2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

5:30 p.m.

Summit Room, Hudson Bay Lodge

3251 East Highway 16, Smithers, B.C.

Present: Randy Hawes, MLA (Chair); Bruce Ralston, MLA (Deputy Chair); Robin Austin, MLA; Dave S. Hayer, MLA; John Horgan, MLA; Richard T. Lee, MLA; John Rustad, MLA; Diane Thorne, MLA

Unavoidably Absent: Harry Bloy, MLA; John Yap, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 5:45 p.m.

2. Opening statements by Randy Hawes, MLA, Chair

3.The following witnesses appeared before the Committee and answered questions:

4. The Committee adjourned at 7:20 p.m. to the call of the Chair.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on
Finance and Government Services

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Issue No. 74

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 1769 ]

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16, 2008

The committee met at 5:45 p.m.

[R. Hawes in the chair.]

R. Hawes (Chair): Good afternoon, everybody. I'm Randy Hawes, and I'm the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. I'd like to welcome you all here and thank you for participating in this. Sometimes small crowds are actually mightier.

The purpose of this meeting is to comply with legislation that requires the Finance Minister to release a fiscal forecast and a budget consultation paper by September 15 of each year. The paper provides a description of the major economic and policy assumptions underlying the fiscal forecast, as well as identifying key issues that need to be addressed by the public in preparation for the next budget.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is charged with carrying out public consultations on the minister's behalf. This is an all-party committee and is required to report back to the Legislative Assembly by not later than November 15. If you'd like to review the consultation paper, there are copies available at the registration desk, and you're free to take them and read them as you wish.

There's information on how you can make a presentation to the committee available on the website www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. I'd remind you that any input the committee receives in writing or electronic form is given the same consideration as the oral presentations that will be made here today. Due to the recently announced federal election, we have expanded the deadline to receive submissions to Friday, October 24.

Today we are going to hear from a number of presenters who have preregistered with the Clerk of Committees. The presentation time is 15 minutes, and we recommend that if you can keep your presentation to around ten minutes, it allows us five minutes for questions and answers. If you wish, though, to use the whole time with your presentation, that's a choice you have. I will remind you when you get to about ten minutes, and then I'll remind you again when you have two minutes left, if you're continuing to make your presentation.

At the end of the session, if there are those here who have not registered but do wish to make a presentation, we will have an open-mike session. The presenters there are given no longer than five minutes, and there is no question period.

I'll now ask the other members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with Richard.

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

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

D. Thorne: Diane Thorne, MLA, Coquitlam-Maillardville.

J. Rustad: John Rustad, MLA for Prince George–Omineca and chair of our northern caucus.

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

R. Austin: Robin Austin, MLA for Skeena.

J. Horgan: John Horgan, MLA, Malahat–Juan de Fuca, which is just outside of Victoria.

R. Hawes (Chair): And also joining us today, I'm pleased to introduce our Clerk, Kate Ryan-Lloyd. On the registration table is Stephanie Hansen, who will gladly, if you haven't already registered, register you. Also, we have Hansard Services, who are manned today by Michael Baer and Polly Vaughan. They are recording and will be preparing a written transcript of today's meeting. Today's meeting is also broadcast live on the Internet.

With that, we'll call our first witnesses, who are Hans Berndorff and Eileen Benedict.

If you'd like to come on up. Welcome.

Presentations

E. Benedict: I'd just like to thank you for this opportunity to present this evening. The Stuart-Nechako regional hospital district is a small hospital district in the north here. We have a large land base with very little taxation and population. Because of our distances from other facilities, it does make it necessary that we do have the opportunity for health care in our region.

I am going to turn it over to the treasurer of the regional district, who is Hans Berndorff. I didn't introduce myself, I guess. I'm Eileen Benedict, and I am the chair of the Bulkley-Nechako regional district and a member of the Stuart-Nechako regional hospital district.

[1750]

I'll turn it over to Hans to present our issues that we want to hear tonight.

H. Berndorff: Thank you for this opportunity. What we'd like to talk about today is the cost-sharing formula between hospital districts and the province.

I'm just going to briefly describe the traditional funding model, the challenges we have in northern rural communities, the need for local hospitals in areas with smaller populations, some examples of the challenges in the Stuart-Nechako regional hospital district, the impact on our communities and, finally, some positive actions that we think would be helpful.

Historically, regional hospital districts have funded 40 percent of the cost of new hospital facilities. The
[ Page 1770 ]
legislation says that these contributions by regional hospital districts are technically voluntary. However, the health authorities tell us that they're counting on the 40 percent funding from hospital districts in their capital planning process. The implied message from that is that without the 40 percent regional hospital district funding, some of these projects will have to be deferred or curtailed in some way.

There's very little doubt in our minds that the availability of the 40 percent regional hospital district contribution is an important factor when the health authorities and the Ministry of Health rank their projects.

The challenge in rural communities. In urban regional hospital districts with large tax bases, they're likely to be able to afford their 40 percent because they have quite a bit more revenue available, due to the large tax bases. Small rural hospital districts, however, do not necessarily have the tax base to afford a 40 percent contribution, particularly for large projects like hospital replacements that are quite expensive.

This is made quite a bit worse in hospital districts where there's a large geographical area and relatively small populations. Travel distances are quite long, and in order to make health care available at a reasonable distance from the home, the cost of hospital facilities on a per-capita basis is higher in rural areas than it is in urban areas.

The resulting lack of economies of scale makes hospitals more expensive in areas with small populations. This, combined with a small tax base consisting largely of rural taxpayers — very little industrial support — makes it difficult for hospital districts in rural areas to afford the 40 percent contribution.

There is a need, though, for hospitals in areas with less population. Of course, nobody will argue that residents in less populated areas deserve the same quality of health care as those in more urban areas. It is recognized, however, that having local access to specialized critical health care isn't always affordable or practical, given our limited resources. So we do recognize that there is a need for regional health centres, regional facilities that serve a larger area.

However, basic health care is still a must for local communities so that travel away from family and support networks is minimized to the extent possible except for situations where those specialties are required.

We understand the Ministry of Health has goals surrounding preventative health care, and we believe that these are very important for the long-term success of the health care system, particularly in the rising-cost environment that we're under now. However, these are long-term goals with long-term outcomes that will affect us far out into the future, and hospitals in our communities are needed today.

[1755]

Just by way of example, I'll describe the situation in the Stuart-Nechako regional hospital district. We currently have two aging hospital facilities that must be replaced now. To support that, the Ministry of Health did their review three or four years ago on a provincewide basis on the state of acute care facilities. The hospitals in Burns Lake and Fort St. James were among the worst in the province in terms of their condition. In fact, one of them required upgrades to the extent of around 65 or 75 percent of replacement cost just to get them back to normal standard operating condition.

So the health authority recommends their replacement, and it has included them in their capital planning process. However, they also said they're counting on 40 percent contribution from the Stuart-Nechako hospital district in order to make that happen. But we have said that because of our circumstances, a 40 percent share is not reasonable for our hospital district.

We're already one of the highest-taxed hospital districts in the province. Our taxes in 2001 were $384,000, and they've climbed on average of about 50 percent per year to get to $1.3 million today. Our tax rate is 61 cents per thousand.

We've been contributing to a capital reserve because we know these hospital replacements are coming, but without letting our tax rates spiral out of control, we've been able to contribute only about $3 million to those reserves to date.

To replace these facilities, we're told by the health authority, will cost about $43 million in the current projection, and 40 percent of that is $17.2 million. So you can see the $3 million doesn't really make a dent.

Could we borrow to pay for this? Yes, we could. But in our analysis, in order to pay our 40 percent with borrowing, we'd have to borrow for 25 years in order to keep the tax rate for servicing that debt at a reasonable level. Within 14 years, we're told by the health authorities, the remaining acute care facilities in our regional districts will have to be replaced as well. We wouldn't have any reserves at that time, and we would have to again borrow well before the old debt is repaid, so that our debt levels would be starting to spiral out of control.

What is the impact on our communities? First of all, these old substandard facilities are seriously compromised in their ability to provide adequate support for quality health care. This makes it difficult to recruit doctors and nursing staff, and this in turn makes economic development quite difficult, as business leaders and employees choose to locate in communities that have more modern health care facilities.

In fact, when we look at economic development decisions, when people choose to live in an area there are several key variables that they use. One of them is: what's the quality of health care? What's the quality of education, and what are the recreation opportunities for their family? So health care is near the top of the list.

Economic development and diversification are extremely important, particularly in communities that have been
[ Page 1771 ]
affected by the mountain pine beetle. The communities that have been most affected by the mountain pine beetle are in the Stuart-Nechako regional hospital district.

In addition, both Burns Lake and Fort St. James are experiencing rapidly aging demographics as young people choose to move out of the community for career opportunities that aren't available locally, while aging baby boomers stay in the community. These communities also have relatively high first nations populations. Both of these factors affect the demand for health care, causing an increase in demand that the deteriorating facilities are no longer able to provide.

What are the steps that we think are needed? First of all, the province, through the Ministry of Health and the health authorities, has a responsibility to provide quality health care to all residents of B.C.

[1800]

According to a Ministry of Health cost-sharing review that was done in 2003, the health authorities must be unfettered by cost-sharing requirements in their ability to provide health care services regardless of the fiscal capacity of the region. Therefore, it is imperative, we believe, that the province make additional funds available for hospital replacements in regional hospital districts that have reached or exceeded their fiscal capacity because of high costs combined with a low tax base and deteriorating economic conditions, such as those caused by the mountain pine beetle.

With that, I want to thank you for this opportunity to address the committee, and we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have.

J. Rustad: Thank you for the presentation. I have had several meetings, obviously, with you and with the regional district with regards to this issue, particularly from a Fort St. James perspective, because that's in my current riding, but also from Burns Lake.

Those two facilities — there's no question they're key. The travel distances and in particular the service areas that they provide are critical. The question I have with regards to the hospitals and the 40 percent component…. There are two ways that can be solved. One is the possibility of more revenue to the regional district so that they could afford the 40 percent coverage from a loan. The second is capital from the province or the health authority to help cover off the 40 percent side.

I guess the question I have is: have there been any examples anywhere else in the province where the 40 percent was waived or reduced with regards to other capital projects?

Then with regards to the longer term, when you're looking at 14 years out and needing additional facilities, how much are you going to be able to put away without…? Let's say the 40 percent wasn't there, wasn't a requirement. Say the $3 million that you have available goes into this project, and the rest of it would be covered off. How much would you be able to save for that period of time, 14 years from now, to meet the capital needs at that stage?

What I'm getting at is: is this a one-time issue between two hospitals that need to be done, or is this an ongoing issue because of the particular positioning and size of the regional district? I guess there are a couple of questions in there.

H. Berndorff: First of all, regarding the timing of the issues, this is a particularly onerous situation now because we have two that need to be replaced at once. We've looked at a funding model that said if we could reduce the amount of capital that we have to provide, then we could borrow what's left.

We could contribute our $3 million and borrow what's left up to, say, 20 percent instead of 40 percent, and we could then without onerous tax rates be able to reduce the term of our debt down to ten or 12 years. That would then enable us to start fresh when the remaining facilities have to be replaced. But that 20 percent threshold seems to be kind of key in terms of getting there.

R. Hawes (Chair): Can I ask you…? There is, as you know, minor capital and major capital. Have you got a problem with the minor capital side?

H. Berndorff: So far we have not had a problem with the minor capital side. As I've explained, our tax rates have increased quite substantially. Some of that has been minor capital, and some of it has been major capital. Mostly, though, it has been to start to put aside money for the future.

R. Hawes (Chair): For the major capital.

H. Berndorff: For the major capital projects.

R. Austin: As you know, I live just west of here. This is a concern or complaint that I hear about from other regional hospital districts in terms of the inability to fund to this level and to cope with what has been an economic decline in a large part of northern B.C. I'm sure John, as the chair of the northern caucus, probably hears this.

Have you discussed this with other regional districts in the area to see whether you can go forward and make presentations as a group of different regional hospital districts?

H. Berndorff: That discussion has not yet taken place. Our circumstances are a little bit different than our neighbouring hospital districts.

R. Austin: To what extent?

H. Berndorff: Just in terms of the timing of what has to be done. The Peace, for example, has quite a large tax
[ Page 1772 ]
base even though they're rural like we are. They have an opportunity to generate quite a bit more revenue than we can.

[1805]

R. Austin: So it's largely an economic issue, really, as well — the fact that you represent an area of economic decline over the last few years as opposed to, say, the Peace, which is booming because of oil and gas.

H. Berndorff: Correct, yes.

J. Horgan: Thank you very much for the presentation, Hans. My question flows from the questions that we asked as a committee last year to witnesses, which was: with a surplus in the budget to the end of the fiscal year, what would your priorities be? The questions were: would you reduce taxes, would you reduce debt, or would you make strategic investments?

This is a leading question. We're into day 2, and I haven't asked a leading question until now, so I know the Chair will be happy with me for that. But were you given those three opportunities — reduce taxation, reduce debt or strategic investments — with the, I believe, $1.8 billion in surplus we have with unanticipated oil and gas revenues, what would you do with that money, Hans?

H. Berndorff: It's not really my place to answer that. I mean, that's more for the elected officials to answer.

R. Hawes (Chair): That is the question we are asking on this tour.

E. Benedict: For our region right now, our health facilities are in very bad shape. This is of prime concern to us, and it's a priority for our communities. Last night I was at a meeting in Burns Lake. The doctor there is still referring to a leak in the operating room. They have a bucket sitting on the operating room table. Now, it's very difficult for one to hold the bucket while the other operates. This has been going on for years. They've had that there for two years. We can't even get the roof repaired.

Do we want to keep putting money into this failing infrastructure, or are we going to just save it and have a new facility? Right now the community wants to see a new facility, because it's not only that problem. There's mould throughout. The staff are not well. They have to take days off so that they can recover. They come back. They again break out in a rash from the mould that's in the hospital. These are examples of the facilities that they're trying to work in. How can you attract doctors and medical staff to these facilities?

For us, just in the decline of the area with the mountain pine beetle and everything that's happening around us, our medical facilities are very important. If we're going to look at what to do with a surplus, we had it suggested that we'd contribute 20 percent. Our hospital district was quite excited about that. That was great news. That was not actually the case as they came back. Northern Health had to retract that, but that would be a solution that we could live with if we had to contribute the 20 percent.

R. Hawes (Chair): We've already gone a little bit over the time, but thank you very much for your presentation. Certainly, that's going to go into the hopper for the considerations that we're going to make, and hopefully, things will work out.

The next presenters will be the College of New Caledonia, Lakes District campus, and school district 91, Nechako Lakes — Lynn Synotte and Eugene Marks.

L. Synotte: I'm a project planner. I'm a lead for marketing, recruitment and continuing education for the college.

Well, it was sort of a good segue listening to the hospital. What we are also doing is looking for support for infrastructure in our area, in the school district and the College of New Caledonia area. We are here tonight to show you a partnership model that we're fairly sure is going to work, and it'll provide a cost-effective way of providing trades training in the north and in our region.

Eugene is the director of instruction for school district 91. We're going to divide and conquer the presentation.

[1810]

E. Marks: It's a pleasure to be here tonight to talk about our vision. We have a longstanding partnership that has demonstrated success with changing the lives of adults and young people in our communities.

The proposal that we have is that we would like to see the creation of what we're calling multi-use transformable trades industry training facilities in our four largest communities: Burns Lake, Vanderhoof, Fraser Lake and Fort St. James. The purpose of that is to be able to provide industry-standard training in our communities.

We have created in our communities what we're calling an alliance for trades and technical training. What we're looking to do is to be able to renovate existing buildings in these four communities so that we'll be able to have these training facilities.

The facilities would be used by CNC, by school district 91, by industry and by community members as well as first nations communities. It would allow us to share equipment and to share resources. Purchasing and renovating existing buildings, whenever possible, supports the local economies and reduces empty buildings. Unfortunately, there are far too many empty buildings in our communities.
[ Page 1773 ]

Right now we lack permanent trades facilities. Our schools are too small in order to have industry-standard trades-training facilities, and the college campuses are also too small to have those trades-training facilities. In the past what's happened is that the Prince George campus has been the hub for trades training. It's becoming increasingly difficult for young people and for adults in our community to uproot and to go to Prince George or to other larger communities to receive that training. Our model proposes that we do that in our local communities, helping to sustain our local economies.

As I've said before, we have a strong history of partnerships with many institutions — not only with CNC and the school district, but we've also worked with BCIT and other institutions in providing programs.

We run, in our district, some outstanding programs that have been modelled provincewide — things like project heavy-duty, project agriculture, project junior trades. These are trades initiatives that are helping to expose students to new and exciting careers. However, it's only with the college that we're able to offer proper trades-training programs.

We are not able to hire adequate instructors in our school system. It would be impossible in our small communities to have enough qualified teachers to teach those trades programs. There is a need to rotate the trades programs from community to community. There would be saturation if we selected one community and said that that's going to be the community for mechanics and another one for carpentry. The market would be very quickly saturated, and there wouldn't be employment for those people in those communities.

So our notion is that those facilities would be built in such a way that would allow the equipment to rotate between the facilities, offering the programs to as many people as possible.

L. Synotte: So why are we doing it? We're doing it because we want to respond to the local, regional and provincial trades shortages. We want to do it because our communities want more local options. We would like to do it because we've got a whole bunch of forest workers out there that need to be retrained. We've got a definite need to stimulate growth, stability and sustainability in our area, as well as diversify our economy.

Our partnership. We've already found out that it increases student numbers, which ensures success of our programs. In small rural communities student numbers are usually quite low.

CNC has a history of providing wraparound support for students. Because we're a smaller community college, we're able to offer things like adult education if people are faltering with their math. We have a culinary arts program which provides lunches and food for people that are having problems perhaps paying tuition or keeping up with their living expenses while they're in school.

[1815]

We also have found that it's a benefit because we've been able to provide dual credit. While people are taking their trades training, they can also get their high school education. So it's a real benefit to high school students as well as older students.

We're also hoping that by having a well-trained workforce, we can attract more employers, which will further diversify our economy, and that it'll stop the brain drain of our youth who are going to the larger centres and not returning home. They're going for education, but they're often staying for employment in the larger areas. Currently we're losing a lot of our youth to the oil and gas industry in Alberta.

Learning relevancy for youth — or for students, actually. The non-academic students — where do they go? They go into trades; they do the hands-on. So the learning relevancy is certainly a reason why we're doing it.

Our demographics. We've got a population of 26,500 in our area. We've got 60 percent rural population. You might have heard that Telus just did away with analog, and that's also impacted us — secondary, though. We've got 33 percent aboriginal population in our area. That's 13 first nations communities. We've got schools and college campuses in all four communities. So we're there, and we're on the ground. We're already working with these people.

We have a very low school completion rate, and you'll see that statistic in our handout. We have the track record — school district 91 and CNC. We've already got a proven track record. We've been working together; we have successes.

We've got the capacity, but one thing we found is that when we offer trades training, we have to keep finding facilities. Every time we find a facility, we have to renovate the facility, and we have to find the equipment. So we're reinventing the wheel every time we offer trades training, and it doesn't make sense. If we can partner like this and rotate the trades training, we can also share the equipment. It just makes sense.

We have the experience. We have significant partnerships within the community. As I said, we're on the ground, and we've already been working with these people.

That's it, unless you'd like to add something.

E. Marks: I'd just like to point out that we do have signed agreements with the village councils in our area, with first nations bands and with the regional district, who are all supporters of this notion of an alliance for trades and technical training.

It wasn't really difficult to get people to sign on and to want to work with us. We have employers in that
[ Page 1774 ]
group who find it difficult when they have to send their folks away to Vancouver for training. They lose a number of them who will move into other jobs, so they see the benefit of having that training in their local community.

L. Synotte: I think this might even be a model that could sort of emanate provincewide, and it's a real cost saver, I think.

R. Hawes (Chair): Well, you've done very well. You've made a very compelling case in only eight minutes instead of the ten, so now we'll go for the questions.

J. Rustad: Thank you very much for the presentation. It's great to see you here and particularly your passion on this issue. It's an issue that I have a lot of passion for as well.

I have a couple of questions. CNC has had a mobile program that it has tried out. I'm just wondering how that has been working. What kinds of numbers have you seen that have been involved in that? As well, the school district, I know, has been pushing the agenda to try to get those sorts of opportunities.

Have you had the opportunity to be able to take advantage of the ASIP program and whether or not that could be…? How well could that be married, I guess, with what CNC is trying to do in the mobile program? Then tie that into…. I am assuming that those answers are positive around that and that model being moved to the other communities.

How many different trades are you looking at trying to put in place? Are you looking at just a few trades, or what kind of range are you looking at over time?

E. Marks: Do you want to answer the mobile piece?

[1820]

L. Synotte: Yes. We actually did get funding to do a mobile welding trades training. So far Fort St. James has kept it up there. Actually, because of ITA funding, we've managed to open another one in Burns Lake. So we've had 32 people enrolled in the one in Fort St. James, and we have another offering starting October 20, which is going to be 16 people.

Again, we have had to, in both communities, renovate facilities and buy equipment. It just would be so much more cost-effective if we could have that building ourselves.

We've been rotating our culinary arts programs from Fort St. James and Burns Lake as well, and we've been rotating our carpentry programs. We've been rotating, actually, from Quesnel to us to Vanderhoof and up to Fort St. James. So we've managed to do it. But again, we're outfitting and renovating every time we go to a different community.

E. Marks: In terms of the ACE IT funding, yes, we've been able to access ACE IT funding. It has allowed us, on our front, to be able to purchase some equipment that we've been able to use and to share with CNC. We have a very small mobile carpentry trailer that was used by CNC instructors. We had four students in the class, and then there were eight other adults.

We have the on-the-ground work, but it is the transforming of facilities that is the difficult thing. Right now the welding program in Fort St. James is operating out of a tent structure, so we're looking for something that would be more permanent.

L. Synotte: We've rented an old Tweedsmuir Trucking building.

D. Thorne: Obviously, I don't have John's superior knowledge of the region, but in just looking and listening to what I've heard from you and looking at the slides, is that the total cost of the program that you're wanting us to take an interest in — $2 million?

It's the real estate and renovating. It's the buying and renovating. The operational funding is already in place. Between the two of you, if you had these buildings, you would actually save money over the long term.

E. Marks: Absolutely.

D. Thorne: And you have the operational money. So you're not talking about any more than $2 million here.

L. Synotte: Correct.

D. Thorne: Yeah, because it's a one-time-only. It's a capital cost — right?

L. Synotte: It is.

D. Thorne: Okay. Well, thank you. Very interesting.

R. Lee: We understand that in this region the mining industry probably will be coming up. What kinds of trades do you think would be beneficial in this district?

L. Synotte: Certainly most of the trades, like millwrighting, any sort of…. We actually have some programs. We've just obtained funding to do simulator training. The simulator training is in excavators. The forest equipment operator is one, but that's sort of on the outs now. We've got the front-end loader, and we have the heavy-haul trucks, 777s. But certainly there would be the welding, the carpentry, the usual trades that you would need in the mine.

What we would like to do is be prepared for when the mines do come in and do open up so that we have employment for our local people.
[ Page 1775 ]

E. Marks: Certainly our welding program in Fort St. James has really benefited from the potential of the mines opening in that area, and people are saying: "This is something that we can do." It filled very quickly.

L. Synotte: We've also been working with Northwest Community College to offer mining exploration in our area as well. We've partnered with them.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): I understand from listening to Bob Simpson, who's the MLA for Cariboo North and is sort of at the other end of the College of New Caledonia system, that part of the problem in offering trades programs on small campuses is that the per-pupil funding formula doesn't enable you to meet the higher cost that's required.

So I'm not clear from your presentation how this program, which I think I…. You've made a very excellent case for it, and I would support it. But how are you able to get around that problem in the funding formula for colleges?

[1825]

L. Synotte: Well, certainly this would help, because the ITA funding is targeted funding, and so it's tied to students. What's been happening is that there's very little money available for the administration of the programs or for a lot of the equipment or for the rental.

Actually, it would put us in a better situation to offer a program if we already had the facility in place and we weren't running around every time we had to set up a trades program. For instance, this time we had to put three-phase power into the rental place that we got. Now, there would be an expense that we wouldn't have had to incur.

E. Marks: The other side of that is that without our partnership, neither of us would be able to fully run these programs. CNC has a difficult time filling all of their seats, and as a school district we would have a difficult time filling all the seats required. Working in partnership, we're able to fill those seats.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): So that's the innovation, then?

E. Marks: Yeah, the Nechako Lakes campuses operate on the high end in terms of seats in the College of New Caledonia's region. They set the standard for putting butts in seats.

R. Hawes (Chair): Okay. Your presentation has been, I think, very compelling. From all of us, I know, congratulations on — and thank you for — working cooperatively. I think all of us would agree that not enough post-secondary and public school districts work in partnership like you do. Very good. Thanks.

Our next presenter is Michael Mehr.

Welcome, Michael. As I think you know, you have 15 minutes. I'll tell you when you're at ten. If you want to use the whole 15 for the presentation, that's fine. I'll tell you when you're at two. If there's time for questions, great. The floor is yours.

M. Mehr: I wish I had a partner to share some of the pressure with here.

My name is Michael Mehr. I'm a chartered accountant here in Smithers with the public accounting firm of Edmison Mehr. Good evening, everyone. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you.

Part of what I'd like to talk about are issues that are relevant to CAs, chartered accountants, throughout the province. Other thoughts are my own, which I feel are fairly representative of people in the north.

Some quick background. As I'm sure you're aware, there's been a major downturn in the forest sector that has really impacted our communities. Offsetting that to a degree is a fairly strong mining sector. It's very interesting to look at it community by community.

Some communities, like Smithers, are doing actually fairly well because the mining impact is so significant. Other communities aren't seeing the mining dollars being spent in their community, and they're very hard hit by the forestry downturn.

When I look at this as a business person, I'm thinking that one of the most important things we do in the north is that we continue to diversify our economy. A lot of people are excited about mining, and that's terrific. But going from one resource-based activity to two doesn't meet a very full definition of diversity, in my mind. So it's terrific for now, but we must continue to do work in diversification.

Now's a good time for us, when the economy is strong within parts of the region, to take the opportunity, while things are still good, to really look ahead to see where we could be diversifying further.

There are some infrastructure projects that have happened in recent years which really help us be competitive in the north and to diversify our economy. These include the Prince Rupert container port; the Smithers runway extension — I hope you've had a chance to look at it; it's well underway over there; and high-speed Internet. You can't downplay the impact of that. And there are probably further benefits to be had there. There's an overpass being constructed up to the ski hill. The tourism opportunities that flow from that are tremendous.

My point here is that any investment in infrastructure provides us here in the north with the tools to look at other industries.

[1830]

Where I see real opportunities for us — and hopefully projects are forthcoming — are light manufacturing;
[ Page 1776 ]
natural resource education — very excited about having the resources out there, as instead of just consuming them, we have an opportunity to study them and use them over and over again in that process; tourism; and amenity migration. All of these are real opportunities for us to diversify our economy.

The point of all this is that I look for the provincial government to continue to play an integral role in assisting us in achieving these by investing in our infrastructure.

Other northern issues. The electrification of Highway 37 is paramount. It's so important. I completely understand why it hasn't happened yet. I completely understand why the province can't run up there and just foot the bill and make it happen. It needs industry partners, and it's really unfortunate that that fell apart last year for us.

My comment here is that I continue to look to the province to lead, to bring all the possible partners to the table as often as possible — industry and communities and first nations — and really try and make that happen. It's a number one priority up here. I can't stress that enough.

Carbon tax. You're probably going to hear a little bit about this in the north. I do have some comments with respect to it. I'm actually fairly interested in tax policy, which is kind of a nerdy thing.

R. Hawes (Chair): For a chartered accountant, that's strange.

M. Mehr: Yeah. And I really think that, as a society, it would be beneficial to move towards more…. To put it very simply: tax bad things; provide incentive for good things. The income tax system doesn't necessarily achieve that.

Here, in the carbon tax, that's essentially what's happening on the taxation side. We have an activity that we would like to reduce. It's bad to do it. Let's put a tax on it. So I understand and agree with it in principle.

It's going to be a huge challenge to northerners because we have very little opportunity to avoid the tax or reduce the impact of the tax. We have limited public transportation options, and we have large distances between our communities. We will be challenged to find opportunities to reduce carbon emissions. The reality in that is we'll be contributing significantly to this tax.

My main concern with respect to this tax is: then what happens? The province collects this tax, which I feel is appropriate, but I'm…. Perhaps my words are too stern, but I do feel that it's rather unfair that northern B.C. is contributing such a large amount, which is beyond their control. The revenue-neutral component returns the money to all British Columbians in an even amount, including ones who do have a lot more flexibility about how much carbon tax they pay because they have opportunity to make other choices, more so than us.

So in looking at that, I suspect the reason this has happened this way…. It's probably fairly straightforward for people to understand, but it's also fairly straightforward to administer. Here's how much we collected in tax, and here's the number of British Columbians. Great. We divide by one into the other and turn the computer on, and out go the cheques. I can understand that's a low-cost method of returning the money to British Columbians, yet I don't think it's fair to people in resource-based regions of the province.

The way I kind of look at this and think is: well, it would be terrific if some of this tax went to projects that actually reduce carbon emissions. It seems like we've gone partway there, but we really could make this tax work a lot more effectively for us by furthering technologies which can reduce the consumption of fossil fuels or by funding ventures that result in fewer emissions.

Provide incentives to British Columbians to make the right choice when they're looking at their projects. A perfect example — I'm really pleased with this. We have a Northwest Premium Meat Co-op. It's a small meat-packing plant in Telkwa, our neighbouring community here. Cattle that are raised in the valley are put on a truck. They might go ten kilometres, or they might go 50 kilometres — probably not much more than that. They arrive at the Telkwa plant, are processed here and then sold to the local communities.

The cattle trucks that have been going to Alberta, emitting carbon all the way, and coming back when the meat products come back to us…. A lot of them aren't doing that anymore, because here's a project that's being manufactured here, and another good example of diversity that I'm very excited about.

[1835]

Having said that, though, it's a small plant, and they're competing against large producers. They've had some difficulties in making ends meet to get up and started. I look at this carbon tax as an opportunity to say: "Yeah, you're removing a lot of trucks from the highway, and that's really desirable. Here's some form of assistance if it's required." I throw this out as an example where I can see this tax working absolutely beautifully, with really positive results.

Another example locally — and I just throw it out there in theory. We have Blue Pearl Mining, a moly mine under a glacier, and they're talking about trucking all the ore over to Endako. We're going to have so many trucks on the road. I know it's a decision to do that, as opposed to milling it here, just because of the way it works out for cost. But it's such an undesirable business choice for the community to have the trucks emitting all that carbon.
[ Page 1777 ]

Again, possibly, here's another scenario where if there wasn't such a cost difference between the two, maybe they'd make the right choice for our environment, and maybe the carbon tax revenues can play some kind of role there.

I understand there are huge administration costs towards getting that specific with respect to doling out or spending this revenue. That being said, maybe a revenue-neutral approach based on regions would be a little fairer to everyone in B.C.

Quickly, then, the chartered accounting side. Taxation issues. Harmonize the GST and the PST. It would be so beneficial. All business in B.C. deals with two sets of taxes, complex rules, separate auditors contacting businesses. It really is a significant cost to B.C. business, one that, without a lot of complexity, can be avoided.

The other aspect of this that's not always hit when this topic is discussed is that the legislation is so complex. Businesses invest so much time at a senior manager level to understand the taxes, to reduce their business risk with respect to these taxes. If they're having to go outside their business to hire consultants to make them comfortable with the reporting requirements, that's very expensive for them.

Clearly, to me, one incredibly complex tax is far less burdensome than two. There are challenges with respect to harmonizing, but I don't believe they're insurmountable. There are other methods to achieve policy direction where decisions have been made with respect to PST. The children's clothing example, where it's exempt from PST, but it's taxable under GST…. Perhaps there's some way to deal with that through the B.C. refundable sales tax credit on people's personal income tax returns.

There are certainly issues, and I believe they can be dealt with. I do believe the province can save a fair amount of money to not have to administer this second tax.

The last comment that I have is with respect to being competitive in the tax between provinces. Alberta has set some very difficult, challenging levels of taxation for B.C. to be comparable to, but I do think it's incredibly important that we be comparable.

We don't have to be quite as strong, quite as low in all our tax rates, because B.C. is a much nicer place to live, and so we have that to our advantage. But they have stepped one ahead of us again. They've increased the small business deduction threshold to $500,000, and so have Ontario and Saskatchewan.

To be honest, up here in the north it's not a big issue, but provincially I do believe we want to stay close to what Alberta has available for business, especially with the TILMA in place, where businesses can be in Alberta and operate in B.C. fairly easily.

Thank you very much for your time.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much. We'll go to questions.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): First of all, I just wanted to recognize the MLA for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, Dennis MacKay, who's joined us here.

Welcome, Dennis. It's not surprising to see you here.

Thanks for the presentation. I appreciate the comments that you've made about the problems of harmonizing the GST and the PST regimes and the problems that ensue for businesses and individuals. I note that you say in your written comments that the revenue-neutral aspect of the provincial carbon tax is completely unfair to residents of northern British Columbia.

[1840]

Would it be fair to conclude from what you've said that you would oppose two carbon tax regimes in the province if there were a federal one to be imposed, that all the same problems that result from harmonizing GST and PST would result if there were two carbon tax regimes?

M. Mehr: If I was answering on behalf of most people I've spoken to, I would say the answer to your question is yes, I do believe it would be unfair if there were two. But my answer is going to be that I don't mind the tax; I just mind what happens to the tax once it's collected. If there are two taxes and if both are being well spent, are fair to the people who are paying the tax here in the north and are resulting in projects that can reduce emissions, then I think, unfortunately, great, bring on the second tax as well.

B. Ralston (Deputy Chair): Just so we're clear then, what you disagree with is what the minister calls the revenue-neutrality of the tax — in other words, it's not spent on the kinds of projects that you talk about.

M. Mehr: Well, twofold. I would prefer the tax revenues be spent on projects as opposed to returned to the population. But if that's not feasible, what I disagree with is the method…. Sorry. It's returned to the population provincewide. What I'd like to see is that it be revenue-neutral by region so that what northerners in B.C. contribute comes back to the north.

J. Rustad: Thank you for your presentation and in particular your comments around Highway 37 electrification and mining diversification in this area. There are also other possibilities as well. I think that's certainly something that we want to see happen. It's something that we've been trying to find ways to encourage, and we've also been looking for every opportunity possible, with those companies up in the corridor, to find a way to get that project moving ahead.

I wanted to touch on the carbon tax that you talked about. One of the things I have a fear on is if the money is to be spent on projects…. There was a program that was set up in the 1990s that was called…. Sorry. I've even forgotten the name of the program now, but it added a
[ Page 1778 ]
tax onto stumpage for harvesting trees. All that money was going to go back into programs to help enhance the forest industry. Well, eventually it went into general revenue, and only about 1/10 of it ever came back to the area, and there were all kinds of challenges about that, so I'm very leery about those kinds of programs.

With the revenue-neutrality issue, all the money that comes in certainly does get distributed back out. Your question around whether or not it should be regionally balanced….

The interesting statistic I've seen is that the average commute distance in the Lower Mainland is about eight kilometres, whereas the average distance up in the north, in our area, is about five kilometres. They actually use more carbon on a daily basis than we do, and similarly for heating. We heat more than they do down there, but they use natural gas for air conditioning. So their consumption on a per-capita basis for natural gas in the Lower Mainland is actually higher than it is for us in the north. I'm questioning, if it would be balanced regionally, whether we would actually come out ahead with that.

But the key, I think, with the carbon tax is that it makes people think about their carbon footprint, the things they use, and it's a way to…. Instead of paying it in personal income tax, they pay a portion of tax on their consumption of carbon, and they get that personal income tax reduction.

The question with regard to that is…. I'm just wondering, when you talk about the regional balance of that taxation, whether or not you've been able to drill down or look at those sorts of numbers to see what things would look like in terms of that balance. Quite frankly, I'm a little concerned, given the numbers that I have seen around, that we may actually come out on the short side of the stick.

M. Mehr: I don't have the data. I have a general perception from members of the community. But I believe you focused on the individual worker going to work. We have so much industry where long distances have to be travelled, so I think that certainly skews things towards the north. I don't have the data to support that.

I also know that the majority of everything we consume here travels a lot farther than anywhere else in the province to get here, unless it's coming in through Prince Rupert. Hopefully, more of that will happen. I think when you look beyond just what the individual employee does to get to work, I wouldn't be surprised if we're substantially higher here in the north for the amount of carbon tax paid.

[1845]

R. Hawes (Chair): We're pretty much out of time, Michael, so I'd thank you very much for your presentation.

One of the questions that's asked in the questionnaire is: for additional tax cuts from the carbon tax, what would you target? So I see your final comment about small business tax remaining competitive with Alberta, and I guess I'm taking it that you're suggesting that's one of the first things that we should be looking at — making sure we remain tax competitive with our neighbours. Would that be a fair statement?

M. Mehr: That is very important. I look forward to the next budget opportunity, where I do want to talk about health and what a large percentage of the budget that is, but obviously, I can't do that today.

R. Hawes (Chair): No, but you also have an opportunity, though, to make a written presentation until the 24th of October.

M. Mehr: Thank you. I mean, I have been considering that, yeah.

R. Hawes (Chair): If you wish to do that, certainly, as we pointed out earlier, it's given the same credence and the same weight as a verbal presentation. So feel free to send something in to us. Thank you very much.

Our next presenter is Rimas Zitkauskas.

You know you have 15 minutes. I'll tell you when you get to about ten. The floor is yours.

R. Zitkauskas: First of all, I would like to welcome all members of this committee to the beautiful Bulkley Valley. For those who are visiting for the first time, I hope it won't be the last. For those who are here a second time, welcome back.

I'd also like to thank you for the opportunity. It's a wonderful democratic process that we are participating in here. At the same time, I would like to thank the preceding presenters, who spoke quite specifically on some of the points that I'll be touching on in a more general nature.

Basically, maybe to start off, today I'd just like to speak about the demographic challenges that we as a society here in B.C. are going to be facing in the next ten to 20 years, if we're going to accommodate the growth in our population that we not only anticipate but that we require to remain a vital and prosperous province.

I'd like to state that I have absolutely no interest in any land development projects. I don’t plan to have any interest in land development projects. I'm here uniquely as a citizen and resident of B.C. who is deeply concerned about the health of our society here, because I'm planning on spending the rest of my life here.

The first page has a projected population growth for B.C. If we look at the present population of 4.3 million or 4.4 million, with projected growth…. Let's go out to 2017, because that's the last year on that page. The statistics go out to 2036 and just support my arguments a bit more clearly. But for argument's sake, let's look at the next ten
[ Page 1779 ]
years. That's an increase of approximately 15 percent in our present population, or approximately 600,000 individuals.

On page 3 of the first presentation is a map of the distribution of the population. I don't think it comes to anybody's surprise that most of the population in B.C. is concentrated in the Lower Mainland and in the Kelowna-Kamloops area.

The fourth page on that shows a schematic of the change in percentage by region. If we take a look, the region up here that we call the northwest is actually losing population.

[1850]

Mind you, we're doing a bit better in 2006-2007. The decline has moderated somewhat. But everybody seems to want to live in the Lower Mainland in, I guess, the lower Fraser Valley and out in the Kamloops-Kelowna region. Those are the only two areas that have shown an increase in population.

If we take a look at the additional statistics that we have, I've given you the three regional districts — the Bulkley-Nechako, the Kitimat-Stikine and the Skeena–Queen Charlottes. If we look at the projected population of all those regions for 2017, they all show a decline.

What's wrong with this picture? We're an area that has the greatest land base available to accommodate any increased population, yet most of the arrivals — the immigrants, either from overseas or from other provinces — choose to live in the most densely populated areas of this province. I submit to you that the reason for that is because of the lack of services and the attitude that has been traditionally taken about our region here in the north. That is, to provide the minimum amount of services necessary to support the minimum population required to extract the natural resources that fuel the British Columbia economy.

I submit to you respectfully that that attitude needs to change — not because we here in the north are asking you to change that attitude. It's because as a province we need to make this available land base attractive to newcomers and to people who are considering moving to British Columbia — okay? — so that they look at this region as a viable option to the densely populated choices that they're making today.

In order for them to look at this region, we need to have competitive services to the Lower Mainland and competitive services to the Kelowna-Kamloops area. Those services have been spoken to and presented to you this evening by the various individuals that preceded me. We need equal-quality health care, we need equal-quality education, and we need equal-quality recreational and social services to support new families that need to come to this area, that want to come to this area, that have to come to this area if B.C. is going to accommodate the increase in population that is required for its economic prosperity.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Rimas. We'll go to questions.

J. Horgan: Thank you, Rimas. We had an opportunity to speak out in the lobby at some length about these issues that you've canvassed then. I didn't get a chance to ask a question of Michael, but I think that the two presentations mesh rather nicely.

Michael was talking about the meat co-op started up in the region — a tangible way to reduce our emissions and a tangible way to keep economic activity in the community. We put that up against the two presentations from the education sector and from the health sector, and that segues nicely into your concern that as we reduce or depopulate rural British Columbia, as people leave and services atrophy, the ability to bring new people in is compromised.

We had a rather lengthy discussion about that. I'm wondering if you could expand a bit on some of your thoughts with respect to, particularly, people aging in place and how the government can assist with modest investments to keep people in homes rather than in institutions.

R. Zitkauskas: Well, I think that's the broader question that we talked about. One example that I could give very, very specifically to that might not be exactly responding to your question, but it does deal with the question of seniors having to leave this area because of lack of facilities and lack of medical services.

[1855]

I live in the community of Telkwa, where for, I believe, the last 12 years there has been a parcel of land set aside specifically for the development of a senior housing project. However, that project has been stalled because Telkwa lacks the proper water capacity in order to accommodate any further expansion. There is a building moratorium in Telkwa.

The need is there, the land and the capacity and the builders to develop that senior housing project are there, but we cannot go ahead because of the inadequate infrastructure that is in place. I believe that the cost for the expansion of the water storage capacity and distribution system is somewhere around the $2 million mark, but we've been refused several times, both on the provincial and the federal level, as far as municipal infrastructure capital project funding. That's just one example.

The point I want to stress over here is that there has to be a fundamental change in the attitude of government down in Victoria about how they view the north here. It cannot be viewed uniquely as a place to extract resources. You need the land base over here. B.C. needs to increase the population and to funnel the increase in the population requirements of this province towards this region.

We have to get ahead of the curve and not behind the eight ball. People will not come here on a hope and a
[ Page 1780 ]
promise of saying: "We will fund it when the population warrants it." You have to provide facilities here because this is the only place where people have an opportunity to establish a home at an affordable cost.

The Lower Mainland is no longer a viable alternative for young families. They cannot afford it. It is too densely populated. Demand exceeds supply. If those are the only regions that incoming population and seniors have to move to from here because they don't have this…. It's not going to work.

If we do not keep increasing our population, we will not be able to fund the programs needed to support our society and the increasing costs. So you need to look at the north over here as not just physical and commodity resource extraction.

Our greatest resource here is our land base. We have land aplenty for people to establish themselves, for light industry to come in here, for R-and-D facilities to be established here that will attract younger families, that will contribute taxes, that will spread out the cost of these facilities.

This needs to be done because you're not creating any more land down in the Lower Mainland. You're saturated.

D. Hayer: Thank you very much. A very good presentation and very detailed information here.

I'm also Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and Immigration besides my job as MLA for Surrey-Tynehead. One of the things we always discuss is: how can we get immigrants to come and move to the Interior? They always bring the issue: how do the Interior people think about new immigrants moving in?

When you talk to the community, do you think people are mostly happy to see more new immigrants moving in? Otherwise our population is going down anyway. We have no choice but to bring immigrants in if we want to keep all the jobs filled.

R. Zitkauskas: I cannot speak for the entire community, but I know that I've been blessed to meet people that have chosen Smithers and the Bulkley Valley and the north over here that come from a variety of countries. I've met people from Sierra Leone. I've met people from Cuba. We have a very talented Juno award–winning resident here, Alexis Puentes — stage name Alexis Cuba or something like that. Marvelous person, gorgeous family.

[1900]

I personally come from an immigrant family. I wasn't born here. My name is not McDonald. It's Zitkauskas.

I believe that the north attracts people with open minds that don't necessarily think within the box. Immigrants, be they from the Lower Mainland, be they from other provinces in Canada or be they from the international community, I believe are not only welcomed but are embraced and supported in this community.

R. Lee: Along the same line, how do you attract investment in light industries, in tourism — in interests, actually, in general? How can we do better?

R. Zitkauskas: Well, I think that number one, there's been a large investment in the port facilities in Prince Rupert. All that has resulted so far is increased traffic on our highways and additional rail trains running up and down the railway tracks.

I believe that the port has to be promoted better within the international community. I believe that the proximity of the port to the Highway 16 corridor and to the north over here.... Manufacturers that not only want to export to the Asian market but also to the western North American and South American markets should be made aware of the advantages of locating over here.

The fact that we have a workforce that is looking for jobs over here because of the downturn in the forestry industry should also be made, or potential investors through the provincial economic development…. I'm sure that the province has some sort of committee that promotes investment in the province over here.

I believe in tax credits for companies that decide to locate up here — perhaps a five-year moratorium on corporate profits that are generated by locating up here.

We should also say that those who are looking to build facilities that require a large…. The land costs here compared to building facilities down in the Lower Mainland are 10 percent, 20 percent…. You know, the cost factor over here of establishing businesses is a lot less than establishing…. And there are advantages up here. The local chambers of commerce will probably speak a lot better to that.

R. Hawes (Chair): Rimas, thank you very much. Just one observation. In your package here, if you look through it, the birthrate also is falling dramatically in British Columbia. That's part of the problem. I'd just like you to know that my three kids have produced nine…. I have nine grandchildren, so my family has done its bit to try to keep the population base going.

R. Zitkauskas: We have wonderful homes over here for them to establish their families and raise their families.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you very much, Rimas. It's a great presentation.

We have the High Road Services Society and Shannon Moyle as our next presenter.

Welcome, Shannon. As you know, you have 15 minutes, and I will tell you when you get to ten, if you go beyond that.

S. Moyle: Thank you for having this opportunity to sit here in front of you and present.

Rimas talked briefly on being able to equalize services here in the north from what our counterparts in the
[ Page 1781 ]
southern part of the province do. That's mainly what I'm going to speak towards. I'm with High Road Services Society, which is a non-profit organization that works with adults with developmental disabilities.

It started as a result of a group of parents coming together in 2005 and advocating for better services for their children. In 2006 they formed a coalition society called the Smithers Parent/Self-Advocate Coalition Society. Then further on in 2007 they deemed that they had become service providers; hence, High Road Services Society came around. On July 1, 2007, High Road Services officially opened with five programs that were awarded to them in the same year that we became service providers.

[1905]

Again, we do work for adults with developmental disabilities in support and advocacy. The five programs that we are supporting individuals with are through self-help skills, both here in Smithers and in Houston; supported employment; semi-independent living skills; and an adult residential program that we have. It's a 24-hour resource for one individual at the moment.

Members of our society back in 2005 also had the opportunity to sit in front of this committee and make a proposal. What I'd like to do with my time here today is just point out what they said in 2005, how it relates now in 2008, and some of the differences. I think that it will show you that we still have a lot of room to grow here.

In 2005 we submitted that the deficiencies in services for the following subject matters were exercise and fitness programs; recreation and leisure programs; a lack of day programs; employment and vocational programs; minimal respite relief for families; transportation; and safe, secure residential housing. New deficiencies that we've identified now include wait-lists, advocacy, poverty and transitional planning for the individuals that we support.

What I'd like to do…. I think, since I don't have a whole lot of time, I'll just go through these fancy graphs that you'll find here that say both 2005 and current. I think it'd be beneficial just to pinpoint those.

Exercise and fitness programs. In 2005 we identified that there were five of 171 individuals that had access to an exercise or fitness program among our population that we serve. Currently there are 16 of 169 that have access to exercise or fitness programs, of which 11 of those are using their limited self-help skills hours, which they receive through High Road Services Society. So they are using some hours that could be used for better purposes to also complement their exercise goals that they have. And then it just says that more funding is needed for that staffing to be able to provide those supports for them.

Recreation and leisure. In 2005 they identified that Victoria and area swimming pools provide weekly slots for free for these individuals. Their local YMCA and YWCA offer programs for free. As well, there are large societies and organizations providing direct recreational services. The complete opposite is happening here in the north. We have no free swimming available to these and obviously no YMCA or YWCA in these communities.

High Road has been able to develop a drop-in centre through a generous grant that our MLA — and I'm glad that Dennis is here, actually — has been able to provide for us. In that drop-in centre…. It is staffed in the mornings, and then we have a volunteer that works in the afternoons from Monday to Thursday on a weekly basis.

Also, High Road is trying to sponsor, as best we can, various activities — barbecues, parties, golf tournaments, things like that — for these individuals so that they might be able to become a little more active in recreation and leisure in their lives. But we still have a long way to go in that area too.

As for day programs, they submitted to you in 2005, again, that they're readily available in Victoria five days a week. Our region had 87 individuals identified that did not have access to any day programs.

Currently we have our drop-in centre. Typically we're getting about six to seven individuals that attend that program in the morning. They're doing various activities in that program. We've got 31 individuals that are participating in our self-help programs, and they're averaging about 3.93 — a little less than four — hours per week in services that they're getting with support.

We've identified that there are still 23 individuals on a waiting list to get into some of these programs that we have under this heading of "Day programs," which include the self-help skills programs that we have.

The drop-in centre that we've started has alleviated a lot of that stress. It is open to anyone that is eligible for supports through Community Living B.C., which is our funding agent. Anyone is able to drop in at any time to that program. It's being well used. Our self-help skills programs…. I think there's a lot more room to do a lot more on that. We're getting less than four hours per week per individual in there.

We do run an employment program as well. In 2005 they articulated to you that, again, employment programs are readily available in Victoria and area, with small and large programs providing work environments in and around the community. There are wage subsidies for employers that employ handicapped individuals.

[1910]

In my experience, a lot of those wage subsidies — specifically the targeted wage subsidies — are for individuals that are or have been eligible for EI support, which excludes a lot of our population just based on the individuals' abilities that they have. A lot of them aren't able to become EI-eligible, so a lot of those wage subsidies are not available to them.

In 2005 only eight individuals in our region had access to employment services. Currently High Road
[ Page 1782 ]
Services's support and employment program has served 26 individuals in the past year also in a partnership that we have with Smithers Recycling Society. Born from that, we have three individuals that have become self-supported financially, without the need for income assistance from MEIA, the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. So it's working. I mean, it's only three individuals, but it is a program that's working, and we can make that a lot better, we hope.

Last year we paid $60,000 worth of wages to individuals in this sector. But that is just in Smithers. Hazelton and Burns Lake, for example, have no programs offered whatsoever in supported employment. So we're proposing that, again, more funding is needed in that area as well.

Respite relief. Again, back in 2005 it was readily available in Victoria and basically on demand. If someone needed respite, they could find it. There were no formal service providers in our region. Currently High Road Services Society…. We submitted a proposal for a respite bed to complement our adult residential program that I mentioned. We currently have not received approval to do that.

Specifically, with that respite bed, when the community heard that there was going to be a possibility of one…. We've received phone calls daily and even walk-ins into our offices, even yesterday morning. People want that respite support, to be able to have a safe environment for their child when they want to do things in their lives. For example, the one yesterday was…. They need to go to Prince Rupert for an operation. No place to put their daughter.

There are no formal service providers offering respite here in our community. So we have a lot of informal families helping each other — individuals that happen to know the family or just people that…. Even some of our staff have provided some respite to families, as well, on an individual basis.

Our northwest community council recommended an allocation for money for respite services. Some families have received individualized funding in order to pay for respite services. We have zero programs for them — no qualified providers to be able to go to, to provide that respite for them. So some have received the money, and they can't get it because there are no providers to give it.

We've identified transportation as an issue. We do think that this is probably the number two challenge that our individuals have when they come to seeking employment and are accessing the services that they're trying to receive — the number one being just a lack of funding for support services.

In 2005 we had one transit bus that operated from Smithers to Telkwa. It says four per day, but it's actually Monday to Friday, so it's obviously five per week. B.C. Transit at that time had free, unlimited use but was not available in our region.

High Road Services Society did submit a proposal for transportation from Smithers to Moricetown, which is a local community next to us as well. But we have not had any approval for that to go ahead either. There have been no increases in public transportation to Moricetown whatsoever.

Recently Smithers Community Services has been able to advocate for a second bus in our B.C. Transit service to go. Again, it only services Smithers and Telkwa. If we go east to our next nearest neighbour, where we do provide services to individuals with developmental disabilities, no transportation is available for them to come in for services.

Residential housing. I just wanted to read a bit of the excerpt that's in here. It still holds true today, as it did in 2005. Powell River, which has a population of 16,000 and serves an area of 20,000, has 14 group homes providing services for the developmentally disabled. The Powell River Association for Community Living has a work program that employs approximately 40 individuals and is funded by Service Canada, formerly known as Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

[1915]

The Bulkley Valley and Hazelton area, in contrast, has a population of approximately 30,000 and has only two group homes providing services to nine individuals. There is no government funding for work programs. Again, this comparison of services clearly shows that we don't have the facilities, the funding or the service providers to extend these kinds of services and benefits to these individuals in the north that some of our counterparts in the southern part of the province are receiving.

Just for an FYI, 49 percent of our consumers that we're currently serving are either living independently or with limited supports through our semi-independent living skills program. So we’re talking about a lot of people, and these are just the ones that we're working with — not even the ones that are identified on waiting lists or anything like that.

Again, in 2005 two group homes were providing homes for nine individuals spread over a distance of 225 kilometres. Currently two group home providers are providing for nine individuals spread over 225 kilometres — no change and no direction from CLBC to expand on those services. This is an area that I think we could do a lot better on.

This area of residential housing was identified in our surveys to the clientele that we serve as the number one hope for families — that we can get better housing. Their main concern is: what does their child do when they're no longer able to provide for them? Where can they go? Many of these individuals that are living in independent situations are living in high-risk atmospheres and are easily preyed upon.

We've identified 32 individuals on a waiting list for the northwest. Again, these are just the ones we are identifying. If we go to the next step, the wait-lists, we have 120 individuals on waiting lists. These are just the ones that
[ Page 1783 ]
we could identify. We do believe that that number could probably double if we were to look a lot deeper into who is eligible and who needs these services.

The thing with wait-lists, as it says in there, is that if you put an individual on a wait-list, it gives them an idea that there's hope that services are going to become available. When it's not able to become available, then that hope slides. That seems to be the case in what's been happening.

We’ve identified that advocacy is an issue among our population. We feel that we can offer a model of support that will be able to enhance the supports given to these individuals. We have one program called our semi-independent living skills — we call it SILS program — that I think is a good model of how we might be able to assist these individuals that are living independently and giving them some advocacy to do that.

We want to reach as many people as we can that don't have a support system and provide them with some needed guidance and help that they've identified they want to work towards.

Poverty. We've got many adults with developmental disabilities that are living at a level of income support that is well below what people would consider acceptable. We've got shelter rates of $375, which quite frankly, is just not enough. A lot of these individuals are going into their food costs to be able to pay their rent. We're working with a family partnership, trying to get a low-cost food outlet here in Smithers that's going to help alleviate some of these problems that people can get, but we do need funding to be able to make that program successful.

The final thing here is transitional planning. Quite often adolescents or young adults with disabilities have a level of service that's provided to them as children. When the calendar turns to 19, those services are no longer available to them. The transitional planning is just so key to be able to provide a constant level of support for these individuals.

I won't go directly into the suggested recommendations, because I'm out of time, but I think the point is clear. We do need a lot of additional funding here in the north to be able to make comparable services for these individuals with developmental disabilities.

R. Hawes (Chair): Thank you, Shannon. Your presentation was well presented and very full, and you did take the full 15 minutes in presenting it.

S. Moyle: I thought I might.

R. Hawes (Chair): But it's okay. You provided a lot of answers to any questions we would have asked, I think. You probably filled in the answers as to what's needed here. I want to thank you very much.

S. Moyle: Thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it.

R. Hawes (Chair): Excellent. And thanks for what you do.

We move to the open-mike portion. Not seeing anyone, in that case we will adjourn the meeting for today, and we will reconvene tomorrow in Fort St. John. Any of you that happen to be in Fort St. John, you're welcome to join us there. Otherwise, thank you very much for your presentations and for your attendance.

The committee adjourned at 7:20 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 © 2008: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada