but being unique in the western world in imposing this tax on our investment really scares off investors. It sends a mixed message — a wrong, negative message — to investors.

           We do believe that you'll see substantial growth in environmentally friendly, knowledge-based jobs.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): My question is about securities regulation. Some of the people that have looked at this question speak of the Canadian discount. It's not only the difficulty in raising capital, but that the Canadian securities are discounted internationally because of very weak enforcement, partly because of the lack of an effective national enforcement agency like the Securities and Exchange Commission in the States.

           I understand the objection of the provincial government to this is that…. The fear is that were there a single national securities regulator, the centre of business would gravitate towards Toronto, much as it has done in other financial services. What would be your response to that by way of providing, perhaps, some comfort to that objection?

[ Page 1501 ]

           P. Griffin: There have been a number of studies and recommendations. The Purdy Crawford panel made a recommendation that we felt goes a long way to addressing that concern. What it basically recommends is that there be a board and that all provinces have an equal vote in terms of policy direction and legislation in securities regulation. It wouldn't necessarily have to be centred in Ontario or anywhere else. We could have regional offices still, having different responsibilities.

[1050]

           Certainly in terms of having input, British Columbia would be at the table, as would all the provinces, in terms of creating that balance in managing the securities regulation format.

           We believe that that is a good model. We understand that the federal Finance Minister is in the process of appointing another panel to devise a legislative framework for a single securities regulator, and we believe that will very likely address those concerns. It will have to, I think, in order to ensure that all the provinces continue to have that input to securities regulation.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much. A very good presentation, Paul, as every year you make a good presentation.

           How long will it take, if a government was to eliminate a capital tax levied on a financial institution, to recover the same amount of revenue to the provincial treasury? Would it take two, three, five or ten years or…?

           P. Griffin: Well, first of all, the federal incentive program will ensure that a good chunk of that money will come right back to the province immediately. We've done some rough calculations. We can't say an exact figure, but roughly, it would look like up to 30 percent that would come back as a cheque to the provincial government every year for the next four years. That's the first thing.

           If we look at some other models…. For example, in Alberta or a lot of other jurisdictions where capital taxes were completely eliminated — or even here…. If we look where capital taxes were eliminated on general corporations in 2001…. It's now 2005. We know and you know that in terms of your revenue coming back on the corporate income tax side, you've more than compensated for that loss in the capital taxes.

           Alberta demonstrated that within two years. You've demonstrated it within four years, maybe less. By eliminating the capital taxes, you generate more revenue on the income tax side. There are a number of studies that we've alluded to in our report that demonstrate that.

           So we think that, based on those models, you'd see an immediate rebate of close to a third of the money, and then over the next two, three, four years, that money would be recovered. But you'd help create these long-term jobs in the society and allow you to have that more flexibility in the years to come, should there be a downturn economically.

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

           I did see Jerry Lampert here just a second ago. There he is. So we have the Business Council of British Columbia — Ken Peacock and Jerry Lampert.

           Good morning, gentlemen. I'm glad you could join us today.

           J. Lampert: Thank you to the committee for this opportunity. I'm joined by my colleague Ken Peacock, who is director of economic research with the Business Council of British Columbia. I think many of you know the council, but basically, we represent major enterprise in the province. We've been in existence since 1966, and we regularly present to the Finance Committee and appreciate that opportunity.

           Our submission is being circulated, and of course, we'll be making reference to various items in that submission. I just wanted to begin by stating quite simply that the B.C. economy continues to grow at a healthy pace. We, our members, are very pleased at our success to date.

           It's not without its difficulties. It's not without sectors that are having more difficulties than perhaps they've had in the past — most notably, forestry, and we'll comment on that as we go through our brief presentation.

           I also want to say at the beginning that we want to congratulate the government for its management of the economy. We have had several years of successful management of the economy, and we believe that it's in the interest of British Columbians, generally, to have that type of success.

           In referring to the submission, we begin with reviewing the external and domestic economic conditions facing British Columbia. Externally, of course, I think we all know that there's been a slowdown in the United States. That has a direct effect on us here in British Columbia, particularly the plight of U.S. homebuilding sector and the implications for British Columbia industry.

[1055]

           Also the currency — the Canadian dollar being at par with the U.S. dollar. That's challenging the competitiveness of many of our export industries, including pulp and paper, lumber, tourism, film production. These are all industries that are crucial to our economic success in British Columbia.

           On the bright side, of course, we see a significant expansion in the mining industry. The Pacific gateway and the role that it's playing in transportation and other sectors is significant.

           On the domestic economy side, we have had an unbelievable run in construction, both non-residential and residential. These have been enormous positive factors.

           I'm now going to turn it over to my colleague Ken Peacock, who will review some of our concerns and some of the priorities we're recommending for budget 2008.

           K. Peacock: Yes, I'm echoing Jerry's sentiments absolutely. The B.C. economy has been performing very well — very strong, robust growth.

           Having said that, as an economist I'm obliged to highlight some of the concerns we see going forward. In particular, we pick out four structural issues that we

[ Page 1502 ]

think are going to begin to clamp down on economic growth in the province. It's not a derail-the-economy situation, but it's more the structural factors. We look out two, three, four years, and we believe that they're going to start to impede some of the growth performance we've seen in the past. I'll be able to just briefly touch upon them.

           The first one is export performance and the growing trade deficit. B.C.'s trade deficit has ballooned over the past four or five years. We have in fact run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1989, but it's really ballooned and expanded over the past four years. In part, that's due to the dollar, but we also have this structurally weak export sector. Exports account for the smallest proportion of GDP compared to any other province in the country. Surprising to most people, we actually do have a small export base in the province.

           The second one that I believe is going to start to slow things down will be labour and skill shortages. Now, this is not new to anybody. All you have to do is look at the help-wanted signs on the backs of trucks and as you walk into Safeways around the province and at ads on TV. It's clear that we are experiencing somewhat of a labour shortage in the province.

           Right now that's cyclical in nature, but as we move past 2010, it's going to be more structural in nature. By that I mean that you're going to see an increased number of retirements because the baby-boomers are going to begin to retire. This is more of a long-term issue. As we move forward — we've done some projections at the Business Council — we see growth in the labour force slowing from about 1½ percent, where it is now, to maybe half a percent or lower by 2015. As we advance, slower labour force growth, by definition, means slower economic growth.

           The third one is productivity. To put it succinctly, B.C. has a terrible productivity record. We have the worst productivity performance among the provinces. If you look at productivity growth from 1987 to 2006, in the past four or five years our productivity has increased only 0.5 percent — much worse than historical performance vis-à-vis B.C. and also lower than the national performance of about 1 percent. So we do have a weak productivity performance.

           You combine poor productivity with slow labour force growth, and that is a recipe for slower growth.

           The final one, of course, is pine beetle. This is an epidemic that is sweeping through the interior of the province. Right now there's an elevated cut as companies are trying to harvest and salvage the timber while it's still usable. But when you move past that elevated cut, there's going to be a dramatic drop-off in the annual allowable cut in the interior part of the province. We think that is going to have a serious impact on the communities in those areas and is also going to begin to clamp down on the economic growth.

           Just to recap, I think it's still good news for B.C. We're going to remain near the top of the provincial economic growth rankings over the next couple of years. As we move to 2009-2010, there will probably be a little bit of lift from the Olympics, of course, but the structural factors are going to begin to bear down on the province's economy.

           If we had to evaluate risks, I'd say they're on the downside for next year anyway because of the U.S. housing situation. Sharp falloff in U.S. housing starts always impacts the B.C. economy, and I don't think there's much on the horizon for any meaningful recovery in that area in 2008.

[1100]

           Turning to priorities for the B.C. budget in 2008. Again, as Jerry said, the government deserves high marks for its disciplined approach to managing outlays. Having said that, the Business Council recommends increased funding in a couple of areas. We highlight in our submission post-secondary education and training as well as social support, particularly in the areas of homelessness, substance abuse and mental health programs.

           Then, quickly, in the couple of minutes that I have remaining, I'll just turn to some of the taxation issues we highlight in our submission.

           As a backdrop, of course B.C. has a relatively competitive tax climate, both for businesses as well as individuals, but there are a number of measures and steps that we believe could be implemented to further improve that position. We would like to see the government implement measures so that B.C. has the lowest personal income tax rate in Canada for all taxpayers with incomes below $150,000. We believe this would be a good step because it will help attract skilled workers, who are necessary to help grow the knowledge base in the province.

           We urge the government to explore something along the lines of an earned income tax credit scheme, similar to that in the U.S. That could be put in place in the province, and would help raise the incomes of individuals who hold low- and modest-paying jobs.

           We also recommend that the government be mindful of the gap between the corporate tax rate in Alberta and the corporate tax rate in British Columbia. The Competition Council came out and recommended that B.C. always stay within 125 percent of the Alberta rate. Right now B.C.'s corporate tax rate is at 12 percent. Alberta's is at 10 percent, so we are in fact 20 percent higher. We just would like the government to watch that gap and make the necessary moves if Alberta does indeed cut their corporate tax rate in the near term.

           The Business Council also recommends phasing out the capital tax on financial businesses over the next three years. B.C. has strong potential to be a significant international financial centre serving the Pacific Rim. The taxing of capital and financial institutions works directly against this objective. We estimate this cost to be relatively modest — about $100 million annually.

           Finally, an important step for B.C. will be streamlining the property tax. It's been a longstanding concern here in the business community in the province. B.C. has high property taxes, high ratios of business property tax relative to residential property tax. Arguably, you could make the case that B.C. in fact has the worst property tax system in the country for three reasons.

[ Page 1503 ]

           (1) There's an unusually large number of classes.

           (2) Municipal governments are free to set their own rates and the ratios, so in effect they can shift the property tax burden unduly towards businesses.

           (3) There is no appeal mechanism for businesses or corporations that feel they are being punitively taxed at a high property tax rate.

           As an initial step, we recommend that the province legislate maximum ratios between residential rates and various business-class rates, which is usually what is done in most other jurisdictions in Canada.

           With that, I'll turn it back to my boss Jerry to put in some final comments.

           J. Lampert: Talking about being boss, some of you may wonder where the effervescent Jock Finlayson is. When he heard that climate change was on the agenda of the Finance Committee this year, he immediately booked his annual vacation. He's somewhere abroad right now.

           We do have a couple of things to say on climate change. I'll try to wrap it up quickly. We know that government has laid out an ambitious environmental agenda. The prebudget consultation document had some questions around the greener future of B.C.

           In our view, the primary purpose of the annual budget is to allocate overall public spending and deal with the fiscal climate, not to tinker with the environmental policies of the province. Nonetheless, since we've been asked, we do have a few things to say.

           The Business Council strongly favours a national approach to tackling climate change. In our view, the country will not be well served by a proliferation of separate provincial strategies featuring different and perhaps conflicting goals, targets and policies. Moreover, because climate change is a global problem, international cooperation and coordination are essential to making progress.

           No international agreement can possibly be credible or effective unless the biggest emitters are involved. Canada produces just 2 percent of global GHG emissions, of which B.C. contributes less than 1/10. Those are pretty dramatic figures.

[1105]

           That said, we know that B.C. intends to move to establish hard caps on greenhouse gas emissions for major industry, a proposal that's linked to its plan to participate in the future carbon-trading market involving a number of western U.S. states and some provinces. It now appears that B.C.'s emissions cap will be more stringent than those adopted nationally. That presents all sorts of problems in terms of harmonization and working out common regimes for practice.

           It's going to take time to establish the cap-and-trade regime that the province is moving towards. During this period, the government should steer clear of other new policies that would increase costs for industries facing greenhouse gas caps. As we move to a carbon-constrained economy, policy-makers need to ensure that B.C. energy producers and manufacturing firms are not placed at a competitive disadvantage, particularly in a North American context.

           We then go on and make a couple of statements about ways in which industry can be offered incentives to respond to the need for action in this area. I won't go into the details now. It's in the latter part of our report.

           We thank you for this opportunity and throw it open to your questions.

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

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Two areas for your comment. First, there's a fairly provocative business book called Why Mexicans Don't Drink Molson. The thesis of the book is that Canadian business has to look inward as to why it has not aggressively developed international brands and pursued export markets far more vigorously than, certainly, other countries. The book is a little more complicated than that, but I'd invite your comment on that.

           Secondly, Dan Myzuka, who is the chair of the faculty of commerce at UBC, attempted over the last several years to draw people together in an attempt to develop a regional development mechanism, which is common in many jurisdictions in the world. I think from the tone of the article in B.C. Business, he simply gave up in despair. I'm wondering why it is that business leaders in this region are unable to cooperate in terms of developing that kind of enterprise. One goal might be to reduce the decline in head offices that your paper identified as continuing steadily onward as the years goes by.

           So those two areas for your comment.

           K. Peacock: On the exports, I think there may be something to that, in terms of why companies haven't been more aggressive in terms of pursuing the international markets. It may be a bit unfair in the B.C. context, simply because our resource-based companies have long looked to external markets for their support. That has been a basis.

           It's probably been in the more high-tech area — the more advanced technologies and newer areas — where perhaps Canada and B.C. have not competed as aggressively in the international realm as they might.

           Part of B.C.'s small export base issue is the fact that historically we are tied heavily to the resource sector, which has grown, but it hasn't been a strong growth area. There is a need to develop newer high-tech and even medical components, services and this type of thing to be more effective and have a bigger export base here in the province — important element of driving wealth creation in the future and making B.C. competitive.

           I would say that, yes, there is something to the book that you cited, but not entirely, depending on which products you look at.

           J. Lampert: On regional development mechanisms, I think Dan Myzuka was perhaps talking about the entire Pacific Northwest region. Is that what you're referring to?

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): It's an article in B.C. Business.

[ Page 1504 ]

           J. Lampert: We the Business Council have been engaged in some of the exercises where there has been an effort to pull together a regional mechanism for economic development. Some of the leaders of the council have served on advisory committees. Often they have broken down due to lack of leadership, both political and from industry.

           Over the years, certainly in the Greater Vancouver area, where we've tried to promote the idea of a regional economic development approach, we've pointed to other jurisdictions — and we've done work on this for over ten years — whether they're in Texas, Massachusetts or California, where there are some good examples.

[1110]

           There the effort to lead on these exercises comes from the business community, the academic community, the local regional political community. Where the three are not pulling in concert, it just doesn't happen. Where they're successful, it does happen.

           For whatever reason, it's been very difficult to pull something together in Greater Vancouver and, more broadly, in the province. I think there is some good ongoing work being done by the PNWER organization and, generally, Cascadia. We have the Governor of Oregon coming in to speak with us about trade and related issues in about a week and a half. So there's lots going on, but it's going to take a more concerted effort.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you very much. We do have more questions up here, but we just don't have the time today.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The next presenter is Dr. Paul Kershaw, the human early learning partnership — based out at UBC, I believe.

           P. Kershaw: Good morning. It's a pleasure to be here. I come on behalf of the human early learning partnership, which is a research unit coordinated out of the University of British Columbia but recently selected by the World Health Organization to be the international knowledge hub about the determinants of health in the early years.

           While a lot of our research is solicited and applied in the international context, I come today to seek your support in applying our research findings here locally.

           I have a handout that I'll turn your attention to in a couple of minutes, but what I want to do is provide just a bit of context — two pieces of context, in particular.

           The first is building on the previous presentation. The B.C. Business Council was lamenting a labour supply shortage. The kind of recommendation that I'm going to make is going to provide a direct solution to their concerns.

           Second, I want to observe that our research shows that as kids reach our formal school system, about one-quarter of them enter it vulnerable on one domain of development, be it language and cognitive element or health or social-emotional issues. In fact, over the last four years we've seen that rate rise.

           While the economy has been tremendously hot — something that we can take a great deal of pride in — we haven't yet seen some of the positive social implications for citizens in their early years who are going to in fact inherit the green approach that the government is currently advancing — and appropriately so.

           The recommendation that we want to urge at the human early learning partnership is to take some of our resources and put them into a universal, quality child care system for all of those who wish or need to use it, at rates that are affordable.

           We know it's something that we can afford as a society in British Columbia, and that's what I'd like to just draw your attention to with the handout. The numbers that we're presenting come straight off the Ministry of Finance website. We're not disputing them. The only things that aren't off that website come from the Ministry of Child and Family Development about child care services specifically. Again, we're not disputing them.

           The story that first page shows is something I know this government takes a great deal of pride in: a tremendous improvement from a deficit to a surplus — growth of about 500 percent — from between 2001, when the government took power, till last year.

           Over that same time there has been growth in spending. You know this. You're on the committee. The spending has, in particular, been with respect to health care and education.

           In terms of social services, the house in which child care services fit, there has been a decline in spending over that time, even just in nominal terms, at a rate of about 15 percent. While members of the provincial government sometimes claim that there have been increases in child care spending in the province, the only way in which that's true is when there have been federal increases.

           In fact, our numbers, as confirmed by the Ministry of Child and Family Development, show that provincial investment in child care services has declined by about 10 percent over the last six years.

           Now, comparing 2001 to now is not an easy thing to do, particularly because nominal numbers don't mean a lot. The way the Ministry of Finance handles that is to express investments in terms of the share of GDP. That tells an even more dramatic story. A year ago when there were additional provincial cuts to child care services, one of the reasons given was that health care funding was really absorbing so much money that there wasn't enough left over for other things like child care services.

[1115]

           The Ministry of Finance website shows that in fact health care spending isn't growing at the rate the economy is growing. Education spending isn't growing at the rate the economy is growing. In particular, social service spending is declining as a share of the economy by about 38 percent over the last six years. B.C.'s contribution to child care services has declined 33 percent of the share of the economy. What we now have in the province is B.C. putting about 0.11 percent of our GDP into child care services.

[ Page 1505 ]

           I'm hoping you'll turn the page and see how that looks in an international context. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and add the federal dollars in there, B.C. has about 0.22 percent of its GDP going to child care services for kids aged zero to 12. That is well below Canada's average of 0.25 percent going for kids aged zero to six. We don't even look as good as the rest of the country, in part because Quebec really leads the way on that front. Even outside of Canada…. We are way behind any other affluent country that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development can imagine.

           Some people will say that if we invest in child care services — please turn to the third one now — we'll be providing an investment that supports some families but not others. In particular, it will support families that don't have a parent staying at home providing that really valuable civic contribution that is parenting and child-rearing.

           What this next page shows — and I won't go into the details that underscore it — is that when you take into consideration things like the spousal tax credit, the universal child benefit, and so on, that come from the federal government, in fact families that do have to rely on a parent at home have benefits that position them more favourably than parents that have to rely on child care services or ought to.

           There is a myth out there in public policy right now that if we go down the road of investing in child care services, we'll be doing a disadvantage to families that choose not to use them. The real story is that we'll be remedying the significant gap in our support services for families.

           I'll have you turn to the last page. The last page is telling you what it would cost to actually provide a child care service program for different age ranges. I'm going to give you the most expensive off the top, because it is big dollars. We're not talking about something cheap. We're not talking about books for babies. We're not talking about seatbelts in cars. We're talking about a major investment in our social fabric — perhaps the last missing piece in our social fabric.

           It's going to cost in the order of about two billion bucks a year if you were to do it for kids aged one to 12. In one year, knowing what we know from other jurisdictions, you would reap at least 40 percent of that back just because of additional tax revenues, not taking into consideration all the other pros that will come from better health outcomes and what have you.

           That means about a $1.2 billion investment. I'm not talking about using all of the surplus forecasted. I'm not even talking about an average surplus over the last three years. In fact, that is what I'm talking about — the average surplus from the last years. That's a very conservative number that would in fact be able to cover that cost, leaving you lots of dollars with which to address the other green needs that this budget is asking people to focus on.

           Were you to do that, consider the gains one would reap for labour supply issues. If we have a hot economy right now, if we don't have the labour to meet the economic needs and if in fact, as the Business Council just observed, there are going to be baby-boomers retiring, then we are more and more going to have to draw on the labour of families with young kids. The place where that labour supply is growing most in the country is the one place in the country where there has been a substantial investment in child care services.

           In Quebec they have seen a supply of female labour with mothers of young kids at home that has doubled that of the rest of the country. That is a major issue for an economy like ours that is currently short on labour supply.

           J. Horgan: Thank you very much, Paul, for that rapid-fire tutorial.

           P. Kershaw: I only had ten minutes.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You got it in, in seven and a half, so you're ahead of the game.

           P. Kershaw: More time for questions. It's the questions from you that matter.

           J. Horgan: It's important for me as well.

           I'd like to go back to page 3, where you were exploding the myth. Certainly, I represent a suburban area on Vancouver Island, and the myth is firmly holding that stay-at-home families are at a disadvantage to those who enter the workforce and seek child care.

           Since you went through that pretty quickly — and my colleague Iain said that you would help me get to a place where I can understand it — take some extra time.

[1120]

           P. Kershaw: Sure. What we did at the human early learning partnership is the most extensive study of family benefits ever conducted in the country of Canada. We took provincial and federal policies into consideration and the widest understanding of family policies possible.

           In particular, we looked at things like the spousal tax credit. We looked at things like the new universal child care benefit. We looked at things like the child care expense deduction. We looked at things like savings that families reap as a result of health care spending in terms of going to the doctor, getting a prescription drug and so on.

           When we take all of those things into consideration, we find that couples that have average income, where one person stays at home…. You look at their disposable cash after child care and so on compared to a couple without a kid, and they have a net gain. It's not huge. It's only about $70 to $100 a month. That's not something we need to necessarily take a great deal of pride in.

           But if you look at a comparable family that has to rely on child care services in order to support both parents to be in the labour market, that family has a net deficit in disposable cash in the order of about 350 bucks a month, relative to a couple without a child.

           All of that deficit can be explained almost entirely by the cost of child care services. What that means is if you want to move from a one-earner couple to a two-

[ Page 1506 ]

earner couple, which in many respects our economy really needs right now, the person making about 11 bucks an hour nominally actually only takes home about $5.11 after taxes, child care services and so on. That's not including the lost productivity at home or the cost of the clothes or the transportation to get to work.

           So there's just not that real incentive that our public policy is putting in place to actually attract that additional labour you want to attract. That is part of underscoring this myth that, right now, we're not supporting one-earner couples to stay at home.

           I'd love to go into more detail. We can do that after this through e-mail consultation or whatnot.

           J. Horgan: Sure. I'd appreciate that.

           P. Kershaw: It'd be a pleasure.

           J. Kwan: Just on that, I wonder: do you have any projections of how many people would be able to enter into the workforce if they had adequate child care support?

           Then a second question to that is: do you have any sense…? I guess the flipside of it is: how many children across the province — and I don't know if you have that information broken down on a region-by-region basis — are in need of child care services and are unable to get that service?

           My last question is….

           P. Kershaw: Okay, I'd better start writing them down.

           J. Kwan: Sorry.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): It's really only one question, according to the rules.

           J. Kwan: But there are three parts to my one question.

           My last question is…. On the last page of your handout, you say that the assumptions behind the costing model of the $2 billion per year are based on 100 percent for one-to-fours and 70 percent for five-to-12s. Can you just give me a sense of what that cost is? So what 70 percent of the five-to-12s is the per-month? Are we talking about $1,000 or $1,500? What are we talking about?

           P. Kershaw: No. It's in terms of the usage, so the cost estimates are based on 100 percent of one-to-four-year-olds taking advantage of this service, about half of them using it part-time. Then the cost assumptions for the one-to-12 age range assumes that 70 percent of kids are going to be using the program.

           J. Kwan: Oh, I see.

           P. Kershaw: It's not the actual cost they will incur.

           J. Kwan: I see. Thank you.

           P. Kershaw: As for the other two parts of the question, the number of kids needing child care services…. Today we have enough spaces in the licensed sector for about 13 percent of kids aged one to 12. What you need to know is that when we've put provincial dollars into the unlicensed sector, we actually had new evidence at the human early learning partnership that that investment does nothing to break the relationship between poverty and vulnerability for kids.

           But when we put money into the licensed sector, even though it has very minimal standards, it nonetheless actually is proving to break the worrisome relationship between poverty and vulnerability. So that's an important thing.

           Right now we have about 20 percent of kids using licensed spaces, because some share a space part-time. I think you would need to presume upward of 70 percent of kids going into the system on a part-time or full-time basis, and then even higher for the one-to-four age category.

[1125]

           As for the labour supply gains, economists have worked a lot on this, both in Canada and in the US. I crunched the numbers in the past when we were thinking about a shift to $14-a-day child care in British Columbia, kind of modelled on the Quebec system. There you could predict about a 20-percent gain in labour supply for moms with young kids.

           I'd have to go back and make sure I gave you that exact number, but it would be easy for you to say: what price could you imagine child care services costing? Then we'd just take the math that the economists had put together for us to show the elasticity between costs of child care and then labour force participation by moms with kids. It's not a hard thing to calculate.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): There are more questions, but I'm afraid we've run out of time, so thanks very much for your presentation, Dr. Kershaw.

           P. Kershaw: A pleasure. Good luck with the difficult decisions ahead.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The next presenters are with the Legal Services Society. I see them here: Mayland McKimm, Bruce Clokie and Mark Benton.

           Go ahead.

           M. Benton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chair. I'm Mark Benton. I'm the executive director of the Legal Services Society. It's my pleasure to appear before you a second time. It's my second year, not the second time in this cycle.

           When I appeared last year, I advised you that the society was entering into a phase of legal aid renewal, of redefining our services and redirecting them in a way that better meets the needs of the people of British Columbia for legal aid services, legal information, legal advice.

           Appearing with me today, to my left, is Mr. Mayland McKimm. Mr. McKimm is the vice-chair of the Legal Services Society board of directors. To my right is Mr. Bruce Clokie.

           While I have the great pleasure of having "Legal Services Society" appear under his name, he is not an employee or a member of the board of directors of the

[ Page 1507 ]

Legal Services Society but rather a member of the private bar in British Columbia who has provided some extraordinary services to people in this community and in the lower mainland generally and has got quite interesting results in terms of early, lasting resolutions for the clients.

           What we felt would be helpful today is for you to have an opportunity to hear directly from Mr. Clokie about the circumstances in the courts and the initiatives underway to actually get better resolutions for people sooner.

           As you know, we are the province's legal aid provider. We also have a broader mandate to meet the legal needs of low-income people in British Columbia. We do that through a variety of services, including a classic legal aid mode where we appoint lawyers for them. We also maintain an internationally leading Internet-based information service as well as Canada's leading telephone hotline service for advice and information.

           Mayland, do you want to take it from here?

           M. McKimm: Since 2002 the Legal Services Society has changed the model in which it provides legal services. It was traditionally a model in which a lawyer was appointed to act for a person with a legal need, and the lawyer represented the person as lawyers generally do for people of means.

           With the budget crunch, we came to realize that we really needed to provide legal services that were proportionate to the individual's problem rather than being simply a one-stop or one-size-fits-all solution. So we began to work with the Attorney General's ministry in a more holistic approach to resolving problems.

           That meant we provided legal services commensurate with the need of the individual. It also meant that we worked with other organizations within the justice community — that may be social workers, housing, addictions people — to try to create what we refer to as a more holistic approach to the resolution of legal problems.

           That has really been the benchmark of where we're moving ahead. What we've found since 2002 is that it's not only more cost-effective — and the Attorney General has been very supportive of the approach because it's cost-effective — but also that it produces, in fact, better and more lasting solutions to problems.

[1130]

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           Legal aid renewal, which is what we want to speak to you about, means helping clients reach their own positive and lasting solutions to their legal problems, forming partnerships outside of the narrow justice community, outside of lawyers and judges — dealing with addictions, dealing with housing and dealing with the other social problems that generally create legal problems, whether they're family problems or, in the kind of work that I do, criminal problems. They don't just become criminals because they're evil; they become criminals because they're addicted or they're short of housing.

           Then, ultimately and finally but we think really quite importantly, making sure we're in the path of the client. Rather than having to go to the lawyer, rather than having to go to the legal aid office, we go to where the clients might be. We go to community centres. We go to places where people are so that we can reach out and get to them and try to at least dispel the myth that legal aid doesn't exist in B.C. anymore.

           M. Benton: One of the things we've learned over the past year, as we've started digging into this issue further, is that the silos within public services are so endemic, so structural that there is neither budgeting nor planning that happens in a way that actually addresses those needs. Our first recommendation to you is that government begin to look at ways of breaking down those silos in the budgeting process.

           Mayland has mentioned circumstances in criminal court where we typically see our clients going into court where in fact they have serious health problems; they have significant housing problems. As I talk to police officers, Crown defence lawyers and social workers, most agree that one of the key things we need to break that cycle is secure housing and an integrated service.

           The community court program that the Ministry of Attorney General is bringing forward is a strong first step in that direction, but it is a first step. There needs to be better integration of the approach that we all take to that. While we don't have a solution for you as to how that might occur, we'd encourage you to begin an examination about how budgeting can occur so that we get a more outcome-oriented approach to that social service/justice service delivery.

           Our other key message, by the way, in this relates to we're not seeking additional funding for the coming year. We expect to be able to use our own resources to fund our legal aid renewal strategies over the next year.

           M. McKimm: Two things I'll finish on. I really want to leave Mr. Clokie some time to speak to you. The kinds of initiatives that we're talking about are, for example, the family justice hubs which we've opened in Vancouver. We have opened a family justice hub in Nanaimo. There will be a civil justice hub, where citizens can go to a civil justice hub and obtain the kind of information they need to work towards resolving their own problems. Ultimately, as it comes to lawyers, they may find that they simply have to have counsel on any given case, and legal aid will be there at that hub to assist them — as I say, getting in the path of the client with needs.

           That's really all I want to say now. I'd really like, Bruce, if you can….

           B. Clokie: Certainly. I guess I'm the front-line guy. I'm the guy who's out there doing the work that is allocated for lawyers within certain constraints that we have to work within, which definitely makes it a challenge. I've been doing this since about 1993. I have a combination of private and legal aid clients, all family law. Primarily, legal aid is where I focus at this time.

           Legal aid has allowed me to develop a practice where I really feel that I'm providing some meaningful and useful services for clients that are in need. Maybe

[ Page 1508 ]

people are going through, typically, a breakdown in their families. There are negative financial consequences in such a transition. There are child custody issues that are causing stress for the families. They are struggling with custody and access issues, maybe alienation from a child they haven't seen for a number of months or years. There may be domestic violence or spousal abuse issues that have to be addressed, economic hardship.

           I come in, and I'm faced with a situation where I'm trying to help a client, whether it's a mother or a father, on a very limited tariff basis — to do what I can on limited means.

           I also represent parents that have had their children removed by the ministry, social services, by the director of child, family and community services because of neglect or abuse or addiction issues or abandonment. I have to work within a certain budget of time to try to assist those clients to have their children returned in a safe but, obviously, timely manner.

           Family law is a special area as far as I am concerned. It's a fragile, sensitive area. It's got huge, significant ramifications, I think, for the lives of families, children and all of us in the community. It impacts us all. That's why I think that the government needs to spend special attention to make sure that this area is adequately funded, as it affects us all.

           My challenge as a lawyer is basically to take a situation and work within a tightly regulated tariff to try to help and address immediate concerns, which are often urgent referrals that are sent to me, on a tariff that provides for a limited amount of hours — 14 hours.

[1135]

           When I first started doing this in 1993, I was paid $80 an hour, and I was allowed 26 hours to basically run a case and finish it, hopefully within a year. If you had a second year, they would give you another 26 hours. You could use that within your discretion.

           A few years along the road, that time is reduced. The hourly rate is reduced by 10 percent under the guise of holdbacks, some of which are paid back and some of which are not. My hourly rate, then, is reduced to about $72 an hour.

           Then what happens is they reduce all of the time from 26 hours to about 14 hours. Then it goes down to eight hours, where we're supposed to basically complete a case, assist a client getting an order, make things safe for children, make sure that a mother has adequate financial care and that a child support order is in place.

           Basically, over 14 years the end result is that legal aid lawyers at the highest rate — where I'm at, because I'm at more than a ten-year call — are at less than 1 percent over the last 14 years if you amortize it, so not much. That should dispel any myth that legal aid lawyers are getting rich doing this, because they're not.

           I do it because I enjoy it. I get an immense degree of satisfaction if I can help people. My frustration is when at a certain point I have to withdraw because I've got a family to feed myself, and I can't work for free. I've done a lot of pro bono work as it is, at the hourly rate.

           The rates have increased. The first increase that we've seen ever, since I've done this, since 1993 — I'm talking about the family bar — took place in September '06. It was increased by 5 percent to 10 percent, depending on what level you are. I'm in the top level. It's now $92.29. That's what I earn per hour, and basically, I'm expected to wrap up a case in 14 hours.

           I guess I can complain all I want, but at the end of the day, there are some positive benefits. Instead of me being focused on running trials, which are acrimonious, adversarial and tend to polarize and alienate parents…. You have to write affidavits that are damaging. Everyone is throwing dirt. At the end of the day, parents can't co-parent, and children are harmed.

           What I'm getting at is that what we've had to do, as a family bar, to get by here is to do an early resolution system, where we sit down with clients. We do four-way settlement conferences with other lawyers. We do case conferences, and the courts have been very helpful in Provincial Court with case conferences. They've been very progressive. Supreme Court hasn't been nearly as progressive as Provincial Court.

           It's more of an early intervention system where we are meeting with our clients and trying to come to resolutions through ADR, through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Mediation is the most effective. Then there's the collaborative process, where we agree not to go to court, and we agree to sit down and work things out through a collaborative, consensus-building process. The whole idea is because there are children involved, we want parents to resolve these things in the most amicable way that they can.

           I'll wrap up by saying that's all I have to say about that. I have definitely benefited, and I hope I'm benefiting clients every day, working within the constraints that I can with legal aid.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Where do you practise, Bruce?

           B. Clokie: I practise in Vancouver, right across from the Supreme Court at 808 Nelson. The only way I can do it is that I'm in an office-sharing arrangement where there are some other lawyers who do some legal aid. I could not go out there, have my own office, have a secretary, have a paralegal and do this on my own. I couldn't make a living doing it. The only way I can do it is through an office-shared arrangement, where it's a package office.

           B. Bennett (Chair): On an average week for you, with all of your family law files, how much of your time, percentagewise, do you basically just discard because you have to look after the client?

           B. Clokie: Of my other work?

           B. Bennett (Chair): Time that you're not billing and you're not getting paid for, essentially.

           B. Clokie: My focus is on being as efficient as I can, trying to help the most urgent cases that I get across my desk within the time that I am accorded. I'm just a

[ Page 1509 ]

very streamlined, efficient operation. I have to be, by necessity.

           B. Bennett (Chair): The Nanaimo pilot project — does anybody know how much it would cost to roll that out across the province and put it in places like Cranbrook, Terrace, Prince George, and so forth?

           M. Benton: Mr. Chairman, where we are with the Nanaimo pilot project is that it's in a pilot project phase. To answer your question, no. That's in part because we're still securing additional funding from the Law Foundation to build that service out larger.

           M. McKimm: It has been delayed in Nanaimo as the result of some difficulties. It's scheduled to open in March '08.

           M. Benton: That would be the full civil hub, in March. Right now the family operation is there. Mr. McKimm opened it on behalf of the LSS. Sorry, we're partners with the Ministry of Attorney General in that hub.

[1140]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Right, but at some point you'll work with the ministry to figure out what a pro forma budget would be to roll it out across the province.

           M. Benton: In fact, as we speak, those discussions are ongoing.

           J. Kwan: I have one of those two-part questions. I was trying to recall. Last week sometime, I believe, we heard a presentation from Dr. Mychael Gleeson. You might have heard the name. She seems to do a lot of work with legal aid, particularly in the area of family law, with troubled children who are somehow stuck in between.

           Her appeal was for the Finance Committee to come forward or to recommend funding, especially in the family law area, to assist in situations such as the ones she has encountered for many years — with children in that situation.

           I wonder if you can comment on the more complicated family law cases and the sufficiency of legal aid supports for them, because there have been a series of cuts, as we know, in that area and in other areas too. What is that situation looking like today?

           The other part of the question is this. You say in your second recommendation: "That the provincial government plan for a core funding increase for legal aid by 2010 to sustain successful innovations." Quickly looking at your submission, you indicate that your reserve would be depleted soon. My questions on that are: how much do you have in your reserve, when will it be depleted, and how much will you need for 2010 in terms of your new innovations?

           M. McKimm: Great question.

           J. Kwan: It's a four-part question. I apologize.

           M. Benton: Is Dr. Gleeson dealing with the voice-of-the-child issue out of the pilot project in Kelowna?

           J. Kwan: We were in Burquitlam, apparently.

           M. Benton: There are a couple of issues that we have underway as part of legal aid renewal. One is to work on providing more or better representation to present the voice of the child in hearings where that's needed.

           In terms of the assistance we can provide to courts in making decisions, we continue to do that. But one of the real challenges for us — I don't know if Bruce Clokie might have a comment on this — is really linking up with the services outside the justice system in order to get needed service. They just fall outside the scope of our authority to provide but are clearly needed.

           When we talk about some better-integrated budgeting to ensure that services are available, it's really targeting need like that. Is that a fair comment to the first question?

           Bruce, I don't know if you have anything….

           J. Kwan: Sorry. On that first question, if you could at a later time — you don't have to do it now because I know time is of the essence here — send something to the committee on what kinds of services are needed in order to support the work of legal aid for children in those circumstances. Where can we get those, and how much would that cost the province in order for that to be in place?

           B. Clokie: A lot of that would go towards the Ministry of Children and Family Development, because when I'm dealing with parents that have had their children removed and we're trying to get the children back in a safe, timely manner, they really need counselling. They need services, so that's important.

           In terms of the legal aid part, one area I thought was really valuable that they've really reduced is having a psychologist come into a family situation and interview the parties, do some testing and come out with some great recommendations on how to reunite this family, reunify this family. We've lost a lot of that money. It's much more difficult for me to get the funding now for that, whereas before I was able to get it. I thought it was quite a useful expenditure of funds.

           M. Benton: On the second, as a result of some good luck, some good management and a vigorous search for outside funding, we currently are sitting on a surplus of $11 million, which the board has allocated to be spent over the next three years on the legal aid renewal pilot projects.

           We are anticipating that the first of those services, which includes supporting the community court for its first year or so…. It includes the family justice centre and the justice services centres that will emerge for the first couple of years. We anticipate expenditures that will sit around $2.5 million to $3 million a year.

           We will not be looking for funding for unsuccessful projects, and we're expecting that not everything we do will be successful. We'll use outside evaluations to

[ Page 1510 ]

ensure what happens, and we'll be coming back to you, I anticipate, next year with what we see to be the successful programs and will be able to articulate what we anticipate the need will be. But at this stage it's premature.

           M. McKimm: The structure at the board has been that…. We appreciate that government dollars are precious. We try to find outside funding to run the pilot project, to make sure that it's a successful project and that we can come to government with a proven commodity. At that point, we can do better budget projections that will, obviously, give you far better projections.

[1145]

           We can give you some idea now, but really, we need see how the pilots play out with private funding, and then we can come to the government for sustained funding.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you very much for your presentation. We're out of time.

           Could we have the Coast Forest Products Association, Rick Jeffrey, come forward.

           Morning, Rick.

           R. Jeffrey: Mr. Chair, I have to say that between you and Mr. Horgan, you've got quite a shirt selection going on there. Electric blue and fluorescent pink.

           B. Bennett (Chair): We are secure in our masculinity.

           R. Jeffrey: I unfortunately have just come from Powell River, so I wasn't able to dress in my finery for the committee.

           I've got a handout for you today. I think I might be one of the few people to appear before you who is going to suggest ways that you can increase your budget, not ask you for money.

           I'd like to talk about land use in British Columbia and forest land use in British Columbia and what the value of that is. Basically, we've taken some Pricewaterhouse data and Ministry of Forests data and calculated some financial projections for you.

           A hectare of land on the coast of British Columbia derives approximately $266,000 worth of GDP over the rotation of that hectare of land. For every hectare of land that we remove from the forest land base or from forest production, it ultimately costs society that $266,000.

           It doesn't seem like a lot, but when you think about ten hectares, that's $2.6 million. When you think about a hundred hectares, that's $26 million. When you think about a thousand hectares, that's $260 million. Those start to become big numbers.

           I would also note that direct revenue per hectare in 2007 is about $12,000. That's an annualized number. When you look at land use on the coast of British Columbia, you will see that there are about 7.6 million hectares of publicly owned forests. Of that, 2.7 million hectares are available for timber harvesting.

           We have a unique situation on the coast now, where the number of hectares in parks actually exceeds the number of hectares available for the forest industry. There are three million hectares in the parks now. There are only 2.7 million hectares of timber harvesting land base.

           The industry has undergone a dramatic change over the last decade in terms of its land use and its practices. The estimated impact of those on AAC has been in the range of 13 percent to 17 percent. That's Forest Practices Code, land use, integrated wildlife, parks, and those kinds of things.

           That is a large impact. It was initially projected to be around 6 percent across the province and about 9 percent on the coast. We have really doubled the impact of what we thought these things were going to cost in terms of access to the land base.

           I might add that we have a rough target of 12-percent park creation across the province. The coast now sits at 18 percent, so we're at fully 6 percent, or 100 percent higher than what we had asked for. That's fair enough. We've adapted. We're an adaptable industry. Our concern here is that this isn't the end of the story.

           There will be additional pressure for parks. First nations will have pressure for conservation areas, and those kinds of things. We have ecosystem-based management that's being looked at in the Queen Charlottes now. We have species at risk, fishery-sensitive watersheds, wildlife habitat areas, ungulate winter ranges, general wildlife measures.

[1150]

           IPPs are going to be looking for land base. Recreation and commercial tenures are looking. We have constant withdrawal out of the forest land base for things like golf courses and ski resorts and those types of things — all very valid pressures.

           I will also note that of the three million hectares that we have in parks, we are not using those three million hectares very smartly to meet the values that society is demanding from those forests. We don't have inventories for those. We have requirements that we have to manage differently on park boundaries. Parks get treated as if they have no habitat value, no biodiversity value or those kinds of things.

           What happens is that the timber harvesting land base then becomes the focus for conservation needs. Even though one in six hectares of forest land on the coast is available for timber harvesting, the other five hectares are available for other resource management.

           As I've pointed out to you, the value of a hectare is quite large. We wake up some days and say: "At the end of the day, we're not terribly profitable." We're not getting a lot, but $266,000 worth of GDP is created by every one of those hectares. Why isn't government looking at this a lot more closely?

           They're your hectares, and it's the GDP derived from those hectares that get you stumpage revenues, income tax revenues, corporate tax and those kinds of things from. We think that government needs to start to turn its mind to this question a lot more than it has previously.

           I would also like to say that the unstated cost in this is the cost on investment. This industry is in the process of reinventing itself. That's going to take

[ Page 1511 ]

money. We have put $350 million of discretionary capital back into this industry in the last three years. We need to probably put in another billion. We need to raise that in the financial markets, because we're not making a lot.

           It's difficult, when you're not earning your costs of capital, to get people interested in putting more money here — or any money here, for that matter. When you then tell them that the land base on which the fibre supply is derived is not secure, the risk factor goes up, and they're quite simply not interested.

           There is a huge cost in terms of investment for not having the kind of certainty that we need around the land base. So what can we do? Well, first of all, we need a focused planning process that is not single-purpose. We need to make sure that we use overlaps wherever possible so that hectares that are put aside can be used for more than one use and so that we can optimize public benefit from those hectares.

           The thing that startles us the most is that this is an interagency, interministry issue. It's anywhere from Small Business and Tourism to Environment to Energy. These are where the decision-makers for withdrawals reside. There is no coordination across that, and there is no ledger.

           I cannot stand in front of you today and tell you what the cumulative total of these withdrawals is. We're not keeping track. We don't have the ledger. We don't have the report card. We don't have a gatekeeper that says: "What is the cost benefit of this proposed withdrawal?" We think that's a very important thing we should do, and we should do it soon.

           We should also look at making sure that we have some kind of target for what we think the size of the industry should be to guide those kinds of decisions. You need to tell us that so that we can determine how much money to put in and what kind of industry we can build. We need some kind of stability on that.

           Hectares are valuable. If you keep them in production, it gives you a lot of revenue opportunity.

           Whilst I have you here, you are talking about climate change. I was in Powell River today. I have to tell you that it was hellish to try and figure out how I could get here in a carbon-neutral manner. It meant, really, that I had to run and swim, and I wasn't going to get here in time if I had to do that.

[1155]

           I use that vignette just to tell you that we're moving down this path very, very quickly. We are moving down this path without a heck of a lot of data, assessment and analysis. Like the Business Council said, we think we should just take a breath. Nobody's arguing that we've got to do it, but let's just make sure that we're doing it right.

           I will say that from a forest sector point of view, we have both forest management and a cap-and-trade system that are incredible assets for this province. We have the most planet-friendly building materials coming out of our forests — wood.

           There is no strategy, dialogue amongst the industry and the government around what strategic role forests and forest products will fill in a climate change–agenda world, and we need to have that discussion. I would hope that you would encourage the climate change secretariat and others to have that.

           On tax stuff. The dollar is high, so corporate tax, property tax and regulatory streamlining are all things that could help. You should look at those.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Rick.

           J. Horgan: Thanks very much, Rick, for your presentation. We could talk for a long period of time. I think I'm the only person on the committee that has a…. Randy would also be impacted by the coastal forest sector in the community.

           R. Jeffrey: You're all impacted, because there are mills in all of your ridings — not all of them, but quite a few of them.

           D. Hayer: I have three mills in my riding.

           R. Jeffrey: Yeah, exactly.

           J. Horgan: Certainly, I agree with you that the delay in the government announcing a strategy for the coast is having a tremendous impact on your ability to plan for the future. I understand that.

           The recent withdrawal of private lands by Western Forest Products on Vancouver Island, some 28,000 hectares, is a significant issue in my community, particularly around Jordan River. Recently Western announced that rather than continuing in the business of forestry, they are moving to land development and real estate speculation.

           It's difficult for me to go back to my community and support your contention that these hectares need to be part of a working forest when one of your association members is taking land out and offering it for sale for real estate development. Can you help me reconcile that?

           R. Jeffrey: Yeah, sure.

           First of all, that's private land. It's not Crown land in the Western case and the TimberWest case. What I would say on that is that there is a careful identification of those lands as being higher-and-better-use lands — for other uses.

           In a comparative advantage world, in a global world, in a rational economic thought world those properties are deemed to have more value as real estate than they have for forestry; i.e., they're worth more than $266,000 a hectare. They've made some rational economic decisions on whether to do that.

           It's not buckets and buckets of land compared to what we have, so it's not a scale issue that's huge. It's a very emotive issue for people. We understand that, but they are making sound economic decisions. The value of that land is higher than it would be if it was left in forest production. That's the first thing.

           The second thing is that if we don't take steps to right this industry and create some certainty and get the investment here, the companies will continue to monetize their assets, including their real estate assets.

[ Page 1512 ]

           The three mills in Dave's riding…. If you can't make a return on your capital, companies will then look at it and say: "That land is worth X dollars. We're going to take the mills off that land and sell it and monetize that asset." We're starting to get to that tipping point if we don't start to figure out the changes we need to the industry.

           I will also say about the coast action plan that the key learning we have from that plan, which will be announced, is that there are no grand plans. We need to continue down the process of interaction between the industry and the government to look at regulatory streamlining, making sure we have the policy set that both governs our environmental footprint and also creates the investment climate and the financial climate for the industry to operate in.

[1200]

           One of the things that we say consistently is: "Please treat us like other Crown resources." I'll give you the example of oil and gas. You license oil and gas; you license us. You tell them what their ecological and environmental footprint should be; you tell us what our footprint should be.

           You don't tell them how many barrels of oil to pump, which pipeline to put it in, which refinery to refine it in or what products to refine it into. You don't enter into the business side of the oil and gas industry.

           The government hand, although it's being pulled back and pulled back, has always been in the business side of forestry, and we keep telling the government: "You need to pull back and pull back." And we have. We've been seeing that and seeing that, and it has been starting to show some good benefits in terms of getting the industry on a competitive, sustainable basis.

           Long answer. Sorry.

           B. Bennett (Chair): No, that's fine. We are unfortunately out of time, but Rick, thank you very much for that. I really don't think that most British Columbians understand the state of the forest industry generally in the province, nor do they understand the state, particularly, of the coast forest industry. Appreciate you coming out and telling us about it today.

           R. Jeffrey: No problem. You have my contact information. I'm glad to have the conversation further with Mr. Horgan or others.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Our next witnesses are from the British Columbia Paraplegic Association — Dr. Steeves and Stephanie Cadieux. Good afternoon.

           S. Cadieux: Thanks for seeing us this morning. As my little name tag says, I think, I am Stephanie Cadieux of the B.C. Paraplegic Association. I'm here on behalf of our organization, along with Dr. John Steeves from ICORD. Behind us are representatives of eight other organizations. For the first time, we are coming to you as a cohesive group, and we're really excited about that.

           Over the last three years there have been some really exciting changes in the world of spinal cord injury. The leading injury service providers covering three areas on a continuum of care, from acute care in the health care system through to the community and research, have come together and understand that we need to design a comprehensive, coordinated, provincewide system of innovative and unified services.

           We're here to propose that integrated services delivery model. We want to do that to pioneer improved services for all people living with physical disability.

           An achievable goal for the province is to build the best system of treatment in the world for the treatment, ongoing care and support of people with disabilities. Realization of an inclusive society requires the delivery of coordinated services by a variety of skilled organizations and validation through a testing system. Spinal cord injury provides a good model for that.

           The benefits of the coordinated approach will include improved health, fitness, participation, inclusion and employment. The seamless efficiencies and comprehensive nature of the vision can result in improved outcomes functionally and in the quality of life of people with spinal cord injury, and reduced health care, social and income support costs, because people who have sustained traumatic injuries require a lot of support to re-establish a home and active community life.

           The act of coordination and the integration of delivery of services will yield better health care outcomes and maintain physical fitness, thereby reducing ongoing costs through government health care and social support programs.

           There will be a lot of knowledge translation, as lessons learned can be effectively translated and provided to people living with other disabilities. Ensuring successful outcomes will also ensure that government is able to build on the best-validated programs and ensure stability. This will make B.C. the unequalled leader in creating an inclusive society across Canada and even around the world.

           We expect to see enhanced accountability and sustainability through this. The collaborative and accountable model that we're developing would allow government to better track SMART — specific, meaningful, achievable, responsible and time-limited — outcomes.

           The proposals are brought forward by a unique and unprecedented coalition of service providers, as I mentioned, right through the continuum of care — from acute right through. Because of that, this single entity can provide a coordinated delivery of key services on behalf of the province.

[1205]

           There are important leverage opportunities available as well through the Canadian Spinal Cord Injury Translational Research Network, the SCI-TRN, and the Canadian SCI solutions alliance, which are two newly formed federally funded initiatives that have also garnered support from several other provincial governments.

           These national programs are entirely consistent and complementary with our network — namely, the establishment and delivery of standardized best practices

[ Page 1513 ]

and solutions for people with spinal cord injury. In addition, the life-at-risk outcomes assessment, or cost-benefit analysis, and modelling technology platform provided by RiskAnalytica to the TRN provides an opportunity for us to undertake a value-added analysis of all of the work that we do.

           There are several corporate partners collaborating in many of these projects, which also ensures that we reap economic benefits intrinsic to translating discoveries through knowledge-based industrial development.

           As mentioned, the three groups intermingle through health research and community service. Until today service providers — those here today with me, as an example — have been competing against each other for dollars from government, from the public and from other funders. Each not-for-profit group provides a unique and valuable service. Over its 50-year history the B.C. Paraplegic Association has provided leadership in the areas of rehab, peer support, access and inclusion.

           For example, Measuring Up the North, a new joint-partnership effort with the North Central Municipal Association and 2010 Legacies Now, is going to assist 41 northern communities to assess and improve their accessibility and inclusion.

           BCPA programs directly support more than 2,000 individuals with catastrophic injuries each year, and our community capacity work benefits communities provincewide.

           B.C. Wheelchair Sports and B.C. Wheelchair Basketball take the lead to ensure that all people, regardless of their ability, can lead and achieve active and healthy lives through adaptive sport.

           Bridging the Gap: Getting Physically Active is a program that introduces 400 people a year to wheelchair sports, encouraging healthy, active lifestyles and providing access to appropriate sports equipment, which is not readily available.

           The demo team, through these organizations, also provides a reach to 20,000 people in the province every year, creating awareness around the calibre and importance of adaptive sport.

           The Neil Squire society has proven to lead the way in the area of employment, providing assistance to over 500 people a year through a range of programs, from literacy to pre-employment and job placement. Tetra and the Neil Squire, together, research and develop leading-edge individualized technological supports that enable independence, community and economic participation. Together these organizations have the provincewide capability to meet high-tech and low-tech needs.

           BCMOS, DSA, VAMS, and DIGA — you can see from presentations what those really mean — remain leaders in the provision of programs and services relating to recreation and therapeutic leisure pursuits. These programs round out community participation.

           ICORD, finally, is the international leader in spinal cord research. The world's largest and most diverse research centre on SCI has active, basic and clinically applied research projects, from cells to community. With ICORD's leadership, research practices are being coordinated — both industry and other national initiatives with industry — to create a global enterprise.

           Each group that I've mentioned has significantly more demand for service than they're able to provide, and each group is seeing previously consistent funding drying up. One potential solution that we see and that we're proposing is to seriously investigate how available funds can be used more efficiently and effectively to try and reduce overlaps in services while investigating integration that would potentially see overheads and other resources shared, to the mutual benefit of people living with spinal cord injury.

           We're here representing the community-based support area of that continuum of health, research and community. We want to see that people are able to rebuild their lives and contribute fully. We'll be coming forward with financial requests of various ministries that are related to our areas in the coming weeks. We're asking you today, in keeping with the Premier's vision of the best system of support for people with disabilities, to pave the way to allow us to come forward successfully on that vision.

           The establishment of a fund in that vision, on the community side, is to support the integration and interweaving of the most essential services over a five-year period. So we're looking at that — to work with one another and the health care system to delineate the best working relationships, alignments and cost-efficiencies.

[1210]

           We've been working together over two years to build a cohesive group. We're confident now that we can bring forward this vision and a strategy. We believe it's an essential path for our organizations but also for the B.C. government in developing a system of support for people with disabilities. We believe that our collaboration and the study of potential integration models can develop a new and better service delivery model for the not-for-profit sector.

           We've articulated a couple of pilot projects as a result of our work together so far. They are a provincewide peer program and a technologies for inclusive environments project.

           The peer program mobilized the volunteer base to assist with the redevelopment of efficacy, self-esteem and independence in people with catastrophic injuries and resulting disabilities. It's a very cost-effective program, run through the B.C. Paraplegic Association. It's been in place since 2001.

           With the assistance of the government, in 2006 we were able to expand the program outside of the lower mainland to the northern region, through Prince George and the Fraser Valley. That's great, but the fact remains that 60 percent of the province is still unserved with that program.

           Through technologies for inclusive environments we see that a rapidly increasing number of advanced technologies can be adapted and harnessed to improve functional outcomes and quality of life for people living with a physical disability. Technological advances can provide better solutions for people with disabilities and seniors to achieve more effective functional recov-

[ Page 1514 ]

ery and improve mobility, independence and opportunity to contribute.

           Our vision won't be attainable without the support of government. We are going to need funding to ensure ongoing service delivery during the transitional phase and an investment in some new pilot projects. We're encouraged that the government recognizes the value of the direct and crucial services we provide, and we believe the government's commitment to providing the best system of support is an excellent and achievable objective.

           We have partnered for many years with government in the provision of services for people with disabilities, and we look forward to continuing those partnerships. Every citizen deserves the opportunity to pursue his or her goals and dreams. Government has an important role to play in ensuring that that opportunity is open to everyone. Together we can help to achieve this by providing unparalleled support for people with disabilities.

           Thank you, and we welcome your questions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Stephanie.

           R. Hawes: Thank you, Stephanie. In terms of order of magnitude of the amount of money that we're talking about, could you at least provide us with something? What are we talking about here?

           S. Cadieux: Because we're talking about the health care system, community services and research, at this point I could tell you that, on the community services side, our portion of that process would be looking at close to $8 million a year for five years.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the excellent presentation. In terms of the technologies for inclusive environments project, do you see the benefit of economic development from the industries? With the technology there are feedbacks for this project that there would be an opportunity, generally, for the industry, beneficial to the whole world of people with disabilities. Do you see that kind of prospect?

           S. Cadieux: We do, and because John has more knowledge of that, I'd like him to answer that question.

           J. Steeves: In terms of what you might call intellectual property development, we're working with a number of corporate sector partners — including IBM, which is well known to many of you — on developing those unique intellectual properties and, obviously, looking at patenting them and rolling them out. There are obviously profits that flow back in, we hope, through those technologies.

           They're very aware, as most of you are aware, that we are currently in the final stages — the last few months — of completing the Blusson Pavilion, which will be the home of ICORD. It is being built as the world's most accessible building and is indeed a research tool in itself for looking at the best way to design inclusive environments for people with disabilities. We've got several corporate sector partners involved in improving access.

           One of our goals has already been achieved. The disabled parking sign you're all familiar with seeing and that you see inside buildings and everything else will never appear inside our building.

[1215]

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much, both of you. You know, I can relate to your organization because my father after his '88 assassination attempt was paralyzed. B.C. Paraplegic Association really helped him a lot on that.

           Do you also work with all different municipalities and maybe through the UBCM to make sure the buildings we have outside are made more accessible to people in wheelchairs? Many of the businesses, when I talked to them, said basically that when people in wheelchairs try to go in, even though it's changed hands…. It's difficult to get in, even though it's better now than it was back in '88, from what I remember.

           Are you regularly trying to say that maybe every time it changes hands or a new licence is given, that they try to make it, within reasonable costs, more accessible, if possible?

           S. Cadieux: Yeah. BCPA was very involved in the development of the B.C. building code as it stands today, which has one of the highest standards in the country. But yes, there are always improvements to be made, and Measuring Up the North is one of the ways we're working with municipalities. At this point our organization is working primarily with communities in the north. However, we are always available to communities throughout the province as well.

           D. Hayer: Also, I just want to say that the deadline for submissions is Friday, October 19, so when you are submitting them, it has to be in by that time.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Folks, just one comment from me. Looking at your solutions page, I think the committee could probably use some help in arriving at some sort of potential recommendation for our report. I can't, obviously, make any promises or anything like that, but I'm just trying to figure out how we could get a recommendation out of the solutions that you've offered. When you do get back to the committee, by October 19, if you have specific suggestions around that, it would be useful.

           I'm going to actually make sure that you get my card here, if you want to discuss that with me in my capacity as Chair.

           S. Cadieux: Sure. I'd be happy to do that. It's always hard to condense this into ten minutes.

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

           Ian MacPherson. Ian, are you here strictly on your own or on behalf of any organizations or anything?

           I. MacPherson: I'm here on my own, sir.

[ Page 1515 ]

           My name is Ian MacPherson. I'm a resident of Surrey, and I'm a B.C. and Canadian taxpayer.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Happy to have you.

           I. MacPherson: I'm here to speak for myself. I want to thank you for the opportunity to address you today about future investments in the lower mainland for public transit.

           I'm going to use the terms "lower mainland" and "region" interchangeably. To be precise in what I mean, I would define the lower mainland and the region, in terms of public transit, to include Mission and Chilliwack because of the fact that the growth that's already underway, and that we're going to see over the next couple of decades, will be very important in those specific areas. So I would go beyond the definition of, say, the old GVRD or something. I think we have to take a wider definition.

           Most submissions to your committee are from individuals and groups who are requesting money to address very important issues. My focus will be on one area where I believe significant potential exists to make money for the taxpayers.

           Before I get to my recommendations, here are my main assumptions. I'm assuming that your committee has the mandate and interest with respect to revenue enhancement and not just expenditures. The lower mainland will continue to experience high rates of population and economic growth over the next 20 years. This growth will strain existing transportation and transit systems and strengthen the political and economic demand for more public transit.

           I've personally observed how public opinion in Surrey has become more focused on the need for more and better transit in the past six months. That's from talking to people, letters to the papers and a variety of other sources of information. As an observer and as an investor, I personally doubt that we will ever see gasoline fall below $1 a litre. I happen to believe that it will go higher in the future.

[1220]

           Increased transit investments will be a key element of provincial actions to reduce our contribution to global warming. The taxpayers of B.C. will be the major funder of new and expanded transit systems in the lower mainland. The greater the level of provincial investment in these transit systems, the greater the probability of important investments in these systems by the Canadian taxpayers. These investments are certain to be required and to happen on a sustained basis for at least 20 years in our region.

           As a resident of Surrey, I want to say that I believe any and all needed and viable investments in transit in the lower mainland region are good for the whole region and, therefore, good for Surrey. I do not believe that our future decisions on transit in this region represent a zero-sum game. What's good for Port Moody — the Evergreen line — is good for the region and good for Surrey. The same with the Canada line, which will soon open.

           New and expanded transit investments will continue to be important tools for smart growth, economic development and urban revitalization. A few examples. Without the SkyTrain, the commercial and residential development in the area around Metrotown in Burnaby would not have taken place to that extent. The Whalley area in Surrey. We're seeing announcements almost weekly — major residential investments. The rejuvenation of the Mount Pleasant area in Vancouver. Young people are moving in as older folks are moving out. A big factor is the proximity to the Canada Line, which will soon be open as you know.

           The long-term plans for development in Port Moody. Decisions will be made once that green light happens for the Evergreen line, and personally, I hope, as soon as possible.

           Job creation. In an area like Whalley, as a critical mass of new people moves in, the potential for job creation is enormous, particularly in the service trades for the immediate local market.

           Benefit to employers in our region, especially access to human resources. As you know, in B.C. one of the major challenges for our business people and other employers is getting and keeping their good employees.

           Smart growth generally is defined as being economically viable and environmentally superior. If transit investments will be achieved using smart-growth principles, I recommend that the definition of smart growth include making money for the taxpayers. In the private sector many businesses get created or grow in order to turn somebody's problem into a business opportunity.

           Population and economic growth in our region will be a major contributor to the need and demand for major transit investments and, at the same time, will also contribute to a strong real estate market in our region for many years. Starting with the Evergreen line, taxpayers' interests will be served as transit investors ensure that real estate assembled and in proximity to new and expanded transit systems will be developed to its highest and best use.

           I'd like to give you a few examples. Air space above key locations, especially transit stops and stations and their adjoining commercial areas, must be commercialized to the fullest extent possible. That is, for example, no more elevated SkyTrain stations unless it makes financial sense. We should build and develop above them, and the taxpayers should derive a major share of the benefit from that development.

           Imagine what the commercial value, market value, is of the air above the King George SkyTrain station, given all the development that we see occurring now. There may be some missed opportunities that we can recoup, but certainly in the future we should plan.

           The economic and political demand for affordable housing, a major issue in our region, can be accommodated as part of this commercialization approach. We should ensure that provincial taxpayers' investments in required buffer zones around new and expanded transit systems incorporate aggressive and creative use to best value for industrial, commercial, residential and institutional purposes.

[ Page 1516 ]

           Profits made for the taxpayers through best use of prime real estate should ideally be reinvested in future transit developments in the region.

           In summary, smarter and more knowledgable people than I can advise you and the government how B.C. and Canadian taxpayers can share the direct and long-term economic development benefits of billions in future transit investments in our region.

[1225]

           They and others could recommend, based in part on policies followed outside B.C., which objective should be set as to the taxpayers' share of direct development profits. Should it be 25 or 50 percent? Or should the objective be set on the basis of the type of project that's involved?

           These profits should be reinvested in transit projects in the region, and priority consideration of taxpayers' economic interests should be a key condition in the provincial government's negotiations with TransLink and individual governments.

           I would submit that that key policy should be part of the negotiations as they are pursued with respect to the Evergreen line.

           Thank you very much.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much, Ian. A very good presentation — actually very broad-minded thinking in the presentation.

           My question to you is a little bit more specific. You live in Surrey. You probably constantly hear about the issues related to transportation in Surrey — the Gateway program, the South Fraser perimeter road, or Highway 1 widening and the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. Generally, from your point of view, how does the community feel about twinning and widening the highway? Because when they're stuck in traffic, they're putting a lot of emissions in the environment, a lot of pollutants, plus spending time away from work or business.

           I. MacPherson: Well, I happen to live in an area that's right next to the Port Mann Bridge — Fraser Heights. Speaking to people in that particular area, which is getting close to about 20,000 folks, we are strongly affected by the congestion on the freeway and leading to the Port Mann Bridge — even many of us who may not use the Port Mann Bridge but once a week, for example. For us it's a major issue. I would say in our particular area, I haven't done a poll, but my impression is that there is strong support for twinning the freeway and the Port Mann Bridge.

           There are obviously concerns with respect to the South Fraser perimeter road in relation to the impact on residents who'll be very close to the eventual footprint of the South Fraser perimeter road. That will obviously argue for mitigation measures on noise and lights and that type of thing. I think generally for the twinning of the bridge and the freeway, there is strong support in our particular area.

           B. Bennett (Chair): We, the committee, appreciate how you've engaged in this democratic process as a citizen. Thanks for taking the time to do that.

           Can we have the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. division come forward — Bill Wright and Beverley Gutray.

           B. Wright: Thank you very much for this opportunity to make this presentation. I'm Bill Wright, and I'm president of the B.C. division of the Canadian Mental Health Association. Bev is our executive director.

           To give you just a brief background of what we do, we are a provincial organization with 20 local branches throughout the province. We provide a variety of services, support and public education to thousands of British Columbians. In conjunction with government programs, we provide over 800 housing units through our branches. So we have a wide range of services.

           We believe this is an important time to work with government and its various ministries to help ensure the best possible response to people with mental health and substance-use issues in our province. There is a great opportunity to roll back the growth of homelessness in this province by building a long-term sustainable plan.

           For perhaps the first time, the mental health and substance-use area has the attention of both the federal government, as evidenced by its creation of the mental health commission, and the provincial government, through the announcement of the Minister of Health on crafting a ten-year mental health and addictions plan.

           We believe there may be opportunities for intergovernmental cooperation. A key factor to having an effective plan in our view is a cross-ministry focus. Ministries have to work together to achieve optimal results. This is not always the case today.

[1230]

           People with mental illness and their families deserve a long-term vision, not a short-term experience. It is time for selfless rather than selfish actions, for focused rather than fractured responses, and for decision and not delay.

           The opportunity to build sustainable housing and support services, in our view, is anchored in the Riverview lands. They need to serve as a long-term legacy of support, not abandonment, for people with a mental illness. The size of the problem with homelessness is well documented, but we all know it's more than a matter of mere numbers. We continue to leave the most marginalized individuals in our society in circumstances where they must navigate through a complex system of government and community services in order to attempt to live in their own communities.

           The government, in its last budget, focused on housing. We call on you today to continue your efforts to provide long-term housing. Now that we have a planning framework in mind, we can invest in the services and supports that we know work and will increase an individual's chances of not only getting decent affordable housing but actually keeping it. Ministries and community groups must work together to focus on the provision of adequate income supports, decent affordable housing and health services that are both acceptable and accessible to all those that need them.

[ Page 1517 ]

           We have a few important messages that we want to emphasize from our paper, which has a lot more detail in it than we're laying out here.

           We believe the eventual sale of all or part of the Riverview lands represents the single largest potential investment in building a sustainable mental health and addictions plan. We do believe, however, that it is essential to involve key stakeholders and people with a mental illness and their families at the planning table.

           It is also essential, in our view, that we build more social housing. Ideally, housing will be supported by the federal government, although it hasn't been for some time. It continues to be essential to support landlords to ensure adequate housing units are available. It is also necessary to provide housing subsidies at an appropriate level for a person's local community.

           Assuming for a moment that adequate housing is provided, we must then make the mental health and social services function available for people 24 hours a day, seven days a week, in the community where people actually live. We believe a specific strategy to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in the homeless population must be developed.

           We also strongly recommend that an investment be made to strengthen the early intervention program. We know that it works and that it reduces the trauma that many experience today when they first encounter the mental health system.

           We also advocate to continue raising shelter rates to reflect the reality of the rental market in B.C. As you know, it's a problem for a lot of people.

           Of course, disability benefits must be indexed. It should be remembered that disability benefits do not cover all the people who may need it and could qualify but are currently receiving other levels of income support.

           In closing, we would greatly desire to work with the government and others to build the best system of support in Canada for people with disabilities. We just need the investment tools to do the job. The opportunity to create a different future for marginalized people is possible.

           Thank you, and we certainly welcome questions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Bill, for getting through that, and we do have time for questions.

           R. Hawes: Have you had initial discussions with the minister regarding the Riverview property and the development proposal that he put out there? I don't know if you were supportive of that.

           B. Gutray: We haven't seen the details of the actual proposal that he has put forward. We did meet with the minister prior to his announcement. Certainly, we have been supportive of a number of the initiatives that he has put forward. We want a bigger planning table more than anything. We want people with mental illness and family members to be part of that process. We know that other stakeholders have been, to various degrees.

           Quite frankly, you know, his initial announcement took us all a little by surprise, but some announcement in the movement of housing, from my perspective, is better than no announcement. It gives us something to work with.

           R. Hawes: But you haven't talked specifically about the hundred-day task force that you mentioned.

           B. Gutray: No, this is the first time we're presenting that.

[1235]

           J. Kwan: Just on the issue around housing. Generally, it's known that the Homes B.C. housing program, which was been eliminated in 2002…. Had that program continued, we would likely have close to 4,000 units of affordable housing throughout B.C. at the moment. That would be today, if that had continued. We're short about 4,000, based on that number, at least.

           From your experience and knowledge, how many units of housing do you think we need to see to stem the issue of homelessness, to address the crisis that's out there today? Then, into the future, what sort of ongoing program is necessary for us to avert the current crisis that we now experience?

           B. Gutray: Thank you, a very good question. People with mental illness and substance abuse issues, as you know, are overrepresented amongst the population of people who are homeless. From the federal government Senate report, our estimates in B.C. are that we need at least an investment of 7,000 housing units — either purpose-built housing or support for private market landlords in the form of subsidies to individuals. We know that for sure. That just begins to address it.

           As far as the exact detail — and I think you know this as well — the estimates of homelessness are grossly underrepresented. What we do need is that additional time to be able to address your issue in any real way, because the counts don't quite reflect what the need is. For sure, for people with mental illness and addictions we need at least another 7,000 housing spaces.

           B. Wright: We actually have that in our paper with an estimated budget. I might also point out that we recommend that support services be attached to those housing units, and we have an estimated budget for that as well.

           J. Kwan: That's in where?

           B. Wright: It's in this paper that you have there. It's $178 million for 7,000 housing units, and we estimate….

           B. Gutray: And $28 million for new teams that we're talking about, specialized support teams.

           B. Wright: We try to give you a number to work with there.

           J. Kwan: Can I just follow up with one more question? I'm not sure if it's in here. I haven't had a chance to look at your whole presentation yet.

[ Page 1518 ]

           The breakdown of the support services, of how that's allocated into program areas for support services: is that information available?

           B. Gutray: There are a number of groups, as you know, that provide support services. Some are actually provided through B.C. Housing, and other parts of the supports are provided through health authorities. To have an actual picture of what we have today…. I can't answer that right now.

           J. Kwan: Okay, maybe that's something we can get from B.C. Housing or the health authorities.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Do you have a breakdown of how you came up with the $168 million?

           B. Gutray: Yeah. It's there on the previous page.

           B. Wright: It was, I think, based on $22,000 to $28,000 a unit.

           B. Gutray: This is a study that was done, I think, in the early 2000s. We're talking about estimating a per-person cost of between $22,000 and $28,000 — this is top of page 7 — for supportive housing. That's the estimate. Then based on the need that we're talking about of 7,000 homeless people with a mixture of supportive housing and low-barrier housing, we come up with $175 million.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay, so the figure on the previous page is just an estimate.

           B. Wright: Yes.

           B. Gutray: But the estimate is based on government documents as well.

           R. Hawes: Is that an annual cost, or is that a one-time capital cost?

           B. Wright: A one-time capital cost.

           R. Hawes: Do you have a figure, then, for the ongoing operational costs of these units?

           B. Gutray: We're saying that as far as the actual support teams — these are specialized support teams — we're talking about $28 million.

           R. Hawes: Okay, but the cost of the housing too.

           B. Wright: Of operating the housing — we don't have that, sorry.

[1240]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay. Listen, thank you very much. We had a very good presentation yesterday, as well, in Kamloops from the Canadian Mental Health Association there.

           Next is Voters Taking Action on Climate Change.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Welcome. If you want to introduce yourselves and then go ahead, that'd be great.

           D. Gordon: Thank you for seeing us, and thank you for working through your lunch hour. We are here representing Voters Taking Action on Climate Change. My name is Donald Gordon. I'm a carpenter, and I'm a father of two young girls.

           L. Davis: I'm Lauren Davis. I'm a mother of three, and I work 50 hours a week in an office.

           D. Green: I'm David Green. I'm a father of two children and an economics professor at UBC.

           D. Gordon: We were delighted to pick this up at the back and see that your number one question in the handout here is: what budget choices would you make to help reduce B.C.'s greenhouse gases by at least 33 percent below the current levels by 2020? That's what we've come to address. I'm glad that's number one. Hopefully, we're on topic here.

           Voters Taking Action on Climate Change started as a group of neighbours in Vancouver, to provide support for real political action to significantly address carbon emissions. VTACC, as we call ourselves, has grown with amazing speed.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           We have supporters across the lower mainland and in ridings right across B.C. Our members come from all walks of life, from academics, lawyers and doctors to small business owners and carpenters.

           Earlier this year we had 500 signs made, which you may have seen around. We're now sold out, so I'm afraid you can't get them. We asked people to contribute four bucks for them, to cover the cost of making them. People requested them from all across the province. You may have seen them in your own ridings. Certainly, the Premier's riding is wallpapered in them.

           We're funded entirely out of our own pockets. We're not an environmental group. We don't receive funding from foundations. We're a group of voters.

           We take time out of our work and away from our family obligations to press for government action on greenhouse gas emissions. This is not easy or convenient, but like a vast number of people, we feel it's crucial to do.

           We provide information to our supporters through our e-mail list. We've had meetings with Vancouver city councillors and with Carole Taylor. We had a couple of hours with the Premier last month. We've met with federal politicians as well.

           Clearly, there's a large segment of the voting public who are concerned about climate change and its impact

[ Page 1519 ]

on our and our children's future. We are the mainstream, and our supporters are the mainstream.

           We want to get the message out to politicians that the mainstream has woken up to this issue and that they really do want real action. We see the value, at many levels, of B.C. becoming a leader in the field of addressing carbon emissions. To lay out one of our recommendations for doing that, I'll pass you over to Lauren.

           L. Davis: Today we're here to push for a tax shift in the form of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. A government may choose to call it a carbon pollution levy to be more politically acceptable, but today we're going to call it a carbon tax.

           By carbon tax we mean a tax on fuels with high carbon content when they are sold in B.C. In our view, this is the most effective way to achieve the environmental goals set out in the government's last throne speech. Imposing a revenue-neutral carbon tax has several key advantages for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[1245]

           First, it will induce all firms and consumers in B.C. to adjust their use of carbon-intensive goods, but it will do so in a way that allows them to choose their own particular form of adjustment.

           Second, both firms and consumers will begin to increase their demand for alternatives to existing carbon-intensive machines and products. That demand will induce innovations — innovations whose form we cannot even begin to predict at this point in time.

           The main criticism against a carbon tax is that it is a political non-starter because no one is willing to vote for more taxes. This is a red herring. In a revenue-neutral carbon tax, where increased revenues brought in by the carbon tax are offset by tax cuts and rebates in corporate and personal income taxes, the average British Columbian will not be any worse off in terms of their income. They will take their same income and use it differently, because some of what they used to spend it on now has a higher price tag. They will have an incentive to direct that income to support the greenhouse gas goals set out in the government's February throne speech.

           Revenue neutrality would guarantee this is not perceived as some kind of government money grab. The government could announce which taxes it would reduce and by how much at the same time as it announces the carbon tax. It would be a tax shift that will tax the bad — carbon pollution — and reduce taxation on the good — productive activity and the province. Voters can easily understand this. This is not a concept only understandable by tax lawyers. We are the mainstream voters, and we strongly support this approach to taxation.

           There is probably no government which is more credible than this one if it were to state that it would cut other taxes when the carbon tax is introduced. We believe a government which is both environmentally concerned and a known tax-cutter provides a golden opportunity for introducing a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

           We recognize that details of a carbon tax, how it might increase over time and which other taxes should be cut at the same time will only be settled after much serious discussion, but we're here today to urge that the government provide that discussion with some serious momentum by instituting an initial version of a carbon tax in the next budget. Voters will be quick to realize the wisdom and opportunities provided by this tax shift, and we will reward the government accordingly.

           That's the end of our presentation, but we're here to field questions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. We do have questions.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): One of the other ways in which the present government has chosen to incent or begin to incent this kind of a tax shift is through a cap-and-trade system. The province has entered into some tentative agreements with western states and some Canadian provinces.

           I've raised this with some of the other policy groups that have presented here, and I have a couple of questions about that. Obviously, that creates a trading system, and there are all sorts of implications for that, but it does not, unless the emissions permits are auctioned, raise any money for government.

           Is such a system compatible with what you call a carbon tax? Some policy people seem to just waver on the point and say: "Let's have all hands on deck." It seems to me to create a real lack of transparency. The carbon tax is lauded as being simple and transparent, and if you want to avoid it, you emit less. It raises money for government, which can be reapplied in the way that you state.

           I guess my question is: are the two schemes incompatible? If they are, which would you prefer and why?

           D. Green: My feeling is that they're not incompatible. I think the cap-and-trade systems have been pushed forward mostly for political reasons. It's easier…. In part, you sort of divide the opposition in the business community, because some portion of a business community, if you don't auction them off, will essentially get a one-time, big bonus — right? They basically get to sell these things. It's like handing them an asset they didn't own yesterday.

           There is some feeling that this might be a politically easier way to go. My feeling is that there's no reason to do both. For the reasons that you said before, a carbon tax is more transparent. You bring in the revenues that then can be used for the offsetting of other kinds of income tax — for example, cuts.

[1250]

           There are other issues about the cap-and-trade system which I think are worrisome. In the U.S. the most famous cap-and-trade system that seems to be working well is the SO2 one. The prices in that system vary on the order of 40 percent from year to year. The price variations are huge. If we want to do this in a way that establishes a clear, transparent approach that businesses can adapt to and start doing their investment on a consistent means, it would be better to introduce a known set of tax steps, if you ask me.

[ Page 1520 ]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The Business Council of B.C. was here earlier this morning, and they have expressed the concern that individual provincial schemes will make it very difficult to plan in the business environment. They prefer a single national plan that business could therefore adapt to more easily. Obviously, that's the perennial Canadian question: federal or provincial.

           What's your sense of that?

           D. Green: I think there are two points. The first is that I think they're right. If we could have a national plan, it would be better. The second is that we have targets. Donald talked about them before. B.C. is going to do something, hopefully. We're here to kind of say: "We're on board; we want something to happen."

           If something's going to happen, the question is: how do you do it? If we go a route that is based on regulation, you will also take a route that will increase costs for business in B.C. That's just true.

           The difference is that in this circumstance, it's more transparent. It will allow firms and consumers to react in their own way, which would be more efficient for the economy. It induces innovation in a way that regulation doesn't, and you bring money into the government coffers that can then be redistributed to try to mitigate some of the impacts.

           The point is that in principle we're going to be doing something here. B.C. is going to do something, and if we're going to do something, we should do it in the least costly way of going forward. Carbon tax is a more efficient way of proceeding than regulation. As I said a moment ago, I think it's better than the cap-and-trade system too.

           B. Bennett (Chair): We've got time for one more question.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much, a very good presentation.

           My question is: when you talk about carbon tax, what amount of tax? Have you thought about what type of tax and how much it should be? Some people talk about taxing maybe gasoline and all that — right? — and how much it should it be per litre. Is it sufficient enough to deter somebody, or is it too expensive so that it makes their lives difficult to go on driving to work, if they have to drive their vehicle to do business?

           D. Green: Our feeling is that in the first instance, it should come in stages. It should start small so that both firms and consumers and people living now in situations where they have to commute a long way can see what's coming down the line and start making adjustments. Then it will be part of the political process to determine exactly how high it goes and how fast.

           The one thing that seems pretty clear is that whatever taxes we have in place on this right now are not high enough. Climate change is happening. Most scientists agree that there is human-induced climate change. It's time to start taking some real action on this, but I think it should be started small and then brought in larger and larger.

           Part of what we're here to do is to push for the idea that voters are not afraid of this. Let's get it started, and then we can start working on the details.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, folks. Thanks in particular for the political advice. We rarely get that. We appreciate it very much.

           We are now going to hear from the last men standing. Thank you for your patience, folks. This is the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, Bruce Rozenhart and Craig Jones.

           B. Rozenhart: My name is Bruce Rozenhart. I'm the policy chair of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. Thank you for your time today. Craig Jones is our executive director and will be making the presentation.

[1255]

           C. Jones: On behalf of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce, we appreciate the opportunity to address you again this year, this time for consultation for the government's 2008 budget.

           We understand a significant theme of the budget this year is reflective of Premier Campbell's commitment to facilitating a greener, more environmentally responsible province. We also understand the need to continue to address the high cost of health care and to look more at addressing the issue of homelessness in the province. We will cover the high points in our paper today.

           Sustainability as a quantitative measure. We believe the measurement of environmental by-products from industry must carry increased levels of quantification. We see the wisdom and the public benefit of measuring greenhouse gas as a part of this.

           Offering financial incentives to reduce greenhouse gas and other pollutants ties economic sustainability to environmental sustainability. This is a good thing. We need the interconnectedness to ensure that the total balance of economic, environmental and social sustainability are kept in balance.

           This also means there should be incentives for the public at large to reap rewards for being environmentally responsible. In this light, the Richmond Chamber of Commerce supports the installation of interior household meters, which the Premier referred to in his speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities on September 28. People will be able to see a meter in their house that tells them how much money they're spending per hour on electrical consumption.

           Further, we support the encouragement of limiting solid waste and the recycling of more waste materials in industry and at home. This government is showing leadership in facilitating a greater environmental responsibility of industry.

           We recommend that the government also further assist the general public in this role as well. Subsidizing the installation of in-home water, gas and electrical meters will go far in increasing the public's understanding of just how much water, gas and energy they use and what the costs of this are.

[ Page 1521 ]

           We congratulate the government for offering incentives to people for purchasing hybrid vehicles. However, we recommend that the government ensure there is a level playing field for standards and incentives for hybrid vehicles.

           In the process of establishing these incentives, we caution government to ensure that the safety of these vehicles be strictly monitored from the standpoint of crash-impact safety, electrical safety and, also, the levels of electrical and magnetic frequencies within the vehicles at all speeds.

           Taxes as environmental incentives. The Richmond Chamber of Commerce suggests that the tax initiatives for industry to reduce greenhouse gas levels, loosely based on a carbon credit system, could be useful to install more process engineering creativity to many manufacturing processes.

           Encouraging the use and production of energy alternatives through tax incentives is a useful approach as well. These incentives should be additional to penalties that are already in place for exceeding environmental standards. We recommend that the government continue to consult with business and environmental interests to come up with an effective and fair system of incentives.

           We also believe there is a place for financial penalties to organizations who abuse environmental regulations. The current penalty system should be adequate for this. Using taxes as a penalty for enforcing or increasing environmental responsibility and/or for pollutant reduction is a slippery slope. For example, shutting down a business because they cannot meet new reduced environmental standards is counterproductive to the principles of sustainability. Such an approach would penalize economic sustainability and also social sustainability by causing unemployment.

           Using taxes as penalties, in our view, requires considerably more discussions as new environmental standards are established that potentially put some industries and their workers and families at risk.

           The high cost of health care. We believe that while this topic is the most significant cost issue of the government, discussing it now may be a little premature. We look forward to the government sharing the results of its Conversation on Health with the public and the business and social organizations of this province.

[1300]

           Clearly, something must be done to rein in health expenditures. We recognize the increases in health care facilities and training facilities around the province and express our appreciation to the government for these expenditures.

           We are curious, however, to see a measurement of effectiveness of various health management models from around the world. We do not know the quantitative values for the province's current health authorities. How do we know they are the most effective model? We look forward to hearing more about this from the government.

           We are supportive of the Vancouver Board of Trade's recommendation that health care systems in leading European countries should be studied, and we encourage the government to do so on a priority basis this year.

           We also support the examination and experimentation with fee-for-service for some relevant health care issues. We support the enhancement of preventative health measures and encourage the government to include more holistic medical measures that include alternative health remedies and treatments.

           Ten years ago you didn't see all of the naturopathic products that we see today in pharmacies. We encourage the government to develop more access and more support for alternative medicine in the province, in that much of this medical field falls within preventative health care.

           Still on the issue, we support the principles of the government's ActNow program. We are also cautious of the potential negative impact that some elements of this program can have on the self-esteem of our youth, on adults, who are not well prepared for the results of physical assessment done on behalf of ActNow. Getting on the ActNow bandwagon is a good thing, but please do not penalize the children who are having weight problems.

           The homeless. It goes without saying that society has an obligation to look after its homeless. Never has there been more attention given to this burgeoning social issue. We believe there has never been a better time for something positive, constructive and meaningful to be done by government about homelessness.

           We recommend that the government broaden its approach to the homeless issue and other pressing social issues so that the provincewide list of priorities and solutions is developed in consultation with the public.

           One more time: reduce the debt. Last year we urged the government to reduce the provincial debt. This is still a huge priority for us. Reducing the provincial debt will reduce financial encumbrances on future generations.

           Just as we act to reduce our environmental debt as a legacy to our children and our children's children, we should also do this with our financial debt. This will add greatly to the true and balanced sustainability, as a society needs to ensure that we improve the world for future generations.

           Investing in our future, Asia-Pacific. We laud the government's initial efforts in studies on India and China trade. However, we believe that more needs to be done by the government to capitalize on opportunities for trade within the Asia-Pacific region.

           Richmond arguably has the largest per-capita Asian population in British Columbia. We believe that it is in the province's interest for a healthier economic future to have the government capitalize more on the networks our Richmond businesses have established with the Asia-Pacific region.

           Now is the time for the government to engage businesses in B.C. in expanding and enhancing trade outreach to the Asia-Pacific region. We encourage the government to reach out more to measure the actual extent of our existing Asia-Pacific trade relations throughout the province and seek to capitalize on the many formal and informal networks that many B.C. and Asian-based businesses already have established.

[ Page 1522 ]

           Last year we asked the government, through this committee, to include the Richmond Chamber of Commerce and Richmond in enhancing trade relations with Asia-Pacific. We look forward to continuing to work with the government on this again this year.

           I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present this submission on behalf of the Richmond Chamber of Commerce. We believe the government is on the right track of creating a truly sustainable province.

[1305]

           R. Hawes: Thank you for your presentation. I just want to ask you, on your points on health care and in light of the fact that…. One of the things we hear quite often from some groups is that public health care costs much less than privately delivered health care because of the element of profit and all the other things they want to talk about.

           Yet in the public health care system, there is absolutely no unit of measurement for cost for individual procedures. We have no way right now of telling how much an operation or any procedure costs in any specific hospital.

           Would you consider an important part of this that we get a handle on those costs so that a proper comparison can be made, so that we have some way of judging effectiveness and efficiency?

           B. Rozenhart: Yes, Mr. Hawes. The more you can quantify and benchmark procedures, any particular initiatives that are undertaken by health care authorities…. It's just a matter of more efficiencies, I would say. The more you can quantify, the better it is, because then you know where the opportunities are for enhancing services and where there may be waste.

           Does that answer your question?

           R. Hawes: I suppose. Just further to that, a lot of that is a product of what they call a block funding model, where there's a whole lot of money put out without having any targets. It's not patient-centred spending, if you know what I mean.

           Regardless of the number of procedures that are performed, the same money is paid, or with increasing budgets, more money is going out. It's not targeted to any specific procedure, so oftentimes you see fewer procedures performed as a means of cost savings, if you will.

           That's block funding. Patient-centred would drive you towards ensuring that you have a handle on the costs for a procedure.

           B. Rozenhart: As I said earlier, the more you can quantify, the better. The health care system is essentially, to a certain extent, reactive because it's service-based. You can never really project totally accurately how many medical cases you'll be dealing with, so there's some risk with any kind of quantification in terms of projection.

           Knowing how much is being spent for patients on services, what it takes for certain procedures, all of that — that's the kind of quantification I'm talking about. If I understand, that's what you're also talking about.

           That kind of measurement is a good thing. That kind of measurement in the private health care system, as I understand it, is there. So it would be nice if we compared apples with apples.

           J. Kwan: Thank you for the presentation. In particular, I note the point you made with respect to the ActNow initiative and the caution that you put forward.

           We had a presentation a little while back on the issue around affordability — to actually buy healthy foods consistent with the ActNow initiative and particularly to buy foods that meet the standards of the nutrition guide that has been put out. Therefore, people with low income, particularly those on income assistance, are unable to eat healthily by virtue of the fact that they just don't have the resources to do so.

           To that end, the request came forward to suggest that income assistance should be raised to allow (a) for people to meet standards, in terms of food provision, consistent with the nutrition guide and (b) for housing to be consistent with the market rate — in terms of people being able to get housing to partially address, I think, the homelessness crisis that people face.

[1310]

           My question to you is this. Would the chamber be in support of a call for that — to increase the income assistance rate to meet these basic standards, in the minimum: (a) the level of nutritious food for individuals and families and (b) housing provisions to meet the market rent?

           B. Rozenhart: Two very good questions, Ms. Kwan.

           The affordability of nutrition is a really interesting case in point. I'm not so sure that taking a large approach to it in terms of income assistance would be effective.

           Just off the top of my head, with a general program like income assistance, how would you encourage people to take increased income assistance and apply it to nutritional foods? I don't have an easy answer for you on that. Can you put conditions on income assistance where a certain percentage is assigned to the purchase of nutritional food? I just don't know.

           It would be laudable, but I don't know how doable it is to require people on income assistance to allot a certain percentage to nutritional food.

           J. Kwan: Just to clarify my point. I suppose there is that one question. I guess your point is that if people did get a raise in the income assistance rate, the question is: would they actually spend it on nutritious food?

           I guess the other chicken-and-egg question is…. Without the money, they can't even contemplate actually getting nutritious food, because it's not an option for them. And that is a critical issue.

           C. Jones: But is it really not an option? I deal a lot with youth today. I'm an ex–school teacher from a number of years ago, and I coach basketball. A lot of it is the convenience foods — the C-stores that are

[ Page 1523 ]

around, the junk food that's available. I see more money being spent in that area.

           Nutritious foods. How many kids do we see today going into a 7-Eleven to buy an apple or a carrot? They're going in and buying a bag of chips. They're buying a candy bar. But they're still spending money. Even if they're on a limited budget and are on social assistance, they're spending their money on convenience.

           J. Kwan: Well, no. There's the question with the family, too, if you were on an income…. We should have that discussion some other time.

           B. Bennett (Chair): It's a good discussion.

           R. Lee: I know it's long, but it's a good one, I think.

           As you said, Richmond is playing a very important role in the Asia-Pacific relationship and business and trade. You hope that the government will reach out more to measure the actual extent of our existing Asia-Pacific trade relationship.

           Right now we also have, for example, data on bidirectional trade investment. There are trade delegations going in and out. Also, Cummins is actually doing imports and exports. What kind of measure…? You want to do more in terms of getting more information on the relationship.

           C. Jones: Well, I think it's the effectiveness of our…. We don't hear enough about the companies that are successful, that are going out. Stats Canada — yes, we get the information from the government on our trade balance or the deficit that we're in and the goods that are being traded.

           A lot of that is focused on China these days, and we're talking about the Asia-Pacific region. There are tremendous opportunities in the ASEAN countries, for instance, in Southeast Asia. But we're not seeing who is out there. What is the business that we're really doing?

           We see wood products, phosphates, iron ore, coal and the major resource base, but what about the niche products? That's where our opportunities lie for the small SMEs of British Columbia. It's in niche areas.

           That information and those opportunities are not being made publicly available. We need to explore that. If we have success stories, we need to hear about them.

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

           Committee members, we are recessed until two o'clock. Our first presenter is at 2:05, so if we can try to get back here at two o'clock, that would be swell.

                     The committee recessed from 1:15 p.m. to 2:03 p.m.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. My name is Bill Bennett. I'm the MLA for East Kootenay. I live in Cranbrook, and I happen to chair this august group, some of whom will be right back.

           We'd like to get started. There are several preregistered witnesses who will be coming before us this afternoon.

           I gave a little speech early this morning about what this process is all about. I think you probably all know but just in case you don't, we are the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services.

           We are engaged in a very public and very comprehensive process leading up to a provincial budget in February. We go around the province to various communities — this is, I think, our 11th community — and listen to British Columbians tell us what they think should be in the budget or not in the budget.

           Also, before we're done this process, we'll be meeting in committee in Victoria, going over anywhere from 5,000 to 8,000 submissions in total that we expect to come in through the oral hearing process — this process — but also Internet-based submissions and written submissions. So it's a very, very comprehensive process leading up to the budget. It is the most comprehensive process in the country.

[1405]

           With that, I'd like to get started. I understand that the Arts Council of Surrey is going to present to us, and they have apparently brought their own cheering section with them. [Applause.] People in the arts always know when they get their cue.

           Good afternoon. Thank you for coming. You just go ahead when you're ready.

           M. Edmundson: We're both going to give about five-minute presentations. Thank you so much for listening to us today. It's so important that we feel we have a voice and a way to influence this process. It's wonderful.

           My name is Morna Edmundson. I am a Surrey resident. I live just a few blocks from here and have done so for the last ten years. I have children in the public school system, and I participate in this community.

           I'm also a professional choral conductor. I co-founded Elektra Women's Choir 21 years ago, which I have conducted in Carnegie Hall, Lincoln Centre, the Sydney Opera House and a lot of places.

           My day job is that I am the administrative director of Festival Vancouver. That festival of classical music, world music and jazz receives support from the B.C. Arts Council and direct access funding, but together that funding is less than 5 percent of our total budget. I am also the co-chair of the Arts Festivals Association of Metro Vancouver, a group of festivals of all sizes that gets together over a common interest. That's who I am.

           I'm here, obviously, to lend my voice to those strongly urging you to increase funding to the B.C. Arts Council.

           I'm just going to read a little news release that came in today to the Alliance for Arts and Culture, which says that Saskatchewan has just decided to double its investment in the arts. It is adding $4.5 million to its funding, and that is going to do a lot in that community in Saskatchewan. They were already ahead of B.C. in their per-capita funding of the arts.

           The perspective I'm bringing to you is of someone who is passionate about the value of arts and culture in

[ Page 1524 ]

our communities. I firmly believe that the more an individual person participates in the arts, the more they understand themselves, the more they are tolerant of other cultures, the more they understand other people and languages, the more connected they are to history, and the more they feel they belong and have value in the community.

           When a person is connected in that way, they are also more fully and meaningfully contributing to society. I fully believe that in everything that I'm doing.

           Right now you're consulting with us, obviously, because you're trying to find out how to spend taxpayers' money. Undoubtedly, many people have presented valuable ideas to you, and many of those ideas do not involve arts and culture.

           But I'm here today to encourage you to realize how valuable and how cost-effective investment in the arts is, not simply because artists want to be better paid for what they do — which they do — but because there is a direct benefit to all British Columbians who live in communities that are richer in the arts.

           I think we need to think about what kind of a society we have right now and what kind of a society we would like to have. If that society that we'd like to have is more tolerant than the one we have now; more creative; more cooperative; healthier physically, emotionally and psychologically; more inclusive; happier and more productive, then the arts will deliver that, I promise you, at a fraction of the cost of trying to do the same thing only through the health care system, the education system and the correctional system. Helping society through the arts is easier and cheaper.

           I just want to give you one example from my life, which is that last spring my daughter, who is in grade six, went to the Surrey Arts Centre and participated in a half-day workshop called The Art of the Sari. In that workshop, all the children got to learn about the fabric. They touched the fabric. They found out about the colours, the process of making a sari. They found out about the design of it. Then each child, hands-on, made a project, a little fabric art project, and brought it home to their families.

           I think that is a very, very tangible way to teach someone something that standing in front of them in a classroom is not going to teach them. We just had another — I get emotional about this — incident in Bear Creek Park a couple of days ago. I guarantee that the people who perpetrated that are not involved in the arts. If they were involved in the arts, they would not have done that.

           The arts community knows what it wants to do with increased funding. They have more creative ideas than they have time to pursue them. One of the things holding them back at the moment is a lack of stable and predictable funding that allows them to dream and plan beyond the next few months.

[1410]

           I urge you to make a permanent and significant increase in the level of support for the arts in B.C. The arts sector will flourish if every aspect of it is allowed to grow. I'm talking about from little kids, from their experiences in schools and in community centres, right through to professional artists — touring international artists, our artists going outside the province and the country — and programs for seniors. All of those aspects of the arts culture have to be healthy and vibrant.

           I want to thank you — this is a side note — for the B.C. arts renaissance fund. That has made a significant difference to the arts and culture community in B.C. — a very visionary and wonderful program.

           Just to speak quickly about the Surrey arts council. Surrey has a lot happening in arts and culture. We get a bum rap, but we do not deserve it. We have no shortage of ideas for how to engage people more fully in the arts. The Surrey arts council, which is celebrating its 40th birthday, exists to create awareness, appreciation and pride in the artistic and cultural achievements of this community.

           It receives approximately $6,000 per year from the province, with matching funds from the city. With that money, it is a leading force in promoting the literary, visual and performing arts here in Surrey. In addition to presenting its own events and programs, it obviously needs to have many partnerships, and it does, with other organizations.

           Recent projects have included a focus on youth. They have had a long-range vision of creating a rehearsal hall and an artist studio that's also visible to the public so that people can see art being created.

           It's hard to imagine how the Surrey arts council does what it does on $6,000 a year from the province. This is a great example of a place where a stronger financial investment from the province would have a huge payback for our community.

           A. Conradi: My name is Axel Conradi. I am a past board chair of a small theatre company in Calgary called Lunchbox Theatre. I'm also a past board chair, and I'm still active but not in that capacity, of the Arts Club Theatre in Vancouver.

           We appear under the auspices of the Arts Council of Surrey in part because the Arts Club has been touring shows out to Surrey for 25 years. We have 3,000 subscribers to our series here in Surrey, so it would probably be our second-largest subscriber base in the province. We come out here for six weeks every year with three different shows.

           My main purpose in being here today — and I certainly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you — is to try to give you the board member business perspective of being engaged in the arts and why we as board members feel it is so important for the arts council to substantially increase its funding.

           I, personally, got involved in the arts because I led a very itinerant life in the Canadian foreign service and working with the Canadian Pacific Railway all across the country, and when I finally landed in Winnipeg for more than two years, I came to appreciate just what an incredible contribution the arts were making to the richness of that community.

           When I went as part of that great big head office move of Canadian Pacific into Calgary, I vowed that I

[ Page 1525 ]

would become engaged in the arts in that city. It didn't take me long to appreciate, when I would go to shows at Lunchbox Theatre, which is a very small little theatre company — it's a theatre of 200 seats — just how engaged the people in that community were with their performances.

           You could see and feel a sense of connection and of people feeling that they were part of one place and were learning from each other and from what was going on, on stage, whether it was reliving your first kiss or sharing some pain over somebody suffering from cancer or whatever. The sense of connection was incredible. That's why I became involved.

           As somebody who served his country overseas, I also realize what an important role the arts play in our identity as Canadians, in discovering and appreciating our identity as Canadians. When I was overseas — and I was a trade person overseas — the most successful trade missions I was ever a party to were the ones that were done in conjunction with travelling arts groups.

           Whether it was Les Grands Ballets Canadiens of Montreal or the Royal Winnipeg Ballet, it didn't matter. There was a greater sense of connection with the community overseas that we were serving than you could possibly achieve if you were just trying to flog a few widgets here and there.

[1415]

           What I want to try and give you some sense of is why government dollars are so terribly important in the arts. First of all, it should be said that the performing arts sector, which is the one I'm engaged in, is not having its hand out without first helping itself. The performing arts sector across the country gets 71 percent of its revenues from earned revenues. That's fundraising, box office, all of those things — selling drinks at intermission, what have you.

           The reason why government dollars matter so much is fourfold. Essentially, the first one is that it is the government dollars, more than any other dollars, that help to foster the creation of new works and the showcasing of new talent.

           Those are the riskiest activities that arts organizations undertake. The corporate equivalent would be the R-and-D dollar. Government dollars are stable and allow you to contemplate much more sensibly the accomplishment of the core mandate for why you're in existence in the first place.

           Secondly, government dollars help arts organizations to lever other dollars, in a couple of ways. If you receive government dollars from the Canada Council or the B.C. Arts Council, it's like saying: this is the seal of Good Housekeeping approval.

           These organizations have checked you out. They know you have an artistic product worthy of support. They know you have an organization structure that is also worthy of support and that you're not just some fly-by-night operation. It allows you to go out and do other fundraising more significantly. I think that's particularly important for smaller organizations.

           Third, all arts organizations — because I think there's something in the artistic soul — do outreach community activities of one kind or another. Again, these are not part of the core activities of why we are there. We are there to create and present works of art.

           But it is government funding as often as not — not always; you can get private sector support for some of those things — that helps support educational activities; school tourism programs; regional touring of the kind the Arts Club does — the Arts Club tours throughout the province, not just in Surrey — and to just generally engage in community outreach activities that help make our communities better places to live.

           Finally, it's government dollars, because of their stability, that allow arts organizations to do some serious forward planning, knowing that they've got a certain stable base. Again, that is far more important for the smaller organizations than the big ones.

           Any extra government dollar that you can put into an arts organization is going to take you a lot further. It in no way detracts from the responsibility of board members to go out and fundraise and do all of those other things. It just allows you to do an awful lot of things that much better.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Morna and Axel. You've cut into your question time a little bit, but that's okay. We've still got time for a question.

           R. Lee: This year we are trying to set a course for a greener future. We know that sometimes the arts community…. They don't want to listen to some directions and to follow. Therefore, only one will. We understand that. It's a free society. But how can we work together using the creativity of the community, the education power, the cultural connection and all those…? Your networking. How can we work together towards a greener future?

           M. Edmundson: We'll probably both have part of an answer for this — maybe not a full answer. I think that first of all, the arts community is the same way everyone in society is — receiving that message and embracing it. I think that in everything we do…. We are printing fewer e-mails and doing all of that stuff.

           Second of all, similar to the workshop The Art of the Sari, there are lots of workshops that can incorporate that green message. Actually, people learn by doing something. They learn by actively doing it, and I'm sure that there are ways that the arts community will respond to that.

[1420]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Folks, I'm sorry. That's all the time we have. But we have heard from arts groups in practically every community, I think, that we've been in so far. So it's a strong message — loud and clear.

           Independent Power Producers Association of B.C., Steve Davis.

           S. Davis: My name is Steve Davis, and I'm the president of the Independent Power Producers Association of today. I believe you'll get a handout of the

[ Page 1526 ]

seven-page presentation I'm about to give here. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.

           This is the second time that we've done a submission to this committee. The previous time was in 2004 when we illuminated the high level of electricity imports and the costs and risks therein.

           Although B.C. is still a net importer of electricity, we commend the government on taking solid steps to reverse the six-year trend, especially most recently with the new energy plan's goal of making B.C. self-sufficient by the year 2016.

           Today's submission responds directly to your consultation paper theme, which is: what choices would you make for a greener future? IPPs, or independent power producers, are in a unique position to help B.C. make greener choices.

           Almost all of the IPP projects being developed in B.C. today produce green electricity. They produce zero greenhouse gases, and compared with power projects in most other provinces and states, they have a very small environmental footprint.

           In addition to helping B.C. meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals, IPPs are the least-costly form of new generation, and they generate substantial new revenue for government treasuries plus jobs for British Columbians all around the province, especially in the hinterland.

           My presentation will describe four things: who we are, what we do and our current impact; the importance of the new energy plan; our potential contribution to B.C.'s green future; and illuminating two barriers to delivering on that green future that we hope your Finance Committee is in a position to address.

           The IPPBC, the Independent Power Producers Association of B.C., is the voice of IPPs in B.C. It was formed in 1992, and our 300 current member companies are led by 90 IPP development companies that search for sites on which to develop, finance, build and operate power generation projects all around British Columbia.

           Our members' plants can use a great variety of fuels, including wind, falling water, biomass, biogas, geothermal heat, natural gas, coal, solar and even tidal power.

           There are currently 44 operating IPP projects comprising 890 megawatts and producing 5,600 gigawatts of electricity, which is about 9 percent of B.C.'s total electricity requirements. Of those existing projects, 35 are run-of-river hydroelectric plants, typically about ten megawatts in size. The other nine are natural gas or biomass projects that range from three to 250 megawatts.

           These projects contribute millions of dollars each year to local, provincial and federal taxes, and community benefits plus payments to first nations.

           The 35 hydro projects annually send cheques to the provincial treasury that total about $5 million, based on water rentals that range from about $2 to $6 per megawatt hour. They also pay school and property taxes and community benefits amounting to another $4 per megawatt hour, plus federal and provincial income taxes of another $12 per megawatt hour.

           These payments to government total about $20 per megawatt hour and represent almost one-third of the revenue that these IPPs receive for their electricity.

           Better still, these projects will continue these levels of payments to government treasuries year after year for decades. Of their output, 99 percent is committed to B.C. Hydro under contract — typically, 25-year contracts. Because these contracts are at a fixed price, B.C. electricity consumers are protected from price increases for years to come.

           There are currently another 55 projects that have signed electricity purchase agreements with B.C. Hydro, and 45 are hydro, seven are thermal, and three are wind. They have the potential to add another 1,500 megawatts of capacity and 7,000 gigawatt hours of energy each year.

           However, not all these projects will be built, because the IPP industry has similar challenges and financial returns as any other industrial sector — one notable exception being that in B.C. there is essentially a single buyer, B.C. Hydro.

           With total payments to governments of about $20 per megawatt hour, if all these 55 projects are completed, the projected 12,600 gigawatt hours of IPP energy would contribute over $250 million per year. During construction, these projects could invest $1½ million to $3 million per megawatt for a total potential investment of $3 billion of new private sector investment in B.C.

           They typically also create three and a half person-years of direct employment per megawatt of new capacity, totalling over 5,000 person-years of new direct employment plus approximately four times that many indirect and induced jobs, many of which will be in the nearby communities.

[1425]

           In the operating phase each of these 99 projects, which are the 44 existing plus the 55 new, would create between two and 25 permanent direct jobs — the range depends on the type of fuel — plus four times that many indirect and induced jobs, for a total of around 2,000 skilled permanent jobs. Eighty percent of that 12,600 gigawatt hours per year is green power with zero GHG emissions.

           If this green power is used to displace the coal-fired power which B.C. is currently importing, the reduction in GHGs would amount to approximately nine million tonnes per year, using B.C. Hydro's figures.

           According to those figures, the cost of mitigating this level of GHGs from imported coal power down to the level of a combined-cycle gas turbine would amount to $28 per megawatt hour. To mitigate the GHGs to zero would cost about $40 per megawatt hour. On the 10,000 gigawatt hours per year, that is over $400 million per year that B.C. ratepayers would be saved by the generation of GHG-free energy.

           But let's not count our tax, jobs and GHG-free chickens before they hatch. Even though these 55 new projects completed and won contract with B.C. Hydro, they must secure all remaining permits, raise financing and get built successfully. B.C. Hydro itself estimates the attrition ratio will be about 30 percent.

           Fortunately, B.C. Hydro ratepayers will suffer no financial losses, since the IPPs' private shareholders take the risk that their development dollars were spent for nothing.

[ Page 1527 ]

           In addition, B.C. Hydro requires IPPs that it enters into contracts with to pay security deposits. In the most recent contracting process, we estimate the total value of these deposits collected by B.C. Hydro to be between $60 million and $70 million.

           Even using B.C. Hydro's attrition assumption, if this new green IPP power is used to displace the coal-fired power which B.C. is currently importing, the reduction in GHGs would amount to approximately $8 million per year.

           The GHG reductions, tax revenues and jobs created by IPPs have resulted from the past six years of good electricity and environmental policies. After a decade of very little generation, which allowed B.C. to become a net importer of dirty power, the 2002 energy plan reinvigorated the IPP industry in B.C.

           Dozens of homegrown companies were launched to search for sites that held promising signs of windy ridges and steep and deep creeks. Companies with international renewable energy operating experience are teaming up with many first-stage B.C. developers to prepare bids for B.C. Hydro's roughly biannual calls for power.

           The 2007 energy plan, issued in February, continues this positive policy trend. It is well titled as A Vision for Clean Energy Leadership. It contains made-in-B.C. solutions to the global challenge of ensuring a secure, reliable supply of affordable energy in an environmentally responsible way.

           Its four cornerstones — environmental leadership, especially in GHG reductions; a strong commitment to energy conservation and efficiency; energy security; and investing in innovation — are excellent.

           Among the 21 policy action items relating to electricity in the new energy plan, the following three help B.C.'s green energy choices: the electricity self-sufficiency goal by 2016, to ensure that clean or renewable generation continues to represent at least 90 percent of total generation, and to ensure that procurement of electricity appropriately recognizes the value of aggregated intermittent resources.

           These and other policy action items have encouraged IPPs to look for more green energy sites, submit more bids to B.C. Hydro and to offer B.C. Hydro the most competitive green power prices in North America.

           As a result of the 2007 energy plan and following through on parts of the 2002 energy plan, B.C. Hydro has announced three competitions to acquire more and new electricity from IPPs: the under-ten-megawatt standing offer program, the 2008 green power call and the bioenergy RFP.

           I forecast IPPBC members will propose over 100 clean, green and renewable projects to B.C. Hydro. If past is prologue, there will be three to five times more energy offered than B.C. Hydro will be targeting to buy.

           B.C. Hydro will select the most cost-effective projects that they judge will be socially acceptable and permitable. After B.C. Hydro selects the best projects, the B.C. Utilities Commission then reviews them again. This is how B.C. Hydro's electricity consumers will continue to enjoy some of the lowest power prices in Canada.

           This is all good stuff, but if B.C. is to meet these bold electricity goals and climate change targets, several things need to be done. Our full written submission, which will be delivered next week, will lay out several recommendations. Today I will describe just two: invest in wires, and price B.C. Hydro's capital correctly.

           Each of these is a financial aspect which your committee could have an important role in effecting. Wires — simply put, they need to be expanded as soon as possible. There has been a chronic under investment in B.C.'s transmission system for 15 years. B.C. Hydro's recent 20-year IEP forecast that B.C.'s electricity needs will increase up to 45 percent after all conservation efforts are made.

[1430]

           That means lots of new generation is needed. But since building transmission takes much longer than building new generation, there is a major risk that the wires will not be ready for the new generators to plug into.

           Our final submission next week will contain an appendix containing more background on this issue. But for today's short presentation, we simply recommend that B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corp. should be moving towards more proactive transmission expansion rather than the traditional, reactive approach. The next few pages describe three different ways that can make those wires more acceptable to the public.

           To cut to the final point: the pricing of B.C. Hydro's capital and making sure it's priced correctly. No company, including public companies, has a cost to capital of 4 or 5 percent. In fact, B.C. Hydro does not either. It has an equity component of some 30 percent of its capital, on which it asks ratepayers to pay rates that amount to 13 or 14 percent.

           B.C. Hydro's own forecast showed that its equity component is increasing to 40 percent over the next 20 years. Ratepayers will have to pay an equity rate of return on that equity component.

           There's nothing wrong with B.C. Hydro having its own equity, yet B.C. Hydro persists in advancing the illusion that its new investments can be made at only the cost of debt. Although this merely an illusion, it seduces people into thinking that the cost of public projects is far lower than is realistic.

           If this illusion is allowed to continue, it will undermine the government's well-planned program to use private capital wherever possible. Opponents will argue that public capital is much cheaper, and there will be increasing pressure to have public financing take over more and more of the province's infrastructure development.

           We bring this to your attention here today because it is a financial matter which needs the Ministry of Finance's action to clear up what is simply a matter of misunderstanding. Our final submission next week will provide more background on these two barriers and others.

           In closing, if these barriers are removed, then IPPs can help B.C. meet its energy and GHG goals. We urge your committee to consider and implement our recommendations to enable IPPs to continue to offer

[ Page 1528 ]

British Columbians the opportunity to make the right green-energy choices.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Mr. Davis.

           H. Bloy: Thanks for your presentation.

           Has Hydro been working with you on the transmission lines and making it easy for the IPPs to go through once they're accepted?

           S. Davis: It's mainly the B.C. Transmission Corp. that works on the wires, but they're owned by B.C. Hydro, and B.C. Hydro also has a significant role. B.C. Hydro, BCTC and IPPs have been working closely on all of this stuff to do with the wires. It's not easy. It's a challenging area, but more resources and more actions need to be done. Our fear is we'll have the projects ready, but the wires won't be. We simply urge more attention and resources.

           R. Hawes: Thanks, Steve. Just one question. I get a lot of calls from constituents talking about the IPP process and run-of-the-river projects in particular. I'm not sure that they're aware of the environmental review process that all IPPs go through.

           I wonder if there's a way that you, as your industry, could reach out and maybe help let the public know that there's a very rigorous process in place to make sure that we are not destroying our creeks and rivers.

           S. Davis: Yes, that's a good point, and we do seek to do so. It's often a challenge to get messages out, as you folks would appreciate. The simple message is — but we support it by more exhaustive backing — for a typical run-of-river hydro project, it requires over 50 permits, licences, approvals and reviews from over a dozen different government agencies. We can go into the list of those, etc., but there are lots of hoops and hurdles to clear.

           We need to do a better job to give the public the knowledge, the comfort that in fact there are those hoops and hurdles. There are lots of government agencies that make sure we do things right and hold us to account. We need to improve that message. There are 50 hoops and hurdles out there, and we need to jump them all.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Mr. Davis, you have to have that written submission in by October 19. I think you probably know that.

           A recommendation that I would make on the cost of capital: give us an example of a one-sentence recommendation. You don't have to do that right now, but when you send in your written submission — there's a page here; it's fairly technical — give us just a suggestion of what the recommendation could be.

           S. Davis: We will.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay, great. Thank you very much.

           The B.C. College of Chiropractors and the B.C. Chiropractic Association. Dr. Don Nixdorf.

[1435]

           D. Nixdorf: My name is Don Nixdorf, and I'd like to thank the committee for the opportunity to present today. This is my second opportunity. We prepared a brief handout that is about seven pages, which I'll make reference to in the presentation. We plan to allow some time for questions, if there are any topics I raise that you'd like to ask me about.

           The presentation itself is titled: "A Partnership for Health Care or Wealth Care." We sincerely mean that, because it respects the patient, the provider and, of course, government.

           Health care continues to be the single largest partnership of the public, provider and the provincial government. However, we should note that this partnership exists for society first and needs to respect each person's need and pursuit of optimal outcomes of health care.

           Overall, health delivery must support a patient-centred health delivery and not exclusively institution-based care. Primary care must be organized to support patient choice and determination of necessary health care. Acknowledging and acting to support the public to become an empowered health care consumer is critical to realizing cost savings that will sustain medicare, whether public or private. Health costs are lowered by supporting improved outcomes.

           This is really the tone in which we want to address most of the things — that we need to shift towards understanding that the public has the issue of choice of care. The public drives health care, and we have to find ways to balance that information so that they can make optimal choices all the time. Some of our summary recommendations are as follows.

           Support patient choice. The success of government planning will be achieved if government awareness and action follows the Ministry of Health statement in the 2007-2008 service plan. I'm going to read from this quote because I find it extremely remarkable and well-serving.

           "The greatest untapped resource in health care is the consumer. Well-informed patients get better care…and also assist in better prevention. The issue at hand is how to get the right information into the hands of the right person and at the right time. The development of comprehensive self-care strategy that supports not only individuals but also health care professionals will take advantage of its existing resources."

I think the middle sentence in that quote from your service plan is critical: "The issue at hand is how to get the right information into the hands of the right person and at the right time."

           Education. This has been a constant theme that we've brought forward. Education has to recognize that in educating our children between K and 12, we're really not doing anything except some minor sex education, which gets a tide of in and out.

           There are the beginnings of healthy exercise and foods that we're looking at. But really, we need to empower children between K and 12 with some basic

[ Page 1529 ]

health information and really get them motivated as empowered health care consumers.

           If we fail to do this, we will generate health-illiterate adult populations with every grade 12 class that we produce. People have to have an understanding of the human body — not that we have to teach them how to perform their own minor surgeries — and it is understanding how the body works. Their role is to take care of that.

           One of the second examples, of course, is that healthy lifestyles should be developed and promoted by all stakeholders to create a culture of healthy lifestyle for all adults.

           Thirdly, identify education opportunities to establish teaching and research centres of excellence within B.C. universities.

           Here, we have a recommendation: the establishment of a university-based program in British Columbia to provide education and training for those persons choosing to be chiropractic doctors. Such a program would support government planning for health manpower as well as future research involving centres of excellence.

           We have experience with this with the government since 1990, in a process that involved the University of Victoria, and again in 1997. That involved Simon Fraser University and a joint teaching process with BCIT.

           Access. In order to maximize the existing resources of the provincial health care system, greater integration and access must be provided to all regulated health care providers to support those better outcomes and lower costs. The ministry knows fully the costs of the duplication of exams, tests and consultations in the system.

           Allowing greater access to the public services, including appropriate access to patient information by all regulated professions, will accelerate clinical care. These are critical decisions that are made when you attend the provider the first time. If we facilitate all your health records and information to each provider you choose, chances are you're going to get a more rapid diagnosis and more effective care.

[1440]

           An example of this is the need to facilitate the use of public facilities, including X-ray labs in hospitals for diagnostic purposes. Here we recommend a review of all policy related to health delivery to identify and amend policy that discriminates against the patient based on their choice of regulated health provider.

           Funding. The Canada Health Act, section 9. This comprehensive section here sort of supports the notion that the province should utilize the federal funds for the provision of health services from regulated health professions. The Canada Health Act does not limit the funding of necessary health services. Health policy, if not funding, should broaden the range of services rather than continue to narrow it, to take advantage of services which reduce pharmaceutical costs and their dependent nature.

           Substantive health issues — for example, spine and spine-related conditions — comprise one-third of all daily medicare health care visits to health professionals. The B.C. Conversation on Health recently indicated 20 million visits annually paid by MSP. This means that approximately seven million of those 20 million annually-paid services by MSP are going for spine and spine-related conditions. If we add to that the unpaid additional services for spine and spine-related, that's approximately another four million office visits per year. You can easily see that this is a substantive issue, or should be, in health policy and planning.

           These services, if properly managed, will reduce your infrastructure costs. For spine and spine-related conditions you are more or less relying on the provider rather than a lot of support staff and other contracts and relationships to support those services.

           This large, population-based problem allows opportunities to lower costs through funding policy, which the ministry can look at, that recognizes the economy of scale and insurance opportunity. An optimally functioning health care system will support the patient's choice and access for the best outcome and most cost-effective solution for their condition. The current system does exactly the opposite, and the potential for cost savings, I think, is apparent.

           Health providers. The Ministry of Finance, through funding criteria, should ensure that there is development and dissemination of information that equally identifies all regulated health providers to support the daily choices the public make. This is an absolute necessary recognition to not only fully integrate primary health care but to fully acknowledge the public's right to choose.

           From the public's choice and legislation, health professions are not alternative, supplemental or complementary but, more appropriately, mainstream or core service partners in medicare, whether public or private. This information was recently provided, as well, with the professions to a meeting chaired by Mary Polak. It is a subject matter where the titling of these services had more or less historic roots from Treasury Board in 1965, when we saw the amalgamation of several provincial health plans brought together under the Ministry of Health. Naturally, Treasury Board had to put some label to these services, so they called them supplemental, and a few other names.

           In closing, I'd like to recommend to the committee the B.C. Chiropractic Association submission to the B.C. Conversation on Health. For further recommendations we detail urgent health topics, including long-term care, Pharmacare and iatrogenic issues.

           Thank you for your attention today.

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

           R. Hawes: Thank you very much, Don, for your presentation. There are quite a few things I could ask you about, but I do want to ask you about the use of public services, particularly X-rays. I know Fraser Health — where I live, at least — some time ago allowed chiropractors to use the X-ray facilities, which they paid for. My understanding is that practice has stopped altogether in the last few years. I can never seem to get an answer as to why. Perhaps you could let

[ Page 1530 ]

us know. Is there a reason that you can think of or know of?

           D. Nixdorf: This subject comes up fairly regularly, and it comes up from the patient. The issue is that about a third of our chiropractic clinics will have their own X-ray facilities, but where they don't exist, there's a need to refer the patient to a hospital or private lab. We must remember that these are all government-licensed labs and government public services.

           Where we seem to run into the problem is that the radiology department independently creates a policy regarding accepting you, if I send you there for diagnostic imaging, even though you may be paying for it as well. The root of it seems to be, in some respects, the radiology department in a hospital.

[1445]

           The second problem we found recently is that some of the health authorities have created a two-tiered structure of access. If you've recently had, say, some diagnostic films taken at a clinic — at a hospital, specifically — and I say, "Fine, let's order those up," you have to go through privacy and say: "I want my X-rays. I want release of my records."

           If they become aware that you're going to take those, for example, to your family chiropractor, they will tell you that it's going to be a 30-day wait and at least a $60 charge. If you identify that you would just like to have a copy for your own personal records, you may get those within a day or two, perhaps at no charge.

           We've asked the particular health authority in question for an explanation on that, and none is forthcoming at this time. So we're going to pursue this with the health authorities and then probably go to the Ministry of Health and request a review of the accrediting and credentialing process that hospital X-ray facilities and private labs undergo.

           H. Bloy: Thanks for your presentation. We've talked in the past. I just wanted to know how you're coming along in creating a school of chiropractic in British Columbia.

           D. Nixdorf: I think we're doing really well on that. As I mentioned earlier, we had a review of this in 1990. We spent two years in discussion with the University of Victoria. In 1997 we were approached by BCIT and SFU for the purpose of discussing a school of chiropractic in British Columbia. We've recently created, through the resources of B.C. chiropractors, a research chair at the University of British Columbia dealing with spine and neurophysiological issues.

           Simon Fraser University. At this time we are speaking with faculty, which is where the process must begin. We have faculty there that are in support of further discussion for the school. We're also aware that the president's office supports this initiative. The president has had experience with this while at York University.

           We also have the involvement of private developers. The Burnaby Mountain sports and medicine…. They're planning to build infrastructure that will include a four-storey building of approximately 90,000 square feet for a school of chiropractic, which the university and the profession would have access to.

           Lastly, we have a notable list of at least 33 western Canadians, everybody from people like Jim Sinclair, Grace McCarthy, Mike Harcourt and others who have openly stood for it and said that yes, there should be a school of chiropractic in British Columbia.

           What makes this important for students in British Columbia is that currently, if your son or daughter wants to seek an education as a chiropractic doctor, they'll have to go to Toronto, Quebec, somewhere in the United States, New Zealand or Denmark. In other words, there is nothing local.

           We currently know that there are 600 Canadians pursuing an education in the United States in addition to the two schools in Toronto and Trois-Rivières. The model that we're looking at here is one that is designed to attract up to 40 students per year, because we register approximately 40 new doctors per year.

           We're looking to meet British Columbia's needs, and as I mentioned early in the proposition, one-third of all your medicare and health care utilization is spine and spine-related problems. If we can provide some manpower solutions to that, it will allow the opportunity to reallocate some of the more urgent things that the public is having a challenge with.

           We're very optimistic about this. We have also had discussions with government several years ago. The Anatomy Act was amended to allow teaching institutions who would choose to include a school of chiropractic to have access to cadavers. That sounds a bit morbid, but it's absolutely essential if a university is going to have a meaningful biology, science and anatomy section. We bring that strength to Simon Fraser University.

           The funding of it. I've earmarked within our profession some funding support for some infrastructure, but frankly, we'll also be asking the government, in models where the government currently has FTE funding for nursing, medicine, dentistry, physiotherapy, to visit that also for British Columbians seeking a chiropractic education.

           B. Bennett (Chair): You were ready for that question.

           D. Nixdorf: I've been ready for it since 1990, thank you. I think it's in chapter 14 of Squandering Billions: Health Care in Canada.

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

           Let's have New Media B.C., Kelly Zmak.

           K. Zmak: Good afternoon. On behalf of New Media B.C., I really appreciate the opportunity to address this group.

[1450]

           We are here really to accomplish a couple of things. We'd like to educate you a little bit on New Media's vision for making British Columbia a centre of excellence for digital entertainment. Of course, we have a

[ Page 1531 ]

number of initiatives that we would like you to consider. These initiatives are really proactive, to keep B.C. at the forefront of this industry, and they are preventative, to both retain and stop the flow of the knowledge base out of the province.

           First, I'd like to cover a little bit of background on the industry and give you some insight as to what it means economically to the province. There are more than 1,100 digital media companies in British Columbia, encompassing digital entertainment, video games, digital animation, digital film, mobile content, interactive design, Web 2.0 and e-learning.

           These companies employ approximately 16,000 people and generate $2.1 billion in annual revenues. The majority of the jobs are located in Vancouver, which is recognized as one of the largest game development centres in the world. There are over 130 game development companies in the Vancouver basin.

           The Electronic Arts studios located in Vancouver and Burnaby, for example, represent the largest development studios on the globe. Vancouver is home to Canada's largest digital media cluster, and one of the largest clusters in North America. Per capita, the province is currently the largest video game development centre in the world. B.C. has become known as a leader nationally and internationally, from the success of companies like Flickr, Club Penguin, Relic, Radical Entertainment, AirG and many others.

           The predictions of global market growth for the entertainment industry are staggering. Currently annual revenues in the digital media industry worldwide exceed $28½ billion. Projected revenue for this sector in 2010 is $65 billion, and many analysts believe that is a conservative estimate. By 2010 the market will include mobile games as well as the emerging fields of serious games, simulated training for health and defence, and the next generation of Web 2.0 innovation. It continues to grow and grow.

           The digital media sector is still largely under the radar in terms of economic, social and cultural impacts in the global marketplace, but the data is increasingly being presented that it is simply staggering from a global standpoint. It provides an early indication of the incredible changes this sector will have on the province and the environment.

           As the sector establishes benchmarks and validates its longitudinal data, it becomes easier to see the impact this industry will have both provincially and nationally on the economy overall. While the numbers vary, the observation that I want to make sure we see is that the projected rate and speed of growth is phenomenal.

           While B.C. is home to large companies such as Electronic Arts, this sector is a new sector. Many of the companies are small to mid-size.

           Our companies are facing a unique challenge, and it is related to the global market — for brain power, for investment and for markets. China, India, Korea, France, Ireland, Australia and the United States have all increased government support for new medias, with infrastructure, commercialization and capacity-building to ensure that their people and companies can compete on the global stage.

           Aggressive investment incentives in Quebec, as an example, have resulted in a number of our companies choosing to grow their studios in that province instead of here in British Columbia. As a very direct example, we passed on 40,000 square feet in our building, at Radical Entertainment, last year because it is not economically viable for me to grow the studio here. It is far more economically viable for me to build a new studio in Quebec.

           Training and apprenticeship support for new talent, significant wage subsidies and strategically orchestrated investment attraction have left British Columbia in a have-not position. The wage subsidies in Manitoba are upwards of 55 percent, and contributions of the aforementioned benefits by the province of Quebec represent $300 million over the next five years.

           Other jurisdictions have demonstrated that partnership with government yields success in fostering a competitive business environment. Similarly, past partnerships with the B.C. government in film and TV initiatives have resulted in this becoming one of the strongest production centres in North America.

[1455]

           It's time to level the playing field and ensure that British Columbia attracts the business, investment and talents to this sector and allows our companies to compete and stay in the game. We have several proposed solutions.

           In order for New Media B.C. companies to stay competitive both domestically and internationally, we need you to consider the following solutions for this 2008 provincial budget. We'd like you to expand the apprenticeship training program to include technology-based companies. We need to find a way to use our graduates. We need to find a way to bring them into the sector and give them actual real-world experience.

           Currently there are significant challenges in finding adequately trained people to work in the production of gaming, animation and visual effects. One of the most significant challenges we face in this sector is finding the right talent, grooming the right talent, growing the right talent. It's remarkably difficult, and we are not only competing against ourselves. We're competing against the globe.

           It is our understanding that because of the hot trade market, there are dollars in the current apprenticeship training program that are not utilized and could be utilized for this technology sector. By expanding this program to include technology, this would put us on a level playing field with other provinces like Ontario and Quebec, who have already expanded their definition and, as a result, are currently costing our industry jobs as companies are moving their positions and their operations to their jurisdictions because of the advantages and opportunities of these programs.

           Our second proposal. We would like to broaden the Digital Animation and Video Effects tax credit program, or DAVE. Currently British Columbia is experiencing a significant gap in new media production costs because of the stronger base of incentives provided

[ Page 1532 ]

by other jurisdictions like Ontario and Quebec, such that no new investment is being experienced by the industry and no significant new-media companies have located in British Columbia over the past several years.

           Equally concerning, British Columbia–based companies are not expanding and, in some cases, are moving parts of their operations to Ontario and Quebec to take advantage of these incentives. My example was merely one. In many of our discussions as industry we've seen other companies that are choosing not to expand here because of the cost limitations.

           As a result, we would like the province to consider levelling the playing field and reducing this gap by expanding and modifying the Digital Animation and Video Effects tax credit to better reflect the changes in technology and distribution over multiple platforms and sectors such as gaming, post-production, visual and visual sound.

           Our third proposal revolves around the tax credit renewal. We would ask that the film tax credit renewal be extended for five years to give companies the confidence and certainty to continue to invest capital in this province.

           The gaming sector, which I'm immediately and directly related to, is passionate about making British Columbia the greatest centre for digital entertainment that it can be. We have some of the greatest development companies right here in our back yard. What we're asking is…. Let's keep them here, let's grow them here, and let's make them what they need to be. We have the opportunity to be known throughout the world as a centre of excellence in all of these entertainment fields, and it is our opportunity to work together through business and government to make that a success.

           Have you any questions?

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thanks, Kelly. Questions, committee members?

           H. Bloy: Thanks for your presentation. By expanding the technologists within the trades, how many jobs would that bring to British Columbia? How would that expand your industry here?

           K. Zmak: This is relating to the first proposal, which is the apprenticeship training. Right now what we have is a scenario where it's very expensive for me to bring talent that groomed. It takes about two years for me to bring an individual into the organization as a newbie, groom that individual through the process and technology and actually get them to a productive methodology. Right now what we're doing is seeking only experienced staff, which is forcing us outside.

           As an example, about seven of the last 11 hires for us were from the U.K. territory. What we would like, and what we believe this will do in very tangible terms, is increase — and I believe it would increase exponentially within our organization — the number of new grads we take out of the graduating system and bring them into the fold in a cost-effective way to bring them up and through.

[1500]

           One of the things that I was brought in to do for Radical was to train and groom a leadership program here in Canada that is then going to go out and foster. Radical has been known in the past for building and grooming a venture, original new studios throughout, as much as it kills me to say that. But that opportunity…. If we can groom these new talents into this industry and make them excited about it, they'll go off and do their own thing and continue to grow it right here.

           I think you would see an exponential increase in the amount of new hires that we can bring. From my studio alone, for example, next year we're planning, without these incentives, on doubling the amount of co-op and students in our organization as a direct statement of this.

           With these incentives, we believe it would be far greater than that because there's real opportunity for us to expand in that area.

           J. Kwan: Just to follow up on that. It sounds to me like you actually have a specific program in mind for the apprenticeship programs to groom the people into this field. Am I right in understanding that? Do you have some sort of apprenticeship proposal or program in place?

           K. Zmak: We will be presenting comprehensive detail, following up in the next week and a half to you guys. Yes, we will be presenting very specific details as to the programs we're talking about.

           R. Lee: In terms of the tax credit, we have a tax credit for the film industry. Is this a similar tax credit? Have you done any analysis on the cost benefit of this tax credit?

           K. Zmak: This specific request, the tax credit renewal, is actually asking that the current program be renewed for an additional five years. It's actually a continuation of the existing program.

           Have we done an analysis in regard to its benefit? Yes, we'll be including that information in our proposal.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Kelly, I have a question for you. I could ask this question two different ways. I could characterize it this way. I could say your industry would do well and would flourish and would expand and would train more young people and do all the other good things that you talked about, if only it could get a leg up — some help from government.

           I could characterize it differently and say that your industry would do really well and hire and train young people and do all the good things you talked about, if you could get a subsidy from government.

           I mean no disrespect with characterizing it that way. But why your industry? Why should your industry get that leg up or that subsidy ahead of all the other industries that would like that as well? And if the industry does get that subsidy and does flourish the way that you have described, at what point in the future can the subsidy end?

[ Page 1533 ]

           K. Zmak: I'll address the first part of the question, which is that the growth opportunity in our industry is going to continue regardless of our actions. The fact of the matter is that it won't continue here. The financial opportunities are too great in other areas.

           What we're asking is for us to level that playing field and to make B.C. more competitive in that area. That's really why we're requesting the benefits.

           The answer to the second part of the question, which is: when does it end…? That's part of the partnership discussion. That's part of the growth and the opportunity that exist here. I think what we're looking to do is to continue to expand what we have a solid foundation on. We have a tremendous basis for growth here. We have some tremendously strong and powerful businesses that are doing very well.

           The challenge we're faced with is continuing this process and making sure that the growth of that remaining opportunity is given a fair chance here in British Columbia.

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

           We have the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of B.C. — Cindy Oliver and Phillip Legg.

           C. Oliver: Thanks for the invitation to speak to your committee today. We will be presenting you with a written brief electronically a bit later.

           I'm here representing over 10,000 faculty and staff who teach in British Columbia's public and private post-secondary education system. Our members work in a variety of disciplines, everything from traditional university degree programs to technical and trades training as well as a wide array of developmental education programs.

[1505]

           I want to start by thanking the committee for the important work you do in gathering public input into the budget-making process and forwarding your recommendations to the minister.

           To some extent, it can be a frustrating process because what you hear and recommend to the minister has often been overlooked in the subsequent provincial budget. That was certainly the case over the last two years, when your reports made special mention of the problems facing adult learners in our public post-secondary education system. Those learners were being held back, in part, by a tuition fee policy that was misguided.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           Fortunately, the Minister of Advanced Education announced recently that adult basic education would become tuition-free. It was a significant change, in our view, even though the actual dollars involved are not. The announcement will probably cost the ministry about $15 million to implement. Within an annual budget of over $2 billion, including contingencies of about $300 million, the ABE announcement was certainly well within the ministry's fiscal capacity.

           For the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators the significance of the ABE announcement was that it represented six years of continual lobbying and pressure by organizations like ours and the Canadian Federation of Students. Our objective has been to point out to the provincial government that the general policy of tuition fee deregulation is both punitive and short-sighted.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           The fact that the minister has finally conceded that ABE should be tuition-free is at least an acknowledgement that it's time to rethink the entire tuition fee policy and the priority that the government places on post-secondary education.

           We know the general public is looking for a change in tuition fee policy from the provincial government. We have polled on this question since 2003. Our polling firm, Ipsos-Reid, has tracked the public's views on tuition fees. The numbers, from a provincial government perspective, show that the policy is clearly out of step with the priorities of a majority of B.C. voters.

           In the early phase of tuition fee deregulation about 40 percent of those asked thought tuition fees in B.C. were too high. That percentage figure has climbed steadily. In the most recent survey over 55 percent said tuition fees were too high.

           A strong majority of British Columbians think that students are bearing the brunt of the government's tuition fee policy. About 75 percent think that student debt is preventing students from completing their post-secondary education. An even stronger majority, 85 percent, think that one of the best ways to solve the current skills shortage is for the provincial government to invest more in public post-secondary institutions.

           We are encouraged by the degree of public support for that last fiscal priority, because we know from firsthand experience that our public post-secondary institutions have been chronically underfunded over the last six years. In fact, if you look at real per-student operating grants from the province to public post-secondary institutions, they have stagnated over the last six years. It won't be until 2008 that real per-student funding actually gets back to the level it was in 2001.

           Throughout that period B.C. has continued to miss an important opportunity to both improve access and affordability within the public post-secondary education system and to address what has now become a very urgent problem — our growing skills shortage.

           The Federation of Post-Secondary Educators has maintained that the policy of tuition fee deregulation, combined with the chronic underfunding that exists within our public post-secondary system, is exacerbating a skills shortage that we should have put resources towards six years ago. What's disturbing in all of this is that the longer it takes to make decisive fiscal steps towards addressing the skills that our province needs to grow, the more we put at risk the future growth of our province.

[ Page 1534 ]

           We know, for example, that approximately 73 percent of all new jobs over the next five years are going to require some form of post-secondary education or training. That could be a diploma, a degree, a certificate or a completed apprenticeship.

           However, we also know that only about 60 percent of the current workforce has that level of education. If you add in the demographic changes that are ongoing in the labour force, it is clear that B.C.'s approach to post-secondary education is not positioning us to address these problems in an effective way.

[1510]

           The current policy of tuition fee deregulation is also a basic question of fairness. For many members of this committee who were fortunate enough to access the public post-secondary education system in the 1970s and 1980s, your tuition fees accounted for about 15 to 18 percent of the total cost of your post-secondary education. The public treasury assumed the rest of the cost. For today's students that percent figure has almost doubled. Tuition fees now account for 25 to 30 percent of the cost.

           I don't have to point out for this committee that the wages of first-time job seekers have certainly not doubled. In fact, if you look at the so-called training wage of $6 per hour, the combination of high costs and low wages is simply pricing too many potential students out of the opportunity to advance their skills. This comes at a time when B.C. needs to see more people with the kinds of skills that post-secondary education provides.

           It would be a terrible mistake to continue to pursue the status quo when it comes to setting fiscal priorities for the 2008 budget. In post-secondary education continuing the status quo will only guarantee that our skills shortage gets worse and that we continue to squander an important opportunity to take action. Our success both socially and economically will depend in large measure on the extent to which we are prepared to invest in the skills and knowledge that our province will need.

           With that objective in mind, I would like to conclude by giving the committee members some specific suggestions for what those priorities should be in the 2008 provincial budget.

           (1) Make affordable public post-secondary education a major priority in the February 2008 budget. We know there is a skills gap that we need to close. We know as well that our skills shortage can only be solved by investing more in post-secondary skills.

           (2) Give post-secondary institutions the funding necessary to improve program options as well as program content. We need to ensure that post-secondary institutions have proper funding to provide the full range of program options that students need to complete their post-secondary education.

           (3) As a specific target for better funding, the 2008 provincial budget should allocate an additional $200 million for post-secondary education. That would represent a 10-percent lift in the Ministry of Advanced Education's budget and would put it in a position to bring real per-student funding back to the level it was in 2001.

           (4) Endorse the Canadian Federation of Students' call for tuition fee relief. In previous budget consultation the CFS has asked for a 10-percent reduction in tuition fees. We support that call and believe that such a move would send a strong signal to existing and potential post-secondary students that B.C. is serious about supporting those interested in post-secondary education.

           (5) Bring back the student grant program. It was eliminated in the 2001-2002 academic year and has simply added to the growing debt burden that is discouraging students from either entering or completing their post-secondary education.

           I want to thank you again for the opportunity to make this presentation, and I would be glad to answer any of your questions.

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

           I. Black: Thank you for your presentation. First, let me reassure you that I think our committee feels fairly positive about the opportunity to embrace the views of British Columbians, inasmuch as the efforts from last year resulted….

           Of the 47 recommendations made to the Ministry of Finance, there are 28 that have been adopted, another five that are in progress and 13 where the jury is still out. So we do actually feel that the work of this committee, bipartisan as it is, as it travelled the province has actually resulted in some direct results in government, and we take solace in that fact.

           A minor point of correction. As one who was a child of the '80s in the public education system and post-secondary as well and very involved in student government at that time, my school fees were about 25 percent of the cost at that time. So that percentage is not a whole lot different than the data you're arguing with today.

           My question, however, is this. With the tuition fees in British Columbia being the fourth-lowest in the country and with just shy of 50,000 degrees, diplomas and certificates having been awarded in the last three years, representing about a 70-percent increase over the three years prior to that…. How do you reconcile that with some of the messages that you've shared with us today? There's a good pool of data that says we've got a very robust post-secondary education system that's getting the job done.

           C. Oliver: I would agree with you that our post-secondary education system really does deliver an excellent product. We have very committed members out there churning out students, and that's wonderful.

[1515]

           What we are finding — and we find it from every corner of the province — is that our members are telling us about students that are having to drop out — either drop out completely from a full-time program or drop back to part-time because they can't afford to live and actually go to school at the same time. They have to take on part-time jobs or, again, just drop out

[ Page 1535 ]

completely and extend their education to the point where it's taking some students six years.

           That's not a small minority of students. There's a fairly large group of students within the college system that are taking several years to complete their degree. I believe that government's job is to look forward and to look at what's happening over the next three to five years, recognize the skill shortages that we are feeling right now and also to anticipate over the next few years and plan for that.

           Plan to get those students back in those classrooms. Get them through the system efficiently and out into the workforce. Also, do not create barriers for those other students who are perhaps somewhat socioeconomically disadvantaged or who don't have the support of family or who don't have the ability to take on huge amount of debt. They're not able to enter the programs in the first place.

           That's the kind of thing we're seeing, that our members are seeing, all over the province. We'd like to address that. We'd like to have equal opportunity for all students in this province. Anyone who qualifies should be able to get in and get through in a timely fashion.

           J. Kwan: Thanks very much for the presentation. I think your presentation is very consistent with what we've heard from students across British Columbia but also from some faculty associations, who have raised many of the points that you have raised.

           One thing that you didn't touch on and that I'm curious about is the Geoff Plant Campus 2020 report. Some have actually called on the government to implement that report. In it there is a component that talked about enabling access for post-secondary education, particularly for marginalized communities, and for a committee to be in place to look at, I guess, the range of options that perhaps government can adopt to enable access.

           I'm just wondering whether or not you have any points of view around Campus 2020, and if so, can you share those with us?

           C. Oliver: Certainly, I do. The Campus 2020 report — we're taking a very careful look at it. We've had a very good read of it, and we're in the process of having a thorough discussion and also with government — with our ministry, the Ministry of Advanced Education — and with the employers. We are creating a round table to discuss that.

           One of the recommendations in the Campus 2020 report was very well received by us, and that was the announcement about eliminating tuition fees for those most barriered students who are studying adult basic education, those who are returning to upgrade their skills who never completed high school. We applauded that.

           There are some other recommendations in the Plant report that I think would do the opposite of providing access in our province — for example, the idea of taking away degree-granting status from our colleges, something that we have built up over the past 15 years in this province.

           We have probably one of the most articulated systems in all of Canada, articulated meaning that students can transfer between and amongst colleges and universities in our province and not lose credits and be able to study and work in their communities and transfer over if they move. That's great.

           Part of the work we had done over the many, many years was giving colleges the ability to grant four-year undergraduate degrees. One of the recommendations is to take that away. We don't see how that really creates a situation where students can access education in the communities in which they live.

           The other part that's very troublesome about that is having everything kind of centralized in the lower mainland. We know that in many interior communities in British Columbia they're having quite a drain of their skills and their resources as young people or older people move into the lower mainland or into larger areas, where there is a great deal of work available, draining those communities of very viable citizens.

           We would like to see the post-secondary institutions in all of the communities in British Columbia be pivotal in their communities and respond to the needs of the community and keep those people in their communities to help develop and grow the economies there.

           There are some big concerns with the Campus 2020 report. We certainly will be looking at that very closely over the next couple of months.

[1520]

           R. Hawes: Yesterday Don Avison was asked about the 10-percent reduction and whether or not he felt that was going to improve student participation in post-secondary. He did not think so. He thought that, rather, there should be an overall look at all issues of access and not the 10 percent.

           His feeling was that because we have a hot economy, rather than looking at people who are on a training wage…. Actually, high wages are enticing people directly out of high school and away from post-secondary, as I'm sure you know always happens when you have a very hot economy like this. But if the economy were to turn, they would return in big numbers.

           I suppose looking more at issues of access when that big influx of students comes back, because I'm sure it will…. Would you not think that would be a wiser approach?

           C. Oliver: Well, that's a theory. It's an interesting one. I think that in some cases there are some students who have left to go to work.

           Generally speaking, the jobs that are out there are fairly skilled. If we look simply at construction or at the hospitality area, employers are generally looking to hire someone with a certificate — whether it's a certified tradesperson or someone who has a certificate, say, in the hotel industry. They're looking at people who are trained and are certificated at that point.

           There are jobs available, though, for students to take on at Tim Hortons or those kinds of places. But

[ Page 1536 ]

generally speaking, we are finding students unable to continue their education because of the cost.

           Starting with the 10-percent reduction in fees, with respect to Mr. Avison…. It is a start. It's not the panacea, the total solution. There are many other barriers. The starting point could be reducing those tuition fees.

           R. Hawes: Just a final point. If you were to go out and talk to employers, I think you would find that they are not looking for people at Tim Hortons. They're looking for people in the oil and gas industry and the construction industry, and they're looking for unskilled labourers.

           They are paying tremendous wages. There are parts of British Columbia where pouring coffee at Tim Hortons will pay you $17 an hour. You can make a six-figure income working in the oil and gas industry with a high school education today. That may not be the case in two years or five years or ten years, but today. And they are hiring.

           C. Oliver: Yeah. There are pockets in the province where that's happening.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I'd want to make sure you get the last word, but we are out of time. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

           Jordan Bateman. Are you here representing any particular groups?

           J. Bateman: I am here as an individual citizen, although I am an elected councillor in the township of Langley — 100,000 residents.

           Thank you for this opportunity to address your committee. There are four major issues I'd like to bring to your attention today: transportation, provincial-municipal partnerships, investment in high-growth communities and B.C.'s 150th birthday.

           I note that the Minister of Finance wishes budget 2008 to protect our environment for future generations. As a dad of two little girls, I wholeheartedly support this initiative and applaud the government on its forward-thinking. I believe that British Columbia is on the right course, and I think that municipalities like my own can be key allies in this effort.

           According to the ministry statistics, transportation — whether through the air, transit, rail or vehicles — caused 61 percent of the province's greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, we need to tackle this first.

           Every day south of the Fraser thousands and thousands of cars and trucks back up at the Port Mann Bridge bottleneck. This congestion often stretches back more than six miles to 200th Street in Langley — thousands of idling cars belching out smog and greenhouse gases, all because the Port Mann, as currently configured, is obsolete.

           Your Gateway program, including twinning the Port Mann and expanding transit, is both needed and wanted by the majority of South Fraser residents. Again and again, I've heard in Langley: "What's the holdup on the bridge, Jordan? When is that bridge going to get twinned?"

           That's one of the reasons I sit on the advisory board of a citizens group called Get Moving B.C. I owe it to my neighbours to encourage you to continue the Port Mann expansion project.

[1525]

           Twinning the Port Mann will drastically reduce the number of idling cars on Highway 1, thus reducing pollution. It's just common sense. So I encourage you to push forward with this program and continue to look for ways to expand transit with it.

           Roads and transit are not an either/or debate. Frankly, we need more of both in this region. We need the choke points like the Port Mann fixed, and we need more transit options to woo drivers out of their cars.

           I encourage you to invest in items like the Evergreen line, expanded SkyTrain in Surrey and my own idea, a light rail line along 200th Street in Langley and on the old, underused B.C. Electric interurban line through Cloverdale and Newton connecting to SkyTrain at Scott Road.

           I encourage you to put money into studying these options and funding them as their viability is confirmed. South of the Fraser, buses — no matter how often they come — will not be enough to attract a lot of suburbanites out of their personal vehicles after so many years of training them in driving. But trains will, and everyone here with kids or grandkids knows the attraction of Thomas the Tank Engine for little kids. Trains are popular.

           A small story on how far behind we are in transit south of the Fraser. In Langley, along our urbanized western corridor of 200th Street, we're developing at a higher density than ever before specifically to attract transit improvements. Last year we had a TransLink planner come to council and explain the south-of-Fraser transit plan, which didn't include any north-south rapid bus transit routes for Langley until 2031.

           Over the next 24 years we're scheduled to get just three rapid transit lines, all buses and all taking people out of Langley and into Surrey. Obviously, this is unacceptable. I suggested to the planner that TransLink try a pilot project in one of our new large, high-density neighbourhoods, implementing better-than-average community shuttle service from the start to see if you could train people to take the bus in Langley instead of having to have three cars.

           Unfortunately, he responded: "That's a great idea, but we don't have the money." Instead, he suggested — very helpfully, I suppose — that we put up "Bus stop coming soon" signs in those neighbourhoods. [Laughter.]

           Exactly. The sad thing is that bus service for that area won't come until 2031, meaning that the young kids who move into that neighbourhood will have young kids of their own before the bus rolls by.

           In short, I encourage you to continue with Gateway and bump up investments in transit. We need them both where I live.

           I also encourage you to partner with municipalities like the township of Langley in your push to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The township will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 10 percent below 2000

[ Page 1537 ]

levels within three years. Once we accomplish that, we're going to go even further.

           We're also completing a two-year public process that will result in a sustainability charter with real green targets and indicators as township of Langley policy. I tell you this because I believe the province can leverage a lot of its investments in sustainability by partnering with cities. Municipalities like Langley have proven that they can take provincial dollars and get more bang for the buck.

           Last year the province granted the township $15 million for a Langley event centre as part of the celebration of B.C.'s 150th birthday. We took that money and matched it. We're about to announce how we've parlayed it through a number of community and business partnerships to become far more. For every dollar your government put in, we have added almost three. That's the power of partnering together.

           I encourage you to substantially increase your present infrastructure grant programs for municipalities. This money can be leveraged by cities like mine to do a lot of good for the environment. Langley is also partnering with the Ministry of Environment on B.C.'s first groundwater management plan. That's the fruit of partnering together.

           We've also expanded sewer service to Brookswood in our southern urban area. With your help we're going to do the same for Aldergrove in the east. That's again the fruit of working together.

           That brings me to my third point: investing in the high-growth communities. Langley, Abbotsford, Surrey and Coquitlam — four of the fastest-growing cities in the province — recently signed a livability accord to work together on attracting more senior-level government investment into our infrastructure.

           When Vancouver, Burnaby and New West were absorbing huge amounts of growth in the region, the province and Ottawa stepped forward with infrastructure grants and programs to help them become the livable communities they are today. Now we feel it's our turn.

           These four communities, mine included, will grow from 750,000 people today to 1.25 million in 2031. If we erased our municipal boundaries, that would make us Canada's fourth-largest city. To absorb this growth in a livable, environmentally sustainable way, we're going to need your help.

           I encourage you to set money aside for study this year and for the needs of these four high-growth communities as a framework for investment in the years to come. We stand ready to work with the province and the revamped TransLink to address gaps in planning and funding, to produce sustainable strategies to guide our growth and to create strategies to address transit and transportation infrastructure.

[1530]

           Finally — and this isn't so much a budget request as an invitation — on November 19, 2008, we'll celebrate the 150th anniversary of the reading of the proclamation that made British Columbia a Crown colony. With BC150, through your spirit squares and other programs, it's looking to be a major celebration. It's of great interest to us in Langley because Fort Langley, of course, is the birthplace of B.C., where that proclamation was read almost 149 years ago right now.

           To tie BC150 further into the sustainability budget, you may want to consider something like a commemorative tree-planting program, where every community across B.C. receives funding to plant 150 trees to celebrate the anniversary. That would be a very inexpensive but highly suitable way of honouring BC150, enhancing all of our communities. They can be planted in cities throughout the year as part of the Arbor Day or other community celebrations, in memory of the pioneers who made B.C. great.

           The core of the celebration is taking place in Fort Langley, where, as I said, the proclamation was read by Governor Douglas. Langley will celebrate with a number of events, including, we learned at a recent announcement, a provincial cabinet meeting at the Fort Langley historic site, re-enacting the proclamation ceremony, opening the new Langley events centre, opening our Fort Langley spirit square and honouring our pioneers at a Douglas Day banquet. I'd like to invite you all to be there to share in this community and, indeed, provincewide celebration.

           Thank you again for the opportunity to share my thoughts on the job you have before you. I don't envy your task at all — a lot of priorities. Everyone has great ideas. Your working commitments to the province are appreciated.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Jordan.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The Chairman was wondering whether he's going to make it onto your blog. No, I'm just kidding.

           J. Bateman: He can. You'll all make it. How about that?

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I agree with pretty well everything you say. I wanted to take you up, though, on your comments about buses. Given that the new Port Mann won't open until 2013, which is six years, if it's on time. And if it's late, it will be seven or eight. It seems to me that in that time a bus system — I think the Minister of Transportation has said it, and his announcement was focused entirely on the bridge itself — can get up and running a lot faster.

           Notwithstanding that there is some, perhaps, stigma for wealthy suburbanites, a lot of people who live in this part of the world aren't necessarily wealthy and would welcome the opportunity to have a fast, safe, affordable bus system which could get out on the ground quite a lot faster throughout Surrey, Langley and south of the river in general. It could be up and running a lot faster than a rail system or while we wait for the new Port Mann in six or seven years.

           J. Bateman: I don't disagree on the need for more buses south of the Fraser, absolutely. My feeling is that you need a spine for this transit system to really work,

[ Page 1538 ]

and up till now, north of the Fraser, it's been SkyTrain. It may be SkyTrain again through Surrey and maybe even to Langley someday.

           Light rail, I think, is another opportunity to have that spine, and then you can use the buses to serve that. In the meantime, absolutely, rights-of-way are rights-of-way, and whether it's a road right-of-way for a bus or a right-of-way for a light rail line, we need to start setting them aside and having a plan to go forward.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much, Jordan. A very good, very thorough presentation. I think I would agree with almost everything in there.

           When you talk about the buses, my constituents always say that they can be waiting around sometimes for hours to get a bus, especially on the weekend. It's faster to walk than to wait for the bus sometimes. I also agree about maybe having a light rail system or some sort of system going to Langley and maybe even to Guildford there.

           What do you think about maybe expanding the Port Mann Bridge, not just widening the highway to 120th Street — maybe taking it up to Abbotsford or something? Do you have any thoughts on that?

           J. Bateman: I understand that the Gateway plan right now is to expand to 216th Street in Langley, which obviously goes to where the bottleneck often starts now.

           Absolutely. The further you can push light rail or a rapid bus out into Abbotsford and even Chilliwack — although I understand that the Chilliwack mayor is not as keen on it as we are in Langley — the better.

           I know that in Langley a lot of our traffic isn't even going across the river. It's trying to access Surrey, and it's trying to access Abbotsford. The more kinds of interconnections you can make, the more traffic you get off the roads and the freer it is for the people who do want to cross the bridge.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you again, Jordan. We appreciate it.

           The next witness for the committee is the Surrey Board of Trade, Ray Hudson.

           Good afternoon.

           R. Hudson: Good afternoon. With respect to what you have to go through listening to these fabulous presentations — and they were very interesting — I've kept my remarks much shorter so that we can chat. I have a few things to add, but I wanted to be succinct. Actually, what Jordan had to say, we're going to say ditto to a great deal. At any rate, I'll provide you with our comments, and then I will provide written comments for the committee later on.

[1535]

           Thank you for allowing us to come forward and talk to you today, and thanks for getting us in here, because we were otherwise scheduled to be in Abbotsford tomorrow at 2:30. We would have to be fighting the freeway at rush hour at that point.

           B. Bennett (Chair): You can actually thank MLA Dave Hayer for that.

           R. Hudson: Well, it's much appreciated.

           Once again, my name is Ray Hudson. I'm the policy development and communications manager with the Surrey Board of Trade, and I want to take the approach of the questionnaire that was put out when you asked for comments. We're going to walk through that and speak to the issues of the greening and how we can help out in that way and what our comments are and how they fit that. Then I'll have some comments following.

           We're pleased overall, though, with the fiscal management of the government. The board of trade is very pleased with what has been going on. We're pleased with the debt reduction and the further development of the province's transportation infrastructure. In a sentence, we urge you to stay the course.

           In terms of questions 1 and 2, I'm going to put the response to that in one comment, and that is that we feel the target of 33 percent has given some business people a bit of cause to be a little concerned. Although it's an exceptionally ambitious target, we feel that transportation could do a great deal to help reach that. I'll talk of a number of ways that this could happen.

           In bringing forward these savings, however, we feel that it must be conducted in an environment of encouragement and not punishment. We feel that the government could create tax incentives for the wide use of alternate fuels and the cost of conversion, where that's necessary. The wider the range, the better. There was some talk of a hydrogen highway. Well, perhaps we need some hydrogen fuelling stations coming up in the future, along with just the single one that's currently at Powertech.

           We'd like to see the removal of traffic bottlenecks. Stalled traffic generates far greater amounts of noxious gases than traffic that's moving. Just getting the traffic moving will have an enormous impact on the greening.

           Major tax incentives for businesses and individuals to replace older, less efficient vehicles. There's an incentive now to buy the green vehicles, the Prius and so on like that, but what would be just as adequate are those businesses that are operating the old trucks, the businesses that are operating older fleets of less efficient vehicles. Let's give them incentives to get rid of those old vehicles and bring them up to date with more fuel-efficient vehicles.

           We could develop real rewards for businesses which demonstrate significant energy savings or conversions, and these could perhaps be through utility easements or through PST rebates.

           In terms of sanctions, because question 3 was a question of sanctions, we oppose negative incentives except in the most extreme cases. Yeah, ultimately, if people won't play, you've got to make them. But if you penalize people, you simply cause alienation and resistance to the cooperation that we really need to make it work.

           If meaningful consultation and affordable solutions to improving business efficiency are available, it's

[ Page 1539 ]

likely that most business people will take hold of these and embrace them. It's easy for people to forget, however, that most business people just don't have a lot of extra time. They're always looking for efficiencies in the way they do things, but sometimes they don't have the opportunity to stand back and take the longer view. If we can help them by perhaps providing more consultation services and perhaps incentives toward making these changes, that would go a long way.

           Any employer knows that a healthy workforce is something that you really want, because that also contributes to your efficiency, and it contributes to the bottom line. A couple of things that came back from the membership are that we would like to see wider access not just to traditional medicine but to some of the alternate modalities.

           The chiropractic services were speaking just a few minutes ago, and in fact, when I leave here, I'm going to go down and have my head examined as well — for more than one reason. A lot of people, including members of the board of trade, are in these alternate modalities, and we would like to see a wider accessibility by the general public to therapeutic massage, naturopathic services, and so on.

           Gordon Hogg is setting a good example of healthy living, and we would like to even suggest perhaps a small incentive by a reduction of, perhaps, the PST on food supplements — vitamins, minerals and that sort of thing — to encourage people to become healthier.

[1540]

           We looked at the issue of housing, and it impacts business in quite a number of ways. If anybody has been around Whalley or Cloverdale or issues like that, homeless people are a tragedy, and they're also a problem for people in business. We have said in our presentations before that we endorse anything that will improve the homeless issue. People will be more employable if they have a place to live.

           The board of trade has been involved in such things as Vibrant Surrey and supports their efforts, and we feel that adequate housing is, in fact, a partial fix for the plague of petty crime that we're suffering right now.

           We'd like to see greater incentives for the construction of rental accommodation. We recognize fully the issues of finding contractors and tradespeople in order to build some of these projects, but we should try.

           We'd also like to have you consider the elderly who are house-rich but on a fixed income, who are struggling in a lot of cases to pay their taxes because they just don't have the liquid assets.

           Finally, the revision of property tax assessments and the taxation process need a review, in our view. One of our members representing quite a few business people called me up and said: "My taxes went up 31 percent. My property assessment went up; my property taxes went up 31 percent." That's an unacceptable impact on a business. That's a pretty heavy hit. So we've got to find a way around that.

           We're willing to explore that. We're not coming here with full solutions, but we're certainly willing to explore that with people. If they want to engage us, we'd be happy to do that.

           I want to take you back to transportation, because we are urging you to stay the course on this issue, particularly infrastructure improvements. You know, by doing that — you probably all heard the figure — it would return about a billion dollars to the economy and produce terrific results in the quest for greenhouse gases.

           We agree that doubling the Port Mann Bridge and expansion of Highway 1 are critical. Remember, though, that the South Fraser perimeter road is a critical component to moving the commercial traffic for goods and services throughout this whole region. This is part of the bottleneck, so don't let that fall off the table.

           We say extend Highway 1 right to Abbotsford. Now, the fellow before me…. You asked that question. In fact, we would like to see it taken out as far as Chilliwack. It doesn't make any sense to us to stop. When that was decided, those plans were made pretty much on the boundaries of the GVRD.

           We don't see any logical reason why we shouldn't be proactive, carry it further. I don't subscribe to this idea that if you build it, it will be inundated. It's just going to make things function a lot better.

           We're part of the Lower Mainland Chambers Transportation Panel, and we had a very large meeting this morning. We wanted to bring to you that we recognize this arterial is critical to the entire Fraser Valley and that we now want to see the zone taken as one complete zone — as somebody said this morning: "From desperation to hope." That's from Squamish to Hope. We urge you to consider that as well.

           Transit is integral. I can't expand too much on what the fellow speaking before me said, but the critical issue for us is that we are watching with some unhappiness the go-ahead on the Evergreen line. We feel that with almost three times the population, we have been grossly underserved with transit services out here, while we have watched our taxes going north of the Fraser.

           Okay, it's a done deal. Get on with it. Get it in place, because that's a growing area. We're fine with that. But when that's underway, turn your attention to fixing the inequity south of the Fraser. If you do your math, we're pushing close to 800,000 people down here, if you ride out to Abbotsford. That's a lot of people out in this area.

           Invest in both commuter and community rail. Remember that most of the trips, as my friend said, are south of the Fraser and within the region. Extend SkyTrain or some other light rail to Langley Centre, and then refurbish and operate the community rail service. It's ironic that it was put in place 100 years ago, and they nailed it pretty well at that point. The government owns the railroad that runs out there, so let's refurbish that and put that back in service with modern community rail.

           You want a balanced budget for the future? Continue to invest in education. Ensure that it's not out of reach for the common folk. We appreciate the province's efforts thus far to develop the Surrey SFU campus. That's terrific. The Cloverdale Kwantlen campus — terrific, well done. We want you to keep in mind the impact of debt on the young people that are going

[ Page 1540 ]

through and taking those skills that we so desperately need. That debt is the killer, in my view.

[1545]

           Keep paying down the debt. The lower the debt, the greater our flexibility down the road.

           Simplify the PST. You need to collect the tax, of course, but the first concern has to be treating your tax collectors — that's the business people — with respect, ensuring for them that the system is as simple as possible and communicating changes as clearly as possible.

           Crime reduction. It's costing us all an enormous amount of money. We have to do everything we can to do that. Recently the city of Surrey brought forward a recommendation to the UBCM on the reduction of metal theft. I think it has the same issue as the problem that New Westminster had with trying to get through accounting for property with the pawn shops, but we have to solve that.

           Finally, Fraser River maintenance. We want to say: great on you guys. You stepped up to the plate, and you're putting the funding in to look after the diking, the river maintenance and the debris trap. We applaud that. We urge you to keep the federal government's feet to the fire with respect to their responsibility in these areas.

           I thank you very much for your attention.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thanks, Ray.

           R. Hawes: Just a quick question, Ray. You sound like you're advocating that the transportation system be extended right out to Hope — the TransLink system.

           R. Hudson: The highway particularly. That's there anyway. Let's widen it; let's make it….

           R. Hawes: I thought I heard you talking, though, about a transportation system that would move TransLink right out to Hope. I just wanted to make sure that you….

           R. Hudson: I won't argue with you, as far as Coquitlam.

           R. Hawes: I just wanted to make sure that you understood the reason that Abbotsford, Mission, Chilliwack and Hope have no interest is because when TransLink was formed, all of the hospital debt in Vancouver was wiped out in return for them taking over the operation of the transit system.

           Out in the valley, the regional hospital district still exists, and a substantial hospital debt is being paid for by the taxpayers out there. That is a big impediment, because someone would have to write a cheque, then, to pay off all of that debt in order to create an equal playing field.

           R. Hudson: Sure, I certainly appreciate that, but we have come back to say that we still need to look at it as one zone, because that, in fact, is what it is.

           D. Hayer: Thank you very much for a very detailed, very good presentation. When you talked about the transportation, it's good to see you talking about the SkyTrain and a light rail system to Langley. It's my thinking that even if you have a light rail system running to Guildford, Laurel Park, Mercer, that will help those people out.

           At the same time, when you're looking at the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the widening of the highway…. When you talk to your members, what type of support do you get for these types of initiatives to make improvements on transportation, which will include more buses and more light rail systems?

           R. Hudson: With very few exceptions, Dave, it's absolute support. We have many members in Port Kells whose staff can't get to work on transit. They just can't get there unless they're in the normal hours, and of course, most of those manufacturing areas are all over the map.

           The same is true in some of…. The newly developed Campbell Heights area has no transit at all and won't have any for quite some time. It's not even on the horizon in terms of planning.

           We are getting solid support for this. There are a few people who either don't care or are in opposition for various reasons, but they're very, very few.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The next presenter is the David Suzuki Foundation. I believe Ian Bruce is presenting on behalf of the foundation.

           I. Bruce: There was a handout that I want to make sure was received by everybody. I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak here today and thank you all, as well, for the work you're doing travelling across the province and consulting with British Columbians. I'd like to present to you today several proposals that the David Suzuki Foundation has prepared.

           This past year we were given a very serious warning by the scientific community, by the United Nations expert body on climate change. They tabled three reports. The first of those reports stated that the science of climate change, that humans are causing serious damage to our climate system, is unequivocal.

[1550]

           The second report talked about the effects of climate change if we fail to address this problem. It also stated that we are already experiencing some very serious impacts from the effects of global warming, like those we've experienced here in the province from the mountain pine beetle infestation, which is threatening the livelihoods of over 25 B.C. communities, as well as some of the flooding and extreme weather events that we've experienced here in the lower mainland.

           The last report they tabled was on solutions. It stated that we have the technology, and we can afford to address this problem. There will be business oppor-

[ Page 1541 ]

tunities from doing so. What that report also stated was that, for the sake of our economy in the future, we can't afford not to address this problem.

           I think world leaders summed it up quite well afterwards saying that the only thing we lack at this moment is political courage. As you are our political leaders in this province, your role is very crucial on this issue. The opportunity to take action is now.

           I'd like to just talk briefly about two proposals. One I have entitled "A Climate Change Levy," and the other one is the need for long-term, predictable transit funding.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           We're proposing a climate change levy on per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions that are emitted — a $30-per-tonne price in 2009 and ramping up that price here in the province to $75 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. This is to address the fundamental problem of global warming: it's currently free to pollute our atmosphere. Our atmosphere right now is treated as a free waste dump.

           What this policy aims to do is shift responsibility back to the polluters for their fair share of pollution. Right now the cost of that pollution is being off-loaded on other parts of our society. It's being off-loaded right now on B.C.'s forests, for example, from the mountain pine beetle, and other health care impacts as well. This policy has enhanced fairness, as it uses the polluter-pay principle.

           As you may know, our country has been largely criticized by the international community, including the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, because we have failed to put in place such environmental policies to help protect our economic and environmental future.

           Other countries have moved forward. One example would be Germany. Norway has also moved forward, and many of the European countries. Even the province of Quebec recently introduced a climate change levy.

           In the case of Germany's eco-tax, that tax has largely been credited with reducing Germany's greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent since it was introduced. That country is now on target to reach its Kyoto commitments.

           Business leaders like this approach because it's the least-cost option to addressing global warming as well as a very flexible way for businesses, firms and individuals adapting and choosing less polluting activities to meet their economic and personal needs.

           Canada's leading economists have said that a $50 price per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions would have a negligible effect on our economy. They predict that it would trim less than 0.09 percent of GDP in the year 2010 but then boost our GDP by 0.004 percent in the year 2020.

           That ends the first phase of the proposal — the first one there on the papers that you have in front of you. I'd now like to just briefly take a few moments to address the second one, which is on the need for long-term transit funding.

           In our province right now transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions, largely from road transportation, which is about a quarter of our emissions. Those emissions have grown 34 percent since 1990 here in the province.

           Here in the GVRD region, which is where we have some of the best data in the country because of the AirCare program, TransLink has estimated that in order to reduce the emissions envisioned by the B.C. government, we're going to need to at least double the transit ridership throughout the region.

           This would be of similar magnitude for the rest of B.C.'s communities that are serviced by B.C. Transit. I've got some figures in there in the briefing as well.

[1555]

           Because of the lack of reliable and frequent transit service, our communities are becoming more car-dependent. Right now the trends are that we're seeing vehicle ownership growing faster than our population growth at the moment, largely because one of the major barriers we have in this province is that we do not have dedicated or fixed, stable, predictable funding for public transit from the province.

           Recently other provinces have addressed this problem — such as Ontario and Quebec — and have put in place long-term commitments. We're asking that the B.C. government follow suit and do the same. Just to give an example, Ontario came out with a program called MoveOntario 2020, which over the next 13 years commits $17 billion to an action plan to expand rapid transit throughout Greater Toronto, the Hamilton region and southern Ontario. Some 65 percent of that is going to be committed by provincial funds. Their province has stepped forward and committed two-thirds of that funding commitment for capital costs and asks that the federal government contribute the remaining one-third.

           As for the recommendations that we're asking for, for this province, we'd like to see an allocated fixed portion of B.C.'s transportation budget allocated to transit every year so there's a predictable source of funding for our communities and for the planning in our communities so that we can move forward to achieve B.C.'s greenhouse gas emissions, reduce congestion, as well as improve air quality in our communities.

           We're also asking that a substantial portion of B.C.'s gas tax revenue, which generates about $900 million a year, be allocated to public transit. This is simply putting in place the polluter-pay principle, that those who are creating the problem are helping pay for the solutions.

           We're also suggesting that the province immediately address the current backlog in transit funding that was approved by both the province and the regional governments — for example, within the regional plan here in the lower mainland, where we are now, about 500 buses short of where we should have been last year.

           We're also three rapid transit lines short of where we should have been last year. As well, last year there was supposed to be HOV and goods-movement lanes installed along Highway 1 over the existing Port Mann Bridge, where there was supposed to be a merge lane onto the bridge. That target has not been reached.

           These are the issues that we're suggesting. Right now, there is a significant backlog throughout the

[ Page 1542 ]

province. In other areas of the province, service by B.C. Transit…. They predict that transit-fund needs will need to increase by about 40 percent, roughly, by the year 2010.

           These are significant resources that we need to shift over. In the past we've been very focused on highway expansion, which only makes our communities more car-dependent and increases pollution and congestion. As well, cities that have followed those models throughout North America have seen some of the worst congestion in the world. Cities like that would be Houston, Atlanta, Seattle. All have higher commuting times than we do even in Vancouver.

           With that, I would like to thank you for your attention and for your consideration, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Ian. We do have questions for you, starting with Randy Hawes.

           R. Hawes: Just a few months ago several of us met with representatives of the new car manufacturers. What they said was that they can now put the technology in cars to burn E-85 — 85-percent ethanol.

[1600]

           They also pointed out that the most efficient E-85 fuel is made from waste organic products like straw and forest waste. Would you think that this is an avenue that ought to be pursued to try to move towards a manufacturing and distribution system for E-85 and allow people to then power their cars with ethanol-powered vehicles?

           I. Bruce: Certainly, that's one part of the solution. One of the challenges that we face with E-85 is that we don't have enough land in our country to grow the amount of biofuel that would be required to power enough vehicles to reduce our emissions to the levels we need to. It's part of the solution. Just for example, corn ethanol has no greenhouse gas benefit. It takes more energy to produce corn ethanol than it does to get back. So those are just some of the problems.

           R. Hawes: But they are talking about a different type, not corn ethanol. They're talking about a different type. They're talking about using straw and forest waste.

           I. Bruce: Yes, it is certainly…. With the California low-carbon fuel standards the province has committed to adopting, that will help bring on some of those fuels.

           The challenge that we face right now…. The trends are that there are more and more vehicles on our roads and that more and more vehicles are driving longer distances. So even if we improve fuel efficiency in our average vehicle by 25 percent but we double the number of vehicles on our roads, we negate those emission reductions.

           The low-carbon fuel standard is aimed to reduce the carbon content of our gasoline by 10 percent by the year 2020. That will help, but it will not reduce our overall greenhouse gas emissions in the province in the transportation sector. If we continue at the current rate we are on highway expansion and without having any dedicated funding for transit…. The California standards — and when I say that, I mean both the fuel efficiency standard and the low-carbon fuel standard…. Those emission reductions will be negated by the rise in longer commuting distances from people driving vehicles and more cars on the road.

           The analysis that's been done here in our country on vehicles has stated that. That's why it's so important we increase the transit ridership throughout our province and that we make our communities more pedestrian- and transit-friendly: so people have a choice as far as transportation that's reliable, safe and on time, as far as getting to and from work or to and from their places of recreation.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The Legislature is going back next week, and one of the pieces of legislation I expect we'll debate will be the new TransLink structure. You've stated in here that the funding formula that the legislation will seek to implement preceded the Premier's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. In that sense, it's completely inadequate as a funding framework.

           Given, I gather, that Mr. Suzuki himself said the climate gang at the Suzuki Foundation has some considerable influence with the Premier, have you communicated that view to the Premier? And what has he said to your suggestion that the proposed TransLink legislation is totally inadequate?

           I. Bruce: We have sent information into the Premier's office and to the climate change secretariat regarding this inconsistency. We have not met with the Premier about this issue yet. Certainly, it's something we'd like to speak with all members of government regarding.

           The TransLink Governance Review Panel, as many people know, had tabled the report before the Premier came out with the throne speech. One of the assumptions they made was that the B.C. government would take no action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Inadvertently, they had looked at the region's transit needs not based on the transit needs we need to achieve the greenhouse gas target envisioned by the B.C. government. So that was the first thing: the transit needs they were looking at weren't enough to increase transit ridership by the levels indicated — roughly, a doubling — by TransLink.

[1605]

           The second part was that they assumed the gas tax revenues would grow at the current rate of fuel consumption. If we are to achieve the B.C. government's climate change goals, we are going to have to reduce gas consumption in this province by 33 percent by the year 2020. As far as the proposed funding structure, it will not provide adequate funding.

           Those were the two points. One was that it was based on TransLink's 2020 outlook plan, which doesn't reach the transit share that we need to achieve. Secondly, the gas tax revenues will have to decrease over the next 13 years, not increase.

[ Page 1543 ]

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

           I believe we have the Kwantlen Faculty Association here.

           Hello, Terri. Hello, Maureen. Are you each presenting?

           T. Van Steinburg: I'll be presenting. Maureen may assist with answering any questions.

           Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you for the invitation to speak to your committee today. I'm here speaking for the Kwantlen Faculty Association, a union representing over 700 faculty members who work at Kwantlen University College.

           Kwantlen is a diverse post-secondary institution with close to 17,000 students who are enrolled annually in programs delivered at our campuses in Surrey, Richmond, Langley and Cloverdale, making Kwantlen Canada's largest university college.

           Kwantlen's catchment area is one of the most culturally, ethnically and economically diverse in the country. That diversity contributes to the challenges we face in serving our communities.

           Kwantlen grants a variety of post-secondary credentials, including citations, certificates, diplomas and degrees. We also offer a range of educational opportunities through our technical, trades and developmental education programs.

           Our faculty members are proud of the reputation that Kwantlen has been able to establish over the years. We are strong supporters of the comprehensive mandate that our institution has in the communities we serve. We believe that our approach has enabled Kwantlen to offer many entry points for students interested in advancing their education at the post-secondary level.

           In creating those multiple entry points, we also believe we're encouraging a process of lifelong learning that we know will play an increasingly critical role in B.C.'s knowledge-intensive future.

           Our members are also part of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, and through FPSE we are affiliated to the B.C. Federation of Labour, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the national union of university teachers and the Canadian Labour Congress.

           A common objective across all of those organizations is our concern about the chronic underfunding of public post-secondary education and the impact that this has had on access and affordability for thousands of students.

           I know other post-secondary groups have mentioned the problems facing adult learners, and we are encouraged by the recent announcement from the Ministry of Advanced Education that adult basic education programs would become tuition-free. If the announcement signals a change in thinking by the provincial government on important access and affordability issues, we would find that encouraging.

           However, the proposed changes raise a number of questions. For instance, it still isn't clear whether the tuition-free directive includes funding to offset the cost of ABE being tuition-free at every public post-secondary institution in the province.

           The funding changes in ABE need to be linked to a larger commitment by the provincial government to make post-secondary education more accessible and affordable. Our faculty members maintain that a rethinking of the government's entire approach to post-secondary funding is long overdue.

[1610]

           The centrepiece of the current funding policy is the 2002 decision to deregulate tuition fees. We didn't support that policy change at the time, and we believe that it prevented B.C. from being able to effectively address the growing educational needs in our increasingly knowledge-based economy.

           We have known for a long time that there is a gap between what we have in terms of existing skills and what we'll need in terms of new skills; 73 percent of all new jobs will require some form of post-secondary education, but only 60 percent of the current workforce has that level of training. Add in the changing demographic conditions of an aging workforce, and it's clear that we need to do a much better job of encouraging and supporting people to enter and complete their post-secondary education.

           That encouragement and support simply aren't there under existing policies. Let me give you some specific examples of what is missing.

           Deregulating tuition fees has priced post-secondary education out of reach for thousands of potential students. As those fees skyrocketed over the last five years, students were forced to drop out altogether, drop back from full-time to part-time or take on enormous levels of debt. I hear from our faculty members the difficulties their students are facing in trying to make ends meet. Many of them have part-time jobs, part-time studies and full-time home responsibilities.

           The average tuition fee in B.C. for an undergraduate degree has doubled since 2001. Average student debt is now close to $30,000, according to the Canadian Federation of Students. Under the current tuition fee policy, we're forcing today's students to pay a far higher portion of the cost of post-secondary education than in previous generations. Back then, tuition fees accounted for about 15 to 18 percent of the total cost. Today that's almost double.

           The barriers that have been placed in front of our public post-secondary education system aren't confined to tuition fees. The entire public system is suffering because operating grants are falling far short of meeting basic needs.

           A recent internal document at Kwantlen, Creating Our Future: Kwantlen University College Action Plan 2007, stated: "The proportion of post-secondary institutions' revenues coming from the provincial government has dropped from 58.1 percent in 1993-94 to 45.6 percent in 2003-04…. In addition, the Ministry of Advanced Education's share of the provincial budget has dropped from 8.1 percent in 1995-96 to 7.3 percent in 2005-06."

           Because grants fall short of institutional needs, access is reduced and costs are shifted onto students, a move that makes affordability just that much harder. For instance, at Kwantlen not only do students have to

[ Page 1544 ]

pay $145 per credit in tuition, they also face a 7-percent surcharge fee for libraries, technology and student life.

           Imagine you are a single parent living in Newton or Whalley, trying to make a better life for you and your family by getting a post-secondary education. The challenges you will face are almost insurmountable. There was a time when resources were available for you — resources like institutional-based training that would support low-income students in accessing post-secondary education, help with retention strategies throughout and assist with exit employment transition. These initiatives are gone.

           Kwantlen is not unique in the funding problems it faces. Other post-secondary institutions are experiencing the same problem. In a report prepared by Perrin, Thorau consulting for the Ministry of Advanced Education, the researchers noted that for the entire public post-secondary system, cost increases — both capital and operational — were not matched by compensating increases from the provincial government. The consultants recommended a minimum funding increase of $50 million over and above what had already been committed by the provincial government. That additional funding has not been found.

           This year's budget should mark the starting point for addressing this underfunding problem. Adequate funding is also critical to maintaining the comprehensive mandate that Kwantlen is supposed to provide to our communities.

[1615]

           I talked at the outset about multiple entry points for our students. Many of those students are adult learners for whom the path back to post-secondary education is not an easy one. Yet these are the very same students that we need to encourage and support if we hope to close the skills gap I mentioned earlier or solve a skills shortage that is proving to be so critical.

           Again quoting the Creating Our Future report, in 2006 there were 977,400 immigrants in Greater Vancouver, or 43 percent of the population. In 2011 immigrants will make up 46 percent of the region's population. Predictions for 2017 are that 49 percent of the region's projected population of 2.879 million will be immigrants.

           Immigrants accounted for over 90 percent of the net labour-force growth in the 1990s. This proportion is expected to increase. In planning for this, government needs to ensure institutions like Kwantlen, which serve communities with a significant immigrant population, have the funding required to provide programs like English-language training in order to meet skills and labour shortages.

           I'm going to get to the recommendations then. Make affordable post-secondary education a major priority in the 2008 provincial budget. We know there is a skills gap that we need to close. Give public post-secondary institutions the funding necessary so that operating budgets of institutions like Kwantlen can provide more access to the educational opportunities that our students need to begin and complete their post-secondary education.

           As a specific target for better funding, the 2008 provincial budget should allocate an additional $200 million for public post-secondary education. That would represent a 10-percent lift in the Ministry of Advanced Education budget.

           Endorse the call for tuition relief. Student groups have, in previous budget consultations, asked for a 10-percent reduction in tuition fees. Bring back the student grant program that was eliminated in 2001-2002.

           That's the abbreviated version. Thank you for the opportunity to make this presentation. I would be glad to answer any of your questions.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. My question is related to the green programs. Are there any applied programs at Kwantlen College related to environmental technology, as well as other high-tech sectors?

           T. Van Steinburg: Yes, we do actually have a program called "Environmental technology."

           R. Lee: Is it a popular degree program?

           T. Van Steinburg: Is it a degree program? I don't think it is a degree.

           M. Shaw: I think it's a two-year program at the moment, and it is experiencing growth in enrolment. It had some problems a number of years ago, but I think now it is increasingly popular.

           R. Lee: Okay. We heard from the Teachers Federation that they actually welcome targeted funding for certain programs. Do you think this is a program for which government can increase support or not?

           T. Van Steinburg: I think our message is that we would like to see funding increased across the board, not just for specific programming.

           R. Lee: Okay. Thanks.

           J. Kwan: I'm interested and curious about any thoughts you might have on the Campus 2020 report that was advanced by Geoff Plant. Certain sectors of the advanced education community are in support of it. Others have some reservations.

           I'm just wondering: from your perspective, do you have any comments about that report?

           T. Van Steinburg: Well, yes. I have a couple. As I said in my presentation, we were pleased to hear about the announcement with regards to ABE. Our concern, of course, is that if tuition is no longer going to fund the program, will the government, along with their announcement, be funding what institutions like Kwantlen have lost?

           The other thing was that there seemed to be a great deal of emphasis in the report on universities, not so much on university colleges and colleges. We were somewhat disappointed to see that and would have liked to see a little bit more on that side.

[ Page 1545 ]

           Those are just a couple of observations, just off the top.

[1620]

           J. Kwan: Just to follow up with one other quick question, I'm curious to know whether or not at Kwantlen you guys have received your rate-of-inflation increase with your funding. I know universities got it. Colleges complained that they didn't. Did your school get it? This is the inflationary index.

           M. Shaw: We've been trying to do an analysis of the funding, and I think that our funding has not kept up with the rate of inflation. There also seems to be a separate amount of money that is to be forthcoming. I'm not sure if it's been passed along to account for the wage increases that were negotiated this year, because the faculty concluded negotiations this year, not last.

           I think the inflation factor is not adequate to meet our needs, and there are also the increased costs through the new collective agreements.

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

           Could we have the Whalley Business Improvement Association come forward, Lesley Tannen.

           L. Tannen: Hello. We're changing our name, just to confuse you. When you get your presentation notes, and I have a copy for you, it says the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association.

           Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Kwan and gentlemen, for the opportunity. Special thanks to Stephanie at the Clerk of Committees office. Your committee is well served by that staff. I've been having conversations with her over the last week, seeking an opportunity to get in on the list. They're a great group.

           The downtown business improvement association — formerly the Whalley BIA — represents 1,000 businesses and commercial property owners in downtown Surrey. At the end of this presentation I will relate the following comments to your theme of a green future.

           We recognize the provincial government is dedicated to providing British Columbians with accessible, high-quality post-secondary education. However, we are concerned that existing institutions will not be able to address the additional demands that accompany the ongoing population growth in Surrey and other communities south of the Fraser River.

           There is a growing body of research that demonstrates that universities are strong catalysts for economic prosperity and for individual cities and surrounding regions. Our association has experienced firsthand the creative energy and value of working with SFU in Surrey.

           Over the last three years we have shared research done by our SFU co-op students with the city of Surrey, the RCMP and other groups. Their contributions support our efforts to create a vibrant, safe and livable downtown. Conversely, economic competitiveness and sustainability can be adversely affected by the lack of accessibility to and choice in quality of post-secondary education.

           What are our specific concerns? Well, based on projected population growth in Surrey and the other communities south of the Fraser, reducing provincial investment in post-secondary infrastructure over the next three years, according to information I've received from your website, may create additional costs for the next generation as the price of land and construction continues to rise.

           Currently 4,000 people study and work at the new SFU Surrey campus. Notwithstanding the additional expansion of 8,000 post-secondary seats in the region and in light of the 800,000-plus population living south of the Fraser, Surrey and its neighbours will be greatly underserved by post-secondary institutions and have been for some time. We don't see that changing unless something else changes.

           It's particularly relative in comparison to communities and populations north of the Fraser. While SFU Surrey is one of the few post-secondary campuses to meet its enrolment targets, there are a large number of current and potential students who cannot access the programs and courses they need in their education plan.

[1625]

           Pressures from local population growth, immigration and older workers wishing to re-skill will increase the demands on SFU and Surrey. New developments such as the RCMP E division and the Surrey out-patient hospital will also create further challenges. So what to do?

           First, SFU and the B.C. government have demonstrated, in combination, significant commitment to Surrey and other south-of-Fraser communities in establishing this campus in the first place. Notwithstanding the need for government to invest tax dollars wisely, the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association supports continued investment by the province in the SFU Surrey campus infrastructure.

           Support at this time is crucial, as SFU Surrey requires appropriate infrastructure to address increasing pressure to meet community and regional demands. In fact, it's almost impossible to find space at the campus for meetings, for any groups at any time. It's a real struggle for staff and administration to accommodate current needs. Continued provincial support will also increase investor confidence for more development in the area and will help sustain it over time.

           Secondly, downtown Surrey offers a unique environment where collaboration between SFU, the city of Surrey, the province of British Columbia and the private sector can build and showcase creative solutions that meet the needs of individuals, employers and communities for post-secondary education and economic development. This will also allow SFU to design and build flexible, possibly multi-user buildings which will enable the institution to be responsive to changing demands over time.

           How does this relate to green futures? Expanding the capacity of SFU Surrey to meet growing regional needs does support the province's goal of greener futures by reducing environmental damage from emis-

[ Page 1546 ]

sions, reducing the number and duration of automobile trips across the region and throughout the lower mainland. It will also support the goal of higher transit use.

           Your continued commitment to SFU in Surrey, the city of Surrey and other South Fraser cities will have far-reaching positive social, economic and environmental outcomes and will create a significant and ongoing legacy for all of us.

           D. Hayer: I wanted to make one other comment. Thank you very much, Lesley, for changing the name there. I know many people tried to say that if you want to have a downtown, you really have to have an association that feels proud to call itself…. I know that some of the members have served for a long period of time.

           How do you see, in the last four or five years, the development in the downtown Surrey area? I used to be chamber president in '96-97, and nothing really happened for a long period of time there, even though Surrey talked about it. In the last three or four years I can see the changes there. From your point of view, how are those changes going?

           L. Tannen: I think that the most significant reason for the incredible number of units that are going in, in the area — 5,000 units and 10,000 people over the next two to three years — is primarily a function of two things. One is the cost of land and housing affordability. There's also the fact that more people want to work near the communities where they live and also live in the communities where they work.

           For instance, E division, which will be going in sometime in the next number of years. A significant portion of those people already live in Surrey. In fact, they won't have to commute so far because their workplace will be in Surrey. It's affordable land; it's space. Surrey has an embarrassment of available land, in fact, and I think that's part of it.

           Also, I think that with the general economic climate, people are more in a place of…. They're building families. We have a significant number of young families moving into Surrey, and not just the downtown area. It's commonly called the Whalley area, but we're really talking about the commercial core in the north of Surrey.

           The whole community is expanding. In fact, we're affordable, relative to other parts of Surrey, as well.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Since my colleague referred to 1996 or 1997, what impact do you think the planning and building of the Central City tower by the provincial government in the city centre in Surrey had in terms of being a catalyst for the economic redevelopment of the downtown core?

[1630]

           L. Tannen: It has had some impact. I don't think that when you look back a hundred years from now, you'll find any one thing had an impact. I think it demonstrated a commitment and risk-taking. I mean, that's what developers are in the business of doing — taking calculated risks.

           It's always a challenge, and you never know if you've made the right decision — sometimes for years later. Sometimes it's not the actual person who put the shovel in the ground. It's two or three developers later who can demonstrate that the initial vision was perhaps a good vision.

           Things change over time. Uses change. It's a unique setting for a university altogether. We're just impressed that it's grown two years ahead of what its projected growth rates were. I know the Premier himself said 40,000 students. Well, we're not sure that's exactly what we can cope with there, but it's somewhere between 10,000 and 15,000 students that I foresee happening there. As we can expand the number and the range of programs….

           My colleagues from other organizations have talked about post-secondary education at length, and I'm quite sure you've received comments around the province. I think that's actually part of a green future. If you have a well-educated workforce working close to where they live, it all bodes well for everybody.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thanks very much, Lesley — appreciate it.

           Committee members and ladies and gentlemen, that ends the formal portion of our hearing. We now go into what we call our open-mike segment. We have three folks who have identified an interest in speaking to us, so we'll give each of them an opportunity. Joanne Curry is first.

           The rules around this particular part of our hearing are pretty simple. You have five minutes to tell us whatever is on your mind. We don't have a question period after that. We're kind of running behind. So you have five minutes, Joanne. Take your time, and I'll let you know if you're getting close to five minutes.

           J. Curry: Sounds like speed-dating or something.

           Thank you so much for allowing us the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking on behalf of Simon Fraser University's newest campus in Surrey. It's quite fitting that I come right after Lesley Tannen and the Downtown Surrey Business Improvement Association.

           Our campus is thriving. From a $70 million commitment the province made four years ago, we're fit out in the spectacular Central City building. Each year we attract thousands of students and visitors to take courses and programs. We have free community lectures and lots of festivals and different activities and have become a really important facility south of the Fraser for meetings and events.

           Right now we have over 3,000 students taking courses with us. This year we welcomed our largest-ever first-year class of over 650 students. We offer over 20 undergraduate and graduate degree programs.

           I guess what has surprised us especially about this year's result is the huge proportion of Surrey and South Fraser students now taking our programs. In the early days we had about 25 percent of students from Surrey and about 40 percent from south of the Fraser.

[ Page 1547 ]

           That has in fact now doubled, where over 49 percent of our first class is students from the Surrey school district, and 71 percent is from the South Fraser communities. This represents a huge change for us, and a very positive one. The reason we are located in the South Fraser is to address the very low transition rates to post-secondary education.

           I know there are many communities around the province that are experiencing declines in school-age populations, and the South Fraser, as you may know, is not one of them. The Surrey school district has the largest school population in the province — over 65,000 students. It's one of the few that's continuing to build schools. We see this growth, and the forecasts are beyond 2021 for continued growth, so we're expecting a huge demand for our programs.

           The final point I wanted to make in my time slot is that not all programs are created equal. We have a commitment from the provincial government to grow to 2,500 students by 2009. We've completely outfitted the facility, and as Lesley mentioned, we're filling up rapidly. We do have an MOU to grow to double in size, to 5,000 students by 2015, but the areas of growth that we've targeted are very important to the province as well as the South Fraser in the area of sciences and health sciences.

[1635]

           There are very few programs in the South Fraser in this area. It's a huge demand area for the economy, and it is in fact one of the top-ranked areas of study for students from the Surrey school district.

           Currently we are in the capital plan for our second building, second phase, by 2013, and we feel that this is too far into the future. Given our successes and the demand that we see, we would like to see the science building and what we call the science and technology complex as soon as possible.

           All those materials, by the way, were designed by one of our talented students.

           I end by inviting you all to come to the campus, if you have an opportunity. I know there are a number of people here that were major supporters of the initial campus. We are, as I mentioned earlier, thriving and becoming a really important facility in the South Fraser.

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

           Our next presenter is Ken Baker.

           K. Baker: In the last 20 years citizens living within the Metro Vancouver district have sat back and watched as our urban forests have literally disappeared before our eyes. This has been allowed to continue without regard for the long-term negative environmental impact the loss of our urban forest ecosystems is going to have on human living conditions within city limits in the distant future.

           I moved to the city of Coquitlam in 1985. Although the valley was active with development at that time, it had not yet encroached upward to the surrounding mountains. Heritage Mountain, Johnston Hill, Westwood Plateau and River Springs were all part of the same forest that had evolved and sustained itself for thousands of years. Today only 22 years have passed, and we have managed — or I should say mismanaged — this area terribly, allowing these once pristine ecosystems of life to be completely obliterated and replaced with concrete and houses.

           This practice of completely removing natural forested ecosystems in the name of the progressive spreading of humanity has now been accepted as the norm throughout our province. It is wrong.

           Natural forested ecosystems sustain life. They are the natural filter of our water. They are the natural and primary filter of our air. They help to keep our weather patterns stable. They alone ensure the continued health and sustainability of our wild salmon stocks. They are the one definite natural way to help slow the continual increase of greenhouse gas emissions. They maintain the health and balance of our planet Earth.

           It seems the porch light has finally been turned on, but the switch is on dim. The government stumbles over the threshold into an arena where the answers they seek have always been clearly illuminated to them. Unfortunately, priorities of instant monetary gratification have always swayed them away from the light of environmentally wise choices for their constituency.

           I hope this will be the beginning of a government willing to now see that long-term investment into the future of environmental stability is the only investment we can make that will ensure our future remains sustainable. Environmental stability is the taproot of economic strength.

           This government needs to dedicate the necessary time and funds to bring together all municipalities within this province to overhaul — or in this case where they don't exist at all, to put in place — environmental laws to private land owners and all land developers that will ensure the end of clearcutting our urban forests and protect those that remain intact so that they are obligated by law to build within the ecosystem they are entering, to nurture that ecosystem, to respect the life already thriving there and to leave as light a footprint on the natural environment as possible.

           This government needs to put a freeze on any and all housing developments, focusing on remaining intact green spaces within our city limits. We need to protect and enhance green space. It has become much more valuable and necessary to protect than to remove for development. Our urban green spaces are the lungs and filters of our cities. We cannot afford to sell them off to the highest bidder for instant monetary gratification.

[1640]

           The very fabric of what keeps us all healthy is now at stake. We all need to wake up to this realization and demand this destruction stop now.

           The Riverview lands in Coquitlam are a prime example of an ecosystem in peril of proposed high-density housing, a proposal revealed to the public through a July 27, 2007, Vancouver Sun front page splash by this government's Minister Responsible for Housing, Rich Coleman. The land in question here is one of the last remaining large, intact greenspaces in the city of Coquitlam.

[ Page 1548 ]

           Once you look through the smokescreen in this proposal of accommodating the poor and the mentally ill, the real focus becomes abundantly clear. High-density housing again will smother the site, fuelled yet again by the addiction to instant monetary gratification. This is yet another prime example of grab-and-run planning, and this is the reason all of our urban forests are in extreme peril of extinction today.

           Healthy environmental choices require long-term planning, with long-term commitments by government and long-term sacrifices for long-term gains — not measured in four-, ten- or 20-year spans of time but in 50-to-100-year spans of time. Allowing our urban greenspaces to be eradicated today gives us no retirement fund to fall back on for a clean environment tomorrow.

           If this government is sincere in making a commitment to the people of British Columbia to represent their best interests in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then I say to you: prove it by making prevention the number one issue in this fight.

           Our forests, urban and wild, are paramount in preventing a buildup of greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Why, then, would the elected representatives of the people's best interests keep turning a blind eye to the continual destruction of our forests, the most effective natural tool we have in the fight for the life of our planet?

           Stop the destruction of our urban forests today. Show us that you are committed to represent our best interests in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Pass legislation to protect our urban forests from annihilation, which continues today. Put in place a budget to protect our urban forests, to prevent greenhouse gas emissions.

           Our urban forests are the lungs of our cities. Keep them safe today so we can all breathe easier tomorrow.

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

           Our last five-minute presenter is Russ Burtnick, who's sitting there waiting patiently.

           R. Burtnick: I was actually out of town. I would have been required to be here earlier with the submission and everything else, because I'm involved with policy and issues in a number of areas. I'm involved with the chamber of commerce, a number of community groups and independent businessmen in the community of Surrey. I want to thank you for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen.

           Commitment to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. Transportation is huge. You have no idea how much it's needed here. Even going outside here on 104th, when you leave here today, you'll see the traffic lined up just to get back on the bridge to go home.

           Overpasses at 156th, 160th and 176th are needed to keep the community flowing in those areas.

           South perimeter road. I'm going to China next week, and I'll tell you…. Our area's transportation? It's needed. We need the south perimeter road for trucking, to get the smooth flow of traffic, not only for jobs but for the areas around here. It's incredible.

           Rapid transit in the future is welcome. The future here is the Fraser Valley. We're growing. It's said that in five to ten years Surrey will be bigger than Vancouver. Let's get the planning.

           I would actually like to see the provincial government get involved in planning and funding of transportation for the whole lower mainland, by far. Vancouver and Burnaby — they've got it all right now. They're happier than heck with what they've got. They don't want to spend money in other areas. I'd like to see overall planned funding and communities working together for the betterment of the whole community.

           Surrey and the Fraser Valley are growing large. We need more hospitals, more health care services out here. Take a look. How many has Vancouver got? Nine hospitals? We've got what? Surrey Memorial. We need a lot more hospitals, a lot more planning in that area.

           I'm in the insurance business. You know, 85 percent of all property claims — thefts, break-ins — are a result of alcohol and drug addictions. They come to pay for their habits. I'm told by the jail system that 80 percent or more of the convicts are also there because of drug or alcohol addictions.

[1645]

           We're paying a huge cost for the community in these areas. I personally would like to see mandatory treatment centres and recovery centres that deal with the problems. We're not dealing with it, and it's affecting businesses, families — a whole number of communities right through.

           Health care. There are many new agents involved in home-based businesses for acupuncture and massage therapy coming into town here — without regulations, without licensing and accreditation.

           I was in the T&T mall, which is right at 100th and 152nd, two weeks ago. There's a gentleman in there doing acupuncture in the food court. Three different people were having acupuncture, all in different areas. He was servicing people in the mall, in the food court. I'm saying: "Hello?" Where is their privacy? Where are the health regulations? Where is he putting those needles when he's finished? There's a lot of pickup that has to be….

           It's also money under the table. There's a lot of money being paid, which a lot of people are collecting. They're not paying taxes. It's in the construction industry right on through.

           The interior and the pine beetles. We've got a huge problem. The interior is hurting. The communities are hurting. Why can't we get a huge, massive tree-planting program? I'd like to see students out there. I'd like to see convicts who are sitting in the jails get out there and start working and be out there planting.

           There are going to be mudslides, soil erosion, forest fires. Start planting trees for the future, which at least can start getting the roots in. It's just devastating back there. So I'd like to see those areas.

           I just had some very quick points in there, and those are the ones I wanted to elaborate on. I'm on the committee for transportation for the chamber of commerce. They did an excellent presentation. Your other 

[ Page 1549 ]

transportation ones were well presented, and I'm not going to go any further on it because I don't have the time.

           Really, the transportation is critical for this area, and I can't stress it enough. They're bedroom communities. Your employees in the malls and the stores and all that stuff in Vancouver — they live in the suburbs. They have to commute back and forth. If you want people to work in Vancouver, you'd better provide the transportation. Otherwise, they'll come and work out here. There are lots of jobs out here, and more and more people are going to relocate. So let's look at what's best for the community.

           Thank you for your time and for your energy and for your enthusiasm. Thank you very much for today.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Russ. We appreciate it.

           Ladies and gentlemen, that ends our hearing in Surrey. We are adjourned.

           The committee adjourned at 4:48 p.m.

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

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

Copyright © 2007: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada