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 Friday, October 12, 2007 10 a.m. Pinnacle 1, Ramada Inn & Conference Centre 36035 North Parallel Road, Abbotsford

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

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2007

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1551 ]

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2007

          The committee met at 10:08 a.m.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I hope everybody is doing well this morning. Welcome to this public hearing.

           My name is Bill Bennett. I'm the MLA for the riding of East Kootenay, which is Cranbrook, Fernie, Sparwood and Elkford, up in the southeast corner of the province. Let me allow my committee members — those who have managed to make it out here to Abbotsford this morning — to introduce themselves. I think there will be more committee members joining us this morning, but for now let the two members identify themselves.

           R. Hawes: I'm Randy Hawes, the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. There are transcripts kept, though, so anyone who isn't here will actually be reading your presentation.

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

           B. Bennett (Chair): Folks, the reason we're here is to listen to you and to the other people who have preregistered to make submissions to us today. This committee, the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services, is involved in a prebudget consultation process. The oral hearings, one of which is here today in Abbotsford, are part of that process.

           There are other ways for the citizens of the province to make submissions to this prebudget consultation process. One is to go on the Internet and go to the website and make an on-line submission. Another is simply to type something up with your computer and fax it or mail it to us. We have to have those written submissions not later than October 19 to get them in on time.

[1010]

           When we complete our process and take a look at all of the submissions that we've received — and last year there were over 8,000 — this committee, which is a bipartisan committee, will attempt to come up with some recommendations, which we will then pass through to the Minister of Finance for the province, Carole Taylor. She will then work as many of those recommendations as possible into her upcoming budget, which is announced in February of 2008. So that's the process.

           You all know why you're here this morning, so I think we probably should get started.

           Before we have our first presenter, let me say that witnesses have ten minutes to make their formal submission. My hands usually start to move around when you get at about nine minutes so that you have some sense of when you're getting to the end of your ten minutes. After your formal submission, we'll have five minutes for questions and answers.

           Our first presenter is the Fitness Industry Council of Canada. One of you is Jeff Ardron.

           J. Ardron: Yes, that would be me.

           L. Tkach: My name is Lonnie Tkach. I'm a provincial council member, and I'm also owner of Great West Fitness.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Okay, gentlemen. You can get started.

Presentations

           J. Ardron: Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. The Fitness Industry Council of Canada is a not-for-profit trade association representing over 2,000 fitness facilities and over two million members across the country, with approximately 540 facilities in British Columbia.

           Fitness Industry Canada represents and promotes the Canadian fitness industry in pursuit of a more physically active and healthy country. Fitness Industry Canada applauds the federal government for introducing the children's fitness tax credit, as it will encourage more children to lead a healthy and active life at an earlier age.

           Without encouragement to become involved and support to stay involved in physical activity, obese children tend to become obese adults and prove a significant financial strain on the provincial and Canadian health care system. According to the British Columbia Medical Association, the total cost of inactivity in British Columbia is $691 million, a number which will increase to over $1 billion by 2015 if improvement in the way physical activity is addressed and encouraged is not made.

           It is important to teach the benefits of physical activity at an early age, when fitness can become a habit. According to the Public Health Agency of Canada, physical activity is associated with positive self-esteem, improved academic and cognitive performance and a greater perceived well-being in children.

           A healthy-living tax incentive was introduced in Nova Scotia in 2005 for children and youth age 17 and under registered in an approved organized sport, physical recreation or physical activity program, effectively increasing the total combined provincial and federal tax credit to $1,000 per child.

           I'll pass it off to Lonnie.

           L. Tkach: On behalf of Fitness Industry Canada, we would really like to thank you for creating this process for us to be able to have an opportunity to make a proposal like this. One of the things we want to be proposing and requesting is that the tax credit for children that has been occurring now at a federal level we would like to see extended to the provincial level.

           I just want to add a few supporting points here. In 1997 the total direct cost of obesity in Canada was $1.8 billion, or 2.4 percent of the total health care expenditure.

[ Page 1552 ]

           According to the staff of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of the Library of Parliament report, the growing obesity epidemic in Canada is costing the government $4.3 billion, by the most recent estimates. According to a 2000-2001 Canadian community health survey, 56 percent of Canadian youth aged between 12 and 19 are physically inactive, and even worse, as many as 82 percent may not have been active enough to meet international guidelines for optimal growth and development.

[1015]

           Considering that in 2005 approximately 6.8 million Canadian adults aged 20 to 64 were overweight and an additional 4.5 million were obese, the cost of obesity in Canada is likely to significantly increase over the coming years. Increased physical activity has the opportunity here to decrease the national health care costs while reducing the risk of developing terminal disease and debilitating conditions, including heart disease, colon cancer, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and osteoporosis.

           Obesity-related illnesses cost the British Columbia health care system an estimated $380 million annually, or 4.5 percent of total direct health care costs in the province. When productivity losses due to obesity — including premature death, absenteeism and disability — are added, the total cost of obesity to the BritishColumbia economy is estimated at between $730 million and $830 million a year, equal to 0.8 percent of the province's gross domestic product.

           While we do know that British Columbia has the highest rate of physical activity in the country, there are still 35 percent of B.C. residents who do not exercise regularly — we're talking about three or more times a week — and 16 percent who either never exercise or exercise less than once a week.

           Our facilities that are represented in Fitness Industry Canada are able and willing, in collaboration with ActNow B.C., to offer the education, programs and services necessary to help the government of British Columbia achieve the goal of increasing the proportion of the B.C. population who are physically active or moderately active by 20 percent in 2010.

           In an effort to help all Canadians achieve a higher level of physical fitness, Fitness Industry Canada is spearheading the adult fitness tax credit postcard campaign. We definitely made a huge impact with that. The adult fitness tax credit campaign encourages government to expand the children's fitness tax credit to include all active Canadians. Launched in September 2006, the adult fitness tax credit postcard campaign saw over one million printed postcards and 31,000 electronic postcards mailed to the Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper; the Hon. Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance; and local Members of Parliament in support of a tax credit for Canadians of all ages involved in organized sport and fitness.

           The implementation of a provincial children'sfitness tax credit and a national adult fitness tax credit will support cross-ministry initiatives associated with ActNow B.C. while supporting B.C.'s mission of leading the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness.

           A couple of other things I wanted to add here. We've seen some benefits in taxing things that are bad for health — for example, liquor tax and tobacco taxes. Definitely, in some ways, it has been a little bit of a deterrent. As well, it has been a good revenue generator for the government. At Fitness Industry Canada we believe that in doing it from the other side as well, by expanding the children's fitness tax credit to the provincial level, we can have an even greater impact. In helping children to develop the habit of having regular fitness as a part of their lives, we can dramatically increase the quality of life in B.C. in years to come. As they build that habit early on, it will stay with them.

           When I look at an example, looking at how I was raised, and I'm sure for many of us, incentives have worked well. When you do something well in your homework assignment, you get a star, and you get a good letter for your grade. We run different programs at our fitness clubs to encourage the participation of our members. Even over the last year or so we put together a board game called the Grouse Grind. When members come in, they get to roll the dice. They work their way up the board, and they win different prizes that are donated by local businesses.

           It's amazing how across all different segments of our membership — whether it's lower-income people, middle-income people, government people, successful business people — they like to roll the dice and win the awards and work their way up the board. People like positive incentives.

           We have seen a lot of positive response from what has happened at the federal level. Lots of our members are already asking how they can take advantage of the tax credit that is being offered at the federal level, and we definitely want to see that extended to the provincial level.

           J. Ardron: I'd just like to add to what Lonnie was saying in terms of fitness. We both have young families that play sports and things of that nature. Being around sports teams and parents….

[1020]

           For a lot of families there are a lot of financial barriers to getting into hockey, for one. It is very expensive when you add the equipment and the fees to play. Football and other sports can get quite costly for parents and families. These are things that are great activities for children physically, as well as building a sense of teamwork, discipline and self-esteem. It's just great as a parent to see my son being part of a team — the physical elements as well as those.

           I'm really impressed with how ActNow B.C. has really promoted nutrition and the physical lifestyle. I like how the junk food taxes are starting to be tabled — or we're starting to get those — to discourage eating junk food and things that make you obese. I would like to see it kind of go the other way as well, where you encourage people to get more active by offering a tax credit.

[ Page 1553 ]

           I guess we're running out of time, so I thank you very much.

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

           R. Hawes: Thank you for your presentation.

           Gordie Hogg, the Minister of State for ActNow B.C., is constantly saying that our children are the first generation that are not going to live as long as their parents unless we do something now, so your message is very timely. It's a very good message.

           I'm just curious about how much work you're doing now with ActNow. Are you working actively with them?

           J. Ardron: I have contacted them. I have talked to their office a few times, just preliminary kinds of discussions about what kind of partnerships we can work together on, whether it be promoting ActNow through our clubs or getting in on events when they go from town to town. They have a travelling kind of thing they do.

           We have had some preliminary talks, but nothing has been hammered out at this point. It's definitely a partnership that we would like to make, because we're both kind of promoting the same thing.

           R. Hawes: I would encourage you to also, then, try to contact Gordie Hogg directly.

           L. Tkach: Yeah, we just had a lunch meeting last week, and I shared Gordie's information. That's one of our next steps.

           Out of my White Rock location we were involved in some local meetings for Surrey, the ActNow, and working with volunteers there and submitting information on all of our services and ways that we can help to educate and be involved in making a difference in our community there.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Just remind me: is the children's fitness tax credit $500 a year?

           J. Ardron: It's $500 per child.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): So the Nova Scotia one adds another $500.

           J. Ardron: It adds another $500.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): So that gets you to the $1,000. I see you've referenced a report on the Nova Scotia one. Do you know anything more about it, in terms of the takeup?

           J. Ardron: I don't. I'm not too, too familiar with Nova Scotia.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Guys, thank you very much. We appreciate your submission.

           Could we have the Kwantlen Student Association, please? You must be Laura Anderson. Have a seat.

           L. Anderson: I am, indeed.

           As my name card says, my name is Laura Anderson. I'm the chairperson and director of external affairs of the Kwantlen Student Association. Actually, I struggled a lot with exactly what I was going to end up presenting today.

           Originally, when we had made the decision that we wanted to make a presentation to this committee, it was solely from several recommendations we'd received from the various MLAs in the Kwantlen region regarding changes to the Society Act. Actually, it was very strongly recommended to us by Olga Ilich that we come down here and talk about those changes and how they could be funded at this committee. This was really the whole driving force behind why I wanted to come down here.

           Through the process of trying to figure out what exactly we were going to present and how we were going to present it and what changes we wanted to produce, we realized that this committee wasn't exactly the place to be presenting legislative changes to the Society Act, even though we were going to be asking for funding for some kind of tribunal, or something like that, to help oversee societies. I'll tell you about why.

[1025]

           It was a really long process. About a week ago we changed our mind completely on what we wanted to present. We were like: "We've got this opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. Maybe we should talk about tuition fees. Maybe we should talk about funding. Maybe we should talk about the U-pass and transportation at Kwantlen."

           Last night I was sitting in my apartment trying to figure out what I was going to write today, and all of these things are spectacularly important. I think this committee has a fantastic opportunity in front of it to make change on a whole variety of important issues.

           I notice that the one piece of regular information being presented from the government today is about the environment. I saw it on the table, and I thought maybe my speech today should be about the environment. I think we all realize it's time we need to get up on that bandwagon and do something.

           Maybe I should tout the importance of the U-pass and about funding transportation south of the Fraser River, simply because it's so bad. Only 16 percent of Kwantlen students use public transit as their main method of transportation. I thought about that.

           Even on the drive over here I was wondering: what is it that I should present? The submissions I have provided to the committee are actually a copy of our amended petition to the court. I'm not sure if any of you have heard the story of what happened at Kwantlen between May of 2005 and October 31, 2006. Anybody?

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I'm aware of it.

           L. Anderson: Mr. Ralston definitely has. We met earlier, and I provided him with a copy. It has to do with changes to the Society Act, and it was the most important thing I wanted to present, because I would

[ Page 1554 ]

not be here today to present to you if it were not for the gentleman to my right with blue hair.

           In the amended petition to the court it basically outlines the incredible fight we had at the Kwantlen Student Association against some massive corruption — people rigging elections and stealing money from our fellow students. They could run, and we couldn't do anything to stop them.

           We were faced with the terrible situation where there are no rules that you can create for people who do not follow the rules. As a result, after they had rigged elections and run our society into the ground — as far as we knew, to the tune of about $283,000 in the first seven months they were in office — the only way we could stop them from doing what they were doing was to take them to the B.C. Supreme Court.

           There was absolutely no other way we could stop them. It was so disgusting to us that we had to do it. The gentleman with the blue hair — his name is Desmond — funded our court case. That is the reason I'm able to come before you today and talk to you about the environment or about the transportation needs of students or about the need for upfront student grants or the impact of tuition fees.

           Without it, I would have been replaced by a group of students who would be stealing money from each other. I wanted you to have this amended petition to the court so that you may read it and find out the incredible corruption there was at our student union.

           In this committee you have the power to fund changes to the Society Act to create other methods — perhaps a tribunal, which is sort of what we were looking at when we reviewed the Society Act — so that we don't have to have the only method of remedying these types of situations in non-profit societies as being through the courts. That's how it is right now.

           The Minister of Finance and the registrar of societies have no oversight power over non-profit societies. This is not a problem that is unique to student societies in any way. If you look at the case law around it, it goes right from nudist colonies to Sikh organizations and back to student associations.

           It is all over the place because they're easy to take over. If you get an aggressive board of directors, they can take over your non-profit society, and that's it. They can do whatever they want. Unless you've got some people who can afford to take them to court, they get away with it.

           It's very unfortunate that the RCMP was unable to help us, maybe through a lack of funding or lack of expertise. We're hoping they will pursue them now. Thankfully, we were able to take them to court.

[1030]

           After coming back into office we commissioned a forensic audit with PricewaterhouseCoopers. The other piece of information I have given as a submission to the committee is an article in the Vancouver Sun detailing — yes, the big long one — what we found when we got back in.

           I think this is important, because beforehand we had seen that there was again the rigging of elections and that $283,000 or so had been dragged out of the student union budget in the first seven months.

           After we got in and were able to do this forensic audit, we found out that the damage to the student society that these people had caused was probably over a million dollars. That's a lot of money. That's all student money. Those are all people who struggled to pay tuition fees and everything else.

           I really think that if there's something this committee can do, it has the power to make that change and to fund some kind of changes to the Society Act that will make it easier for people to apply for justice within non-profit societies. Currently that mechanism does not exist.

           That was what I came here to be most passionate about — quite obviously, I'm sure. Putting all that aside, the other thing I really wanted to talk about today was obviously things that affect students on a more day-to-day basis.

           Changes to the Society Act are a more macro issue. After we had dealt with that in our student union, it was our responsibility to get back to working on those other issues: making sure that — as this government did — adult education is made free and making sure that there would be more funding for transportation. I understand there's an announcement that either has been made or will be made very soon regarding funding for transportation, and that's very good.

           Something that we've seen over and over again ever since the first incarnation of this Liberal government in 2001 was an incredible amount of information and passion for education — to create more literacy across the province, to change the education system. There's the whole campaign that was created — I think it was called Achieve B.C. — to talk about education.

           It was actually very entertaining to me. I had a meeting with Val Roddick to discuss changes to the Society Act, adult education and some other issues, and she said: "You know what? It's so great that Gordon Campbell is so dedicated to education. He puts so much effort into the education system."

           I was trying really hard not to give her the hairy eyeball and look at her like she was saying crazy things. At the end of the day she looked back at me and noticed that I was kind of giving her this look, and she said: "Well, maybe not from a student perspective."

           I was like: how is that possible? You put together an entire program to help students, which they don't like. That's like: we just created the best program for fishermen ever, except that they're all dead. It doesn't make any sense.

           The way that tuition fees have gone up across the province and the way that upfront needs-based grants were eliminated only hurts students and only hurts education.

           If there's anything I can say it's that in these times when we are faced with obesity, when we're faced with problems in the health care system, at the base of all of this is education. If people are educated to be more fit, they'll be more fit. If people are educated on ethics, they will be more ethical. If people are educated on how the government works, they'll be more apt to participate in government. Everything stems from education.

[ Page 1555 ]

           This government has already made a commitment to education, and we're waiting to see it. Again, this committee has the opportunity to make that change and to put more funding into the education system — to lower our tuition fees, to increase our funding, to create systems of upfront grants.

           Quite frankly, the system that's in place right now…. I mean, you look at how to pay your tuition fees in September. You don't look at how to pay your tuition fees six years from now when you've done your degree.

           I'll leave that with you and hope you take the time to make that change and put forward those changes, which will make sure that people like me get to go to school in the future and fight these fights.

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

           Laura, I've got a quick question for you. Have you thought about whether there's any level of debt that would be reasonable or acceptable for a graduated student from a two-year diploma course or a three-year program or a four-year program or an eight-year program? Is there any level of debt that students, in your opinion, think would be reasonable?

[1035]

           L. Anderson: I have absolutely no idea. For myself, I'm looking forward to going into law so that I can take people like the ones who stole money from our student society to court. I don't think I'm going to be able, in the next year, to save the $50,000 that I'll need to do that, so I can tell you that that level of debt is definitely not acceptable. I'm not really looking forward to doing that.

           I think that it depends on the individual. I also think what it depends on is what is important. Is it getting a job and being able to pay off that debt, or is it having education for the sake of education?

           I think the cultural shift needs to happen, in that education can't be this thing that happens so that you can get a job and make money. Education has to be a thing that's important for the sake of it. We've already established, I think, that it's the basis for everything else.

           B. Bennett (Chair): So you're not really sure whether there's any level of debt that would be reasonable. Okay, fair enough. No other questions. Thank you for your passionate submission.

           L. Anderson: Thank you very much for taking the time to hear me.

           B. Bennett (Chair): You will get into law school, and you'll graduate, and you'll make one hell of a good lawyer. There are two of them sitting right here.

           Simon Fraser University, Mr. Hurd.

           Mr. Hurd, I believe you were with us yesterday in Surrey. You know the rules. I think you have previous experience, perhaps.

           W. Hurd: I was indeed. We appreciated the opportunity to participate in the open mike yesterday, Mr. Chairman.

           I'm here today to talk about Simon Fraser University and more of the global issues around funding for post-secondary education.

           First of all, let me preface my remarks by saying that in some respects, we're into the golden era for research universities in British Columbia, beginning in 2003 with the government's decision to fund 25,000 new spaces, to Double the Opportunity program for science and computing science. Obviously, the building boom that has resulted from those expenditures or those commitments has been considerable.

           The government made a commitment to fund the increases in operating costs for public sector settlements, which was a significant undertaking for us. I want to stress that this is a great era for post-secondary education in British Columbia.

           Simon Fraser, as many of you are aware, has benefited mightily from that with a new campus in Surrey, many new buildings on our main campus and the ability to now attract students from not only all over British Columbia but from all over Canada. When I first got involved with SFU back in 2002, there were anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 students leaving British Columbia because there just wasn't any ability to get in. We've certainly now reversed that, and we are actively recruiting elsewhere in the country.

           It's a good-news story, but there are always issues that crop up that we want to make committees like this aware of. One of the biggest issues is our ongoing operational funding.

           In 2005 the Ministry of Finance commissioned a report on finances in the university system. It's called the Perrin report and is a comprehensive report on where universities are heading and, more importantly, what some of the cost pressures are.

           We have always supported the need for this review and for its findings and conclusions. I should mention that many of them have been adopted by the government. They've recognized that there were significant issues with respect to our long-term funding.

           Some of the elements of funding that they've dealt with were one-time funding issues related to the opening of new buildings, etc. They've dealt with the base. They've also recognized some cost pressures around inflation and the mandated wage increases.

           However, I should mention that there are significant recommendations that have not been adopted by the government to date, and those are certainly causing us some major concerns as we move forward with our operating budgets.

           I'm joined today by Don Avison of the University Presidents Council, who has been working with this committee and with the government for a number of years on these issues. Certainly, with the committee's indulgence, during the question period I'd be happy to ask Don to join me and answer any specific questions you may have.

[1040]

           I guess our big issues are related to the costs of opening some of our new buildings, which are not covered by the existing framework agreement with the government.

[ Page 1556 ]

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           We're recruiting faculty now from all over Canada. They aren't covered by collective agreements, obviously, so we have to pay much more for new faculty. There's tremendous competition, particularly because we're involved in applied research. When we go around North America to try and bring faculty to British Columbia, we're competing not only in Canada, but also in North America.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           The costs of bringing those professors and researchers to British Columbia is considerable and, again, not really reflected in the funding issues. Most of our pressures, as I say, are on the operating side — one-time funding issues that we don't have a mechanism to address.

           I just wanted to commend the Perrin report to the committee. It's dated 2005 and is a very, very comprehensive look at the budget review for post-secondary education.

           I think it's important to stress, as I mentioned earlier, that we are now competing across Canada with other universities. I think it's important for the government of British Columbia to benchmark what is happening in other provinces.

           This massive investment that the government of British Columbia was involved in, I should mention, has been matched now by other provinces in Canada: Ontario; the province of Alberta, next door, has initiated its own major capital and operating expansions to its post-secondary system.

           Whereas at one time we were the first province, now we're one of a number. We continue to compete for faculty, for students and for research dollars. We're obviously facing much stiffer competition in other parts of Canada.

           That's my presentation, Mr. Chairman. I'm happy to answer any questions or have Don join me and answer ones that I can't.

           B. Bennett (Chair): It would be useful, I think, to have Don join you. We'll have a couple of questions for you, I think.

           R. Lee: Thank you, Wilf, for the presentation. You mentioned about the research and development funding. What kind of funding right now at this level, compared to Canada's average…? What kind of level do you think B.C. has the potential to reach?

           W. Hurd: I can briefly tackle that, and Don would certainly have more information than I do. I understand that British Columbia continues to lag behind in per-capita funding for research. This is an issue that has been brought to the attention of the federal government before. Obviously, research is an adjudicated process, so it's difficult, I guess, to address it overnight, but there is a gap. I certainly invite Don to comment further.

           D. Avison: Perhaps if I could just speak to that issue briefly, Mr. Chair, in a two-part answer. I first express my thanks to the committee for your indulgence in permitting me to join Mr. Hurd again here this morning, having been before the committee in Kelowna earlier this week.

           The first part of the answer is that we've seen very significant increases in research spending in British Columbia over the course of the last several years. In fact, I would characterize them as dramatic improvements.

           Mr. Hurd is correct, however, that we still lag behind the rest of the country on a per-capita basis, in part because the size of the British Columbia system is significantly smaller. As you've seen from the cranes at all of our campuses, that's a situation that's changing quite a bit. Mr. Lee indicated earlier in the week that the Plant report identifies targets that would bring British Columbia, within a period of time, to the third level of spending in Canada, which is where you would expect the third-largest province to be.

           Then, I briefly echo Mr. Hurd's point in relation to the peer-reviewed nature of research-based funding. If you look at British Columbia's population, it's about 13.5 percent of the national population. Gone are the days of the percentage allocation of the resource to each of the provinces.

[1045]

           It's done on the basis of excellence, so with many of the competitions…. Whether it was through the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, NSERC, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grants, British Columbia research scientists were doing extremely well in those competitions and bringing amounts well in excess of the 13.5 percent, which I think again speaks to the excellence of what was happening here in British Columbia.

           If I can put it a somewhat different way, you have to give some to get some. That seed money into British Columbia institutions and, more importantly, into their researchers really produced some very significant dividends, and there's every reason to believe that we could continue on that trajectory to meet the kinds of targets that Mr. Plant has identified.

           R. Lee: If I may, I have a follow-up question. Our professors, our researchers are winning more than our share of the national pie; however, their other sources of funding are not sufficient or reaching the Canadian average. Can you identify those areas and how the province can help to do it better?

           D. Avison: In a couple of areas; there are two in particular. One relates to increasing the size of the research infrastructure in a number of the areas that have been done already. For example, Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research comes up for renewal soon. Genome B.C. is another one. Those are areas where we've been extremely successful.

           I'll come back to Mr. Hurd's point in relation to the operating grants. In universities and in the other post-

[ Page 1557 ]

secondary institutions, ultimately all roads lead back to the operating grant. One of the areas where universities have had to use their resources to make some of the gains is that global operating grant. That does have an impact as well — the resource that's available to adequately advance the educational mandates. That's one of the reasons why the issues that were identified in relation to the Perrin review are significant ones.

           The general areas have been three. The federal government and the resource available through the granting councils have improved significantly, provincially, through the match. British Columbia has been quite aggressive in advancing other opportunity through things like the Leading Edge chairs. The third has been the private sector, where we've seen increases as well.

           It really is an issue of increasing and encouraging the increase in the level of activity on all three fronts. The federal part is really triggered by finding ways to lever that federal resource into the provinces as a result of the research excellence, which I'm delighted to be able to say to you that we have in abundance of here in B.C.

           R. Lee: How can we encourage the private sector to increase their share of research and development funding? Do you have any ideas how government can encourage industries to contribute more in terms of doing more research in B.C.?

           D. Avison: There are a number of ways that that can be pursued. One of the areas is in relation to the tax opportunities, and government has already done that to a very significant degree, both at the personal income tax level and at the corporate tax level. That has been a useful thing.

           I do have to say to you that I think there are some sectors where further activity could take place to encourage the right ecosystem for research and development activity. One of the areas is specifically in the life sciences, where there still may be market-based impediments that limit the full potential for the opportunity to bring research investment to British Columbia.

           In relation to other areas, I have to say to you that I think we're seeing some very encouraging signs, like Microsoft having recently come to British Columbia. There frankly hasn't been enough focus on the key item that brought them. It was the quality of the people that were available in the province. From my prospective, there's a straight line back to government's investment and the Double the Opportunity initiative that helped to cause that to happen.

           I think it really emphasizes the point that those strategic investments at the right points in time and in the right things really can create the conditions for success. Those elements are very relevant to the development of future economic opportunity and for economic diversification.

           I don't think we need to look too far to understand the importance of that in this province. Those are the kinds of investments that have very significant downstream benefits.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): One brief question. Last year the committee recommended an expansion of graduate student spaces, and that recommendation was accepted in the budget. I'm wondering how important the continued expansion of graduate student spaces is to a growing research capacity and leadership both within the country and internationally.

[1050]

           W. Hurd: From Simon Fraser's perspective, I think it's critically important. I mean, they are the heavy lifters on the research front. They do the research. They take the PhD programs and become full-blown research leaders in their own right.

           That was an important step by the government, and we thank the committee for that input. I know that Don and TUPC were lobbying heavily for that. I think there's probably always a need for further graduate spaces. I think that was also mentioned in the Plant report.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): If I might, then, as a follow-up. If you were to recommend a specific number as to expansion of spaces again in this year's budget, what would you recommend?

           D. Avison: We are dealing with the expansion of the graduate seats over the space of a number of years, so the 2,500 seats will happen over the space of about three years. If we're looking at an increase in the research and development activity — and frankly, even if we weren't — I think doubling the number of those graduate spaces is something that we certainly think would be a very useful thing, particularly if it's accompanied by an expansion in the overall commitment to research.

           I do, however, have to say that one of the big issues that we have with the 2,500…. Permit me just to preface my remarks there with this. It's rare that we actually have an opportunity to come full circle before this committee, having said to you this time last year that this was critical and having an opportunity now to say that you heard us. We appreciate that. It really is going to make a difference, and we thank you for the recommendation of the committee.

           The reality is that we do have an issue, and will have into the future, with accommodating the graduate students. There is an issue about the space for the graduate students. Lab capacity is expanding. Frankly, one of the practical issues that we've got is office space for graduate students to be able to work effectively, so there are some capital elements.

           I can say to you, without hesitation, that an expansion of graduate students…. Absolutely, but there's a bit more complexity to it. I'm happy to provide the committee with further information about those other elements.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you. We appreciate it.

           Could we have the Mission and District Rod and Gun Club, please.

[ Page 1558 ]

           You know that we're going to have to fill out a lot of forms and declare this, don't you?

           Good morning, gentlemen.

           M. Rushton: That is not a bribe, by the way. It's the first coin ever minted in Canada that features a firearm — a coin that signifies the Olympic Games, youth, fitness and, in part, an appreciation of the environment. That's the root of shooting: being in the outdoors and understanding the value of the environment and the need to preserve it.

           The Minister of Environment has spoken of a goal to increase the number of hunters and outdoor enthusiasts by 20,000 people. The goal of this government is for British Columbians to own the podium at the Olympic Games. The Mission Rod and Gun Club, and organizations like ours across the province, can help government achieve those goals.

           Not only do we have one of the best — if not the best — and largest shooting ranges, we offer firearms, archery and safety training. Through our experienced instructors and members, including a number who have participated at the Olympic level, we create and develop an appreciation of the environment, particularly for women and children.

           Anyone who has successfully passed the firearm acquisition test and the core training program can obtain a gun and a hunting licence, yet neither of these programs requires nor provides the ability to actually use a firearm. That is what clubs and organizations like ours do: provide the hands-on training to learn all the skills and respect for firearms to be safe in the outdoors, not only for themselves but for the safety of others as well.

           In addition to using the environment and the outdoors, it contributes to healthy living, exercise and fitness.

[1055]

           Going back to the coin, it features a biathlete. Did you know that there are 17 different Olympic sport categories that involve shooting firearms? Yet how can we own the podium if there are few places to learn to shoot?

           The lower mainland has the highest concentration of population, therefore the highest probability that winning athletes will come from this area, if only they had a place to learn to shoot.

           There is only one other significant shooting range west of Mission, and that, I'm told, is slated to close within three years. That leaves Mission Rod and Gun Club as the only centre with a 300-metre range accessible to those 20,000 new hunters we want to encourage, those Olympic athletes we want to own the podium — the only centre that can provide the training and the lessons of firearms safety.

           We are currently considering the potential of an existing ski resort in the Fraser Valley, located at the same elevation as the Callaghan sliding centre near Whistler, co-developing with us a biathlon training centre, which has the further potential of becoming a permanent training centre not only for our athletes but for foreign teams to practise prior to the 2010 games.

           But primarily what we and other outdoor clubs in B.C. want to concentrate on is training enthusiasts, particularly youths, to appreciate the environment, to participate in it, to learn how to do it safely, to get fit and to enjoy nature in beautiful British Columbia. Therefore, we ask the members of the Finance Committee to consider recommending funding allocations in the next budget that recognize the green contribution of outdoors clubs, the contributions that outdoors clubs make to the province.

           We also ask that assistance be provided to our clubs, and particularly the Mission Rod and Gun Club, to assist the Environment Ministry to achieve its goal of more and safer hunters, to help British Columbians own the podium and to develop deep and lifelong appreciation for the environment through safe, practical handling of firearms and archery equipment.

           We also ask the Finance Committee to support the Mission Rod and Gun Club in its quest to own rather than lease the 56 acres of Crown land on which we currently operate. Ownership will allow and encourage us to further invest and develop the site into a world-class facility.

           We've been a Fraser Valley institution for more than 50 years, with a membership from across the Fraser Valley of some 1,500 men, women and children. In addition, we provide training facilities for both RCMP and municipal police officers and are prepared to assist in qualifying federal border agents to carry firearms.

           Government says that British Columbia is the best place on earth. We want to help make it a safer place too, a place where all its citizens can learn to enjoy and respect the natural environment.

           That concludes my official presentation. I do want to stress that clubs like ours operate strictly on revenues from membership and volunteer labour. We get no financial contributions from anyone else. Len Grinnell, the president of our club and a retired RCMP staff sergeant, Tom Norman, who is our immediate past president, and I would certainly entertain any questions that you have.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I've got one to start. I think what you said was that the proposed ski resort is at the same elevation as Callaghan valley.

           M. Rushton: Yes.

           B. Bennett (Chair): What's the elevation of your range?

           M. Rushton: The range? Probably 800 feet. The resort is something around 3,200 feet.

           B. Bennett (Chair): So when you talk about a biathlon training centre, that would have to take place at the higher elevation, I take it.

           M. Rushton: The ski aspect of it would have to take place there, and presumably, the target shooting. We would train them to shoot at our facility, and then they would get the other aspect of the sport in that location.

           B. Bennett (Chair): You said you had 50 acres?

[ Page 1559 ]

           M. Rushton: Fifty-six acres.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Fifty-six acres of land. Do you need that much land for that range?

           T. Norman: We could actually use more, mainly to have a buffer region around it, so that you can be 100-percent safe with any projectile leaving the property. That's why a lot of the property is being used for a buffer range. You don't want any accidents happening by a bullet ricocheting off something and going beyond that point.

[1100]

           L. Grinnell: I think there's also eventual encroachment of development. Most important is the fact that this property is very well treed, and there's certainly a sound buffer involved.

           I personally live within a mile of another range that I'm also a current member of, and the sound is certainly a factor. I constantly hear: "I didn't know there was a range there when I moved there." That's a consideration for the public.

           R. Hawes: Thanks for the presentation. Having been a resident of Mission for several decades and having served as the mayor there, I'm more than familiar with your operation. It is a very welcome operation in the district of Mission. There has been absolutely no difficulty of any kind with your operation. I've never encountered opposition to either your presence or your operation. Certainly, I'd be more than supportive myself.

           I think, Mark, you and I had talked about this once before. You have talked to the government about the acquisition. You have made some financial offerings, I think, to the government in terms of some down payment and then repayment after a certain number of years.

           L. Grinnell: It was not acceptable to government. The price of $900,000 we feel is fair. It's an evaluation of the entire property. The full purchase price is beyond our ability.

           T. Norman: Being a non-profit organization, it's hard to come up with the money. Well, no, there are probably people who will give it the money. Paying it back would be a problem. Our income is from memberships. We wouldn't be able to generate enough to pay the payments. That's where our problem lies.

           M. Rushton: You have a comprehensive business plan that the club has developed, which explains the routes that we have taken with the government in coming up with a reasonable price for the property. We discuss in there the various options we have looked at for funding it.

           Right now what we are obviously going to do is pursue other avenues through the government as well for acquisition, but we felt that we would like to approach the Finance Committee to at least make you aware of where we're going.

           We're not just speaking for ourselves. We're speaking for many outdoors clubs who face, perhaps, similar obstacles in developing and investing. It's much preferable to invest in a piece of property and to go to funding agencies, whether they be banks or government, if we own a property. I certainly don't want to build a new barn on my property if I don't own it.

           We have got a wide range of sporting activities on that site. It is not just a "shoot a rifle down the course" program. We have black powder shooting. We have cowboy action shooting. We have precision target shooting. We have handgun shooting.

           T. Norman: We have trap facilities that are next to none in B.C. — sporting clays, trap, skeet. We also have a lit facility where we can shoot at night — the only club.

           R. Hawes: You haven't mentioned archery, but I think archery is a very large part of it.

           T. Norman: Oh, yes. We have a very large archery section as well.

           This property…. If we own it, we want to expand our facilities. Yes, as Mark said, we don't want to build new facilities if we don't own the property. Once the lease is up, what do we do with all these buildings and stuff? We have a big clubhouse. We have a covered, 300-yard rifle range. We have a covered pistol section. Our archery is outdoors. They want their 3-D game situation. Our trap shooting…. We use all equipment that's Olympic-qualified. We have spent over $45,000 in the last three years to bring all of this equipment up.

           Without owning the property, we don't want to put in another $100,000 or $200,000 building for covered shooting to do the training for juniors. We did a nice, week-long junior program this year, and we are promoting the juniors and the family memberships. We want covered facilities for them.

[1105]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The Chair and I were talking informally just a moment ago about, if the committee were to recommend some avenue for assisting the club, how that might come about. We were discussing the possibility of the Ministry of Environment setting targets to expand the number of hunters. Might you then participate by offering some kind of training for which you'd receive compensation from the government as part of a hunter training…?

           T. Norman: We do have training facilities there for this type of core program and the hunter training program and youth programs.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Then at the present the individual would bear the cost themselves. Is that how it works?

[ Page 1560 ]

           T. Norman: For the juniors there was a small charge which didn't even cover the costs, but the club picked up the rest. We tried to put on our events to at least break even. We've done that for all our activities over the years. If we can break even, then no loss, no foul.

           M. Rushton: It would be nice to see a fund established for outdoor fitness and educational programs for youth that clubs could apply for. That would be, I think, of benefit. There could be direct funding for demonstrated programs of youth development.

           There are ways we can acquire some funding, I would suggest, perhaps through gaming grants, and so on. We think that if we are going to develop a coordinated youth program, which is going to be the future of any kind of sport, we need more substantial funding — or funding on an ongoing basis or the ability to access funding on an ongoing basis — through some sort of fund rather than going to the gaming funds every year and getting, perhaps, a smaller allocation.

           It would be nice to see something where there is a fund that is accessible, if we have a demonstrated program.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Gentlemen, it will be a challenge. In fact, I don't think it's likely that this committee can make a recommendation on the specific subject of the acquisition of this Crown land. That's not really the purpose of the committee. However, we will take everything into account that you've talked to us about. You've given us some ideas on some more general types of recommendations that would be, I think, helpful to you.

           With regard to the property and acquiring it, I suggest that you get in touch with me and with Randy. As chair of the outdoor caucus — and Randy is the local MLA — we can see what we can do to assist with regard to that Crown land.

           I should also say that although Randy, as the Whip for our government caucus, isn't allowed to join groups like my outdoor caucus, he's been extremely supportive of it. Get in touch with the two of us, and we'll see whether we can help you. The committee will take into account this bundle of issues at a more general level.

           M. Rushton: Excellent. Thank you very much for your time.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Committee members, we're going to skip over the Volunteer Richmond Information Services because they're not here, and go straight to Mr. Andrews.

           Good morning, sir.

           D. Andrews: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. I wish to thank you all for allowing me to make a presentation here. I'll tell you beforehand that I consider that what I'm making as a presentation will ultimately be a political decision rather than a financial one.

           I want to draw your attention to what I consider to be the real property transfer fee costs for British Columbia. I'm a licensed realtor in B.C. with over 16 years experience dealing with the general public. As such, I can assure the members of this panel that the average B.C. citizen and local media have absolutely no idea of the real impact of what the government is doing to them with the application of this destructive and ill-conceived property transfer tax. I intend to work hard with my fellow realtors, through the media, to change that before the next election.

[1110]

           People only move because they have to. Housing needs change as people go through the various personal and financial stages that we all face in life. Reasons include marriage, kids, schools, divorce, transfers, empty nests, financial hardship, in-migration, health and mobility issues, death of a spouse, and many others.

           The government has successfully found a very effective way to collect a substantial tax from all of these normal life-related issues through the application of its property transfer tax on our most basic fundamental need for shelter. I actually prefer to call it a family living tax or mini-expropriation tax. Some call it a B.C. entrance fee tax or health care denial tax. In effect, they're all reasonably accurate descriptions of what it actually is.

           This is the only provincial tax that is so large that it must be financed over an extended period of time by the taxpayer. The government has effectively managed to transfer its current budget costs to home mortgages with property tax. You are taxing basic living needs by forcing the people of the province to pay an immediate tax and all the related ongoing finance costs with future income that you haven't seen yet.

           Alberta has no such tax, so it makes for a good comparison regarding some of the inconvenient truths of the effects from this tax. Using my kids as an example, my daughter in Alberta has a $30,000 cash gift from her parents for a down payment, with a good credit rating and cash flow.

           She qualifies for a mortgage of $600,000 with 5 percent down, so she buys a $630,000 home, with a suite to help cover the mortgage. The thousand-dollar rental income effectively lowers her mortgage to $433,000, or $2,600 a month. The house goes up in value 15 percent in one year, giving her $94,000-plus in new equity.

           My son in Langley also has the same $30,000 cash gift from his parents for a down payment but must pay $7,500 to the government from this amount to cover the property transfer tax due on the home he can finance from his down payment. He now has only $22,500 cash left to put down on a home and now only qualifies for a $450,000 mortgage.

           He can buy an older $470,000 home, if he can find one. He won't have a suite for rental income assistance. He'll pay $102 more a month than his sister for a lower mortgage without a renter.

           He makes $70,000 from the same 15-percent inflation on the property. That's $23,000 less equity, with $1,200 more annual expenses, for my son in B.C. than my Alberta daughter has in the first year with the same amount of down payment. In Alberta she is ahead almost $25,000 more than he is, thanks to your tax fee.

[ Page 1561 ]

           The average family unit seems to need to move every four to six years. The province collects tax with every move, while these tax amounts are forced to be added and carried forward to the personal mortgages on their current property.

           Another example. My Alberta daughter has $150,000 cash from the sale of a home. She finds a home for $500,000 that meets her needs, and she is able to put $150,000 towards the purchase price, leaving a mortgage of $350,000.

           My B.C. son has the same $150,000 cash from the sale of a home. He finds the same home in B.C. that meets his needs for the same money, but he must pay $8,000 to the government on the house. He has to pay this from the $150,000 cash, leaving a deposit of $142,000.

           He now needs a mortgage of $358,000 on the same $500,000 house as my Alberta daughter. The $8,000 tax now is on his mortgage, and he pays $48 a month more than my Alberta daughter for the same house. That's $14,000-plus over the term of the mortgage in after-tax dollars.

           My kids have each had their home for one year but must move to another home. The market value has gone up 20 percent in each market — quite reasonable. Dad jumps in and sells each house for free. They each sell for $600,000 with no marketing costs, and each transfers their existing mortgage to a $600,000 home in another location, a straight trade for buying and selling for each identical property.

           My B.C. son has a $10,000 tax on his new house. He does not have any additional cash from the existing home sale, so he must add the tax to his mortgage. He has lots of equity, and the bank happily agrees to do so.

[1115]

           His B.C. mortgage is now $18,000 higher than his Alberta sister's, with their identical moves and transactions. My B.C. son now pays $108 more, or $32,000 more over the term of the same mortgage. He will need to earn in excess of $37,000 to $40,000 income to pay it over the term of the mortgage. The B.C. government is now ahead by $18,000 in taxes.

           Four years later, a reasonable time, my kids do the same thing all over again. My B.C. son is further in debt due to the tax on the new property that is now 50 percent higher. This adds another $16,000 tax to his mortgage.

           My Alberta daughter has managed to pay down the original principal on her mortgage. She now has $86,000 more equity than my B.C. son has in his house. She will need to earn $70,000-plus less income than her brother to pay for it. She can put this income to other uses.

           B.C. now has $32,000 in tax. The banks will earn another $32,000 in interest payments. My son must earn between $74,000 and $80,000 to pay the banks this $64,000 combined debt over the next 25 years.

           My daughter in Alberta has used her free cash flow and borrowed against the equity in her home to open a new business. She has created four new jobs in Alberta. She asked my son to come work for her. He leaves B.C.

           He finally realizes his debt-loading will continue to escalate with every move he makes here in B.C., and frankly, he's just not that stupid. He can easily take his skills and work in Alberta without being penalized by the Alberta government for living in a house. Mom and dad are left in B.C., thoroughly PO'd with the local politicians who were dumb enough to do this and split up their family.

           I have to ask you: just how do you measure the financial and emotional stress, reduced quality of housing and lost investment opportunity costs for B.C. residents from paying the province for the privilege of owning a home? All of the B.C. mortgage payments that have been generated to cover the past decade of taxes will continue for up to 25 years, even if you cancelled the tax tomorrow.

           This damage is already done. You are powerless to stop it. Some residents have tried to raise this extra tax on top of the 5-percent cash down payment needed to buy a home but have been unable to keep up fast enough with the booming home prices. These people will never catch up with the escalation of property prices after working themselves to death to try to buy one for themselves. You have cost them dearly.

           I haven't even started to describe what you have done to our sick and to seniors on fixed income, among others.

           Our minister's response to date. Our Finance Minister continues to avoid any comment when asked by our media about this tax. She responds with a short, simplistic comment that it provides the province with over a billion dollars in revenue, followed by a pause and a smile. She then lets the dead air hang until the interviewer moves on to another subject.

           This is no longer an acceptable response. The public of this province deserves better. I personally feel her lack of response intentionally ignores the damage being done to homeowners and the economy of the province. Frankly, B.C. can no longer afford this tax. The total cost is just too high for the cash it generates. It's time to kill it.

           We continue to increase the debt-loading of B.C. residents while sucking their home equity out of the system. B.C. is choking off a basic source of funding for economic growth that we need to let our economy and people benefit from. I suggest the light you see coming from the end of the tunnel may be public rage when they actually find out the true cost of these continued actions. We have reached a flashpoint with a billion dollars a year in income.

           The public should be able to expect fair, competent and equitable treatment from our elected politicians, and this isn't it. Expropriation of our homes through a hundred cuts is fundamentally wrong and unfair. You are the ones we have elected, have charged and ultimately will hold responsible for looking after the greater public good.

           I pledge to make your future actions for this tax a political positive or a major negative election issue when we next go to the polls. Your options are closing in on you, and you have some very important and tough decisions to make right now.

[ Page 1562 ]

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

           R. Hawes: Thanks, Dave. There are many of us who feel that we should be looking at that tax in one way or another. At the same time, though, I do have to ask you a question.

[1120]

           I was in the real estate industry some years ago. Hypothetically, in 1990 if I sold a house for $200,000, I would probably have collected a commission of somewhere around $9,500. That same house today would sell for probably $600,000. What would be the real estate commission today?

           D. Andrews: For $600,000, you're probably in the range of $15,000.

           R. Hawes: So there's been a very substantial escalation in real estate fees, just as there has been in the taxes.

           D. Andrews: Absolutely.

           R. Hawes: Is the real estate industry doing something about that, when it's the same house being turned over?

           D. Andrews: Actually, I agree with what you're saying. I think if you check and look at the reality of the situation, the commission fees have in fact been dropping. We have a lot of what's referred to in the industry as discount realtors, and I'm starting to see a lot of flat-fee remuneration coming through on the MLS listings. There's a $5,000 flat fee for selling a house, where normally it would have been up around $8,000 or $9,000.

           In reality, that's a truth that's happening in our existing marketplace. But I would like to suggest that we are doing something to earn that fee. We're providing a service, and we're marketing that property for them. The government is simply looking at this transaction and reaching into the pockets of the people that are doing it and taking that money for themselves without providing any benefit for it.

           If someone has to move because they can no longer handle stairs — their hips are gone — and you're going to keep them waiting two to three years for a hip replacement, are you not in fact taxing them for disability?

           R. Hawes: What I would suggest to you is that when you say the government doesn't provide a service…. I guess I would say that when you pay PST or GST on anything you go and buy, you would be hard pushed to find what the government contributed towards that battery that you bought and paid PST and GST on. But that is the nature of tax. That's how the government fuels the operation that pays for all of the other services.

           D. Andrews: If I may respond to that. We do not tax a loaf of bread. We do not tax an apple. At this point we still haven't found an effective way to tax a glass of water or the air we breathe.

           You're talking about housing; you're talking about shelter. It's one of the most fundamental aspects of living, and also one of the most expensive and difficult for the people in this province to get into. I don't see where that should be treated any differently than those other fundamental products, and we — uniquely B.C. — are taxing this issue. Alberta is not doing that.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Dave, I notice that your recommendation is to just get rid of the tax holus-bolus. Fair enough, and I certainly understand your reasoning. The real estate industry, in other presentations to this committee, has asked for a change in the 1-percent threshold. Response?

           D. Andrews: My response is the same as watching…. First of all, the tax is wrong — period. There's no way out of it. It's very destructive to the people that are currently in B.C. and to the people we want to come here to work in B.C.

           It's destructive to our kids. I can't honestly recommend to my daughter to move back to British Columbia from Alberta. My son is finishing off a trade right now, and I can't honestly tell him to stay here.

           The response to the tax is that this has been ignored totally for the entire length of time that that tax was in place, and the government has benefited to an extreme from the inflation in the housing market over that period of time. I think you've had your eyes absolutely closed because it has worked to your benefit and because it hasn't become a public issue. This is why I'm saying to you that I know it's difficult to find another source for a billion dollars' worth of income.

           You've got to recognize that for the people you're charging this billion dollars to, every year it's being compounded and carried forward, and they're financing this. For that billion dollars that you're pulling in, they're going to have to make the equivalent of $2 billion to $2½ billion in income to pay. What's the cost of that to our province?

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well, you've certainly made your point. Thank you.

           D. Andrews: Thank you very much for hearing me.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Committee members, we are going to move to the B.C. Agriculture Council.

[1125]

           Good morning, everyone. I'm going to let you folks introduce yourselves. After you've introduced yourselves, you can get right into your presentation.

           D. Klein Geltink: I'm Dick Klein Geltink, a dairy farmer in Langley. I'm chair of the B.C. Ag Council.

           C. Koch: I'm Christine Koch. I'm staff with the B.C. Agriculture Council.

[ Page 1563 ]

           G. Etsell: Garnet Etsell. I'm a turkey producer and director on the B.C. Ag Council.

           D. Klein Geltink: Steve Thomson sends his regrets. Most of you know who he is. We will get right into this.

           We are pleased to be here and pleased to appear before this committee. The Ag Council represents 12,000-plus farmers and ranchers from all regions of B.C. The outline you have…. We're not going to read it verbatim because we don't have time. We're going to highlight certain sections and then questions later.

           The entire agrifood industry in B.C., through all its avenues, generates over $35 billion in revenue. We employ over 290,000 people. We account for about 2.3 percent of the provincial GDP and about 14 percent of the provincial workforce.

           The entire ag sector has room for huge growth. B.C. accounts for 13 percent of the Canadian population but only accounts for 7 percent of the national cash receipts and about 8 percent of the food and beverage shipments.

           We support the provincial ag plan initiative. We see this as a document that needs resources, needs time lines, needs deliverables. We await the outcome.

           The budget considerations. Agriculture as a determinant of health. I'll read the recommendation. Continued program investment and financial support from the Ministry of Health to achieve this objective in cooperation with ag industry, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, should be a priority. We'd like to highlight the B.C. school fruit and vegetable snack program as an excellent example of this kind of initiative, and we hope to continue with partnerships in this regard.

           As part of meeting this objective, the province should reinvest in provincial B.C. food and products branding. The industry, in cooperation with the B.C. Food Processors, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the B.C. Restaurant and Foodservices Association are developing a plan which will be brought forward to government for your consideration.

           G. Etsell: With regard to energy and climate change, agriculture is ready to be part of the solution of the province's twin commitments to clean energy and climate change mitigation. Our greenhouse sector alone has the potential to save 600,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence annually.

           I'd like to highlight a couple of the recommendations that we have. The rest of them are written out for your review.

           The recommendation is that a number of initiatives be undertaken to achieve the objectives, including a climate to encourage and promote small alternative energy projects. We have a number of those itemized for you.

           We would also like to see incentives to foster investment via rebates, tax credits, accelerated tax depreciation; incentives for renewable fuel use, remediation equipment that reduces greenhouse gas or particulate emissions, and equipment, expenses or processes that improve equipment operating efficiency or energy conservation to reduce reliance on fossil fuels; incentives for businesses that return or replace inefficient equipment; incentives that encourage businesses to conduct in-house research on alternative energy.

[1130]

           With regard to the funding of the agricultural policy framework or the Growing Forward document that is being negotiated and is supposed to come into effect on April 1, 2008, we have the following recommendation: that the provincial government ensure that the budget for the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands has adequate funding to provide for full participation in the next round of the federal-provincial agricultural policy framework going forward to ensure that B.C. receives full benefit of federal funding initiatives that will be available.

           With regard to tax policy and the approach to the PST exemption, it's important for you to realize — and I'm sure you do — that both producers and retailers, through the provincial Minister of Revenue's PST review consultation, have expressed significant frustration on the current system.

           There is an ongoing process right now. The recommendation is that once a proposal has been finalized and brought forward for consideration by the provincial Ministry of Revenue, the Ministry of Finance and the provincial government endorse the change and take action as quickly as possible to approve the necessary regulation changes and administrative processes to implement the change in cooperation with industry and the retail community in 2008.

           D. Klein Geltink: The next issue on our list is the agricultural impact of wildlife — or vice versa, I should say. Many areas — and you're probably as well aware of this as we are — in the province continue to have serious negative impacts on agriculture. It's to the point where economic damage is beyond acceptable levels.

           I'll just read our recommendation: that funding be provided and announced as quickly as possible to fully implement the proposed policies and programs, including compensation and mitigation, to address this urgent and critical issue.

           Moving on to investment in strategic growth. The areas of biofuel, bioenergy, utilization of croplands and securing a secure future for our water are very important to the future growth of our province and of our communities.

           Therefore, we recommend that the province work with the council and industry, through the provincial ag plan, to develop and adequately fund a strategic growth pillar, in partnership with the federal government under the APF framework Growing Forward, focused on strategic investment and research to move forward on significant opportunities and to support core industry growth.

           Gentlemen, at this point we'd just like to conclude that the goal of our industry and for government is to work in partnership with you. Together we hope to address these challenges.

[ Page 1564 ]

           R. Hawes: Thank you very much. This is very concise and clear. I did have a question for you that's maybe not on here. There is and continues to be pressure with growth and development in municipalities. There's pressure particularly on the agricultural land reserve from time to time. It seems to me that a lot of applications come forward on a piecemeal basis.

           Have you given any consideration to asking that an agricultural plan form part of the regional growth plans mandated by law, which each regional district must have, that show the growth in the various sectors — residential, commercial, industrial? There is no mandate to have agriculture as a part of those regional growth plans.

           If that were mandated to be a part of it, it would seem to me that if there's going to be pressure put on the ALR or on agricultural lands, it would be a matter of discussion with the agricultural community as the plan itself goes forward. Hopefully, there would be prior agreement on where growth is going to take place, and it would lend itself to better protection of farmland. I don't know if you've given any thought to that.

           D. Klein Geltink: I can answer partly from my own experience and thoughts. The Ag Council supports the ALR 100 percent. But hand in hand is the ability to make a living in it. That's the dilemma of a lot of our sectors. Some are okay; some are not. Within our own sectors, as in your government, some are in favour and some are not.

[1135]

           Personally, I think an ag plan in any municipality, etc., is excellent. I look forward to such a thing. But among our members, we have a mix of "yes" and "no" in terms of going forward. If people right now can't make a living in the ALR or with the ALR, then what?

           R. Hawes: If I could, Bill, just to clarify, it's not so much to deal totally with the ALR. Today, under the regional growth management act, all regional districts are required to have a plan that sets out what their growth is going to look like over the next five years, ten years. Often they'll go out as far as 30 and 40 years so that they can plan transportation and all the rest of the things that have to happen as they see growth happening into the future.

           Agriculture needs to be — in my view, anyway, and I hope yours — a very important part of that planning process, and today it's not. These plans are put together, and in general terms there is not usually an agricultural component to them.

           G. Etsell: I agree with you. I think you need to have an umbrella plan provincially, and I think that what's happening with Val Roddick's committee right now is this attempt to have an overall umbrella plan. We don't have that either.

           It's important that that document be properly constructed, and hence Dick's comments at the very beginning in terms of what that has to contain. You have to have that overall plan, and then you can have the plans regionally and locally that feed in and address that.

           I agree with you. Agriculture needs to be part of the entire planning process.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. With climate change and also the pine beetle crisis, there are also opportunities open for agriculture in B.C.'s interior. In your estimation, say over the next 50 years, how much of that Crown land would be suitable for agriculture in B.C.? Do you have anyone doing any studies on that?

           C. Koch: There have been some studies on…. You're talking specifically the mountain pine beetle land.

           R. Lee: And also the climate change, because there would then be more land suitable for agriculture.

           C. Koch: As the temperatures increase.

           With regards to the mountain pine beetle, there have been studies on the suitability to agriculture. Many of the crops may need more of a richer soil, so what we're finding is that the lands where the dead trees will then come from are suitable maybe for range. We're looking at increased use of grazing and maybe agroforestry as well, but it's not suitable for many of the crops such as horticulture that need a richer soil base and more fertile soils.

           Climate change. We have done some studies on that. The B.C. Agriculture Council is in the process of creating a pan–climate change committee and working with all our sectors to address climate change, both mitigation and adaptation.

           We're focusing primarily on mitigation. Adaptation is a secondary. We realize that the impacts are going to be profound on agriculture, mainly expanding the growing season and also, like you suggested, the increased growing areas. We will be hoping to be in a position to take advantage of the opportunities, but right now it's focusing on keeping what we've got viable.

           H. Bloy: I appreciate all the support you gave our committee when we went around the province. When you're talking about wildlife and you're talking about more funding — you know, when we were up in the Cariboo — how do you see this funding being spent? It's the point about the wildlife impact. When we were in the Peace River and that, there were some serious problems up there, as in other parts.

           D. Klein Geltink: My understanding is that there has been a number of pilot projects and a number of recommendations coming out of these. I don't have them verbatim in front of me, but we can certainly get you the proposals.

[1140]

           B. Bennett (Chair): There was a pilot project in the East Kootenay that went for three years. It was immensely successful. The Kootenay Livestock Association administered the program, and I can't tell you

[ Page 1565 ]

exactly how much money was involved, but it basically kept ranchers afloat who were suffering from crop depredation on private land. Wildlife is a Crown asset. It's up to government to decide whether they want more or less. Government has, over the last 20 years, decided they want more.

           That program worked well. I think what you're asking is for that type of program to be taken out across the province in areas where it's needed, which would be the Peace and the Cariboo, to a lesser extent, if I might say that.

           There are a couple of things that I'd like to ask you. I don't usually ask many questions, but we don't have that many members today, and we've got the time, so I'm going to ask both of them.

           We've been hearing quite a bit, actually, from the agricultural sector, and a lot of people are saying to us — this is backed up by things you read in the newspaper, and so forth — about the need for us to buy local, produce local. You know, the 100-mile diet, I think somebody is calling it. Is there a recommendation around that, do you think, for this committee to consider? Is that something that the B.C. Ag Council would support?

           C. Koch: The B.C. Agriculture Council is working on the position statement right now, similar to our position on the agricultural land reserve, on buying local and food security. The two kind of go hand in hand.

           We all support buying local. However, we have to realize at the same time that many of our member associations also rely on the export market. In buying local, there are the benefits of supporting the local farmers and the nutritious, safe production of food, which we all endorse and support. However, our consumers also appreciate the diversity that imports allow. In climate change, often the transportation carbon that comes from transporting the crop is a very small portion of the production. So we support buying local and endorse it, but we realize that there is a need for imports and exports and world trade.

           B. Bennett (Chair): You know, one example is beef. With the lack of abattoirs in the province, you ship it to Alberta, it's butchered, and you ship it back.

           C. Koch: Milk is another one.

           B. Bennett (Chair): My other question is in regards to the Agricultural Land Commission and the agricultural land reserve. I have spoken to people who were involved when the reserve and commission were first created, agricultural people who were used as advisers at the time on where the lines were drawn to create the reserve. They've told me that there was a promise made by the government of the day that those boundaries would be reviewed after five years. Of course, it's been decades, and there's been no review.

           My question is to you, as people who obviously support the agriculture industry. Would the B.C. Ag Council support a recommendation that the agricultural land reserve boundaries be reviewed, with the purpose being to leave productive land within the reserve but to remove land that is obviously not agricultural land from the reserve, so that the agricultural people and other people that own that land wouldn't have to go through all of the bureaucratic steps that are required to get that land out of the reserve — in other words, only land that shouldn't have been in therein the first place? Would you support that kind of a review?

           D. Klein Geltink: I'm not sure we're at the stage yet to say whether we would or would not support such a review. What's happening right now is that the B.C. Cattlemen have a subcommittee who are actively working on taking a look at the ag reserve and coming up with recommendations that they are then going to bring to BCAC. We're going to have a discussion along those lines.

           I can give you, perhaps, my personal view in terms of your comment about productive versus non-productive land. You're always going to find that the land that's right at the boundary becomes somewhat non-productive. My concern, as we take land out of the ag reserve and particularly those boundary lands, is that now you've made a new boundary land which may become somewhat non-productive. It's usually small land holdings.

[1145]

           I think that when we do look at the ALR, we're going to have to deal with those boundary lands, because they do serve a purpose. They may not be used for intensive agriculture, but they certainly do provide that buffer, and we need that buffer in order to protect the lands beyond the boundary. That's my only comment in terms of…. We've got to be careful in terms of what we designate as productive versus non-productive.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Yeah, and I recognize that we're sitting in an area of the province where you've got ten feet of topsoil here, I understand. Coming from the East Kootenay, where we have a fraction of a sixteenth of an inch of topsoil and mostly bare rock, it's a different discussion.

           Thank you anyway.

           Dick, did you have a final comment?

           D. Klein Geltink: Yeah, if I may. My understanding of when the land reserve was created is that it was kind of a package deal. The only thing we seem to have left of that package is the land that's not allowed to be anything but used for agriculture — so interest rate rebates, etc. There were a few other things in there, and I can't quote them verbatim, but to me it's got to come back to a package deal.

           You've got to be able to make a living on it, and I agree with you — not productive land. But then could we put a greenhouse on it? Then you don't need the ten inches of topsoil, etc. There are all kinds of things that come into play.

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

           Could I have Helen Mobach come forward, please.

[ Page 1566 ]

           Committee members, Helen is here to speak in one of our five-minute open-mike slots. We're making best use of our time here today.

           Helen, the rules around the open-mike segment of our hearing are pretty simple. You have five minutes. There are no questions after, but we hope that you'll leave us with something — a hard copy of your presentation. If you don't have one today, you can send it to us.

           H. Mobach: Okay. I've already sent an e-mail to the committee, so maybe I don't need to send any more.

           B. Bennett (Chair): No, if you've already sent that, that's great. Thank you very much.

           H. Mobach: I might condense it, because I haven't timed it.

           My name is Helen Mobach, and I'm here because of senior coverage in the medical field. I would like to talk about more medical coverage for seniors on a fixed income.

           My husband is now 80 years old. He was working in Abbotsford for many years until his van was rear-ended, due to no fault of his own, on South Fraser Way on October 22, '88. He was never able to work again due to severe neck pain, which persists until today. Our two daughters were ten and 16, respectively, at the time. From that time until now, my husband went for visits to the chiropractor.

           Recently my husband was diagnosed with lymphoedema in his legs and feet. He was diagnosed by Dr. Kunimotu, a dermatologist in Abbotsford. We were told that the only remedy would be to get massage from a therapist trained to do the Vodder technique, which is specialized for lymph insufficiency.

           We now go to Chilliwack twice a week to get this very necessary treatment that costs $80 an hour — no coverage. The compression socks that were recommended for my husband at the McCallum Tower cost $120 — no coverage. My husband is scheduled for 14 more Vodder massages in the next three months.

           According to our information from the Internet, if lymphoedema is left untreated, it can give rise to cancer and/or amputations. My husband's feet and legs have been red, purple, hot and swollen. Without the Vodder massage, he probably would end up costing the B.C. medical system a lot of money for surgery and other treatments. However, more important than any amount of money are the preventative procedures that can be given by massage therapists, physiotherapists, podiatrists, chiropractors and many other health care givers.

           My husband's feet are starting to respond to the Vodder massage, and this is giving him hope for an improved quality of life. It reduces the stress in our home, and there is no price on that.

           As for me, I retired after 15 years of full-time teaching of ESL adult students at Abbotsford Community Services in June 2005. I turned 65 in August 2005. For the last years at that job, I had good extended coverage for myself and the family.

           Like my husband's, my vehicle was rear-ended due to no fault of my own. Since then, I've had to go to a chiropractor for neck problems. Since June 2005, I have no coverage. Extended coverage is too expensive.

           Last year I pulled a ligament in my knee while I was doing yard work right here in Mountain Village. I've been seeing a physiotherapist — no coverage.

[1150]

           A few weeks ago our family doctor told me that I have a bone in my left foot, near the front, that has fallen. It's somewhat like a fallen arch, only in the middle-front area of my foot. He said that I needed to go to a podiatrist for special inserts. My right foot had a similar problem too.

           I visited a podiatrist in Abbotsford on Monday, October 1. He confirmed what the family doctor said. I need special inserts. Plaster casts were made of both feet, and the inserts will be made in Vernon. The visit cost $75, and the inserts will be $510 — no coverage. By this time both of us are feeling somewhat stressed because of our medical expenses. We are paying our $96 per month and a lot of money besides.

           When we moved to Abbotsford in 1976, visits to the chiropractor were covered. We didn't go very often then, because we were younger.

           I am looking forward to receiving my inserts for my feet in a few weeks. With them, I can hopefully resume regular walking and gardening. Right now my knees ache every day. We are looking forward to a response. I have done a lot of yard work as a hobby for many years, and I'm very frustrated because at the moment, I can't.

           Anyway, that was my submission.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Helen, thank you very much. You do have other folks that are presenting to the committee with the same point of view, so you're not alone.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I'm going to ask Regina Dalton to speak now, if you'd like to get started.

           R. Dalton: My name is Regina Dalton, and I live in Abbotsford. However, I also own property in Vancouver, so a couple of my comments in the presentation reflect that. I have two main points:

           (1) It makes no sense to talk about a budget surplus when the province has yet to adequately house those who have no chance of doing so themselves.

           (2) Until transit options for commuters — particularly in, and to and from the urban cores — exist, and are well-run and comfortable, there is no budget surplus.

           On number 1, it is simply not sufficient to say that the problem of homelessness or substandard options for those who can find a place must be solved by developers, non-profits and those willing to give of their time and resources.

           The government took quite a different stand when it came to spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the upcoming Olympics. Instead, planners and builders

[ Page 1567 ]

were and are handed out taxpayer money with the rationale being that all of B.C. will benefit in the long run.

           You can make at least as many arguments for benefits ensuing from proper housing as you can for the Olympics. Policing costs, health care costs, social service costs, costs ensuing from lost tourism dollars, lost retail sales in affected areas and lowered real estate values would all benefit from the government doing the job it should be doing.

           Then there is the amount of garbage generated by those who live in Vancouver's downtown east side, apparently exponentially more than any other area in Vancouver. When you sleep outside, it is a tad difficult to wash and dry your bedding and clothing. Those used become garbage, and others must be found.

           The government must initiate further housing plans — and soon.

           Now I'll go to number 2.

           One of the most confusing suggestions I have ever heard was from Environment Minister Barry Penner on CKNW radio the evening of Saturday, September 29, '07. He was discussing the government's idea of adding a gasoline surcharge as a green tax initiative, throwing in the possibility of a deduction in income taxes to offset the effects of the surcharge.

           This is so wrong on so many levels.

           (a) Where are the advantages — in other words, transit options — that have ensued from the 35 cents a litre that Fraser Valley consumers have been paying for years now?

           (b) How does a surcharge, even moderated with a lowering of income taxes, help the single mother who needs her car for work, particularly in a town like Abbotsford, which recently received a D for transit?

           (c) How does it help the valley commuter who must cross the Port Mann and is predicted to also be paying $1,320 per annum in tolls to get to work?

           (d) How are these and many other individuals supposed to moderate their effects on the environment with the government dragging its feet on transit?

[1155]

           Because of generous expense accounts and the ability to charge off government travel, those of you who vote in another tax on gasoline will never feel the true effects of the surcharge. Is this just a tax grab along with the tolling to fund the ill-fated Gateway project?

           How can a government that is talking about moderating our footprint on the environment be seriously considering funnelling billions of dollars towards a polluting non-solution? I'm referring to Gateway here, of course. Why not instead put some cash towards the substandard exits and entrances to Highway 1 at both 1st and 12th avenues in Vancouver? These are the same routes that will never be able to handle the extra Gateway traffic.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           To give some indication that I'm not the only person that might have some of these arguments, I have enclosed copies of 14 letters going back to April of this year, and it's certainly not an exhaustive list. They come from both local and lower mainland newspapers in an effort to indicate, as I say, that there is demand for proper transit alternatives.

           Your government suggesting that the Fraser Valley wait until 2013 for a bus connection to Burnaby is unacceptable. That is five years in the future.

           Further, I have enclosed a copy of an article from the Vancouver Sun, September 21, 2007, titled "Tiny Particles in the Air Can Trigger Dangerous Blood Clotting." This article suggests that reliance on buses — those buses that run on current fuels — may be costly to B.C.'s health care budget. If you are going to depend on buses, at the very least fund a bus connection from the valley to the Surrey SkyTrain, and now please, not in five years.

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

           Could I call forward the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, please?

           Good morning, gentlemen.

           J. Winter: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to meet with you here today and for allowing the Chamber of Commerce the opportunity to present its views of our membership on what the government's priorities in the coming fiscal year ought to be.

           We'd like to start by saying that confidence in the small business community is at an all-time high. While we congratulate government for its role in creating a successful economy, the chamber movement takes some of the credit, given our role at the forefront of advocating a public policy agenda that has created a vibrant economy which is increasingly recognized as the best place to live, to invest and to work.

           The chamber represents the views of 130 chambers of commerce and boards of trade, representing over 32,000 businesses of every size, sector and region of this province. As such, the chamber truly is the voice of business in British Columbia.

           Due to the time constraints that have been placed on this presentation, we're unable to answer all the questions that have been presented by the committee in detail. However, we have provided a written submission which does give recommendations on each of these areas identified in the budget consultation paper.

           As a business organization, the chamber would like to use its time with this committee today to focus on those initiatives that are essential to our continued economic prosperity and our competitiveness. This is not intended to reduce the importance our members place on the issues outlined in the provincial government consultation paper, "What Choices Would You Make for a Greener Future?" Indeed, it is important to note that our members have sent a very clear message that tackling climate change is a critically important issue for all levels of government.

           Indeed, our members are already feeling the effects of climate change, whether it's the disaster of the mountain pine beetle or the close call that we've ex-

[ Page 1568 ]

perienced in the Fraser Valley during flood season. Climate change is real and is having a profound impact on the economy across this province.

           Our written presentation provides a number of recommendations focused on the need to shift to an energy-efficient, sustainable economy through a balanced set of policies and regulations, emissions trading and the development of new business sectors.

[1200]

           Now, to the economic priorities for budget 2008.

           Firstly, on the issue of controlling public spending. The chamber remains committed to ensuring that government keeps public spending firmly under control. Increases in public spending feed greater expectations, which feed the need for further revenue, which again results in calls for increased spending. As such, the chamber recommends that public spending be capped to increase by no more than 3 percent per annum, in line with the projected growth in the economy and of the population.

           As for the issue of reducing the burden that we leave to future generations. The nature of surpluses are such that it is dangerous to direct those revenues to program spending, as they simply increase government spending in future years, thereby reducing our ability to cushion the economy against unforeseen challenges.

           With this in mind, the chamber calls for government to utilize surpluses to invest in the future of the province by focusing on debt reduction. The benefit of debt reduction is that it actually frees up sustainable revenues that government then can reinvest without risking the economy.

           The chamber recommends that the provincial government introduce legislation that will provide a legal requirement that the provincial budget dedicate 50 percent of anticipated surpluses and no less than one-third of unanticipated surpluses directly to debt repayment.

           On the issue of a competitive small business taxation regime. Chamber members have been clear that the level of surplus currently being generated is a clear indication that in a strong economy such as ours the tax burden is too high. During the strong economic periods of growth, it is critical that government invest in producing the economic and fiscal framework to encourage long-term intergenerational growth, particularly for small business — the backbone of this province's economy.

           SMEs need a competitive tax base as an enabler to grow and become the big business success stories of the future. The chamber recommends that budget 2008 include a reduction of the small business tax rate from 4.5 percent to 3 percent and an increase in the small business tax threshold from $400,000 to $500,000.

           While we recommend that the focus of budget 2008 should be small business, as we look to maintain our competitive tax position compared to other major competing jurisdictions, it is important to note that Alberta has publicly committed to reduce its corporate tax rate to 8 percent in the coming years.

           As B.C. looks to enhance its attractiveness as a jurisdiction for investment, it is critical that B.C. is positioned to respond to such aggressive tax cuts from our primary competitor. The chamber recommends that budget 2008 include a public commitment to policy that ensures B.C.'s corporate tax rate does not exceed 125 percent of those of Alberta.

           On the issue of local property taxation. Our members have had high hopes for the Premier's Task Force on Community Opportunities, which was charged with looking at the future of local government in this province. As part of this mandate, chamber members fully expected to see action on property tax, which for many communities has become the single biggest impediment to economic development and to attracting new investment.

           Unfortunately, due to largely conflicting interests, this was not discussed in a meaningful way at this task force. The chamber remains committed to ensuring that government recognizes the growing need to address the nature, scope and complexity of local property taxation, particularly as it relates to the business classes.

           The chamber therefore recommends that the provincial government undertake a fundamental review of the local property tax system, with a view to establishing a system that is fair and equitable and that reflects the true cost of service for each taxpayer group. Taxpayers want this, and local governments tell us that they need more funding options.

           Chamber members have also recommended a number of targeted tax measures, which will have a positive impact on the economy. Full details on these measures are provided in our written brief, but briefly, they are: (1) the elimination of the capital tax on large financial institutions, a cost of about $100 million; (2) the elimination of the 7-percent PST on legal fees, costing $115 million, as it renders the province very uncompetitive; (3) a reform of property transfer tax.

           Investing in people. Education is the key for the future prosperity of this province. Therefore, our ability to invest in the future health of our people and our communities rests on education.

           Unfortunately, many British Columbians are being denied access to post-secondary education due to financial restrictions. This is not a situation where the chamber is asking government to fund the cost of education. Students are willing to pay but require government assistance to access the loans needed that will finance that education.

           As such, the chamber is recommending that the government review the student loan system to change the restrictions which apply to students with poor credit, providing appropriate due-diligence measures have, in fact, been taken; increase the amounts available for student loans to reflect the true cost of their education; and change the funding formula to ensure that amounts available are no longer tied to the number of weeks on a course.

[1205]

           On the issue of a co-op tax credit. While a co-op infrastructure exists in this province, many small businesses — the backbone of the economy and the most likely employer for young workers — find the cost of participating quite prohibitive.

[ Page 1569 ]

           The chamber recommends that the government introduce a co-op tax credit to business employers, equal to 15 percent of wages paid to qualified co-op students.

           On the issues of skills. Skills must continue to be the focus if we're going to continue to grow the economy. The chamber was the leading voice calling for the introduction of the training tax credit introduced in the 2006 budget.

           The chamber's recommendations were clear: the tax credit needed to be focused on small business and to preclude any training program already funded by federal or provincial governments.

           Given that most SMEs do not use apprentices, there is a clear sense from the SME community that the government's focus on apprenticeships, at the expense of the need to enhance SME's formal and informal training needs, is wrong.

           The chamber recommends that the provincial government immediately review the training tax credit, with a view to expanding the credit to training besides apprenticeships or to introducing a new small business training tax credit.

           On the issue of retaining B.C.'s indigenous skills. The provincial government has recently undertaken an aggressive recruitment campaign intended to attract around 20,000 new workers to the provincial bureaucracy. A key element of this campaign for certain positions has been a commitment to repay student loans for successful applicants. The chamber welcomes this initiative and believes that these principles should be extended to the wider economy, to level the playing field.

           The chamber recommends that the provincial government, in consultation with industry, develop a list of sectors and occupations which would qualify for a program whereby a successful applicant for this position will have the provincial element of their student loan forgiven if that individual was educated in B.C. and remains here to work.

           Investing in our future, or infrastructure investment. The provincial government has been consistent in its commitment to a significant capital infrastructure and investment program. While this investment is necessary to address a long history of underinvestment, the focus for the chamber will be to ensure that investment does not impact the need for debt reduction to remain a priority of the government.

           The chamber will also continue to urge the government to focus on areas where return on investment exists, in the sense of economic growth. The chamber is a strong supporter of the government's investments in critical infrastructure of the province, from the Port of Prince Rupert through to the recent announcement of the northwest transmission line to Highway 37 and on to the Gateway project.The chamber recommends that in areas where no infrastructure exists, the B.C. government continue to approach this lack of access as an investment in our future.

           In conclusion, we are entering a new phase in the economic development of the province. This new era presents significant opportunities for business, particularly small business. The focus on new technology as a means to address our greenhouse gas emissions will present new sectors and markets for those new entrepreneurs that are able to react to opportunities in an innovative way. This is the strength of B.C.'s small business sector.

           To fully realize these new opportunities, budget 2008 must ensure that measures to mitigate our greenhouse gas emissions do not damage the economy and that impediments to small business growth be addressed with a focus on taxation and skills development. We share the concerns of industry leaders, however, that ultra-aggressive timing and unclear sectoral goals make it difficult to contribute to this discussion in a meaningful way.

           These measures will ensure that rather than a budget focused on the environment, budget 2008 can be a budget that advances the interests of a sustainable economy driven by the innovation and hard work of our small business sector.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, John. I have a quick question. You went through that pretty fast, and I haven't had a chance to read this yet.

           With regard to your specific recommendation on legislating — mandating, essentially — that the government pay 50 percent of any surplus on debt, many people in the general public don't, perhaps, appreciate the fact that when you take surplus money and create new programs, the government is faced with having to pay for that in the out-years, not just in the year that you have the surplus. The government has been, I think, quite careful with the surplus in terms of not adding a lot of new programs.

           Certainly, our health care and education budgets have gone up. But generally the money, where it doesn't go to pay debt, has gone to capital. You mentioned yourself, in your submission here this morning, that there was a deficit of capital investment in this province. I would agree with you on that.

[1210]

           How do we catch up if you're going to take 50 percent of every surplus and put it on debt? Doesn't that just lead to the government having to borrow more for the capital investment that's required?

           J. Winter: I think it's a very complicated answer, but to keep it as simple as we possibly can, we would suggest that if we can't begin to repay debt during prosperous times, there is not a more appropriate time to, perhaps, do it down the road.

           That having been said, the investment in debt reduction — which is what it really is — creates revenues from the diminishing impact of interest payments on that particular debt. I think it's a matter of creating priorities, of making sure that we have the right priorities in place and that over time we can manage those priorities.

           Many of the infrastructure projects are being operated through a P3 arrangement, which we heartily endorse. We think that's a good way to reduce both government's cost and government's risk in terms of this infrastructure investment.

[ Page 1570 ]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): It may be in your brief; I haven't had a chance to read it. We've received a number of representations on the property transfer tax — ones expanding the exemptions or, just recently this morning, abolishing it entirely.

           I'm wondering what the position of the chamber is on the tax as it is.

           J. Winter: I think it's clearly an impediment to first-time homebuyers. Certainly, we need to make sure that it stops being as big an impediment. We're not recommending that it be abolished, but we're suggesting that some of those thresholds where the various percentages kick in be raised to reflect the true cost of homes in the province, as they continue to grow.

           We're suggesting, for example, that the provincial government create legislation that links the 1-percent and 2-percent tax tiers directly to the first-time-buyer exemption levels. That will ensure that when exemption is increased, it creates an increase in the threshold for the engagement of the 2-percent tax tier.

           R. Lee: A short question. You mentioned a recommendation that the spending — the increase — should be kept at 3 percent. Is that for capital spending? Could you define the 3 percent more precisely?

           J. Winter: I think we're really just talking about program spending, increases to government's annual increases that are beyond our ability to pay for them without incurring any further debt. If the economy is growing at the rate of 3 percent and the population is growing at about 3 percent, then it seems to make sense to us that we can afford to increase our spending at about the same rate. That would include capital.

           R. Lee: How about an inflation factor?

           J. Winter: I'm not sure inflation really plays a big role in that. It's short term.

           R. Hawes: Thanks, John. It's a good presentation. It'll take some time to digest all of this.

           I'm interested in…. I do see you said that under the immigration policies you would like to see an increase in the number of individuals with relatively low skills being allowed to immigrate.

           I'm just curious, because we always talk about skilled labour and how we have to work hard to get the number of skilled workers up in this province, but we don't talk about unskilled labour, which is essential to keep running things too. That's becoming very, very difficult in some industries.

           I'm just wondering: in the businesses that you represent, do you know if this is becoming a real problem — unskilled labour? Are they having a problem finding that?

           J. Winter: They are, and the problem will only continue to get worse as we continue down the road. The chamber has a strong concern that our ability to sustain economic growth is probably most threatened by the diminishing human resource. We have more people leaving the workforce today — and this trend will continue for the foreseeable future — than we have people entering the workforce — young people or other people in to take their jobs.

           Many people in government have used the analogy about 650,000 people in our current K-to-12 education system today, yet we're going to create about a million-plus jobs in the next decade. Therefore, we're already short by 350,000. Where's that number going to come from? And that assumes that all 350,000 graduate and stay here to work. That's probably not a reasonable assumption.

[1215]

           The reality is that the focus on skilled workers and the problems that we've had, recognized by the lack of people going into the trades and vocations throughout the '80s and the '90s…. That's a real issue, but it tends to overshadow, in some respects, the very real problem that employers are going to face and are already facing with respect to finding people to come in to their organizations and do some of the general work that has to be done.

           There are many solutions to that. Immigration perhaps is part of that solution. But other areas of investment and training, productivity issues within a current workforce….

           There are many ways to address the problem, but your point of unskilled or semi-skilled emphasis is very valid, because I think we're suggesting that small businesses in particular, which are down at the end of the food chain and which provide and represent the backbone of our economic fabric, are going to find it tougher and tougher to find people to come into their organizations who don't have the necessary skills or training.

           They're going to come in, and those small businesses are going to be in some jeopardy in terms of both sustaining their business and growing their business.

           R. Hawes: Lastly, yesterday we had a presentation from the Paraplegic Association, which did say that disabled people actually become very, very loyal employees. I'm just wondering if the chamber has a focus in here at all — I haven't had time to read it — on finding ways to bring people with disabilities into the workforce and utilize their skills fully.

           J. Winter: I don't think we have it in that report specifically, but on Wednesday of next week we will be issuing a report called Closing the Skills Gap II, which is a follow-up to a report we did in May of 2002, at which time we made 32 recommendations to government and other stakeholder groups that this is the problem coming down the road. This train is bearing down, and it's going to get here. It's here already.

           Persons with disabilities were identified as one of five very real opportunities that are available to employers. You're right. They do, I think, represent a very loyal workforce. They represent a far more competent workforce than is generally thought.

[ Page 1571 ]

           They bring to the employer levels of education and skills that are, perhaps, greater than most people think they are. And the cost to accommodate most disabled people in the workforce is proving to be far less than most people anticipate.

           There are very good reasons to think that the 300,000 or so disabled people in this province who are not gainfully employed will find real opportunity in this current situation.

           B. Bennett (Chair): That's a very positive note to end this on. Thank you very much, gentlemen. We appreciate it.

           Could I have Helen Secco come up, please.

           Helen, are you here with a group or organization?

           H. Secco: Just me.

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

           H. Secco: I dress myself, hold down a full-time job and am responsible, compassionate, intelligent, lovable, helpful, patient, loyal, considerate and capable. I have a doctor and am on an extended health plan. I sit on a number of community committees, pay my taxes and bills — even on time — and I vote in all elections.

           I don't smoke. I don't drink. I don't do drugs. I don't litter. I recycle and use both sides of the paper. I have no addictions, except to chocolate chip cookies. Even though I've just described me, could this be a description that comes close to applying to you?

           Five years ago, however, there were some other adjectives that I would put into the mix. Tired, jaded, jealous, forgetful, drained and disoriented, edgy, sad, insecure, quiet and anxious — in other words, stressed and depressed. At 40 years old and for the next four years I experienced for the first time workplace bullying, cancer, death, financial despair, emotional abuse and physical hardship.

           If any of you have had the experience of facing cancer or heart and stroke challenges, you realize that each is a crisis. Each costs money, needs resources and has a huge impact on individuals, families and friends.

           The good news is that when you're faced with any of these trials, you will soon discover that it is handled quickly, professionally and efficiently. It's amazing how fast the system can move and does move when everyone and everything is working together.

[1220]

           On the other hand, if you or anyone you know is faced with depression, functioning addictions, verbal or emotional abuse, stress, neglect, insecurity, jealousy or bullying, the issues are often ignored, denied, painful and — unfortunately — misdiagnosed. I believe that the distinction is clear, and my suggestion is simple.

           As I think about the cancer and/or heart and stroke model, the components are education and public awareness, prevention, tests, treatment, money and people.

           There is a partnership of private, non-profit and public organizations. All I suggest is that the provincial government start to put money towards public education or awareness of emotional mental health and wellness.

           I'm not talking about the druggies and drunks or the homeless people that we see on the street. I'm talking about those children and adults whose behaviours are clearly on the verge of insecurity, bullying, jealousy, pain, bitterness or emotional unwellness.

           I want to bring emotional health to the forefront, to hear people discussing the signs and symptoms of negative human behaviour, the impact it can have and what can be done about it. I would like a discussion to be as easy and open as those surrounding breast cancer, heart attacks, drinking and driving, and even global warming.

           Make early detection simple to understand, easy to recognize and effortless to access help for, before results — such things as suicide, homelessness, and substance abuse leading to addictions and crime — become a way of life.

           Simple suggestions. Develop television ads similar to the kids helpline, ICBC's driving tip commercials and, more recently, the gang ads. Awareness campaigns, like for breast cancer. Give examples of signs to watch for, the same as we do for heart attacks, stroke and skin cancer. Simple things like the posters employers were and are required to use regarding WCB safety hazards — and as useful as the "Signs of Depression" posters that are posted in doctor's offices. Teach it in schools.

           Let not the affected person feel ashamed or the unaffected feel helpless or nervous. But let's learn to understand the children who are going through a divorce and strike out at other kids; the single father who cannot see his child because of his own unexplained pain; the eight-year-old child who is taking care of his single mom because of her own lack of ability to take care of herself; the employer who is depressed and doesn't see it and takes it out on employees; the adult who goes from relationship to relationship not knowing or understanding the consequences of that behaviour, especially if there are children involved; those professionals who uphold our laws yet are functioning alcoholics.

           According to the Canadian Mental Health Association, more than three million Canadians will experience a major bout of depression at some point in their life. On January 12, 2007, Statistics Canada released research that found that half a million workers experience depression and almost 80 percent say that symptoms interfere with their ability to work.

           Depressed workers report an average of 30 days in the previous year when their symptoms left them unable to carry out normal activities or totally unable to work. In 1998 StatsCan estimated depression cost Canadian employers more than $14 billion in lost productivity. The World Health Organization said that in 2000 depression was the leading cause of short-term disability around the world.

           The good news is that when recognized, depression is a highly treatable illness. Some 80 percent of people that seek help can be successfully treated.

[ Page 1572 ]

           I understand that your government would like to hear suggestions about the environment and a greener future. When I was in a state of depression and my boss told me pick up my production, when my roommate was tied to the hoses that kept her alive, when I sat in my doctor's office waiting to hear the results of my mammogram, the last thing on my mind was the environment.

           Now that I am emotionally healthier, I can pay attention to the environment and do my part and encourage my friends and family to do theirs. When the public starts to relate and understand — as in the case of smoking, cancer, drinking and driving, and global warming — changes will occur, and everyone will join together to make it happen.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you, Helen. That's a wonderful submission. Thank you very much for that.

           R. Hawes: Helen, have you talked at all to…? I know that there are mood disorder organizations and the Canadian Mental Health Association, which do work in this area too.

           H. Secco: Yes, I'm aware that they do that. From what perspective?

           R. Hawes: Have you approached them with the same kind of thinking? I'm aware of how much volunteer work you do. Are you volunteering with them? Are they moving in the direction you're talking about here?

[1225]

           H. Secco: The only awareness that I'm aware of — and not tied to an association — is the publicity that's starting to occur around the issues of bullying, depression, stress and that type of thing. I've not gone in that direction because I have recently become aware that I am getting healthier. It's something that I will eventually move into in my volunteer aspect. As you know, most of mine is geared toward business, but eventually I will go into that.

           I do sit on the board of a national insurance company, the Chambers of Commerce Group Insurance, and that's where I first started to notice the change in the claims. I sat on it for seven years, five years ago.

           When my career changed, I was off. Now I'm back on for the first time. So I get to see the results of the claims that are put in as a result. While it used to be just normal claims — dental, health — now it's stress, and it's over 52 percent of claims.

           R. Hawes: In terms of specific recommendations about what the government could do today….

           H. Secco: Yes, at this point it would be a simple awareness program of the signs of bullying, depression, stress — what specifically you look for. The descriptions I put in there: I was tired; I was disoriented; I could not concentrate. I could still function, but everything became a lot harder to do, and that was such a shock.

           It was actually while sitting in my doctor's office for a normal routine exam, and I was reading the "Signs of Depression" poster, and I went: that's me. If I hadn't done that, I would have never known that that was me. That's as simple as I would like to see it happen. Just simple, simple signs so that people can go: "That's me."

           R. Hawes: Gotcha.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. I think that was a great presentation.

           Mary Helen Hatch?

           Now, I've noticed you sitting in the front row there for pretty much the whole morning.

           M. Hatch: Well, I could say that I didn't have anything else to do.

           A Voice: But you won't.

           M. Hatch: But I won't. I am disgusted that there isn't anybody here from the media. I am interested in life in general and in a few things in particular. I am not backward about coming forward. I have been accused of having verbal diarrhea, but I don't care.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Should I mention the ten-minute rule?

           M. Hatch: No, I heard it. Thank you.

           I am Mary Helen Hatch of Abbotsford. I'm a 74-year-old widow with grown children and grandchildren. I have lived in four provinces and one territory in Canada; one country on another continent, South America; and visited a third continent, Australia — family.

           I have lived in towns, cities and oil camps. I have travelled by walking, bicycle, car, bus, train, airplane, ship and boat. I graduated from high school, attended university — one year on campus and the rest at night school — to have two years towards an arts degree, and graduated as a registered nurse from the best, if I say so myself, school of nursing in Canada, Toronto General Hospital.

           I read mainly non-fiction books on history, economics, the environment, sociology, anthropology, political science, etc., all from the local libraries. As well, I listen to CBC radio. I'm paying for it; I might as well listen to it.

           I may be boring to some people, but I'm certainly not bored. If anything, I am angry and frustrated by the wilful and continuous lack of common sense shown and practised by people, male and female, in positions of power, in big business, and especially in government at all levels.

[1230]

           I warn you now that I will be using a lot of four-letter words in this presentation. If you can remember, I used four so far in the first part of this: "best," "read,"

[ Page 1573 ]

"lack" and "warn." I will now use "need" and "want" — each conveniently and consistently used interchangeably by big business with their advertising lackeys and all levels of government with their advertising lackeys. The spin from either group sounds too familiar at times. You can't fool all the people all the time, according to Abraham Lincoln.

           The United Nations says people need…. I'm stressing the four-letter words. I might have to stop that. You can pick it up on your own if you're listening. The United Nations says people need three things — food, shelter and clothing — to live. All adequate, appropriate and sustainable.

           That could be expanded. Food — that doesn't mean you eat high off the hog all the time. Shelter — that doesn't mean you need a 35,000-square-foot house. These three, I suspect, must be augmented by good education, good health services and good community accessible to all, no matter how rich or poor one is.

           Government at all levels and big business appear to have forgotten a few axioms. You treat people the way you want to be treated. It's called the golden rule. You can't have rights without responsibilities. There is a huge difference between right and wrong. You are your brother's keeper, etc. That's common in all religions — not subdivisions of others. Big business and government at all levels work on the assumption that the sin is not in doing it, whatever it is; the sin is in getting caught.

           Why are there so many food banks in this wealthy province? Why are there so many homeless in this wealthy province? Why are there so few affordable homes in this wealthy province? Why is the Gateway project being pushed down our throats, while public transportation is being ignored in this wealthy province?

           Why are small farmers not being listened to so that we can have locally grown, in-season food close to our doorstep in this wealthy province? Why is the interurban rail system — Chilliwack to Vancouver via Surrey — being ignored, knowing that the fossil-fuel peak has been reached in this wealthy province and worldwide?

           Why are IPPs the be-all and end-all, using the public's natural resources for private gain in this wealthy province? Why is pollution of air, land and water being ignored in this wealthy province? Is it because the not-so-invisible "they" have to grow the economy at everyone's expense but theirs? When will big business and government at all levels hear what they or their lackeys are saying?

           There are nothing but contradictions. For example, "How can you reduce greenhouse gases by at least 33 percent below current levels by 2020" — question 1 in the flyer that came to my house — when government and big business, with their vulgar display of cronyism are pushing the Gateway project and oil and gas exploration but ignoring public transportation ideas that could and should be implemented immediately, if not sooner?

           There are groups in this wealthy province thatare prepared to help the powers that be: FarmFolk/CityFolk — all four-letter words — SPUD, Smart Growth B.C., Living Oceans, etc. There is another one, but I can't remember it.

[1235]

           If anyone — especially the rich and big business — paid their truly fair taxes in full and on time, there would be enough money to tackle all the province's real problems.

           The 2010 Olympics is the biggest disgrace — and a perfect example of a few folks with more money than brains, puffed up with their own importance, to say the least. We taxpayers cannot afford this fiasco.

           A province should never have such a surplus as stated just recently. Stop wasting our tax dollars on ill-conceived, illogical structures that are not going to give us all food, shelter, clothing, education, health services and community, please and thank you.

           People need and want meaningful work at fair pay to support their families and themselves. No job or folks should be degraded at any time by those in positions of power.

           How much time do I have left?

           B. Bennett (Chair): You have one minute and 40 seconds left.

           M. Hatch: And probably no questions.

           I want to review the five questions on this flyer.

           Who selected this committee? You're headed the "selected committee."

           B. Bennett (Chair): Do you want that question answered right now?

           M. Hatch: Yes, I'd like that, please.

           B. Bennett (Chair): This is a legislative committee that is selected by the Legislature, so the appointment is actually approved by all elected people from both parties.

           M. Hatch: How long have you been on this committee? Is this a repeat, or are there new people on it?

           B. Bennett (Chair): The select standing committees are renewed each year. Most of the committee members — in fact, all except myself — were on this committee last year.

           M. Hatch: Okay.

           I want you to read, please, the Georgia Straight, latest issue: "The Two Faces of Gordo." The cover sketch says it only as a beginning. That's our Premier, Gordon Campbell, having a bit of trouble — self-imposed. The sketch shows factories puffing out pollution, cars and trucks puffing out pollution on a bridge — I'm assuming it's the gateway — a tree stump, dead fish and a little bit of scum water.

           Why ask the public to help make a budget for 2008? Past actions speak louder than any spoken or written words by Gordo and his ilk.

           H. Bloy: That's the Premier of the province of British Columbia, thank you.

[ Page 1574 ]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Harry, we can let the witness….

           H. Bloy: No. You've read it once. It's the Premier of the province of British Columbia, so you'd show some respect. Thank you.

           M. Hatch: Well, I apologize.

           Well, you see, part of the problem — I won't go into.

           This whole exercise is a waste of time, money, paper, etc., especially this flyer and this meeting. What hypocrisy promoted and practised by highly paid hypocrites. I am thoroughly disgusted, and shame on our Premier and his ilk.

           You are breaking your arms patting your own backs with all your promotions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Mary Helen, I've let you go over a minute. Are you almost done?

           M. Hatch: I know. I am finished.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Are you sure?

           M. Hatch: Positive, unless of course you want to ask me a question, which you probably don't. You won't be hurting my feelings. At 74, I have had it.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Well, we thank you for taking your time to put together your submission and coming here and telling us what you think. It's part of the democratic process.

[1240]

           M. Hatch: Well, it's probably not what you expected.

           The other point is I don't have any plans of how to…you people to do this. I'm expecting you people to interview intelligent non-grubbing people who can give you some ideas. There have been some fantastic ideas here today. I'm a little bit disgusted with the gun group. The farmers are the most important as far as I'm concerned.

           Education, health and community. I don't think that is being stressed. I kept hearing education. The gal ahead of me — education. The university people.

           B. Bennett (Chair): We did have over 8,000 submissions last year into this process. I don't know if we'll get that many this year, but there will be at least a few thousand submissions. A lot of our submissions, of course, don't come through this oral hearing process.

           M. Hatch: But we won't see those submissions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Oh yes, they're available.

           M. Hatch: I'm sorry. I, by choice, only have a radio, a telephone and a 22-year-old car. I don't have a computer; I don't have TV. I am sick to death of watching man's inhumanity to man.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Again, we appreciate the fact that you came and presented to us. Thank you very much.

           Is there an Ed Wilson in the crowd?

           Ed, you're up. If you keep your formal submission to less than ten minutes, that would be great.

           E. Wilson: I didn't realize there were subjects other than our greener future at this meeting, and I guess that's fortunate because at least I can sort of focus on one area. I share many of the concerns of the ladies who preceded me, not as many as the gentleman from the chamber of commerce.

           One thing that occurred to me as I was sitting here…. Look at where we're meeting to discuss our greener future. Is this a facility that's available by any kind of public transit? Is this a facility that is renowned for its recycling program or its green policies?

           You know, when you circulate something like this — and I hope you all have one for reference; it'll be my guide — things like that should be considered. A meeting of this kind should be held in a facility that is known for its greenness, its conservation. A school would be a great place. If we want to be accessible to Chilliwack, find a school that's handy to the freeway.

           But the Ramada Inn seems a silly place to be sitting down and discussing our greener future. It's not your fault; it's not staff's fault. It's symptomatic of the society we live in, which is greedy, wasteful and selfish.

           I've lived in this province since 1963, in Abbotsford since 1976. I spent a year and a half in Bermuda, and there was a place that had a problem. They found a simple solution. Very little groundwater in Bermuda. How did people get their water? Whitewashed roofs. They collected their own water. And they cared about how much water they used, because they only had what fell on their roof and went into their cistern. Some places you flushed your toilet with seawater if you were close enough to the ocean to have access to seawater.

           There are many low-tech and simple solutions to environmental problems, but they're going to crimp people a little bit. They might not be able to waste the water that we do in this province. The way we waste other resources, whether they be fuels or other materials, our wood….

           We're a wasteful society, and somebody very quickly has to come down and say: "Enough is enough." The parents — who, unfortunately, are our government — have to say to us: "Look, no more of this. You have to stop being as wasteful as you are."

           Since 1963 in this province, I've seen us survive through recession, different kinds of governments and all sorts of problems. People who are saying, "Oh, we've got to reduce this tax, and we can't stifle business…." We got through, and we got through pretty darn successfully, most of us. Sure, there's always been poor people, and they need to be helped. Yes, they should be.

[1245]

           But a lot of us did very well in the period since 1963. All you have to do is go outside and look in the

[ Page 1575 ]

parking lot. Look at the vehicles we drive — not practical, sensible vehicles, but vehicles that say: "I'm big, I'm powerful, and I'm fast." We have an advertising structure that tells us "spend," "waste," "use," "push," "big," "eat." Somebody has to take responsibility for what's going to happen to our children's children.

           We look at the picture that is on the front of this, which as I said is my guide. Where was this picture taken? A family in a grove of trees — is that in Abbotsford? Well, it might be, still. Was it in Vancouver? Maybe in Stanley Park. But that's one step: trees.

           Trees clean the air. We have to make sure that our trees are protected. Tax the people who cut down trees to develop, who refuse to work around trees when they're building things. Give incentives to other people to plant trees. Sure, they're not much good now, but in 20 years or so you'll have had 20 years of air cleaning. Simple solutions. Trees are one.

           We go to the next page, page 2. In the upper left-hand corner we have recycling — a wonderful thing, something that really needs to be not just encouraged. It has to be insisted upon.

           The blue box should be replaced by something like we have in Abbotsford, and that is a blue translucent bag. People can see what you're recycling and if you're doing it properly or not. If you're not, they don't take it away. They bring it back to your house. You're required and forced to recycle. The garbage pails should be transparent or translucent so that if people are putting things in their garbage that belong in their recycling, that gets rejected too.

           A provincial government or a federal government or a municipal government has to bite the bullet and say to people: "You have to stop your wasteful habits." Abbotsford has had a furor over a few bike lanes. Sure, we're losing some lanes of traffic, but now we've got to get some people on bicycles to use the bike lanes and use transit, the other thing pictured on the front here.

           But the transit has to be available. I don't know if I could have got here today by transit. What did I do? The typical North American, British Columbian, I got in my car and drove here. In theory at least, I will do a couple of other errands on this trip, so it's not a one-purpose trip.

           The first paragraph talks about heating our homes. Electricity, fewer emissions — electric heat should be given a bonus. If you're doing electric heating, your hydro bill should be reduced accordingly, and if you're doing a type of heating that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, you should be taxed for it and penalized for it.

           Driving to work? I had to go to Vancouver General Hospital yesterday. On the freeway, there we are: one person in a giant SUV, lined up solid. There's an HOV lane for two people or more. That's good. We should have HOV lanes all the way from Hope to Vancouver, where possible, so that there is an incentive to have another person in the car with you and a penalty for not having one, and you can see those HOV lanes going past you.

           Unfortunately, we do have to twin the Port Mann Bridge, but everything flowing there should make it easier for HOV people to get there faster, because there's still going to be a slowdown at a bridge. As soon as they get on a bridge, people sense those walls. They slow down, and then the stoppage occurs behind them. That, of course, increases pollution because the vehicles are sitting there idling.

           We need cars that shut the engine off when it's idling for a certain amount of time. That's where your hybrid vehicle comes in. A hybrid vehicle now has a rebate available, as I understand it, that makes it almost equal in price to the comparable gasoline-engine car.

           Let's have a rebate that makes the hybrid vehicle cheaper than the comparable gasoline-engine car so that people are really encouraged to buy hybrids and electric. If you're going to buy a Honda Civic, and it's cheaper to buy one that's a hybrid, that's a pretty good incentive.

[1250]

           We mention our landfills. There has to be somebody go after excess packaging. Manufacturers and people who provide excess packaging that is just going to have to be recycled or in the garbage have to be penalized. There has to be a tax on it or a tax on packaging. The greater your volume of packaging, the less you have.

           Recycling, of course, has to be encouraged, but it also has to be policed. It's not just: "Oh, throw everything in a blue box, and let them sort it out." People have to take responsibility. They have to do backyard composting or, in their apartment, vermiculture — worm composting. Things that will help. Every little bit will help.

           On the second column of this page, we talk about the hybrid vehicles. Another thing that relates to vehicles — and I'm sure it could be done technologically — would be to find a way to have a vehicle that is truly multi-purpose. Something in the nature of a small pickup truck with a module that can be mounted or dismounted and stored that includes those extra seats you need once a month or on the weekend when you take the soccer team, and when you're taking all your stuff to the recycling area. Otherwise, it remains a small, two-person vehicle. It burns less gasoline, etc.

           There are so many possibilities here that just open up. You read the questions and think: well, yes. But we are going to have to tell people: "No more. You can't continue the way you've been going. You're going to kill us all or kill all our grandchildren."

           What if George Bush is right, and we don't have to worry about it? What harm have we done? We're not going to kill business. Business will find ways around the problems, the extra taxes, and most people in this province, especially in this time of boom, can pay more tax. They can pay more fees if they're for the right purposes. Tolls are a great idea if they can discourage wasted travel, unnecessary travel.

           Don't be afraid to recommend biting the bullet. Let's get on it now. We can always back off later. Old W.A.C. Bennett used to take a second look when something was wrong. We're much better to have taken an aggressive approach to all our greenhouse problems

[ Page 1576 ]

right now, this year if we can, rather than planning and thinking ahead and targeting to the future. The sooner we get started, the sooner we get some results.

           Any questions?

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

           H. Bloy: Thanks for your presentation, Ed. Excess packaging has always been something that I've been aware of. How do you suggest that we do it, because there is a certain marketing approach, and they're trying to up-sell, or whatever the specialty?

           Should there be something on the packaging that states that they're paying an environmental fee for this, or should we just go to a clear plastic packaging on everything?

           E. Wilson: Plastic may be a problem.

           H. Bloy: Okay, a clear, see-through….

           E. Wilson: Encourage bulk things. Encourage people to bring their own containers and pay by weight. You don't have to have bulk foods in a supermarket that the kids are sticking their hands in. There are ways to make it sanitary. People bring their own container and pay for so much granola, so much Grape-Nuts, so much peanut butter, whatever. They're getting a discount because they brought their own container. They recycled something. It may be plastic, but at least it got more than one use.

           There are many things that are packaged and don't even need to be packaged at all. Some toys come in packaging that's totally unnecessary. It's not going to spoil. It's not going to contaminate anything, and yet they're wrapped in plastic and cardboard. Well, cardboard or a piece of paper for instructions. But so many things are wrapped. There must be a way to put a bar code on something that's attached to it and make it an item that is not wrapped. It would have to be legislated, but I don't know what level of government.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ed, you've made some very constructive suggestions. We appreciate it. I took note of several of them, including the one that we should hold our meetings next year in facilities that are green, wherever possible, and that are accessible to public transit. Good suggestion. I hadn't thought of it. It's written down.

[1255]

           E. Wilson: If a school was a possibility, the kids could sit in and look at this wonderful exercise in democracy that nobody seems to want to participate in — not the media, not many of the public — maybe because they're afraid. They know if they paid real attention to it, they might have to sacrifice a little something.

           B. Bennett (Chair): The next witness, committee members, is Silken's ActiveKids Movement, and Silken Laumann is here with Lister Farrar.

           S. Laumann: First of all, I'm honoured to be part of this democratic process. I want to compliment the government for having it.

           Today I'd like to talk about our most precious citizens, our children. They don't vote, but we care deeply about them, as citizens, as parents, as leaders in our community. Although we've taken a lot of initiatives in this province to get our kids healthy, the fact remains that our kids are not doing very well: 35 percent of Canadian kids are overweight or obese. Type 2 diabetes is rising. We know that this generation of kids is the first generation that is predicted to live less long than their parents.

           We also know that kids' quality and quantity of life is being reduced by physical inactivity and obesity. This government has made a commitment to increase physical activity by 20 percent by 2010. That's the goal, and it's an ambitious one. I applaud the government for having that goal.

           I think there are some wonderful initiatives happening in British Columbia. Action Schools is happening in the schools. It's a very effective initiative, getting kids moving between the school hours. KidSport is breaking down barriers for kids accessing physical activity.

           We also know that kids today are actually enrolled in 50 percent more sport than they were 20 years ago, and they are about half as active, so there is something missing. I think what's missing is what we all had when we were growing up, which was neighbourhood play. For many of us our fondest memories of growing up are of playing — of riding our bicycles with our friends, playing road hockey, walking to school, playing kick the can and capture the flag after dinner. The streetlights coming on was that unwritten signal that we all had to come in.

           While we were doing that, we weren't actually thinking of building our bone density or expanding our lung capacity or staving off type 2 diabetes, but a lot was happening. We were exploring our imagination. We were connecting as neighbourhoods. We were connecting because we had four-year-olds playing with eight-year-olds playing with 12-year-olds. Of course, we were having the physical benefits of physical activity and play, and we were developing a neighbourhood network.

           At Silken's ActiveKids we are focused on two things. One is just promoting the importance of unstructured play and the benefits of unstructured play. We are also looking at creating community action networks. We're looking at creating a grassroots movement here inBritish Columbia that gets neighbourhood champions working together to create opportunities for kids to play. This is happening in our province, where there's a longing for community. There's a longing for connection. I think a lot of people are aware of the issue of physical inactivity in kids and wanting to do something.

           We have champions in various areas of this province who have come together to create communityaction networks as a fancy word for a bunch of neighbours who just say: "How can we get kids in our

[ Page 1577 ]

community acting and being more physically active?" We're doing things like creating play-in-the-park nights. Seventy-two percent of Canadians live within a kilometre of a park, but when you go to the parks, you often see that they're empty. Play-in-the-park is sort of structured/unstructured play. It's one night a week when the community comes together and supervises the park so that all the kids can play.

           In my park last week we had 45 kids that came out to enjoy unstructured play and games. That movement, that connection is incredibly important. It leads to other things. As neighbours get to know one another in the parks, they feel more confident letting their children walk to school. We know that not only is walking to school good for the environment, as the former speaker was pointing out, but it's also good for kids' bodies and for their connection to the school and to the community.

[1300]

           In a couple of neighbourhoods in British Columbia right now we have something called buddies on bikes. We're asking: why are kids not riding their bicycles as much as they used to? Why are kids not on bikes?

           One of the solutions, we feel, is getting kids familiar with their neighbourhoods. We're having an instructor come in and teach the kids not only about bike safety but about the intersections in their neighbourhood. That helps them navigate their own neighbourhood and also, again, make those really valuable community connections.

           We were very fortunate this year to receive a grant through ActNow and Legacies Now, which has allowed us to pilot a project in three communities in British Columbia — we're very grateful for that — and to hire a small staff.

           What we're seeing is that there's tremendous appetite for what we're doing. Increasing physical activity is a challenge that's facing every city, every community, every school, and people are looking for solutions. We often want it to be a simple solution, a quick solution. It's taken us a generation to get where we are, and it's going to take us some time to reverse the trend. We can't just look at programs that we have to just keep feeding and feeding. We have to inspire people that it's important, that there's something we can do.

           We have to inspire people that they need to take action. People need to take individual action in their family but also collective action in their community. Once they're ready to take action, we need to support them. We need to support them with tools and ideas and connection to one another. That's really what ActiveKids Movement is all about.

           We're currently working in Nelson, Victoria and Burnaby. We have plans to work in Prince George and Penticton. It seems like every week that we've been focused on this, we're getting more requests to work in different cities, so we will have a formal request for funding of ActiveKids Movement.

           On a larger scale, any plans that are going forward to address physical inactivity and obesity I think should have a community focus. We should, of course, be supporting the great programs that are out there, that are working and that are getting kids active. We should have more focus on after-school care and getting good-quality physical activity in after-school care, but we've also got to look at communities and how we can support communities in taking their own initiatives and getting schools open after hours so that we can have open gyms.

           There's so much that people are trying to do, and they are running into roadblocks. At ActiveKids we're trying to help them navigate the roadblocks. In some areas in this province kids can't play road hockey because there are bylaws against it. Those are the kinds of barriers that people are running into. We want to help them and support them.

           In everything that we do in government, ask the question: is this going to help kids move more? In the way we build schools, in the way we build our streets, in the way we come together as community — is this going to help kids move more?

           I think it's a complex problem. We know that the solution isn't easy, but I think the solution is simple. We have to get kids moving more. That's what we have to say today.

           Do you have anything else to add, Lister?

           L. Farrar: No, that's great.

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

           R. Hawes: Thank you very much for that, Silken. Just a quick question, then, with respect to after-school activities and opening up the schools. We seem to have evolved to the place where we are so untrusting of anything that might happen that everything has to be licensed. That's a huge impediment. The licensing people seem to go out, and if there's a sharp edge on a table or…. The cost of all this and the bureaucracy involved in trying to protect kids, I guess, from every conceivable evil….

           I agree with you. I grew up playing kick the can and capture the flag and all that. I'm a little older than you are by a fair bit, so I'm surprised to hear that you were playing that. It seems to me that that is a lost thing — totally lost. This great push to protect our kids from every conceivable thing that might happen seems to me to be killing the ability to do exactly what you want to do.

           I have municipalities telling me that they can't run kids programs because of this licensing requirement. I've had volunteers that want to run kids programs, and they just can't afford the licensing and all of the things that go with it. How do we get around that?

           S. Laumann: There's no question that we live in a very litigious society, and it's getting more so. The irony of it is that we work so hard to keep our kids safe, and we're not keeping them well.

[1305]

           We absolutely have to get focused on the bigger picture, which is that if we continue what we're doing,

[ Page 1578 ]

we're going to have another generation of kids be unhealthy and unwell. It's going to have a huge impact on our health care system. Somewhere we've got to find the motivation to reverse what has been happening with sometimes absolutely over-the-top concerns around safety — a perception that a lot of parents have that our communities are unsafe and our streets are unsafe. That's not reflected in the statistics around crime and abduction, but perception can be reality.

           I think it's time for leadership. I believe that in this issue, it's time for strong leadership — a vision of where we want to be. Do we want to live in communities where people know one another? Do we want to live in communities where kids are playing in the parks and in the street and are outside in the school yard? My answer to that is a quick: "Absolutely."

           I think we're going to have to be pushing back against some of these simple rules like kids not being allowed to play road hockey. It's the bylaws. That's a simple thing, but it's going to take some challenging of what exists right now. I'm up for the challenge.

           H. Bloy: Thank you very much for your presentation. I guess we've come not very far when we want children to have fun and play, but now we have to supervise them, and they can't go out.

           I'm losing an after-school program that I was proud of, which I helped fund and get started five years ago at an inner-city school, because of the licensing requirement. Because you give them a piece of food and talk to them while you're doing it, you have to be licensed. There are many different stories around that range.

           S. Laumann: Yeah, there are.

           H. Bloy: In Burnaby, where is your park? I wasn't familiar with where.

           S. Laumann: We're actually in a school. Lister is more familiar with that.

           What's the woman's name who's running it?

           L. Farrar: It's Laurie Sheehan at Cascade something Elementary School.

           H. Bloy: Yeah, in south Burnaby.

           L. Farrar: It's an open gym program that she runs.

           S. Laumann: She's running an indoor program, open gym. I guess we've been able to keep things fairly casual. Really, it's a bunch of neighbours getting together in the park, or it's a bunch of neighbours using the school gym. That casualness has helped us circumvent it being a program. That's been helpful, because ultimately we see the supervision as being a stepping stone.

           In my community what's happening is…. I kind of have my own living laboratory, because we've gota community action network going there. When we first started doing this, neighbours didn't know one another, and the kids weren't playing together. Now everybody runs out on Monday night to get to the park. Kids are starting to walk to school more.

           What we're noticing, though, is that now parents are feeling more comfortable letting their kids come to the park on their own, and parents are letting their kids walk together. So maybe it's a stepping stone — the supervision. I don't think it's the answer. I don't think, in the end, that we can supervise our kids every minute. At 16 we let them drive a car and go all over the city, so there's got to be some stepping stones.

           H. Bloy: I'd be pleased to work with your group in Burnaby. I can think of a couple of areas that would like it.

           S. Laumann: Wonderful. Thank you for your support.

           L. Farrar: Maybe I'll just add some detail on what I know about Burnaby. As far as I know, it's a joint arrangement between recreation, the school and the parents whose kids go to that school. They worked out an arrangement where the parents don't have to pay for the school, but they can help with the supervision. There's a rec staff person who helps out.

           They're currently evolving to an all-parent-run system, but it involves recreation, the school and the parents, so it's a nice combination. I don't know how that applies to your issue.

           H. Bloy: No, but I can see. There are lots of service groups that would come in and help support, do some funding — the Optimists, the Lions, the Rotary. There are many good groups.

           S. Laumann: What we find is that we get very enthusiastic people. There are some amazing people in this province who really want to take something on and are willing to get outside their homes and do something. Then you have to be able to support them not only financially….

           Often it's not financially. Often it's through skills. They say: "We don't know how to lead catch the flag. I don't remember the rules. I don't remember any of the skipping songs."

           We're actually going to be piloting a project where we're working with parks and rec. We'll have parks and rec come in and do the initial training of the parents. Again, it seems ironic that we've come to a place in our society where we're actually training people how to play, but here we are.

           R. Lee: Very good program. I read about that some time ago.

           My question is: have you contacted the DPAC, district parent advisory council?

           S. Laumann: The PACs?

           R. Lee: Yeah, the PACs in each school, but they also have a district PAC.

[1310]

[ Page 1579 ]

           S. Laumann: Yes. We were trying to get on their program, actually. They have a conference. We were trying to get on their program to talk to all the PAC leaders in the province. We were a little bit late on the deadline of that.

           L. Farrar: Silken lost out to Barbara Coloroso.

           R. Lee: Each city…. When they have a school board, they have their own district parent advisory council. So I think this is a good opportunity for you to go there and get their support. I think they would generally…. You can have a lot of support from parents.

           S. Laumann: In Nelson, I went into that community and spoke to 200 parents there. I was in Hamilton last week speaking to 500 individuals about this concept. There's a lot of uptake when I come and speak.

           Unfortunately, there's just me. So we have to be able to expand our reach through the tools that we offer on the website and also a team of people in our office that can support somebody who hears about us through either the media or my actual presence.

           But you're right. PAC is a great entry point, because those are parents who are already sort of the movers and the shakers in a community. Thank you for that.

           L. Farrar: In fact, the questions you're asking are the questions that we've been getting from parents, and we're preparing tools to answer those for them.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Silken, like Randy, I'm a few decades older than you. I don't know if you remember John Prine as a songwriter, but he's got a tune where he's talking about changing your lifestyle and kids. He says to blow up your TV and raise them on peaches. Maybe we ought to put a big tax on television sets.

           S. Laumann: I don't want it recorded that I said that. But since you said it, Mr. Bennett, I'll leave it at that.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much. Would you like to say anything in finishing up?

           S. Laumann: I would just finish by saying that our physical activity strategy here in B.C. is very expansive. I think we need to put more focus on our children, because they are the next generation. The habits they're developing, they're going to pass on to their kids.

           In any kind of decisions that we're making around changing the behaviours of our citizens, I think we should not only be focused on kids, but we should also see the real opportunity of unstructured activity.

           Only half of Canadian kids play sport. We've got to capture the other half. Not only do we have to capture the half that are playing sport and get them more active — because sport itself is not enough — but we have to capture those kids that can't access sport because they don't have the money, they can't get there or they don't have the inclination.

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

           Committee members, we're recessed now until two o'clock.

          The committee recessed from 1:13 p.m. to 2:09 p.m.

           [B. Bennett in the chair.]

           B. Bennett (Chair): Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. It's good to see some younger people here at the meeting today. Welcome.

           I won't give the same speech that I give at the beginning of the meeting. Let me just say that this is part of the democratic process that we have here in British Columbia to ask the people of the province what they would like or what they might not like in the next provincial budget.

[1410]

           It's a good opportunity for ordinary British Columbians to come before a panel of bipartisan government people — we're from both parties: the opposition and government — and tell us what you think. So that's what we're going to do this afternoon.

           We've got several preregistered witnesses. Our first witness this afternoon is the Colleen and Gordie Howe Middle School.

           A Voice: The Bulldogs. The Bulldogs have arrived.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I see. I thought I was going to meet Gordie Howe.

           Whoever's going to start can start.

           H. Gandhu: Hi. My name is Harman, and we are here to represent the students from Colleen and Gordie Howe Middle School. I'm going to speak on behalf of the grade 6 students.

           First of all, let's start with the problem. Our problem is that personal vehicles account for 40 percent of all greenhouse gases from B.C. households, meaning that 40 percent of our problem with greenhouse gases comes from those big SUVs and those other big cars that we don't need.

           Our objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. We have a few ideas that can help make a big difference in this world.

           Our first idea was to change ICBC's rate structure to distance-based insurance. The way it works is that you have to pay by how many miles you drive your car. For example, say it's $1 per mile. Say that you drove your car for 100 miles for one year. You'd have to pay $100. So the less you drive, the less you pay. This is already being tried in Texas and Britain with success.

           Our second idea was to improve public transit. We can all have light rail transit rather than an eight-lane Port Mann Bridge. We can also have more buses, more routes, more often. We should increase the cost of gas and decrease the cost to take transit.

[ Page 1580 ]

           We should also improve bike lanes. For example, have bike lanes leading to all schools. This way, students can bike all the way to school and back home.

           We should use photo radar everywhere for speeding cars. The faster they go, the more emissions come out from the car. Did you know that there is a 10-percent reduction in emissions if people stay within the speed limit? If everybody could follow the rules, we would have a cleaner environment.

           I hope our ideas will be of help.

           S. Gakhar: Hi. My name is Sharu. I'm here to represent the grade 7s from Colleen and Gordie Howe Middle School.

           The problem we want to address is that household energy takes about 20 percent of personal greenhouse gas emissions. Our objective is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of non-green energy.

           Our first idea was to transfer all government subsidies from the fossil fuel industry to the sustainable energy industry. Our provincial government subsidies to fossil fuel industries are approximately $260 million per year. B.C. is behind all other provinces in wind turbine projects. If we gave half of the money to wind turbine projects, less electricity would be wasted because fewer fans would be plugged in.

           Our second idea was to sell coal only to countries that guarantee it will be burned in the cleanest way possible. B.C. requires zero greenhouse gas emissions from any coal electricity plant. Yet B.C. is a major exporter of coal to other countries, and the countries we give our coal to burn the coal without concern for emissions. If we would like to give our coal to some other countries, they would have to sign a contract saying that they will burn the coal in the cleanest way possible. Right now they are not burning it in the cleanest way possible.

           Our third idea was to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs. It is very easy to do and has already been done in many places. If we banned the sale of incandescent light bulbs, fluorescent light bulbs' popularity would go up. And if it goes up, it will be of profit to us because it lasts you longer and takes up less electricity.

[1415]

           Z. Melhus: My name is Zach Melhus, and I'm here to represent the grade 8 students from Colleen and Gordie Howe Middle School. The problem we would like to address today is that garbage in landfills accounts for 19 percent of greenhouse gas emissions from B.C. households.

           Our objective, our goal, is to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions from landfills. Some solutions we brainstormed start with this.

           We think plastic shopping bags should be banned. Around 1.2 billion plastic shopping bags appear in landfills after being used by just British Columbians alone, every year. That's too many.

           This act is already being done in many communities across North America, and it's easy to implement provincewide. Cloth shopping bags are only made once, while plastic shopping bags are made over and over and over again.

           We think there should be a carbon tax for every can of garbage picked up from a B.C. home. The less garbage you create, the less you pay. That is a major incentive for people to recycle more and throw out less.

           We think all packaging should be made only with recyclable materials. There are a lot of people who do their best to recycle but can't always do that, because they don't know it's recyclable or what they're trying to recycle isn't recyclable. If all packaging on products, everything from electronics to food, was recyclable, then people could recycle it.

           The final thing we think is that landfill gases should be captured. A lot of methane gas comes up from landfills, and it can be prevented. The gas captured should be used with boiler technology to create heat for commercial facilities — for example, greenhouses or other buildings nearby this landfill.

           However, all contaminants should first be removed. This accomplishes two things. It's an alternate fuel for the building, the commercial facility that it's helping out; and the methane gas isn't going up into the air, because it's captured.

           Thank you on behalf of all the grade 8 Colleen and Gordie Howe student body. We'll now welcome all questions.

           B. Bennett (Chair): Thank you very much, Zach, Sharu and Harman. We appreciate your submission.

           R. Lee: Thank you for an excellent presentation.

           I have one question for Harman. You mentioned that you want to change the ICBC rating structure to distance-based instruments. Right now, actually, the more you drive, the more gas you use, and then the tax is on the gasoline. If you just change to a distance-based fee, then people driving those SUVs will pay less because they drive less distance with one gallon of gas. Have you thought about that?

           H. Gandhu: Well, yeah. It means it's actually per mile. You have to pay by how many miles you drive, so it doesn't really matter how much you have to pay for gas; it just matters how much you drive. Even if you drive a lot, that's still wasting gas.

           R. Lee: Let's go back to the efficiency of the vehicle. If the vehicle is not efficient, then they drive less distance with the same gallon of gas, so they pay a lower fee actually, according to this scheme. I just wanted to raise this question to you.

           H. Gandhu: We also said that some people drive SUVs that don't really need to. Say, it's for your business. Then yeah, that's an exception. But if you don't need it, then I don't know why you'd be driving it.

           R. Lee: I guess your idea is probably keeping the gas tax but instead, if there is some surcharge on the mileage….

[ Page 1581 ]

           H. Gandhu: Yes.

           R. Hawes: Thanks for the presentation. My colleague Bruce here was just whispering to me: "This is one of the better presentations we've had." It is — very good.

           My question was to Zach, on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from landfill sites. There is a growing body of people out there who talk about cogeneration, who think that putting garbage in the ground is environmentally irresponsible. The technology is there to actually burn garbage, take in things like wood waste. Some of it, the hog fuel, is finding itself filling holes all over, wherever they can find to fill them. That's also a product that shouldn't be put into the ground.

[1420]

           There is a growing body of people who think we should be burning garbage and creating electricity, and the technology is there to do it cleanly and efficiently. What would be your thoughts along those lines?

           Z. Melhus: I think it is a good thing if it's done cleanly and efficiently. If you burn the garbage into the air, that's a bad thing because that's what is causing global warming and our problems. So if it's done cleanly and efficiently, it should be a good thing.

           H. Bloy: Thank you very much for your presentation. I wish I'd had the insight, when I was your age, to be thinking ahead.

           Can you tell me what you're doing at your school to save the environment? What do you personally do, and what do you do at your school?

           Z. Melhus: At our school we actually have a plan in place we call the 3P plan. It stands for personal responsibility, public awareness and political pressure. We do things around the school. Last year we won the CKNW Go Green Challenge.

           We had a variety of different things. We sent home fluorescent lightbulbs to the students so they could replace their incandescent lightbulbs. We supplied a cloth shopping bag to every student so they could use that. We had a commitment mall. People could sign up and put their signature on a commitment they could make to recycle or to carpool. We still have those plans in place.

           H. Bloy: Very good. What have you done at home for yourself?

           Z. Melhus: Personally, my family recycles a lot. We carpool every morning, and we use fluorescent lightbulbs, for a start.

           B. Bennett (Chair): I agree with my colleagues. This is one of the best presentations that we've had. You did a great job of presenting.

           I don't know whether you study this law in school or not, but there's a law called the law of unintended consequences. When you look at your recommendations — most of which, on a personal level, I agree with — there is one that sticks out for me because I'm the elected member for the East Kootenay, where all the coal is mined. I live in the southeast part of the province. If you look on the map, it's right in the very southeast corner, just next to Alberta.

           If we did something, as government, that ended that coalmining — and your policy would quite likely do that — you would have about 3,000 families who would no longer have good jobs. All of those three communities — Fernie, Sparwood and Elkford — would basically disappear, because that's what supports those communities.

           I totally understand the recommendation that you're making around coalmining in British Columbia. I think it's very logical. I can understand how you arrived at that conclusion. I think it's a very rational conclusion to come to, but just bear in mind that when you come to an opinion, there may be unintended consequences like that.

           I think your presentation, as my colleagues said, was absolutely fantastic. I really admire the fact that you came out and did this today. I urge you to stay engaged with the democratic process in the future, and make sure your voices are heard.

           Apparently, Rider Cooey is not present, so we're going to go with the Greater Vancouver Alliance for Arts and Culture. Andrew Wilhelm-Boyles, Lee Murray and Judy Whyte.

[1425]

           A. Wilhelm-Boyles: Thank you for this opportunity to address you on what we consider to be a very important issue for the province. I'm the executive director for the Alliance for Arts and Culture, but today we're actually going to be represented, and the Arts Future coalition is going to be represented, by the Abbotsford Arts Council. Beside me is Judy Whyte, who is going to make a presentation. Lee and I will be available to answer your questions as we get to that point.

           J. Whyte: My name is Judy Whyte. I'm the executive director of the Abbotsford Arts Council. With me today is our president, Lee Murray.

           The Abbotsford Arts Council recommends that the government of British Columbia increase the investment in art and culture by increasing the B.C. Arts Council budget to $32 million. For the past ten years I've enjoyed the privilege of working with the Abbotsford Arts Council and its members and member groups, collectively providing programming and services for one of the fastest-growing cities in B.C.

           The core funding, which the Abbotsford Arts Council receives from the B.C. Arts Council, provides us with the stability necessary to adapt to this growth. Growth is winning.

           Our mission is to promote the vision, creativity and energy of the community in the arts. We are an umbrella organization, and as of 9 a.m. today we represent 57 member groups. Our community is vibrant with

[ Page 1582 ]

music and dance and with performance, visual and literary arts. Our community is flourishing, with dedicated individuals and volunteers who work tirelessly to make this happen.

           The Abbotsford Arts Council does not compete with any of these dedicated organizations. We honour them, and we support them. We create opportunities for participation in and the enjoyment of the arts in ways which are not provided by any other service organization. We create them to be inclusive and affordable for everyone. For example, during my term we have spearheaded the creation of five pieces of public art, one of which, the Unity Statue, has become a symbol of community pride and a tourism catalyst.

           We have created long-term programs which have become traditions. Annual events are alive with anticipation all year round. One of these events is currently 27 years young. Each year we create new programming and events which fulfil a current need within our community at that time. Many of these programs and events are well on their way to becoming traditions, and many more programs will emerge as our community grows.

           The Abbotsford Arts Council, as an advocate for art and culture, has devoted countless hours on countless committees for the past five years, with one goal. In the fall of 2008 the Abbotsford Cultural Centre, Museum and Art Gallery will open its doors for our community, our province, our country and our world. Without core funding received from the B.C. Arts Council, these accomplishments would not have been possible.

           The Abbotsford Arts Council has a long history of service in the arts and cultural sector in this community and in our province. The arts and culture sector contributes significantly to the economic growth in Abbotsford and throughout B.C.

           The B.C. Arts Council has one of the lowest budgets of any provincial arts council in Canada. We urge you to invest in the arts and culture in B.C. Increase the B.C. Arts Council budget to $32 million.

           Thank you for providing us with the opportunity of speaking with you today.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): The four cities in the valley — Surrey, Abbotsford, Coquitlam and Langley — have just recently formed what they call a livability alliance. I think it's being assisted by former Premier Mike Harcourt, and one of the things is to facilitate the future growth and livability of cities in this region.

           I'm wondering to what degree you plan on participating in that, since one of the attributes of a livable city clearly is its ability to enable its citizens to participate in cultural activities.

[1430]

           J. Whyte: We the Abbotsford Arts Council participate in just about any opportunity that comes our way. We have a very dedicated board. We've made a lot of significant contributions to the city, and we intend to continue along that line.

           R. Hawes: I have two questions for you. The first one — and it may have been answered at previous meetings, but I don't remember hearing the answer — is: why $32 million? Why not $34 million or $30 million? What's the magic with 32?

           The second question I would have regarding the Abbotsford Arts Council — I live in Mission — is: what work do you do together with the Mission Arts Council? Or is there a connection there?

           J. Whyte: There is a connection. We support each other's events. We promote, whenever we have a chance to participate. A lot of our funding, other than our core funding received by British Columbia, comes with strings attached — that is, your community only. So our programs that are supported have to take place in our community.

           A lot of our artists belong to both cities. We're very close together.

           R. Hawes: And the $32 million?

           A. Wilhelm-Boyles: The $32 million I can address. That was a figure that was derived last year actually. It was derived from going out to the artists and arts organizations of the province and seeing what they had requested of the B.C. Arts Council as opposed to what they received.

           Then we checked with the B.C. Arts Council to say: "What we are hearing is that it would really take $32 million" — actually more than $32 million, but $32 million being, we thought, a reasonable figure — "to service the artists and the arts organizations at a fairly productive level."

           So we checked with the B.C. Arts Council, and they said yes, that sounded, from their knowledge — i.e., the applications they would get from across the province in the course of the year…. They said that would probably be a ballpark figure. So that's the figure we have continued to use this year.

           R. Lee: Thank you for your presentation. As you know, the arts and culture sometimes have a lot of interrelationship. Besides moving to a more multicultural aspect, how does the art community react to the multicultural aspect, and then how can you introduce more art activities from different cultures?

           A. Wilhelm-Boyles: A lot of what the arts do is build understanding, awareness and communication. The arts are used to engage communities in discussions about important issues, such as the environment, multiculturalism, living together in harmony in communities that are very diverse.

           Many artists are in the vanguard of working together to create new art forms, to do fusions of art forms and thus build understanding. I believe you heard from Morna Edmundson yesterday — an example of how she felt that the arts were helping her daughter deal with and adjust to, and the rest of the community adjust to, diversity issues.

[ Page 1583 ]

           One of the problems is that it's very difficult to be inclusive if you're desperately trying to protect the little bit that you've got. The more funding that goes to the arts, the more they will have the capacity to reach out across cultural divides, make contact, develop new art forms and address these issues in the public realm.

           That's one of the reasons we are asking for a significant increase through the British Columbia Arts Council. We recognize that after the environment, probably diversity in this country is the next most crucial issue, and the arts are uniquely equipped to deal with those issues.

[1435]

           B. Bennett (Chair): You're probably quite aware that we've had submissions from arts councils and arts groups in most communities. That's not a criticism. I'm quite impressed, actually, with how well organized you are and how committed everyone is. They often come into the rooms with their own marching bands and groups of supporters, and so forth.

           We appreciate your sincerity and the repeated message that we've heard. Thank you for coming out today.

           Committee members, we're going to take a brief recess and hope that someone shows up.

          The committee recessed from 2:36 p.m. to 2:59 p.m.

           [B. Ralston in the chair.]

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): We'll proceed again.

           B.C. Biodiesel Association and Canadian Bioenergy Corp., Ian Thomson and Fred Ghatala.

           I. Thomson: Thank you very much. Ian Thomson, B.C. Biodiesel Association, and in my day job, president of Canadian Bioenergy Corp.; and my colleague Fred Ghatala, who's the assistant director of policy and regulatory affairs of the company.

           I will leave it to Fred to describe the work that Canadian Bioenergy is doing. I want to speak from the position of being the president of the B.C. Biodiesel Association and, as it happens, the president of the Alberta Biodiesel Association.

[1500]

           The two points that I want to speak to from the industry perspective in British Columbia are related to taxation and to funding the infrastructure that will support the 5-percent renewable fuel content goals that the province has for 2010.

           First of all though, I think it's important to say thank you to the provincial government for the enactment of the de-taxation of motor fuel taxes for on-road diesel and biodiesel blends that happened in 2004. I was very involved in that process. By way of an omission, off-road or marked diesel blends were not included in that de-taxation. Marked fuel has a three-cent-per-litre tax in the province, and that would cover rail diesel. It would cover all of off-road — i.e., non-licensed — and all heavy industrial equipment and marine would be taxed at that level.

           We have spent considerable time in Victoria politically. I would say that it's fair to say there is political support for enacting de-taxation of biodiesel blends on the marked diesel side to complement what's going on, on the clear diesel side.

           If you're looking at a 950-million-litre pool of marked diesel, you would be looking at about $150,000 as a line item in the budget to remove the taxes on that. I know that from the industry side that it would be a significant inducement to bring large industrial marine/rail fleets into biodiesel use.

           The second recommendation pertains to the build-out of the infrastructure needed to support the 5-percent renewable content rules that will come into place in 2010. About 155 million litres, plus or minus, of renewable content will be required in diesel at that point. That is just over two years away.

           We know from extensive work on the petroleum side that we need to get the infrastructure in place that will do in-line blending, which is acceptable to the petroleum companies who distribute biodiesel blends. We are recommending a $2 million pool of funds be allocated to a program that would see matching industry contributions.

           The terms of matching. You could make it 50-50, or whatever the determination would be, to leverage provincial funding to put into place in Vancouver, Victoria, Prince George, Kelowna — name any of the centres that would be supported by industry — to put the infrastructure into place required for putting the biodiesel fuel into the distal pool economically and with all the quality that the petroleum industry requires.

           F. Ghatala: From the side of the Canadian Bioenergy Corp., I'll give you a very brief background.

           We're a leading distributor of biodiesel in British Columbia and Alberta. We're building a 60-million-gallon, or 225-million-litre, biodiesel production facility outside of Edmonton. We're breaking ground on that facility on Monday.

           My recommendation is a bit more of a regulatory issue rather than the fiscal one in front of this committee, but it's very much a financial issue to us in actually moving the volumes of biodiesel. That relates to the requirement that fuel used in off-road applications be dyed with 14 parts per million red dye. The fuel that Ian was just speaking about is required to be dyed to distinguish it from clear diesel.

           This dyeing must occur at approved facilities by licensed dyers. In-line dye injectors are currently preferred and may be mandatory or industry standard before 2010. The infrastructure and operating costs of dyeing biodiesel are projected to add approximately 1.2 cents per litre to the biodiesel costs of a facility that has an annual throughput of one million litres or less. We estimate that prior to 2010, facilities outside of the lower mainland will have a throughput of one million litres or less.

           The dyeing requirement, as it is currently, is hampering biodiesel adoption in these specific markets. Just the same way that removing a three-cent-per-litre tax

[ Page 1584 ]

will allow the off-road biodiesel sector to grow, removing the biodiesel dye requirement will also allow the biodiesel sector to grow.

[1505]

           R. Lee: For a lot of us, we don't actually understand the advantage of biodiesel and regular diesel. There are different grades of biodiesel as well. Can you just briefly outline what the benefit is in terms of the greenhouse gas release and that kind of thing?

           I. Thomson: I would turn to my colleague, who is an expert on greenhouse gas emissions and biodiesel.

           F. Ghatala: Sure, happily. Biodiesel as an additive with diesel has benefits in terms of greenhouse gas reductions and also local air quality benefits. Biodiesel made from canola reduces greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 85 percent below the greenhouse gas emitted from an equivalent volume of diesel.

           Biodiesel also reduces, or actually eliminates, the amount of sulphur in sulphur oxides released into the atmosphere, and also other criteria — air contaminants, smog-forming particulates and other carcinogens that are contained in a local airshed where diesel is used.

           Using biodiesel in different blend percentages, such as a 5-percent biodiesel blend, which would be called a B5 — or 10 percent would be a B10 — has synergistic benefits, meaning that if you use 5 percent, you actually get more than 5 percent of your benefit.

           Biodiesel is also very good to be used in natural environment settings like parks because of its bio-degradability, so any instances of spills — in Canada we have more than 300,000 spills of any size a year — are not as much of an issue with biodiesel because it biodegrades quite well.

           R. Lee: Recently there were some concerns that agricultural lands are used for planting plants specifically to make biofuel. In British Columbia do you see a negative effect in the future if a lot of biofuels are from agricultural land? We know that forest product fibres can be material for biofuel as well. So can you see which direction the province should go to maximize our agricultural potential as well as any energy potential?

           I. Thomson: I would address that. It is a very timely question. We are in the midst of that. It's very much in the public debate right now.

           A couple of distinctions are important. Ethanol is the renewable fuel content in gasoline for cars, and biodiesel would be the equivalent in trucks and heavy machinery. Much of the concern over what I would call food versus fuel and assigning traditional agricultural lands to the production of the fuel are assigned to ethanol, largely around corn and wheat.

           We're talking here…. Go to 2010 when there will be an actual production industry. Right now we are working entirely off imported feedstocks, largely from the United States, from soybeans on the diesel side. In Canada the feedstock will be substantially canola, and Canada is the largest exporter of canola in the world. In the 2006 crop production year there was a 25-percent carryover, which means unsold production at the end of the year.

           Canada has a net surplus of canola production. In fact, the Canola Council of Canada has done a series of projections out to 2015, taking into account increased productivity at a yield level, taking in crop science and taking in how much more farmers can grow. They have what I would describe as a credible scenario where they can meet increased demand from food, so the food use of oils will be untouched and will grow on its current growth path.

           The amount that we currently crush and export will stay in place, and the increased production that is required for biodiesel will come from crop science, increased productivity, increased yields on the farms. The industry has looked forward to that and has anticipated that very much. But I would, again, go back to the…. There are issues that come up around ethanol that are particular to ethanol. Often biodiesel gets caught up in the "you're just another biofuel," and we're in fact very different.

[1510]

           R. Lee: The surplus you're taking actually doesn't affect the price of the canola.

           I. Thomson: It will have no impact on British Columbia agriculture as far as taking away productive lands. You will not see great swaths of canola grown in the Fraser Valley as a result of biofuels.

           You will see farmers in the Peace district — in Fort St. John and Dawson — benefiting directly from biofuels. We could talk more about the benefit to farmers that has accrued in the last 18 months from the global boom in biofuels. That's another conversation.

           If you talk to people in the agriculture industry, I would say there's across-the-board support for biofuels. It is one of the very powerful tools for rural economic development right now in rural northeastern British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Just one question, Fred. There is a historic reason for the marking of gas for off-road uses, so how would you say that…? Obviously, you're advocating that that requirement be rescinded. How would you address the traditional basis for the policy?

           F. Ghatala: I understand that there is a very good reason for marking diesel. I think that with the volumes of biodiesel that we're projecting would move through an off-road system, a chain-of-custody type of procedure could work to make sure that those fuels are used in the ways that they're intended for.

           Also, because biodiesel would be used primarily by large industrial fleets, both private and public, tracking those types of fuel uses would be easier than, say, your general diesel fuel–dyeing requirements, where a large

[ Page 1585 ]

amount of it is used on the farm. Then there are also diesel-fuelled vehicles that are used for personal transportation on the farm. If biodiesel were sold to larger fleet customers, maintaining that security that the fuel was used for its intended purposes would be possible.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): What do you mean by a chain of custody?

           F. Ghatala: A chain of custody would be ensuring that the fuel is sold to the large user or ensuring that….

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): You put the onus, then, on the seller? Is that what you're saying?

           F. Ghatala: That would be onto the fleet manager or the person who is in charge of the industrial fleet or the fuelling operations. If there's a terminal and the fuel is being picked up by a large end user, then because that would be, say, a captive fleet of one organization or one municipality, usually that fuel wouldn't be used on a personal level, which is what I understand that the dyeing requirements are intended to prevent.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Any other questions from the committee?

           Okay, thank you very much.

           I'm being advised that Mr. John Vissers is invited to be next.

           J. Vissers: I'm here representing the Fraser Valley Conservancy, and it's a rare privilege to address five or more MLAs at the same time. I do recognize how seriously you all care about this issue of climate change.

[1515]

           I'm convinced that with your help, we will find solutions, or at least we'll find a course of action that will help. There are no real solutions. It's a process, and it's a lifestyle change that we're looking for.

           I think the last time I had this many MLAs to talk with was at least five or six years ago, when we in Abbotsford were fighting a large threat to our airshed. All the members of government, on both sides…. All the different parties, along with the city governments, supported our efforts to protect our airshed. I'm convinced that with these threats that face us now, the B.C. government will do likewise.

           Our government wants to hear from us where and how we should invest the $4.1 billion surplus to help meet our goals of reducing GHGs by 33 percent in 12 years. That's a tall order.

           I'd like to say, first, that we're already spending more than twice that much on roadbuilding programs that will dramatically increase GHGs in the same time frame. This would include, of course, effects from container shipping, trucking, single-occupancy vehicle traffic. All these things will double or even triple in the next two decades. And that's a fact. We can't get away from that right now, the way we're going.

           The two goals of encouraging economic growth through roadbuilding and attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 33 percent can't both succeed. That's a problem. In my opinion, it's one of the biggest problems we face — one of the biggest difficulties, our biggest challenge.

           Our first priority, then, is to question money already targeted to projects and schemes that will undermine the objectives of this committee. If your boat is sinking, you don't just bail. You plug the leaks. That's fiscal responsibility.

           The second priority is to encourage projects that have a direct and immediate impact on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Changing lightbulbs was and is an important symbolic act that helps us all begin the process of participation. We're all doing it, we all feel good about it, but it's not going to help the planet significantly.

           Now is the right time to spend our money making real changes in the way we move, consume and grow. This can only happen if we provide public education and infrastructure that not only allows but encourages us to make the right choices.

           Where would I spend $4.1 billion of the taxpayers' money? I'd love to get an opportunity. I think, first, on education. We won't change our lifestyle without understanding why we must. There are no new, viable energy sources available to us, and peak oil is here now.

           We can't grow our economy in the conventional way. We know that we want it to grow. We need our economy to grow. We've got lots of new people coming into this province. But we can't do it in a conventional way. We have to learn new ways.

           The conventional way of growth — oil-dependent — is not sustainable. We have to grow efficiencies, grow waste reduction, grow quality over quantity. This can only be achieved, really, with good education programs, and those are expensive.

           The second thing I would do is look at infrastructure. The largest portion of our GHG contributions comes from transportation. Building road-based transportation infrastructure for an unsustainable future dependent on dwindling oil supplies is not only economically foolish; it would contribute even more air pollution to our fragile Fraser Valley airshed — and, of course, GHGs that accelerate global climate change.

           We need now, more than ever, rail-based transportation, bus rapid transit, bicycle-friendly cities and towns, and a growth-management strategy that's consistent with the B.C. government's stated environmental objectives. If the government is sincere in its desire — and I believe it is — then it's going to take a lot more than changing lightbulbs.

           Another thing that I would like to see the government spend more money on is natural habitat protection. This is close to my heart, particularly as a representative of the Fraser Valley Conservancy. We're in the business — entirely volunteer, of course — of acquiring land that can't be used for any other purpose and that has some ecological value.

[1520]

           New government incentives are in place that will allow property owners to get 100-percent tax credits

[ Page 1586 ]

from us for the true value of the properties, and then we can acquire those properties and conserve them and build habitat that way.

           Biodiversity is essential to a sustainable future. Right now B.C. and Alberta are the only provinces in Canada that have no species-at-risk legislation. I know we've got wildlife protection, but it's not very good, and it's not working.

           We must immediately develop and fund programs to identify and protect valuable natural spaces throughout British Columbia. This can only be achieved with sufficient staff to educate and help enforce new legislation. It takes people and it takes money to do these kinds of things. Right now, we don't have either of those — or not enough of them, I should say.

           In conclusion, I believe that the ministry is sincere in their efforts to help us invest in a sustainable future and help address the global climate change crisis. However, if we continue our present course, we will waste over $4 billion on a dream that has no hope of coming true. That's a very expensive dream. If we don't first change the way we live, work and play, there is no point in spending any of this money. We may as well save it to pay for inevitable flooding, crop failures, health-related issues that face us in the near future.

           I'm an optimist, and I believe we can and will change course to a more sustainable, livable future. With the combined efforts of community, all levels of government and especially education, we will succeed.

           Gentlemen, our house is on fire. Our government is out repaving the driveway. Most of us are shopping for new curtains because the guests are coming in 2010 and we want the place to look nice. But we're missing the obvious. We need to do something now.

           I believe it's essential that we do it now, because there's a convergence of opportunities that I've never seen before. I've been involved, directly and indirectly, in environmental issues for over 30 years. We have wealth; we have knowledge; we have resources. We have, more importantly, the public and political desire to do something. These are all here right now. These are opportunities. If we don't take those opportunities right now and do something, it'll never happen. We will never see a better time to make a better future.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, John.

           R. Hawes: I have a couple of questions. First, maybe you can correct me, John. I thought we had passed some species-at-risk legislation about two years ago.

           J. Vissers: We have a Wildlife Act.

           R. Hawes: No, I was pretty sure we passed….

           J. Vissers: Yeah, but it identifies only…. I wish Lisa Fox were here. She's the director of our committee. She was going to be here, but she couldn't make it.

           We have a Wildlife Act that targets specific species but does not protect their habitat, and that's a big problem. You can't protect endangered species or species of concern without also protecting their habitat — hence, our conservancy associations and land trusts. We are desperately trying to do what the government is not doing.

           You need viable and sustainable habitat to protect species. Species-at-risk legislation does that in other provinces, and it doesn't do it here or in Alberta. It's a difference of opinion, perhaps.

           R. Hawes: I wanted to ask you two more things. The tax credits that you are able to give and the type of land that you've been able to acquire and the source of that land…. How are you getting it? How have you got the word out there that you're able to issue tax credits in return for habitat?

           J. Vissers: It's like any other land trust or conservancy. We try to work on the local level in the Fraser Valley only. We're a fairly small group. We're a registered non-profit. We have a biologist that also volunteers his time.

           I work in construction and in the development business, and we know of many developers who have property that they simply can do nothing with. The city is not interested in acquiring it for parks. It's swamp, or it's got a covenant or something, or it's got a piece of ravine, and they can't do anything with it.

           As a non-profit, we can give them 100-percent tax credit as an ecological gift. They give us the property, and we issue a tax credit through, of course, a federal organization that does very, very careful auditing — not just monetary auditing but also biological auditing. Then, in perpetuity, that land will be protected as habitat.

[1525]

           It's difficult, because again we don't have funding. We don't have a lot of money to do these sorts of thing and to promote what we're trying to do. Yet once the development community understands what we're doing, they see the advantages. They've been doing very well, mostly land developers. Large industrial developers are doing very well right now, so it serves their purposes, and it serves ours, in desiring to protect small parts of the environment.

           R. Hawes: I have a last question for John. I get what you're saying about building road infrastructure, but at same time, I think you would probably agree that North Americans kind of have a love affair with the automobile, and there's an educational process. I don't disagree with that either, but that's not something that happens overnight.

           Today, tomorrow, next year…. There are people, particularly from the south side of the river, who are stuck in endless traffic jams, who are actually destroying family life because they're either away for extra hours every day, or they get home and they're so tensed up that it's causing problems at home.

           J. Vissers: I'm well aware of that.

           R. Hawes: And the cars are idling, sitting in these traffic jams.

[ Page 1587 ]

           Even if you were talking about an interim relief step while this educational process takes place and while public transportation systems are built, would you not see this as a solution?

           J. Vissers: Well, there are no solutions to growth. You know, we just keep growing.

           R. Hawes: A mitigating factor.

           J. Vissers: A mitigating factor. I believe that there are certain portions of road and infrastructure that are necessary and, in fact, shorten trips between communities — north, south, that sort of thing.

           We know for a fact — I've said this before, and many people have said this, and I'm sure you've heard it a hundred times already — that no region has ever built its way out of congestion, and any region that's ever tried to build its way out of congestion has only succeeded in increasing its air quality issues. No one has ever built their way out of congestion. It can't be done.

           There are many reasons for it, but the primary reason is induced traffic. We can't help ourselves. We're in love with cars.

           I'm a prime example. I run a small construction company, and I no longer take on projects across the river. It's no longer viable for me to do that. I stick closer to home. Is that fair, unfair? I don't know. I also don't put my guys on a plane to Calgary to do a job there. It doesn't make sense. I work close to home.

           If I can reduce my travel time to Vancouver from here, say down to 45, 50 minutes, I'm going to start bidding on jobs in Vancouver. I might make a little more money. Also, the wholesalers that I use who are across the river — I may order more from them rather than local suppliers, because I can save a few cents a foot on my materials. And why wouldn't I?

           If thousands upon thousands of people all do that at the same time, you have what's called induced traffic. I would be part of that, in spite of myself, because I'm also in business to make a living.

           We need to encourage — this is what I'm talking about — lifestyle changes. We desperately have to find ways to educate, which costs money, and to build infrastructure, which costs even more, to facilitate this transition. Whether we like it or not, we are going to be part of a post-oil economy, and most of us will live to see that. Certainly our children will.

           If we don't start building that infrastructure right now…. As I said before, right now we have the will, the money and the knowledge. If we don't do it now, we'll never do it. If we just say that someday we'll put a light rail on the new bridge, or someday we'll put in a bus rapid transit system, it's not going to happen. There will be a downturn in the economy, and all of us will focus on just trying to keep the wolf from the door.

           Right now we have a surplus. Let's use it wisely.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, John. I think we're out of time for your segment.

           I believe Diane Heitmann has arrived.

[1530]

           D. Heitmann: I apologize. Actually, half the bridge is shut down. Again, I guess you're going to also hear about that in my presentation.

           First of all, I want to introduce myself. My name is Diane Heitmann. I've been a resident of B.C. for about 26 years now. Formerly, I was a resident of the Yukon. I want to give you my personal story today. I'm not affiliated with anybody — not Greenpeace, not any sort of organization whatsoever. It's just me coming here today because I have the time.

           I think my biggest priority has to do with personal vehicles and the fact that we do need a carbon tax when it comes to personal vehicles, in order to ensure that people buy their vehicles wisely. They're not just getting vehicles because it's the latest and greatest thing, and they're cognizant of the fact that gas and carbon are a big issue.

           I like the hybrid rebate. I'd like that to stay, but I'd like to see, for anything that's 4,000 kilograms of CO₂ emissions and above, a prorated tax where there's a larger tax put in place, maybe in 500-kilogram increments. So that's number one.

           In terms of the hybrid vehicle tax, it's great the way it is right now, but unless you're a long-term holder of these vehicles and you're buying them outright, it makes no sense for people economically to buy them. Unfortunately, economics is people's main motivator. I think it needs an increase there. In order to encourage the import and sale of hybrid cars, I think we should give corporations tax breaks to import them. That's one of my thoughts there.

           When it comes to personal vehicles, if a car has failed AirCare, I think we need to enforce taxes there as well. Their vehicles, their emissions, are giving you higher tax rates. At the same time, midterm during the year allow a free AirCare check or a check somehow to ensure that they are aware of whether it's going to fail or not so that they can get that fixed beforehand.

           For transportation and bridges, twinning the bridge is, I think, a great idea. However, at the same time you've got to put a light rail transit line of sufficient capacity in there. Our SkyTrain system — I use it every day. It is a good system, but it's not meant for growth — not at the rate that British Columbia is growing. It's very crowded. I've been pushed on before. I've been pushed out before, when it ends up being far too crowded on days when it's really bad in terms of weather.

           An LRT system — a different system — one that supports larger capacity over the twinning of the bridge I think would be the best alternative. I've taken such systems in Europe, etc., and they're great. I don't understand why we don't do the same thing here. If we're doing the twinning of the bridge now, now is the time to do it. I think it should go to connect up to the SkyTrain line or to Discovery Parks area, BCIT. That would be the best scenario.

           Household waste. When it comes to household waste, there's not enough capacity in the bins for people to really use them. I've got friends with families

[ Page 1588 ]

with five people in their house. If you could charge extra for the garbage bins but not charge extra to get a recycling bin, you'd see the recycling use go up. As it is, they fill it up, and they end up starting to throw things in the garbage. So I say: switch it. Make them pay more for garbage bins, which you otherwise would have made them pay for recycling bins.

[1535]

           Tax breaks on energy-efficient purchases. We can make energy-efficient purchases something people are aware of and that they get an economic recompense from, not just because it's energy efficient. But up front would be best. I've seen devices where you can actually measure, as well, the carbon, in terms of cost, that your housing is putting into place or how much you're costing yourself in energy emissions. I'd like to see those types of devices brought into Canada and used, or at least education about them.

           When it comes to health, I've definitely seen it affect multiple friends of mine who just don't have family doctors because they haven't had the long-term status in B.C. that my friends had. One is very sick. She couldn't even get treatment because she didn't have a family doctor. She couldn't find a family doctor because there were none taking people.

           Secondly, even though you do have a family doctor and you're on a surgical waiting list, you get dropped. When the doctors decided to close the surgical waiting rooms, one of my friends was directly affected by this. She had been on the waiting list so long that the chances were rising for her to no longer be able to afford to have children with the problem she was having.

           I think we need to take a look at people who are on the waiting list. For those whose conditions get more serious over time, triage them and have them done first. Put that initial outlay out there to get them surgery first, because they end up costing us over the long run with longer-term post-surgical visits, with greater effects to them. If we can get them in there and out of there faster for something that becomes a growing problem, then it costs us less in the long run. I really believe we need to target patients who have that problem.

           Another thing we need to think about is federal transfer payments, because we as British Columbians…. A lot of us end up moving here upon retirement. However, this isn't a workforce that can support itself. These are workforces that have paid out their taxes to other provinces. They come here on a reduced income, and we're supposed to pay, as the younger generation, for these people who paid their taxes to other provinces.

           I support federal transfer payments to our health care system because the aging population is what takes more money. So I support us in that. I don't know how much provincially you can do about that, but at least the thought is there in your provincial people as well.

           When it comes to educational curriculum, it's not catching up with the needs and the demands of today. If we can find a way — especially around the environment, environmental studies — to make the educational curriculum match up with what the industry wants, we'll have a more effective workforce. We'll have industries coming to us to give us more money because we've got a workforce that works for them the way they want it to.

           With institutions like BCIT you can work with this more. I'm a BCIT student myself. However, with universities, their curriculums are far more rigid, and it takes a lot more to change.

           In order to have doctors, we need to cultivate our own doctors. Young mothers need choices in education, and one of their perfect choices would be in health care, because mothers being what they are…. However, they need free day care to offset the costs of education, to be able to take that step in order for them to be the next doctors in B.C.

           I'm going to skip over a few points. You'll get my presentation later.

           Larger debt loads. When it comes to education, students are taking on larger debt loads and maxing out at $40,000. How much does it cost to be a doctor nowadays? It costs more than that. If we need people to study correctly and dedicate themselves to being good doctors, we need to look at what they really need in terms of a loan in order to get that in place, because $40,000 is quite low.

           In terms of industry, I think the environment is an emerging industry, and I'm really happy with my government for supporting those initiatives. We just need to keep supporting that.

           I have one last thing. I'll probably run through this really fast. Social housing — I think it's really necessary. I'd like you to keep funding in that and then also isolate in social housing people who need more help healthwise, etc. I've got a couple of friends, and my family history itself…. Health care preventatively should be concentrated on families, not just the person who's sick.

[1540]

           For instance, my friend just had a heart attack at 31. His mother died when she was 36. That left a family of one father and three boys, so you can imagine that there wasn't much care to their diet and exercise and well-being.

           If we concentrated on taking not just one person who's currently sick and giving them medical information on health but the whole family, you'd have a more supportive structure and possibly more results for the person who's sick.

           In conclusion, I'd like to say thank you. There are good things you've done as the Liberal government, which I'm really happy about. I hope it can continue.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Diane, for the range of ideas.

           H. Bloy: Thanks for your presentation. You put a lot in there.

           D. Heitmann: I did. I'm sorry. It's at the back, but you'll get it soon.

           H. Bloy: What are you taking at BCIT?

[ Page 1589 ]

           D. Heitmann: I'm taking computer systems technology with the option in bachelor's, and network administration. I previously graduated with a diploma so that I could go out and start working. Now slowly but surely, juggling it with my job, which has a lot of travel involved, I'm taking the bachelor's.

           R. Lee: Thank you for the presentation. You mentioned a personal vehicle, and if it's greater than 500 kilograms, that kind of an increment, extra tax should be put in. How much do you think should be surcharged on those weights?

           D. Heitmann: I think it has to depend on new vehicles and old vehicles. For new vehicles is specifically what I was thinking about.

           What I think would be acceptable is an amount that maybe covers half of what gas purchases would be for a year — so maybe $500 per 500 kilogram increments. I think that would be fair. If you're buying a new car, you should be considering this.

           If you're going to be looking at the incentives going the other way, perhaps we should be thinking about going downward in increments as well.

           R. Lee: A lot of people actually prefer incentives instead of a penalty.

           D. Heitmann: I was reading up on the UN intergovernmental…. You know; they just got the Nobel prize today, the panel on climate change from the UN.

           One of the things you're going to get in the handout from me — it's starred at the back — is that technology by itself will not do unless there is a pricing framework that ensures that low-carbon technologies are developed and disseminated on a large scale. Incentives for technology development, a price on carbon, are absolutely crucial.

           If they're the Nobel prize winners, I think they got something right. This was a speech to the UN very recently by the chairman of that panel.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Thanks very much, Diane, for your presentation.

           That concludes that segment. The next segment is the open-mike portion. We have one person registered, Lynn Perrin of FairAll Consulting.

           Before you get started, the rules in this part — they've probably been explained to you a little — are slightly different. It's five minutes for presentation, so away you go.

           L. Perrin: I'm going to try my best to keep this to five minutes. I may be moving pretty fast, so you've got the document in front of you.

           Good afternoon. I'm Lynn Perrin. I'm from Abbotsford. At the invitation of the Minister of Finance and under the terms of reference of this committee, I'm submitting this brief. After reviewing the Financial Administration Act, the Balanced Budget 2007-2010 service plans for the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry of Attorney General, I've noticed a number of regulations or legislated requirements that have been breached with regard to how the governmentof B.C. has treated a small forest company from Fort Nelson from 1980 until today.

[1545]

           I'm bringing these breaches to your attention in Abbotsford because some of the $4.1 billion is owed to a local family. This is where John and Bernice Peterson, who are in their mid-80s and the senior principals of the small family-owned company, live. They relocated from Fort Nelson in 1986 in order to live 1,400 kilometres closer to their 25-plus court and Ministry of Forests administrative tribunal hearings.

           The Financial Administration Act, sections 32 and 33, states that a government worker cannot make a payment for goods or services unless they have received the goods and there is a correctly priced invoice in hand.

           The Financial Administration Act, B.C. reg 214-83, states that interest cannot be charged for accounts receivable unless there has been an invoice issued by the government of B.C. and the goods or services have been delivered.

           Section 62 of the Forest Act prevents interest from being charged on accounts receivable immediately upon cutting rights being suspended.

           There is mention of the comptroller general's powers in the Financial Administration Act. The comptroller general has the power to compel persons to produce records under their possession or control. The comptroller general also can issue directives respecting the methods by which the accounts of the government are kept.

           I'm using two definitions of "kept" in this brief. The first definition is how fees and payments are administered and recorded by, for instance, the Ministry of Forests. The second definition is how the original account documents are retained and stored by the Ministry of Forests, for example.

           In the core policy and procedures manual of the comptroller general, there are details regarding information management, which include the disposal of documents act. This law compels the Ministry of Forests to retain certain important documents. After a second FOI request I learned that the Ministry of Forests breached the law in 1989 by destroying all of the forest company account records for the Fort Nelson timber supply area, including the Petersons.

           In their 2007-2010 service plan, page 13, the Ministry of Forests states that one of their core business areas is compliance and enforcement, including revenue and pricing legislation that governs the removal and transportation of timber. One of their objectives is to continue making regulatory reform.

           I want to focus on point 3, page 21 of their plan, which talks about streamlining or reducing the number of steps and time by individuals or industry to comply with ministry regulations.

           The goal of citizen-centred delivery sets out to provide information and services in a simple, timely manner, no matter how many programs or ministries are 

[ Page 1590 ]

involved in the request. While I can easily access Ministry of Forests annual reports for every region in B.C. from 1911 until now with a click of my computer mouse, the Peterson family cannot get their stumpage and rental account records for 1980 to 1984.

           You may ask why this is important. They've been prevented from using their forest tenure since 1984, and the Ministry of Forests say they owe "about $3.5 million," with compounded interest included.

           The Peterson family has spent over $2 million in legal fees to have an audited statement of their forestry account examined by an impartial body without having to litigate. Two registered professional foresters who have reviewed over 10,000 B.C. government documents have found that it is the Ministry of Forests who owe the Petersons money.

           I have also reviewed the Ministry of Attorney General's service plan for 2007-2010 because they're the ministry that oversees all legal services for the government of B.C. One of their goals is to provide effective legal services enabling government to administer public affairs in accordance with the law.

           An objective that flows from this is high-quality, cost-effective legal services to government. Another objective is to be innovative in the use of alternatives to litigation for resolving disputes because "the government and the public benefit from increased efficiencies and administrative innovation in the delivery of legal services."

           The Peterson family has been requesting an alternative dispute mechanism, such as arbitration or mediation, for over 23 years now. For over 15 years the Ministry of Attorney General has contracted out legal services to Stephen Antle of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP. The Ministry of Attorney General has given complete decision-making authority to this contractor.

           So far, the cost to the Peterson family has been$2 million. It is most likely to be twice that amountfor the government of B.C., and the court costs are over $19,000. The resolution of this conflict is no closer than it was in 1986.

[1550]

           The Petersons are trying to have 1985 Supreme Court of B.C. and 1986 B.C. Court of Appeal rulings honoured by the Ministry of Forests. In reviewing the existing Ministry of Forests' documents, former Court of Appeal Justice Lambert finds that the Peterson plight is parallel to the Carrier and Soo cases. All three forest companies have had unlawfully inflated accounts from the Ministry of Forests, which uses unlimited fiscal resources and duress to avoid its legislated and financial obligations.

           When small forest companies deal with the Ministry of Forests, it is essential to ensure that section 4(e) of the Ministry of Forests Act is not breached, as happened to the Petersons. Section 4(e) guarantees fair and equal treatment of all forest companies, large and small. B.C. continues to need these innovative, small forest companies.

           The Ministry of Small Business and Revenue's service plan for 2007-2010, page 9, recognizes that there needs to be better access to information. The ministry asserts that small businesses depend upon their government to provide timely, high-quality services. For over 25 years this has not been the case for the Petersons' family business, so I encourage you to use a tiny part of the $4.1 billion surplus to resolve this 25-year injustice.

           I will be providing a more detailed written brief by the 19th of October, including Justice Lambert's findings.

           B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Great. Thanks very much. I let you go on a little bit longer, but I wanted you to be able to finish that. We look forward to your written brief, then, before the 19th.

           That's the last person we have signed up and present. With that, I'll declare this session adjourned.

          The committee adjourned at 3:52 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