2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MINUTES AND HANSARD

MINUTES SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Thursday, October 15, 2009

9 a.m.

Somerset Room, South Thompson Inn & Conference Centre

3438 Shuswap Road, Kamloops, B.C.

Present: John Les, MLA (Chair); Doug Donaldson, MLA (Deputy Chair); Norm Letnick, MLA; Don McRae, MLA; Michelle Mungall, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; Bill Routley, MLA; John Rustad, MLA; Jane Thornthwaite, MLA; John van Dongen, MLA

1. The Chair called the Committee to order at 8:59 a.m.

2. Opening statements by John Les, MLA, Chair

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

4. The Committee adjourned at 11:57 a.m. to the call of the Chair.

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

select standing committee on
Finance and Government Services

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Issue No. 8

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 215 ]

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15, 2009

The committee met at 8:59 a.m.

[J. Les in the chair.]

J. Les (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I'm John Les, MLA for Chilliwack and Chair of this parliamentary committee. I'd like to welcome everyone who is here today. So far we have one presenter. I thank everyone who participates, however, in this important process.

Each year, in preparation for the upcoming year's budget, the Minister of Finance releases a budget consultation paper by September 15. That paper presents a current fiscal forecast. It identifies the key issues that need to be addressed in the budget in the upcoming year. The paper provides a focus for the consultations of this committee and includes information on how members of the public may provide their views on budget priorities.

This committee is the parliamentary committee which is responsible to conduct public consultations on the forthcoming budget. Our all-party committee is required to report back to the Legislative Assembly no later than November 15 of this year — in other words, the middle of next month.

This year we are holding ten public hearings in different parts of the province. Hearings have been scheduled in conjunction with the ongoing legislative session in Victoria.

Our first hearings were held in Vancouver and Victoria. While we were in Victoria, we also held video conferencing sessions to hear from residents of Courtenay, Cranbrook and Dawson Creek.

[0900]

In addition to our hearings this morning in Kamloops and this afternoon in Kelowna, earlier this week we held hearings in Smithers and Prince George. Tomorrow we will be doing a hearing all day in Surrey, followed by one more video conferencing session next week in Victoria. Then we begin drafting our report, which has to be complete, as I said earlier, by November 15.

If you have not yet seen the Budget 2010 consultation paper, we have brought copies with us. They are available at the registration table at the back of the room.

In addition to public hearings, there are a variety of other ways in which British Columbians can share their ideas with us. We accept written submissions by letter or by e-mail, and for the first time we are also inviting people to submit video or audio files.

Further information on how you can participate using one of these methods is available on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations. Any public input that the committee receives, however it is received, is given the same full consideration as if it were orally presented here today. The deadline to receive written or electronic submissions is Friday, October 23.

Today we are going to hear from a number of presenters, who may speak for approximately ten minutes with up to five additional minutes allocated for questions from members of the committee. Time permitting, we may also have an open-mike session at the conclusion of the registered presenters, with five minutes allocated for each presentation.

Now would be the time that committee members can introduce themselves, starting with Norm.

N. Letnick: Norm Letnick, MLA for Kelowna–Lake Country.

J. van Dongen: John van Dongen, MLA for Abbotsford South.

J. Rustad: John Rustad, MLA for Nechako Lakes.

D. McRae: Don McRae, Comox Valley MLA.

J. Thornthwaite: Jane Thornthwaite, North Vancouver–Seymour MLA.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Doug Donaldson, MLA for Stikine and Deputy Chair.

B. Routley: Bill Routley, MLA, Cowichan Valley.

M. Mungall: Michelle Mungall, MLA, Nelson-Creston.

B. Ralston: Bruce Ralston, MLA, Surrey-Whalley.

J. Les (Chair): We also have a number of staff here today. To my immediate left is Kate Ryan-Lloyd, the Clerk of the committee. At the back of the room is Stephanie Hansen, who is looking after registration.

We have two Hansard staff here today, Michael Baer and Gail Swetlow, who ensure that we can be heard and that everything will be recorded, including everything that presenters say.

With all of that, I'd now like to call on Peter Aylen, with the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce, to make our first presentation today. Good morning.

Presentations

P. Aylen: I'm Peter Aylen. I'm first vice-president of the Kamloops chamber. We've got about 750 members. We're pretty well recognized within the community and also recognized as one of the stronger chambers within the province.

I've brought several points here concerning the budget and things that are happening, and I've broken them out into several different areas.

The first one is the carbon tax. The carbon tax reduces the competitiveness of manufacturers in B.C., and it
[ Page 216 ]
provides a competitive advantage to companies that are located outside of B.C. and shipping products into B.C. No other jurisdiction in North America has this tax.

What I would propose is that there are three possibilities. One is the elimination of the tax, and I recognize that may not be a real possibility. So I'd suggest that it be at least kept at its current levels and not increased or that it be treated as a tax input in the HST regulations, similar to the PST now.

The second point was that there has been a delay in the stimulus funding agreements with the federal government, and that has delayed the flow of funds into these projects. Some of them have been delayed as much as a year because of the construction procedures. In the future it would be good to have a move to expedite the approval of all stimulus funding as soon as possible.

Concerning the HST, it is beneficial to most industries. Some industries with low taxable inputs may see overall costs to consumers increase. We understand that the B.C. liquor board may not be planning to pass through the savings that would result from having the PST refunded on the purchases. If this is so, it's a poor example for the government to be passing on to the rest of the business community.

[0905]

When you first started as B.C. Liberals — first got elected — there was a review of the government regulations and reducing the regulatory burden, which was greatly appreciated, particularly by small business. We ask that the government renew their efforts in that area and look to reduce the burden again. It appears that over the last few years in particular the number of regulations that have come through has been significant. It would be worthwhile to review that issue again.

Under HST the rules will be those for the GST — for what's included and what's not included, with some exceptions. The PST audits can go back for six years. The knowledge base of the people within the industry, like our employees, will decline very rapidly. Therefore, I would suggest that any PST audits, going back, have to be completed within two years after implementation of the HST.

There's a real concern here that five years down the line somebody is going to come back and take a look at some of the items that people might have been looking at and might have been considering. The rules and the regulations at that point will have changed, everybody will have left, and you might just get caught.

Those are the main things relating to the chamber.

A couple of other things. I'm also treasurer of the Mining Association of B.C. I'll just mention a couple of things concerning mining.

Geoscience funding is really important. We think that there is a multiple of at least ten times. When we put $1 in there, it will create about $10 in exploration expense. That is a very beneficial program.

The regulatory approvals. I think everybody around the table is very much aware of the length of time it takes to get mines approved. That really applies to all the major projects as well.

On the carbon tax. To reach that 30 percent reduction target, if it was applied to the mining sector, is two times the amount that would result from closing all the major metal mines in B.C. — just to put that in perspective as well.

Those were my succinct points.

N. Letnick: Thank you for your succinct presentation, Peter. It was very informative. When you have time, could you forward to the committee a list of government regulations on small business that you think we should review? Because you said…. One of your points was to reduce the burden. If you can provide us a list, that would be great.

P. Aylen: Yes, that's right. I will.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for your presentation, Peter. I have a question for you in your Mining Association of B.C. hat, which you have on today as well.

We've heard from other presenters and the Mining Association itself, as well as the Association for Mineral Exploration B.C. One of the people reporting talked and answered around a question regarding certainty on the land base and first nations and the importance of that. There was a suggestion that more resources would be beneficial to put into that land question and certainty question in the budget coming up next year. I'd like to hear your thoughts on that as well.

P. Aylen: That is probably one of the biggest issues that affects the whole of the industry. Of course, you've got the example before you right now of Prosperity, where there have been applications made to stop the issuance of the permits before they've even actually been issued. So the delays and…. What happens there is significant.

[0910]

One of the big things is that in almost every case there is a window of opportunity, and we'd sure hate to miss that window of opportunity. I think we may have missed one or two already.

B. Routley: Regarding your comments on the HST, have you had any presentations made by restaurant owners or by tourism operators on their concerns about HST?

P. Aylen: We've had at least one round table on the HST itself, and the feeling is generally that yes, it is going to be a problem for them — for that particular market segment. There are other market segments where it will
[ Page 217 ]
be a problem too. One is probably the old-age housing. We have had that concern raised.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you for coming, Peter. We appreciate your taking the time and being the first on deck in the morning.

Our next presenters are with Thompson Rivers University: Roger Barnsley and Karl deBruijn. Roger just got here.

Step right up, Roger. You apparently adhere to that theory of just-in-time delivery.

R. Barnsley: Well, we actually apologize. We had our annual fundraising kickoff this morning, and we were not able to get away on time. Our apologies.

J. Les (Chair): We're starting, actually, just a few minutes earlier than you had been scheduled, so the apologies are ours.

There's the local MLA. Terry Lake is here.

Good morning, Terry.

Go ahead.

K. deBruijn: Good morning. On behalf of the Thompson Rivers University board of governors I would like to welcome you to Kamloops and thank you personally for spending this time investigating our directions and priorities.

TRU is now home to over 23,500 students, close to 2,000 staff and faculty and some of the most innovative programming in the country. We're the third-largest employer in our city and the fifth-largest educational institution in the province. Over 10,000 students enjoy our on-campus experience, and an additional 13,500 students enrol in courses through our open learning option, an option that is increasing in popularity throughout the province.

Building on our many successes in the past year, we continue to strategically grow to meet the educational needs of our constituency and beyond. This year overall academic course registrations for the Kamloops and Williams Lake campuses have increased by 5.8 percent.

The total students that are new to our institution have increased by 19.7 percent, and we continue to be an important resource for our first nations communities, as 5 percent of those new students this year are identified as aboriginal students.

To help support this growth, we received a $20.5 million capital grant from the provincial government and a federal grant of nearly $8.3 million, through the knowledge infrastructure program. These funds were used to improve our core facilities by building the house of learning — a gold-certified LEED facility that will host a library, a learning centre and a first nations learning suite.

I'm happy to report that construction of this architecturally breathtaking structure is on schedule and on budget. We look forward to its grand opening in 2010, and I'd also like to take the opportunity to extend an invitation to all of you to join us for those opening ceremonies.

We have also continued to expand our programming. We have launched a new trades program in glazier apprenticeship and currently are developing programs including metal fabrication, industrial instrument mechanic and geothermal technician.

Continuing to build our research capacity, we're working on a master of social work and a master of interdisciplinary studies. This fall we've seen our first graduates from our master of science in environmental science and a master of education program.

We're now home to the B.C. Regional Innovation Chair in Cattle Industry Sustainability and the recently reappointed Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Community and Ecosystem Ecology. This is a research synergy focused on developing new techniques and technologies to help make B.C.'s cattle industry sustainable and to protect our valuable grasslands.

[0915]

TRU continues to rise to the challenges before us, investing in the future of our community through new education and research opportunities. Thompson Rivers University prides itself on its quality learning experience, quality campus environment and quality faculty. We host groundbreaking programming in both trades and academic curriculum and look forward to maintaining a level of excellence in all that we teach.

However, the resources provided to our institution do not currently cover the rising costs of our programming. Given the current cost of goods and services, we'd like the province to consider utilizing the higher education price index when building its annual index-based funding models. As a university, our rate of inflation is different than the public consumer's, and we need this reflected in our fiscal planning.

One of the greatest challenges and most prominent opportunities is found within our open learning division. When we first amalgamated TRU with B.C. Open University, creating TRU Open Learning — or OL, as we refer to it — the distance division enrolments had been declining by more than 5 percent every year for seven years. In October of 2007, OL turned the corner on that decline and has not looked back, now seeing annual increases of over 20 percent.

TRU Open Learning has a legislated mandate to meet the open learning needs of the province of British Columbia. As such, it is funded to serve 2,578 full-time-equivalent students. Open Learning provides flexible, open access to courses for students to complete credentials from other universities.

It has also created numerous partnerships which clearly define pathways for students from other colleges and universities to articulate their credits into Open Learning programs that can be completed in the student's home community through distance study.
[ Page 218 ]

To fulfil its provincial mandate, Open Learning also adopted a principle to assist other institutions in meeting the educational needs of their communities and structured its operation to act as a resource for the province's higher education system.

TRU Open Learning has also made prior learning assessment and recognition, known as PLAR, a hallmark of its offerings and has tied this to a fully operational credit bank. PLAR allows individuals to receive academic credit for learning which has occurred through informal and non-traditional means and, as such, expedites learners on their way to achieve their educational goals.

This year Open Learning founded an international research centre for PLAR with the assistance of eminent PLAR scholars from seven countries and representation from both the Commonwealth of Learning and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. For its efforts, Open Learning has seen an increase in full-time-equivalent students — we refer to those as FTEs — of 23 percent in 2008-2009.

This dramatic growth has continued through the first half of 2009-10, with an increase to date of 17 percent in course enrolments. By the year-end we are projecting a 20 percent increase in FTEs, and we fully anticipate meeting or exceeding our ministry-funded FTE target for the 2009-2010 year.

I'd just like to say, as a member of the board, the incredible thanks we have for our staff and leadership in OL to do this. As a board member, when we first took on this task, I didn't think for sure that it was going to be possible to turn it around. It's been a tremendous job on behalf of the department.

Open Learning intends to continue operating as a systemwide resource, as we believe there is still great potential for cooperation and collaboration with our sister institutions.

In pursuing systemwide initiatives, we will soon exceed our funded capacity. Given Open Learning's ongoing success, we request that the government revisit a letter from former Minister of Advanced Education Murray Coell, dated December 18, 2007, where it was suggested that additional funding may be made available to Open Learning in return for increased FTE capacity.

Funding an additional 600 FTEs above the ministry target would increase Open Learning's capacity to meet the growing needs of our constituents and position the province to be a national and international leader in open, distance and on-line education.

Another opportunity for growth is found within our international department, TRU World, which has continued to increase international student enrolments on our campus. In 2008 we reached our highest number to date, with 1,200 students from 70 countries. Tuition revenue from these international students accounted for $16.8 million of TRU's annual budget.

In addition, over 1,000 offshore students are enrolled in TRU programs at partner institutions in China, India, Malaysia and Thailand. Each year over 600 participants are engaged in short-term customized training programs, both on campus and abroad.

[0920]

Currently international activities at TRU are estimated to have a local economic impact of $61 million per year and result in hundreds of jobs locally.

The success of our international activities has enabled the university to self-fund the International Building, providing computer labs and state-of-the-art lecture theatres for the use of both domestic and international students.

It also provides office space for the School of Business and Economics and TRU World. The annual influx of over 1,200 international students into the city contributes an excellent local climate for real estate investment and contributes to the low rental vacancy rates, which currently sit at 2.4 percent.

We want to see TRU World continue to grow and benefit our university and community. To accomplish this, we need the province's assistance. We have been able to build two residences, our campus activity centre and our International Building with limited government investment. The newest of these residences, which is nationally acclaimed, is already full to capacity. We would therefore appreciate a commitment from the province to review its policy on debt financing.

The ability to use debt financing to expand our residences, build a new facility for our law school and expand our TRU World operation would ensure that TRU remains a leader, a leading economic catalyst in the southern Interior.

We are proud to report our growth and successes and share our priorities, but I must also inform you of the institutional challenges we face as we move forward. While we understand the financial restraints our province is under, the reduction of our capital improvement grant has led us to defer regular maintenance on a number of core structures.

While we are able to temporarily manage this delay, building erosion can be exponential. Therefore, we must ask the province to provide capital improvement grants so we can return to our annual maintenance program to minimize safety concerns and additional costs.

TRU has been tireless in its efforts to find funding solutions for its latest capital campaign to build the house of learning and to increase student assistance endowments. In the past the government of B.C. committed to matching private donations, and every institution in the province has benefited from the partnerships this initiative created between the people and businesses of B.C. and this government. It's a funding model, successfully adopted in Britain, benefiting students, donors and governments alike.

I would like to take this opportunity to urge the province to revisit its matching grant program for donations
[ Page 219 ]
and to provide another tool for us to move forward as an institution. This would assist us in meeting our capital needs, increase student scholarships and bursaries, and help us to build economic sustainability into our short- and long-term plans.

In conclusion, we applaud the province for its commitment to education and hope the province will consider revisiting the practices and policies which I have listed. Thompson Rivers University will continue to be an educational and economic driver in our region and our province, if given the tools to do so. Thank you all for your time, and I look forward to reporting on our continued success next year.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Karl.

J. van Dongen: On the open learning, the growth in registrations by students…. Do you have any profile on the enrollees there — where in British Columbia — and the type of people that are signing up for open learning?

K. deBruijn: The types of people signing up are extremely diverse. I don't have the specifics of those, but I'm sure that that's available, and we could certainly forward that to the committee.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Karl and Roger, for the presentation. I'm very familiar with TRU, having two sons that donate tuition money towards the ongoing of the university. As you know, up in the Hazelton area and in Smithers, the first nations and non–first nations enrolment from our area in your university is pretty high for our little area. So congratulations on the good job that you're doing.

I have a quick question on the capital improvement grants, Karl, that you mentioned. Could you give me an idea of what you had and what's not forthcoming in the upcoming…? You mentioned safety concerns. Can you give me an example of that?

K. deBruijn: I'll let Roger answer that, if that's okay.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Sure. No problem.

R. Barnsley: The annual capital allowance we've been getting and were anticipating this year was $2.5 million. This year it was reduced by $800,000. We anticipated that reduction, so we didn't spend it, but we were short $800,000.

[0925]

The projects that were not completed this year…. There was a sidewalk renovation program, and that has some safety issues involved in it.

If I could just take a little time out here. British Columbia has an incredibly enviable record in maintenance of its public institutions. If you look across the country, deferred maintenance is really a problem in many, many jurisdictions. It's because of the annual capital allowance that we've been able to routinely make sure that everything was just where it should be. We've had a plan going out five years that we'd go through this.

We are concerned, because right now we are at current levels. So we've been able to manage this $800,000 reduction. We'll do the sidewalks next year. But we had to stop that.

Also, we were, on our time sequence, going to do another campus audit, which we enter into, that prepares our next five- to ten-year plan for maintenance throughout the campus. That's put off a year. This year we're okay, but it will accumulate if it goes on.

Again, I would like to say that British Columbia is the envy of the country in terms of its annual capital allowance for public institutions. It allowed us to keep our investments current and workable and safe, and it would be a shame to lose that.

B. Ralston: You mention in here that you're asking the province to review its policy on debt financing. You speak specifically about financing the residence. Can you explain a little bit more? Are there commercial lenders willing to lend? I would take it that, given that it's a residence, you have an income stream that could justify a loan.

K. deBruijn: Yes, we've had some great successes. I'll get Roger to elaborate as well on this.

R. Barnsley: Over the past 15 years we've built four projects. We started off with, probably, one of the first public-private partnerships, with a residence on our campus with a local…. It was about a $7 million or $8 million project.

We followed it up with something called the Campus Activity Centre, which was meant to build student space on campus — for lounge space, study space, food space. That was about a $15 million project. That was funded and continues to be funded by the ancillary revenues that we get from those as we run those services.

We've already spoken about the International Building. We put a levy on the international students' fee of $1,800 a year for the capital costs of their building. That's how we built a $15 million International Building on our campus, and we're currently paying for it on that basis.

We also built a new residence. It opened the door three years ago — a $45 million project, totally debt-financed and built with private partners.

All of these projects are highly successful. Essentially, there is no government money in any of these projects, and they're all built on separate revenue streams.

As we were building the last project, the residence of $45 million…. It was at that time that the province went into, as it's called, GAAP, generally accepted accounting principles. As I understand it, not being an accountant,
[ Page 220 ]
there was an accumulation of provincial debt from all public buildings and whatever, and the province felt it had to manage that.

Once that was capped, it didn't give us the institutional flexibility that we had previously had to go out and get our own institutional debt rating and to enter into these agreements. Essentially, we are in a position right now where we cannot go out and build buildings. We've built over $100 million worth of buildings in the last 15 years without any government support, and that tool has been taken away from us.

There is a certain urgency to this. Urgency is probably too strong a word. We built a business plan, probably six or seven years ago, for international education. We designed an International Building that would accommodate 1,200 international students. I didn't just pick those numbers out of the air. They are there.

Our business plan would call for us to move to 2,000. We know we can handle that. We know it's good for the university, and we know it's good for the city. We designed the building so we could put an extension on it which would allow that capacity. Keep in mind that we're building classroom space, office space, everything for these new people. We cannot move ahead with that project, given the current debt-financing policies that come out of the generally accepted accounting principles.

[0930]

That's the challenge we have, and we'd like the province to revisit that, because in times of recession, in times of low government financing abilities for new projects, we think we can help the province out through our own internal initiatives.

B. Ralston: Then I take it that the debt that would be incurred by these projects under the GAAP, because it's part of the SUCH sector, would be attributed to the provincial debt, and therefore, that's the reason for the cap?

R. Barnsley: Well, I think that's the thinking on it, and I guess that is the fact. But we've always seen it as an individual institutional debt, and we've had it. But if we defaulted, I'm sure it would go….

B. Ralston: I'm not disagreeing. I just want an explanation. That's all.

R. Barnsley: The point is that I think that's right. If we defaulted, it would go back to the province. That has been the issue.

Apparently, there are legislative ways of changing that, but it would mean giving the institution more financial independence than you may care to. I think we need to visit that if we're going to take advantage of these opportunities.

M. Mungall: Having graduated from Royal Roads as well as worked at Athabasca University, I'm well aware of the values of open learning. So I'm very pleased, and not surprised, that's it really taken off.

My question is actually about…. You'd like us to revisit the matching grant program for donations to provide another tool for you to move forward. I'm just wondering if you can elaborate a little bit on that.

K. deBruijn: In past there have been matching funds available through to universities and college institutions and that. A specific example I can give was that a few years ago we entered into a library…. We were moving from college to university college status, and our collection was quite inadequate. So we embarked on a $3 million campaign. At the time I was part of the alumni and the foundation.

We were able to offer donors a matching amount from the government. So their $50,000 donation became $100,000, or their $1 million became a $2 million donation.

It's a stimulus. It encourages people to do that and just gets more people flowing the money in. In a way, it really doubles the government's contribution to these worthwhile projects as well.

M. Mungall: But my question was that you want the province to revisit this program. I'm wondering if you can elaborate on how you'd like us to revisit it.

K. deBruijn: Well, reinstate it, I guess.

M. Mungall: Oh, okay. Thank you. I just needed something clear like that.

R. Barnsley: Yeah, it was dropped about five or six years ago.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for your presentation. You mentioned the capital improvement grant, which I assume is quite similar to the annual facilities grant in the K-to-12 system.

It's also my understanding that in most, if not all, post-secondary institutions the grant was given to universities and colleges by half this year. You've said $800,000 off your $2.5 million, which sets you a little bit better than most, I would think.

My question is…. You said that you had deferred your maintenance and that you were going to do the sidewalks next year, which I thought was a pretty good comment. What time of year is the ideal time that you think that you would be informed by the provincial government that they can't provide you with the money for that grant? What kind of notice did you get at this particular time? You said that you knew it was coming. I'm wondering if you could elaborate on that.

R. Barnsley: Well, as you can imagine on a university campus, we try to push all of our work into the months of May, June, July and August. That means we have to
[ Page 221 ]
gear up well in advance in terms of planning, design and then letting contracts for it. So the more lead time that we get, the better off we're able to be so that we're ready to go to the construction or changes or whatever it is as soon as the majority of students leave campus at the end of April.

I'm sorry. I can't answer when we directly knew. You know, we keep very close relations with people in the ministry. We knew that there were discussions going on, on what we call the annual capital allowance. I was not there at the time. I've just returned as president a month ago.

What I understand would have happened — and from my having been there for many years, what would have happened — is that knowing that, we would have held back on issuing some contracts to make sure that we weren't putting ourselves in debt on that. We managed the process.

[0935]

D. McRae: My question is about tuition. How has your tuition changed since you became Thompson Rivers University, as compared to University College of the Cariboo, in 2005, and how do you compare in tuition fees to, say, UVic, UBC, SFU?

R. Barnsley: Essentially, what happened when the government capped tuition is that it was capped where it was, and our tuition was mid-range. As I recall, it's below UVic, UBC and Simon Fraser. It's a little bit above, I believe, Fraser Valley and Malaspina.

What we have done is we've stayed at that level, given the annual rise each year that's allowed because of a cost-of-living index. That goes back to one of the other points we made to you early in our presentation — that the cost-of-living index is different for a post-secondary education institution than it is for a Canadian or British Columbian family.

There are indexes that particularly look at the kinds of goods and services that higher education institutions buy. It's called a HEPI — the higher education price index. We'd ask the government to look to that for inflationary increases, because it would be more realistic for us than the Canadian cost-of-living adjustment — okay?

J. Les (Chair): Gentlemen, thank you very much. Very good points raised this morning. We appreciate it.

R. Barnsley: Thanks a lot, and thank you all for coming to our community and hearing us.

J. Les (Chair): The next presenters this morning are from the Western Canada Theatre and the Kamloops Art Gallery: Kathy Humphreys, Beverley Clayton and Lori Marchand.

Good morning to all of you.

L. Marchand: Good morning to all of you, and welcome, as he said, to Kamloops on this beautiful morning in October. We're very proud to welcome you to a community that's been called a mecca for the arts. Our objective in speaking to you today is to help to secure funding that will keep it that way.

I'm Lori Marchand, general manager for Western Canada Theatre, and I'm joined by Beverley Clayton, the manager, administrative and directive services, for Kamloops Art Gallery, and by Kathy Humphreys, the general manager of the Kamloops Symphony.

I'm going to extemporize a little bit. I just want to acknowledge…. I know that many of you here are representatives of smaller communities like Kamloops. I just want to note the interconnectivity between the presenters you've heard from today.

Western Canada Theatre is one of the longest-serving members of the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce. I want to thank the chamber for their innovative advocacy work. They've supported us on many of our advocacy efforts.

We have many connections with Thompson Rivers University, including curriculum support through what are called service-learning courses. I just want to acknowledge our MLA, Dr. Terry Lake, who is also, notably, the mayor who hosted the inaugural Mayor's Gala for the Arts, and of course, Lee Morris here from Tourism Kamloops — all very connected with what we do and what makes Kamloops such a wonderful community.

Just on that note, we work together in many regards, including joint fundraising for our respective endowment funds, fundraising for our operating budgets through the Mayor's Gala for the Arts, on securing arts funding for our community but primarily on providing Kamloops and region, an area of approximately 150 kilometres in diameter, access to the best in the visual and performing arts.

The city of Kamloops is a fantastic partner in this and understands the benefits we offer to the community, including economic investment, jobs both in the arts and in associated tourism industries and film. Furthermore, the major employers in our area often entice employees to move to Kamloops by promoting the fact that Kamloops is home to an art gallery, symphony and theatre, all with a strong national reputation.

K. Humphreys: Hi. Thank you for coming.

In other presentations you've no doubt heard that the arts contribute about $1.36 for every $1 invested in the arts, an investment which could assist in the economic recovery of the province. You've heard that the arts employ more people than forestry, mining and agriculture combined and that the proposed funding cuts will mean over 1,200 jobs lost.

You know that we provide access to education in the arts and enhanced arts education both through the
[ Page 222 ]
school system — elementary, high school and post-secondary — and through our own training programs. For example, the Kamloops Symphony operates the non-profit Kamloops Symphony Music School.

[0940]

Furthermore, the tourism industry in Canada has produced study after study indicating that there are growing numbers of visitors who rank arts, heritage and other cultural activities among the top ten reasons for travelling. Tourists want to explore the unique aspects of a place and indicate that visiting art galleries, historic sites and museums and seeing live performances are the primary reasons for their travel.

There are clear links between the quality of life within a community and its arts and cultural programs. They build important social connections and contribute to civic pride. By participating in or enjoying arts classes, parades, festivals, art and history museums, theatres and symphony orchestras, community members of all ages and diverse backgrounds strengthen their relationships with one another through shared experiences. The spinoff is a healthy, safe community with robust economic development, community-wide participation and family cohesion.

By nurturing creativity and fostering enjoyment and appreciation of artistic accomplishments, we develop a better understanding of ourselves and the world around us, expand our capacity to be thoughtful and compassionate, encourage imagination and critical thinking, and contribute to healthy, vibrant and economically sound communities.

B. Clayton: We will echo our counterparts across the province by saying that the proposed cuts seriously jeopardize all of these benefits. Just in dollars alone, using the economic multiplier of 1.36, through a 40 percent cut in the British Columbia Arts Council operating funding and the loss in gaming revenues, the community of Kamloops stands to lose $445,000. I do believe that it goes without saying that this loss in revenue to non-profit charitable organizations will jeopardize funding from other sources as well.

We are masters at matching investment. When this provincial funding, government funding, which is one of our most trusted and reliable sources, is in jeopardy, there is no doubt it will have a negative impact on investment from other areas.

The economic downturn has already hit us hard on corporate and private donations and corporate sponsorships. With the negative impact of the looming HST, especially if there is no adjustment to the rebate level for non-profits, it will be just one more hit.

One other item we do want to bring to your attention is that there is a fear that the financial investment in the Olympics will destabilize the arts and culture industry in the province on a long-term basis. We believe there is no better way to counteract this fear than by making an investment in the arts. Other provinces have done so, and we believe B.C. would be wise to follow suit.

L. Marchand: Specifically, we respectfully request the following: a reinstatement of the funding to the British Columbia Arts Council to the 2008-2009 levels and restore gaming grants to the 2008 level. These funds are critical to the core operations of arts organizations throughout the province, perhaps even more so here in the Interior.

Three, we request a clear message from the government that the integrity of the B.C. Arts Council, its peer-review process and its arm's-length relationship will be maintained. Four, we request clear communication from the gaming branch with respect to meeting and honouring three-year agreements for both direct access and bingo funds.

In closing, we would like to thank you for coming to Kamloops. We hope that you will be back to enjoy some of the cultural amenities, like many other visitors to our communities. We would like to leave you with the thought that with indicators showing an improving economy, there is an opportunity to reinvest in the arts, ensuring further economic growth and vibrant communities across the province.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you. Any questions from committee members?

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks for the presentation. It's nice to see three different organizations, all significant organizations, together at the table and get a broader picture of what's happening in your organizations as far as the financing goes.

Three questions all in one, though. If you could elaborate a bit on the clear communications in honouring the three-year grants and the bingo funding. I'd like to hear a bit more about that — if there is a lack of communication or what you're hearing, perhaps some specific examples from each of your organizations, or one, about the impact of the funding cuts.

[0945]

You mentioned, Beverley, the destabilizing impact of investment in the Olympics, so I'd like hear a bit more about that.

L. Marchand: We can start with the first one. The communication from the gaming branch, I think…. We received e-mails initially, sort of at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon, that the direct access grants — which, I believe, for all three of our organizations were three-year grants — were not going to be honoured. We're very grateful that on the following Wednesday there was a decision made to honour those grants, and we really appreciate that decision.
[ Page 223 ]

Because of the timing of the application…. There's a window, of course, of application for arts organizations to apply for direct access. It's between February and May. Our operating is July 1 to June 30, so that window…. We're actually applying at the end of our season for that funding. So when those grants were made into three-year applications, it was fantastic, of course, lessening the burden on us administratively and lessening the burden on the gaming branch administratively. It gave us secure funding until the end of that fiscal year.

I think that being in the community of the minister has provided us with some benefits. We had a very wonderful meeting with him on Tuesday, and he has said very clearly that the direct access grants will be honoured for three years and that the bingo grants will be honoured for three years, but we haven't received anything in writing. So that means that our counterparts, also, across the province are in that same boat. There has been nothing in writing to us. It's just really comforting to have that piece of paper.

B. Clayton: Just to clarify. The Kamloops Art Gallery doesn’t have direct access. We're a bingo affiliate, but we have a three-year agreement with that bingo affiliation, as well, and we understand that it will be honoured. But again, nothing really concrete in writing, so that would be helpful.

K. Humphreys: There's speculation with regard to bingo, for example, that's been coming from, I think, a B.C. Association for Charitable Gaming meeting a couple of weeks ago, where some of my colleagues in the orchestra industry came out with the impression that the bingo granting program was to be cancelled altogether. I don't know why. I don't know what was said in the meeting. I wasn't there.

There is just so much uncertainty and fear among organizations and worry about what the future will hold in the short and the long term. If significant funding cuts are forthcoming in the short term, what kinds of losses will be suffered that will take many years to recover from, even if funding is reinstated after a year or two?

Our organizations are traditionally very lean. We don't have a lot of staff. We don't have a lot of frills. We don't have any extra money. Absorbing any significant cuts is very difficult to do.

For the example of the Kamloops Symphony, we have both a direct access and a bingo affiliation grant. Both are three-year grants. As Lori was mentioning, when they reinstated the direct access grants, there was no clear indication of whether that was for this year only or whether that was also for the third year. What would happen after that is also a huge concern.

Of course, bingo, in the case of our organization, is an even greater concern than either the B.C. Arts Council grant or the direct access grants. Our bingo grant is $75,000 a year. Our direct access grant is $6,000 a year for one small program, and our B.C. Arts Council grant is less than half that — $36,000.

Even then, I think it's 40 percent cuts they're talking about for the B.C. Arts Council. It's still significant in a small organization, and it could mean reduction of services, educational programs, services for children. It could mean loss of staff, again, reducing our capacity to sustain our organization. If you don't have the staff to apply for other grants or to seek other sponsorships or other opportunities, it's very difficult to continue to operate at the level that your community has come to expect and that, we believe, our communities deserve.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. I've got five more questions and just a few minutes left.

[0950]

B. Ralston: Just one.

You mentioned Mr. Krueger. When the opposition critic Spencer Herbert raises questions with him, he seems to think that everything is just peachy. So I'm a bit interested to know what specific commitments you've got from him, as a local MLA, about restoring arts funding in the coming budget.

L. Marchand: We haven't received any guarantee of the restoration of arts funding. He has informed us that our three-year direct access grants and our three-year bingo affiliations will be honoured. Those are the firm commitments we've received from him.

The communication, to be fair, from him has been that they're hoping the Olympics are the economic boom that we all hope they will be for British Columbia, that the signs of an economic turnaround will continue to grow and that it will all be good.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for your presentation. Yeah, I've had confirmation from Minister Coleman. I know he worked very hard to get the three-year agreements reinstated. I can confirm that that's happening. That's just from my perspective.

I'm interested in your comment about the Olympics. It is my understanding that all jurisdictions in the world really, really wish that they had the Olympics coming to their city, their country, because of the financial situation — the global financial situation that we're all in. We really need that extra boost.

I would assume that any extra boost we have that is world-renowned — and the world will be on us — can only help to boost the economy and help the situation with regards to funding for the arts. So I'm interested in why you would say that you are worried that it would destabilize the arts.
[ Page 224 ]

L. Marchand: One of the other things that Minister Krueger mentioned on Tuesday was the fact that he is working to develop circle tours that will bring visitors to the Olympics outside of the Vancouver area and Lower Mainland.

Our concern right now…. I'm hoping we made it clear that it's a perception — not from us but our audiences, people that we work with — that the gaming funding is being redirected to the Olympics and that that is why we're sort of being cut off. It's more that it's a reduction in our ability….

The proposed cuts — the 40 percent cuts in gaming — are about $100,000 for each one of these three organizations. As you can imagine, $100,000 to a non-profit charitable organization is a huge cut. We struggle every year to try to deliver the best — we certainly say the best — theatre in the country to our audiences at an affordable, accessible ticket price.

As I mentioned the interconnectivity…. We support the arts education through all levels of the education system. There are many — I won't go through our presentation again — many benefits. Our three organizations love working together. We provide much of the infrastructure that is here to support the work of the other smaller organizations, including the theatre, the ticket office, the database, the presentation space, the school.

We employ over 35 people between these three organizations on a full-time basis in the arts, and we bring in hundreds of artists to the community who then reside here, spend their money here and are very proud of what we bring to the community.

So as I say, it's not…. I truly in my heart wish the Olympics every bit of success. If I have an opportunity, I'll be there. I'm very proud to wear my Canadian and my British Columbian badge on my shoulder. What we're worried about is that long-term impact, the destabilization of our ability to maintain infrastructure on budgets that are already stretched. You know, the grants have just not — as you've heard from other presenters — kept up with the rate of inflation. We rely on staff, volunteers.

[0955]

In most cases, the staff certainly are working for below wages that they could earn in other industries. We have to fight that. We have young technicians, apprentices that could go and work at Starbucks for more than what we're paying them. That's just the economic reality.

J. Les (Chair): Good. We have three more quick questions.

N. Letnick: A question for Kathy. You mentioned you got $36,000, I believe, from the B.C. Arts Council.

K. Humphreys: Yeah, that's right.

N. Letnick: How does that get allocated? Is it on a per-capita basis throughout the province? Will the Victoria Symphony get just as much on a per-capita basis?

K. Humphreys: I'd be interested to know how it's allocated, actually.

I think there are some historical reasons for the way the government grant funds are distributed among the various organizations. As far as I know, the B.C. Arts Council budget is divided up among the different disciplines that they support. There will be a budget for music, for example, and then that budget is divided up among the eligible organizations.

One of the big challenges with B.C. Arts Council funding for many years now…. I'll just give you an example. This is my favourite example: $25,000 was the B.C. government grant for the Kamloops Symphony 20 years ago, so $25,000. Our budget at that time was $160,000. Our grant now is $36,200, and our budget is $830,000. The service to the community has grown exponentially. We've added things like the music school seven years ago. We started serving the community of Salmon Arm this year. None of that really is reflected in the grant that we receive.

However, I know that the B.C. Arts Council's budget has not been increased in recent years either, so new operating clients that should be eligible are not able to get a grant at all. Some organizations that I'm sure are worthy of increased funding are not receiving any increases at all. The only way for an organization like ours — and I suppose it's probably the same in theatre and visual arts as well — to get an addition in your grant is for someone else to lose something. Of course, there's a reluctance to take away from one organization to give to another.

Really, in the long term we might as well say that we'd like to ask for an increase in the B.C. Arts Council's grant so that they can further the sustainability of our organizations in the long term.

J. Les (Chair): The next question is to Don.

D. McRae: Thank you for articulating the perception that money is being used from the arts to fund the Olympics. Let me please assure you that our biggest pressure is health care right now and the rising costs — far more so than the Olympics could ever compare to.

One question I would ask, though, is: how would you characterize the government's funding of the arts prior to the economic recession of 2008 in the last, say, three to five or six years or so?

L. Marchand: Speaking for Western Canada Theatre, we did receive an increase to our operating budget for the first time in 25 years, which we gratefully accepted. I did bring a chart. It was a comparison from 2005-06.
[ Page 225 ]
I would have liked more recent statistics, but in 2005-06 British Columbia was only second from the end in terms of per-capita spending on the arts compared to the other provinces and the territories.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, final question, Michelle.

M. Mungall: Thanks very much for your presentation. As you noted earlier, several of us are from rural communities. Being one of those MLAs from a rural community, I appreciate some of the concerns you have around putting all of our economic development eggs in one basket. The basket is in Vancouver, and that basket, of course, is the Olympics.

I appreciate some of the comments you made around that and wanting to make sure that the money flows out to the rest of the province as well as the arts. Money that typically in the past has been for the arts has been put into general revenue and then taken out of general revenue. Some say for health care, but being from general revenue, it can be for the Olympics. That's something that I think we should be looking into, to follow up on your concern.

Bringing up the direct access grants, you spoke with Minister Krueger. I don't know if you're aware that the direct access grants, of course, are B.C. Gaming, which is under Housing and Social Development. The minister, Rich Coleman — I'm glad that he reinstated the funding this year for the three-year direct access grants. That was something I worked very closely on with my local Capitol Theatre.

But he said that the three-year grants are no longer going to be available in future budgets. Would you prefer to see the government reinstate the opportunity for a three-year direct access grant to create stability for the arts community?

[1000]

B. Clayton: Absolutely. Three-year grants are the way we would want to see them.

K. Humphreys: I was under the impression in recent discussions with the B.C. Arts Council staff that they were hoping to move the B.C. Arts Council to a three-year funding model as well. We have three-year funding commitments from Canada Council. Because of the time cycles for planning our budgets and our programs in the arts — like right now we're working on planning and budgeting for our 2010-11 concert season — not knowing how much money might be available for us from various sources makes it really difficult to plan.

We have to make those commitments now. We have to book theatres. We have to hire guest artists and all of those things. Three-year funding is definitely much more preferable to help us with our stability issues and our planning issues.

L. Marchand: Kathy has given you her numbers, but if we went through them again…. At Western Canada Theatre we will celebrate our 35th anniversary in January of this year. We've been around for a while. We receive $113,800 from the B.C. Arts Council. We receive approximately $40,000 in bingo revenue and $30,000 in direct access.

B. Clayton: We were receiving $90,000 from B.C. Arts Council and $84,000 from our bingo affiliation, nothing from direct access.

K. Humphreys: Ours was $75,000, $6,000 and $36,000 from the B.C. Arts Council.

L. Marchand: You can see the disparity even in the age of the organizations, and it is a battle that the other arts organizations in the province are facing. It's a challenge that's faced by the B.C. Arts Council. I mean, the answer, of course, is an investment in the operating. We are here advocating for ourselves, but in terms of other counterparts, I know there's a company in Vancouver that does fantastic innovative work called Pi Theatre. The only funding they receive is through direct access.

J. Les (Chair): We'll have to leave it there because we're flat out of time. We appreciate you coming this morning.

L. Marchand: I appreciate your informed questions and for being here in Kamloops.

J. Les (Chair): It's my understanding that the TRU Students Union are not here, so we will move on to Tourism Kamloops. Lee Morris, I understand, is here.

L. Morris: Good morning. My name is Lee Morris. Thank you to my colleagues.

First, obviously, as a tourism person — I'm the CEO of the Tourism Kamloops organization — my first job is to welcome you here. Thank you all very much for coming to Kamloops. We turned on the good weather for you, which is great.

I don't have a written submission for you. I'm actually your spontaneous speaker this morning. There was a cancellation, and I took the opportunity to make a few comments to you today.

I heard the question earlier about the implications of the HST on the tourism industry. Certainly, there are a number of implications. I'm sure the restaurant association and the hotel association have all been making presentations in other parts of the province. What I wanted to focus on very briefly is the implication for the destination marketing system, particularly, for example, in the Kamloops area but around the province.
[ Page 226 ]

I think most of you will know that there is an additional hotel room tax of 2 percent, a consumer tax that essentially funds the destination marketing system around the province, whether that's Tourism Vancouver or Victoria or Kamloops or Smithers or Prince Rupert. It generates, as a consumer tax, about $37 million worth of destination marketing funding around the province.

With the implementation of the HST, that particular model was placed in jeopardy. The act, in fact, would be rescinded as of June 30. It certainly created a massive amount of uncertainty for my colleagues and myself around the province.

In the case of Kamloops, the 2 percent funding consumer tax model basically was implemented in 2005, so it's fairly recent as opposed to Tourism Victoria or some others. It really fuels about $800,000 worth of an overall $1.3 million tourism marketing budget that I head up on behalf of industry.

[1005]

In three short years since the implementation of that model to the end of 2008, we achieved a $10 million lift in actual accommodation revenues just in this municipality, so a microcosm of an example of how this type of model — industry-led, performance-based — is working. It's driving great marketing.

We've had a lot of meetings — my colleagues and myself — with various folks. I have to commend Minister Hansen and the staff at the Ministry of Finance that my colleagues and I have been meeting with. Certainly, my own MLAs, Dr. Terry Lake and of course Minister Krueger, have been very cognizant of the uncertainty that this question mark around the future destination marketing model brings to us.

Minister Hansen did achieve an extension of a year for the 2 percent model in some fashion. There'll be legislative steps that need to be taken, which you'll all be made aware of, I'm sure. But we have an extension, and it certainly gives us the time to build a new model, a new system that will be even more effective, I hope, as we go down that road.

That's good, but I guess my key comment here today is that I just want to keep a profile on the need for that model to get legislated, to get in place, to make sure that it is performance-based, industry-driven and effective. We need to keep the profile on that. We've got that extension, but let's not let that work stop in terms of solving that for us.

I think most of you know that the Premier set a goal for our industry and the province, and that was to double tourism revenues by 2015. There are communities across the province, certainly including myself, that are very keen to work on meeting that goal. Like with my friends in the arts and cultural community, if there's uncertainty on how the funding model will work, that creates significant decisions for us.

I just want to keep a profile on it, and I certainly thank you for being here. Thank you for my opportunity to speak spontaneously. Sorry I don't have a written presentation for you, but any other questions that you might have I'm more than willing to answer.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Lee. We have a couple of questions.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Lee, for the presentation. I've been a destination tourist visitor to Kamloops at Sun Peaks, so I understand your work and appreciate it. When you talk about "industry-driven, performance-based," it reminds me of Tourism B.C. and that model — the stable funding it was receiving and being arm's length. I was wondering if you could comment on what your perception was of the Tourism B.C. marketing, as far as destination marketing goes, as well.

L. Morris: I am — and I will speak from my own personal viewpoint — a strong advocate of the Tourism British Columbia model. I have been in the tourism destination marketing business in B.C. for 30 years as of next year, including in Smithers, Prince Rupert and all over the place. I thought the model that was there was very effective, industry-driven.

What I mean by that is that, obviously, particularly the hotel sector had the opportunity to provide input and direction on decision-making. I think the ability for long-term planning, a funding formula that sustains itself — again, similar to the arts community — making decisions over three- and five-year time frames makes a really big difference if you want to have smart marketing. That was a good model.

Having said that, clearly there has been change and a review of that. We are working closely with the minister and with staff in terms of how we can continue to have great decision-making. But yes, I was a fan.

D. McRae: Thank you very much for coming. Some 23 years ago we had Expo 86, and I was wondering if you could make a little comment about how that would impact, say, Kamloops back in the day. Also, with the Olympics coming forward, do you see immediate and long-term benefits to the Kamloops region from the Olympic Games?

L. Morris: It's interesting that you asked the question that way. For many of us this is almost like the bookend. I was in Prince George heading the visitors bureau during the Expo year, and I'm clearly here now in Kamloops looking at the Olympic opportunity.

Expo had significant benefits. I think the difference there is that it was a sustained event, and there were a lot of people travelling through the province en route to Expo. The post-Expo glow and the opportunities it presented as we drove our tourism industry…. I'm sure most of you have seen what happened to tourism revenues in the years following that.

[1010]
[ Page 227 ]

Do I see that same opportunity with the Olympics? Yes. Certainly, sitting where I am in Kamloops, I think the impact of the Olympics during the Olympics will really be around what visual exposure we get with the broadcast crews, whether it is NBC or NHK from Japan — wherever. If they broadcast footage around British Columbia — and a lot of us have provided that to VANOC — we will see the benefits in terms of media.

Where we see the post-Olympic opportunity is clearly around marketing post-Olympic glow. This is where the whole question around the 2 percent and that funding certainty comes into play, because we believe that certainly here in Kamloops it's the post-Olympic opportunity that really presents to drive tourism revenues. We're Canada's tournament capital. We've got a lot of things that we want to do to sort of capitalize on that.

J. Thornthwaite: Yeah, I know about the tournament capital because I'm a soccer mom. I've spent a quite a bit of time up here.

Anyways, I was very interested…. Thank you very much for commenting with your compliment on Minister Hansen for extending the issue with regards to the new model system.

I'm wondering if maybe you could comment on that 2 percent. It seems quite evident with what you've said that you are in regular communications with your local MLAs, including Dr. Lake, who is sitting there. Maybe what you could do is just comment a little bit further on that 2 percent and where you see that going.

L. Morris: Absolutely. I'm sincere about thanking my local MLAs as well as Minister Hansen for the time and effort in the midst of a big change — for taking the time to pay attention to this particular issue. We appreciate that.

Our view is that the potential lies in new legislation that would provide for a destination marketing fee of some kind — it wouldn't be called a tax but a destination marketing fee of some kind — that could be implemented and would need to be agreed to, again, by the private sector. So the hotel sector would need to agree that they were prepared to collect that DMF and drive it to an agency such as a Tourism Kamloops.

We also believe there may be an opportunity to open that up. There has long been a feeling that it's not just the hotel sector that benefits from tourism and good tourism marketing but maybe some other sectors. Maybe there is a way for us to actually take a look at this model that was implemented in the late '80s — '87, I believe — and find a better model. Maybe there is a new car there.

I think that's the dialogue we want to have as industry. The key thing is that we want it to be performance-based. We want industry to be able to be involved in the decision-making on that process.

N. Letnick: Just information that you might want to check out. I was in Banff during the '80s and the '90s, and we brought in the Bow Valley tourism bureau. What we did is, through partnerships and on a voluntary contribution basis, had everybody involved in tourism donate on a per-pillow, per-chair, per–square foot of retail towards a common marketing board. So you might want to check with the Banff-Canmore–Lake Louise area and see what they have done. If it works for B.C., maybe you can propose it.

L. Morris: Absolutely. My colleagues and I know even the Ministry of Tourism is looking at other models that take an apportionment of the broader base of the tourism industry and look at that. That is something we need to explore, but we can't explore it for four years. We sort of have to look at it and get a replacement model in place fairly quick — but thank you.

N. Letnick: Right. But I heard the same thing that you heard from the ministers — that the tourism industry will be kept whole. I've never doubted the veracity of our Finance Minister, so I would go ahead and plan for your income that you expect to get.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Lee, for coming in, obviously, at short notice and for doing that very good impromptu presentation.

L. Morris: Good. My pleasure. Thank you very much.

J. Les (Chair): The next presenters would be Thompson Rivers University Faculty Association — Eric Villeneuve.

Good morning.

[1015]

E. Villeneuve: Good morning. Welcome to Kamloops.

I'm here today representing the nearly 650 academic staff at Thompson Rivers University. Our institution was established as a full-status university in April 2005, with the mandate to meet the educational needs of our region's community and to meet the open learning needs of all British Columbians.

Our instructors, researchers, librarians, counsellors and educational coordinators, which I represent, are all working hard to ensure that TRU has both the capacity and the opportunity to provide the educational programs that this region needs to grow and prosper. Our region, of course, extends from Williams Lake in the northwest to Clearwater in the northeast, all the way to Lillooet.

I'm mindful of my limited time before you this morning, so I want to focus my remarks on the fiscal priorities we hope to see in the March 2010 provincial budget as they relate to post-secondary education.

Thompson Rivers University has a student base of 13,000 full- and part-time students. We also have, through our
[ Page 228 ]
open learning division, another 9,000 students who use on-line and remote classroom learning to start and complete their post-secondary education.

When TRU was first launched in 2004, we were positioning ourselves to meet the post-secondary needs of a significant region of the province. But unlike many of B.C.'s established universities, TRU did not abandon its commitment to being a comprehensive learning institution. We take great pride in the fact that we provide not only undergraduate and graduate programs but also vocational and trades training programs, as well as a wide range of developmental education programs including literacy.

That's not only our strength as a post-secondary institution; it's our commitment to the community in which we operate. We strive to be relevant in the knowledge-creation process and relevant to those who share an interest in learning, whether that interest is sparked by the desire to complete their high school education or a master's program in one of the several disciplines that TRU offers.

Fulfilling that commitment has become increasingly difficult over the last eight years. Several factors have all had an impact. In 2001 the B.C. government decided to deregulate tuition fees for post-secondary institutions. Those who supported the move saw the opportunity to find more money for the system. Those of us who saw problems in this policy shift — and our faculty association was one of them — worried about what that shift would mean for our students.

Generally, the tuition increases since 2001 have pushed more students into more debt. The immediate impact of rising debt levels is that students take longer to complete their post-secondary education. When they graduate, they do so with student loans totalling $25,000 to $30,000, according to the Canadian Federation of Students.

When you place those kinds of financial barriers on post-secondary education, you limit affordability and access to those who can afford a post-secondary education. In our view, that undermines the central commitment that an institution like TRU has to their community — a commitment to be open, accessible and a true reflection of the diverse community in which we operate.

Another major factor that is diminishing our commitment to community is funding. The public post-secondary system receives operating grants from the provincial government. Those grants are not keeping pace with inflation, the underlying demand for post-secondary education in this region or the ongoing need to continually renew the programs and courses we offer to our students. In real terms, the public post-secondary education system in B.C. has seen per-student operating grants fall by 8 percent since 2001.

In 2008 every post-secondary institution in the province had 2.6 percent of their operating grant unilaterally cut. There was no consultation or advance warning about that cut, and those funding levels have not been restored in any budget since then.

What do those underfunding realities look like at an institutional level? I'll give you a few examples. We have lost, for example, funding for literacy coordinators not only at TRU but across the province. It was a modest program in terms of funding — about $1.7 million — from a ministry with an overall budget of about $2 billion.

It was part of a larger commitment, this time from the Premier, to make B.C. one of the most literate, best-educated jurisdictions in North America. It's a laudable goal; we support it. We also know from firsthand experience just how labour-intensive it is to achieve that goal. The success of the province of British Columbia depends on a literate society. Thus, funding for literacy programs is important.

[1020]

TRU also has difficulty meeting the needs of its students outside classrooms, as a result of the underfunding crunch. As an example, student demand for counselling services has increased, but in the past ten years we have added only one half-time counsellor to our staff. Counselling is a valuable service for students that helps them make the best choice at the right time and, in so doing, to complete their degrees, diplomas or certificates without needless delay.

The funding crunch has also meant fewer course sections and options for our students. At times some of our students have had to wait an entire calendar year to get the next offering of a course that they need to complete their requirements. That delay often means more debt, more lost time in finding their entry into the labour force, more lost opportunity. Often students move to other institutions, making it a loss for the region and sometimes for the province, as they can go to institutions outside of B.C.

This committee has been briefed in previous consultations on the skills shortage problem that B.C. faces. It's a problem that has a serious economic impact. In fact, in previous budget documents it has been cited as a risk to B.C.'s future economic growth.

Investing in post-secondary education is one of the most effective ways to address the skills shortage, and we sincerely hope that your report to the minister will include allocating funding that addresses the skills shortage.

Our region has also been hurt over the past few years with mill closures in places such as Williams Lake, Kamloops, Barriere and Clearwater. TRU has the ability to offer retraining opportunities, and funding is needed to support these programs.

This committee's report to the minister can play a critical role in changing the government's current fiscal priorities. With that in mind, I want to conclude with some specific recommendations that I hope will find their way into your final report to the minister.
[ Page 229 ]

I mentioned the affordability problem facing students as a result of the deregulation of tuition fees. The March 2010 budget needs to include new measures to address that problem. Student financial aid would be an obvious first step, but there needs to be a longer-term commitment to making tuition fees more affordable to more families.

TRU has developed capacities for research. However, the government's current policy is to focus available provincial research dollars toward the larger universities at the expense, in our view, of institutions like TRU.

Research is an essential part of a university's mandate, but unless the province is prepared to be more inclusive in its approach to research funding, TRU and certainly all of the newly designated universities will be left behind in the quest to create innovation and new knowledge on our campuses. We'd like to see some recommendation in your final report that addresses that inequity.

I mentioned, as well, that the per-student funding grants have fallen behind, in large part because the formula does not fully reflect the realities of operating a modern campus. We need to see significant new investment in post-secondary education, but before these investments are made, it may make sense to combine those investment commitments with a thorough review of the funding formula itself. All stakeholders need to be part of that review.

The committee should give serious thought to that recommendation because it would help address a broad range of problems, as well as the underlying problem of chronic underfunding.

One last point. It has to do with how and where federal transfer dollars get spent. B.C. has signed a labour market development agreement with the federal government. It means that the federal transfers are moving to the Ministry of Advanced Education. The money is designed to help provide education and training support mostly for those who are unemployed or are making a career transition.

The public post-secondary system is well positioned to deliver most, if not all, of these programs. It would make good public policy for the committee to make a recommendation in its report to the Legislature that strongly supports the use of public post-secondary institutions in the delivery of these programs.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you this morning. I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much. First question goes to Norm.

N. Letnick: Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve, for that presentation, and thank you for choosing public education at the post-secondary level. I appreciate that.

You said that since 2001 it's taking longer for students to go through their education — maybe five years instead of four for a degree. If you could provide the committee with any studies to support this….

I was talking to some ministry staff who said that once the cap on tuition fees was lifted after 2001, there was actually more money to provide more courses. Therefore, one of the benefits was that students could go through their degrees or diplomas in the normal time allotted. I'm hearing two different messages, so if you could provide us at some point with that, I would appreciate that.

E. Villeneuve: I can look for that.

One of the aspects with the funding is also that the students have to work harder. Most of my students hold part-time jobs on top of studying full-time. When I was a student, I only worked during the summer. That gave me a chance, because I was then able to afford the tuition — way back when.

[1025]

Most of my students are working now. That means it limits the number of courses they can take, because if they take more courses on top of a part-time job, they flunk.

N. Letnick: Like I said, if you could provide some metrics on that — maybe broad-based to other institutions as well. If that's available, that would be very advantageous.

Also, something else which I haven't asked others before, but it came to mind when you were talking about the changes. Is there anything that we have understanding the demographic changes that's going to be coming down the road?

Once the recession is done, a lot of the students will go back into the workforce. We're going to be back in the same situation with not enough people to move the province forward. There will be less people through the school system coming up into our colleges and universities. How will that play out with your particular institution? Have you looked at that — like three years, five years or ten years out?

E. Villeneuve: At my personal level, I'm used to seeing anecdotal evidence. I should point out I teach preparation courses. The courses I teach are below first year, to get students ready and get the prerequisites to get into first year.

When I started 15 years ago, the average age in my class was about 35. That included a lot of people who had lost a job. Many women in their 30s or early 40s for various family reasons were going back in the workforce. They were coming to us. Many of these have graduated with university degrees.

Right now the average age of my class is about 25. Most of the students I have are fresh out of high school and are missing prerequisites, rather than people coming back.

I think that's one of the big issues in terms of what's going to happen with the future. We don't see people
[ Page 230 ]
laying off, going for a full university program. Often they're trying to get the small, quick fix and then don't move ahead as much. I've seen students, as I say, when I started, coming in, in their mid-30s, who've had a rough life, and coming out with a bachelor degree either in science or nursing and becoming much better contributors to the society in B.C. I think that's something we need to be aware of. That's something that has happened.

I was dumbfounded that I didn't see more students coming up in Williams Lake in our campus with all the mills closing. Part of me is going: "Is tuition really scaring them? Why are they not coming?" In a way a recession, in my mind, was always a good time to get those new skills. You have that time. Now go back to school, and get those new skills. Come out; you're even better. You're ready for the new economy. What's going to happen? I didn't see as many people coming back who were unemployed. That really scared me.

M. Mungall: [French was spoken.]

It's really interesting what you were saying — that you weren't seeing people coming from Williams Lake. Absolutely. Labour market development analysis always notes that in times of recession, enrolment in post-secondary goes up. If we're not seeing it, why aren't we? That's a really valid question — something for us to look into.

Then following from that are the points you made around student aid. You focused on tuition, but we know that student aid has been cut by $16 million in this year's budget and is likely to remain at that level for 2010. I was wondering if you can comment on whether you believe that if we reinstate that funding for student aid, we might see those students from Williams Lake or wherever start taking….

E. Villeneuve: Wherever. Yes, definitely. I teach prep courses which are tuition-free, which is a good thing. But most of the students that come don't see prep courses as the end, so they are looking at: "How much am I going to pay in first year, once I finish my prep course? How much am I going to pay in second year, third year, fourth year?" That has been a huge impact.

The tuition, giving more financial aid, more…. Not only in loans, because everybody is thinking: "I'm going to come out of university with what kind of loan. What am I going to be able to do with such a huge debt?" It also hurts B.C. I keep thinking that if you're coming out of university with a $40,000 loan, that means you're not investing it into a brand-new house, which used to be the case. It's affecting the economy overall.

So we need not just loans but really a lot more scholarships, money to help them to get through.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much for your presentation. What would be your suggestions on changing the funding formula, if you wanted to submit those to us?

[1030]

E. Villeneuve: First of all, it needs to bring every stakeholder in it. I think we need to really take into account that technology has changed. At TRU we don't teach the same way as we used to teach, and that means some money had to be moved to start getting more computers and things like that. All our classrooms have a computer and projector.

I think what we need is really to bring all the stakeholders together and do a consultation like that.

J. van Dongen: Eric, thanks for your presentation. I just wanted to comment on the issue of research and research capacity. Certainly, it was my understanding that the government and the ministry did a major review of the whole university and college sector. As you know, the decision was made to establish a number of regional or teaching universities.

I think the rationale is that we can't spread out research dollars to all universities. The rationale is that the major universities continue to do in-depth research, and regional universities like TRU or UFV in the Fraser Valley become excellent teaching universities. I think that's the policy decision. I just invite your further comment on it.

I wanted to check with you, because I want to clarify my own understanding that TRU is being viewed, from a policy base, the same way as all other regional teaching universities.

E. Villeneuve: I think any university does need to do some research. I think it loses the name "University" if there's no research taking place.

I think the other aspect to it is in terms of the regional economy. The more research that is done in the region…. It's been proven in many areas that whatever is done at that research can be translated to industry.

Just look at the ginseng industry, for example. When they started when I came here about 15 years ago, there was a huge partnership between the ginseng industry and some of our researchers. That created jobs in Kamloops.

Especially because in B.C., unfortunately, all our big universities are geographically located in one area. Well, UNBC, sorry….

The more research that can happen in outlying universities such as TRU, the more we can broaden the knowledge base, the more we can make our region not dependent on one industry and the stronger B.C. will be.

J. van Dongen: I don't think we're talking about practical research — I think the technical term is applied
[ Page 231 ]
research — on a regional basis. I don't think that's what we're talking about. We're talking about the really in-depth…. You would know the right term for it.

E. Villeneuve: Fundamental research is the term that is used often.

J. van Dongen: I think that's where we would draw the line on the definition of research.

E. Villeneuve: I think the applied research and fundamental research go hand in hand. One feeds from the other. The more you have going in one university, the more vibrant the university becomes.

J. van Dongen: I guess the government, when they went through that review, felt that was not going to be possible in terms of the funding that's required to have that in-depth fundamental research at every institution. I mean, that is not a viable model.

J. Rustad: Thank you for your presentation. As with many of your colleagues around the province that have presented to us, I'd like to ask this question: where do we get the money from?

There's only so much money to go around. We've got huge pressures in health care and many other services that we provide. Our revenue stream is somewhat limited, especially during the downturn, but even coming off the downturn.

Since 2001 we've seen about a 40 percent increase in post-secondary spending. Are you suggesting we should be looking at additional deficit spending to reallocate additional funding towards post-secondary? Should we raise taxes, or should we be taking funding from other sources?

E. Villeneuve: Kind of interesting. I've had a year to think about that. Last year somebody — I don't know if it was you — asked the same question of my predecessor in this seat.

J. Rustad: For last year it was probably me. I asked that question because….

E. Villeneuve: I think it's a valid question. I'm a teacher. I'm not a leader. Part of me, in my reflection…. I'm going to go all airy-fairy, I guess, maybe. I think what is needed here is leadership in terms of explaining to British Columbians the importance. Making it a dream, almost.

[1035]

I think Canadians and British Columbians are willing to make sacrifices for things that are important. It's important for people to realize what they need, what is important.

I mean, my father was a mailman. My mother was a primary school teacher. My father didn't finish primary school. I'm the first one in my family to have gone to university. I, and many other people like me, can vouch that this is life-changing. It changed our families to have access to university.

If people realize that it is accessible, that it's a dream, I think people are willing to make sacrifices to reach that dream. We need leadership to make people realize the importance of it. I have a dream.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much, Eric. I appreciate you coming this morning.

Our next presenter is Anita Strong, from the Council of Canadians, Kamloops chapter.

A. Strong: First, I'd like to thank this committee for hearing my submission and also for taking into consideration the ideas of the public in planning the year's budget.

That said, I'd like to make an observation about the recent B.C. budgets. Extremely conservative budgeting practices consistently underestimated revenues, with the result that negligible surpluses tabled at budget time undermined public debate over how the province should move on public policy issues. This also partly explains the government's inaction on issues of concern to British Columbians, such as poverty and homelessness.

The budget itself has become increasingly unreliable as a source of information about government finances, their true state becoming apparent only when books are audited and public accounts released. That's just kind of a preamble to what I would like to talk about. The issue which I would like to address at this hearing is that of B.C. Hydro and so-called green energy.

I believe that the gutting of B.C. Hydro and the handing of public resources over to private interests is not in the interest of B.C. citizens. We're losing an important revenue stream and committing ourselves to higher energy costs forever. I believe that public power — generated by a Crown corporation, distributed through our own transmission lines and available at affordable rates to British Columbians — is the only way to go.

All four major components of the B.C. Hydro system — the generation, transmission, distribution, and administrative and customer services — have been separated into distinct and separate companies, some of which have already been privatized. The result is a less efficient system with higher prices for the residential and industrial customers, consumers of B.C. power, undermining what has been a clear advantage for the B.C. economy.

In the past B.C. Hydro sold energy at the cost of production. Now it must buy from private suppliers at prices that will pay for construction of new generation facilities and provide a profit over the next 30-year life of
[ Page 232 ]
the contract. In the end, we won't own those facilities. In fact, we'll have to negotiate new contracts.

To give a sense of the price difference, consider that B.C. Hydro was paying $5.81 for a megawatt hour of electricity from its own suppliers in 2006. Now it pays up to $58.59 for the same amount of power from private producers. Where, then, is the incentive of cheap, clean electricity for industry to locate in our province?

A massive redesign of the whole B.C. electricity system has occurred in order to meet the needs of U.S. and private energy producers, not the collective interests of the people of B.C. The expanded role for private producers of electricity will involve considerable risks for the public. The public will continue to invest heavily in electricity, although this will not be for the benefit of the accumulation of public assets but rather to subsidize and encourage private sector ownership of power generation.

The main risk with relying on the private sector for new electricity is the security of supply. Unless prices rise considerably, there's no reason to assume that the private sector will adequately invest in new generation for B.C.'s future needs.

[1040]

The run-of-the-river scheme was an ill-conceived giveaway to private interests which, for the most part, didn't even require environmental assessment before construction began. Environmental checks and balances are sorely lacking in run-of-the-river projects. The B.C. environmental assessment process offers scant protection. An assessment is only applied to projects over 50 megawatts, so many IPPs are overlooked.

The ideology of P3s is flawed, in that the bottom line for the corporations investing in these run-of-river projects is just that: a single bottom line. We should be looking at a triple bottom line, one that takes into consideration also the well-being of our citizens as well as the well-being of our environment.

As the benefits of B.C.'s power-generating dams is undermined, these dams are made to absorb the financial deficits and become irrelevant, and can thus also be sold off to private interests, leaving a once proud legacy of clean, cheap energy totally gutted.

The B.C. Utilities Commission's ruling validates the public's concerns around the economics of B.C. Hydro's energy plan, and I believe this government should seriously consider changing this policy. As a business person, if I were to buy a product at a certain price and then sell it for less, I don't suppose I would be in business very long. As a farmer, which I also am, if I were to sell my tractor and then lease it back at an exorbitant rate, I don't suppose I'd be in farming very long, either.

We elect people to the government in the expectation that they will manage the economy in the best interests of all its citizens. This means, as I indicated before, that the triple bottom line of not only financial profits but benefits for people and the environment as well….

There are of course a myriad of other issues that bear looking at a second time, not the least of which is the HST. I'm a restaurant owner, and I would implore you to not go ahead with this totally regressive tax. It will mean the demise of many small businesses such as mine.

Instead, I would encourage you to undertake to set up a fair taxation commission, comprised of members of each party represented in the government as well as representation from the public. I am sure that such a commission would come up with a more progressive taxation scheme which would not fall most heavily on those least able to afford it.

Budgets are about the choices we make as a society. In the face of a recession that is having negative impacts on communities and families across this province, we need a government committed to action — in particular, to protecting incomes and employment.

While government cannot do everything, it must not do nothing. The opportunity still exists to build a more equitable and sustainable British Columbia.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Anita. The first question is from Michelle.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much, Anita. It is interesting that you bring up the issue around B.C. Hydro. I come from the Columbia Basin which, of course, produces 50 percent of the province's power. We've been dealing with many of the run-of-river projects.

I guess my question is: do you feel that a public system, owned and operated by B.C. Hydro, would have better ability and direct impact on greening our energy production in this province than if we just sought a privatized model?

A. Strong: I definitely believe so, because we have the ability to oversee projects like the dams you are talking about much better than a myriad…. There are over 600 individual licences granted now on rivers around the province. Where is the manpower to oversee the environmental impacts of all those projects? It just doesn't exist.

J. van Dongen: Thank you, Anita, for your presentation. You've obviously got pretty strong, well-formed views on the generation of electricity.

One of the things the government is doing, and has asked B.C. Hydro to do, is to look at the feasibility of the Site C hydroelectric dam. Would you be in favour of such a project?

[1045]

A. Strong: I think that given the alternative of run-of-the-river projects, the Site C dam, although it will obviously have a significant impact on the environment there, would be preferable. But in the meantime, we don't need to generate more electricity than we need. We can conserve
[ Page 233 ]
electricity through a myriad of ways, and I think that by encouraging people to do that, we can forestall the construction of Site C for many years yet.

J. van Dongen: That is one of the principles in the government's energy plan — conservation. I think it's 50 percent of new sourcing comes from conservation. But the Site C dam would be publicly owned by B.C. Hydro. Thank you for your comments.

D. McRae: Mr. van Dongen actually stole my questions.

J. Les (Chair): There you go.

J. Thornthwaite: With regards to your comments about the HST, we have had lots of presentations from chambers of commerce and other groups that support the HST. They're looking at it from a holistic perspective — that if the economy is doing well, then people can actually go to restaurants and eat. But if the economy isn't doing well, then they won't. So from a global perspective, from a holistic perspective, the comments were that generally this was a good thing down the road for people that wanted to have their discretionary income going to restaurants.

I'm just wondering about your comment about a fair taxation commission. Can you expand on what you mean by that?

A. Strong: I think that, the same as anything else, if you have a number of different points of view that are put into a discussion and not just the points of view of one segment of society — for example, the chamber of commerce…. The more input you have from different segments of the economy, the more likely you are to come up with something that is going to be beneficial to everyone. You would have to have representation from those whose income is very small as well.

J. Thornthwaite: Yeah, I appreciate what you're saying, and the only reason why I brought up the chamber of commerce is because the chamber of commerce does actually represent restaurant owners as well. There are many, many other groups that support it.

A. Strong: Although the B.C. restaurant federation is not exactly on side with….

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, I know, and we're dealing with them. I know that the Minister of Finance has had numerous meetings with them and other groups. But I just kind of wanted more specifics on what you meant by a fair taxation commission. So maybe if you could supply that to the committee, that would be helpful.

A. Strong: I don't have a clearly articulated plan of what it would be. But when you are looking at the planning of anything, it's always best to have input from a number of different sources. I think that by inviting this kind of input from other members of the government, of the Legislature, from the public, that you would come up with a more equitable way of raising money, rather than listening to the ones who already have the power, the people who are in.

For example, the big concession in royalties to the oil companies that was afforded them earlier this summer. I can see that you might say, "Oh, it's good. If they get a cut in taxes, then they'll be able to hire more people," and so on. But when you're looking at it from the point of view of someone who's making $20,000 a year or less, it somehow doesn't seem as fair.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much, and I'm glad that you had the opportunity to tell us your views.

B. Routley: Well, the first thing I want to do is thank you for your very thoughtful presentation. I think you made a lot of strong and powerful points.

I do want to correct something that I just heard. There was some word bandied around — "holistic." I've been sitting at these meetings and never heard anybody from the chamber or anywhere else suggest that anything was holistic.

In fact, I heard just this morning from the chamber of commerce right here in this room that, indeed, they had serious concerns about tourism — the impact on restaurants — and, it was even added, the impact on old age housing. So contrary to some versions of events, I haven't heard anything about holistic in any way associated with HST.

Anyway, that said, you were very clear on the HST. I think you made the point that it is regressive.

[1050]

My question comes back to this issue of P3 partners and your concerns that that wasn't a very good economic model because we seem to be selling low and buying high — in other words, buying power back from these corporate partners at a higher rate than we can generate it for ourselves.

Has your organization had any success clearing away the veil of secrecy that seems to be over so many of these projects? There are literally dozens of projects that are long-term commitments — 25 or 30 years, as I understand it — and there's not a whole lot of public transparency. Have you been able to get some of that information, and is that where the information about the rates is coming from?

A. Strong: The rates — that information comes partly from union work of people that are represented at B.C. Hydro and partly from Citizens for Public Power and groups that have done research into the rates and into the way P3s are set up and how they operate.
[ Page 234 ]

We've had public meetings in Kamloops where we've tried to inform the public of what's going on with run-of-river projects and so on, and they've been very well attended. People, when they hear about what's happening with our rivers, invariably are outraged.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Anita, for your presentation. Lots of valuable material here for us to consider. I just had a comment and then a question for you — a comment on the concept of a fair taxation commission and the consultation that you alluded to. That was not done around the HST, and we see the impacts of that. So I can see the value in an independent fair taxation commission to solicit ideas that people around the province have regarding what would be a way to generate revenues for the government.

My question relates to the first couple of paragraphs around budget planning and the confidence the public has in the financial planning process of the government. The Finance critic has proposed that an independent budget officer position be established, similar to in other jurisdictions. I'm wondering if you have any comments on how that might inspire more confidence in the budget process.

A. Strong: If the person is truly independent, then I'm sure it would make a big difference in inspiring confidence. It's very similar to the federal budget, as well, where you see that revenue is consistently low-balled. People think: "Well, okay, we can't afford to do anything because that's all the money we have." Then when it actually shows up, it just goes into repaying debt. Of course, we should repay the debt, too, but not at the expense of the social programs that hold us together as a nation.

If, as you say, there is a possibility of a person like this who could be truly independent and who people could look to for the truth of the matter, then I'm sure that that would be a worthwhile thing to have.

J. Les (Chair): All right. Thank you very much for coming this morning, Anita. We appreciate your presentation.

A. Strong: Thank you for hearing it.

J. Les (Chair): The next presenter this morning is Sheila Park.

Good morning.

S. Park: Good morning, and thank you for allowing me to be here to make a presentation to you today.

I have handed out — someone's handing out — a written presentation, and to that I have attached the Ministry of Health Services backgrounder. I'm here today to ask the government — or through your motions, etc. — to reconsider residential care rate increases to seniors in residential care.

[1055]

You may be aware that on October 8, which is exactly seven days ago, Minister Kevin Falcon announced increases to residential care rates for seniors in B.C. The rate was to be in the order of 10 percent over two years.

There were also announcements of a reduction of residential care rates for people on lower incomes. The exact increases and decreases in the costs of care to individual seniors are not exactly clear, but it has been stated by the Health Minister that 25 percent of seniors living in residential care will receive a fee decrease, and 75 percent will receive a fee increase.

Mr. Falcon was quoted as saying: "Will seniors be happy about it? Probably not." And he's in an enviable situation as a politician, because a large number of the people who he's just increased the rates for are unable to come here today or make presentations to the press or the public on a fee increase. As a matter of fact, the majority are probably not even aware that a fee increase has happened to them.

However, I'm sure that these seniors, if they were able to speak at this point in time, would be quite pleased that there were fee decreases for people on lower incomes, but they would be quite shocked to discover that fee increases would be going to 75 percent of seniors.

It's up to family members of these seniors to come and speak for them — or friends or community members who have a concern. So that's why I'm here today. My mother moved into residential care in Kamloops on September 1, 2009, one day after her 86th birthday and 38 days prior to the announcement that she would have a fee increase of 10 percent for her residential care.

I've indicated here that as my mother moved into dementia, it was the family that slowly took over the care of her finances and indeed providing for supporting her in daily tasks, etc. We had just completed meetings, actually, on the cost of her care. We'd set up processes for the bank, etc. We were beginning to learn the additional costs that would be there in terms of her care over and above the $1,629 that she was to pay as 70 percent of her income.

And then, of course, we heard the announcement on the radio, which sort of blew us out of the water a tiny bit, because suddenly we're back reassessing what this all means to us.

As my mom moved into forgetfulness and then dementia, her family made a commitment to ensure that things would process for her as they would have had she been able to do the things herself. I'm here to tell you today that my mother would have written to the minister and probably even been here to present herself, even though she is 86 years old, had she been able to do that. So that's why I'm here.

I've indicated on the list a list of items that are over and above the cost of her care. At this point in time my mother does not fall into the category where she would have a minimum limit of $275 over and above to spend
[ Page 235 ]
on these items. That would be for people who are on lower incomes. They are going to be allowed to keep $275 to pay for additional costs over and above the cost of care.

I've indicated, with a computer glitch, some of these items that would be there. That particular list is pretty basic in terms of the costs people have who are in care homes today, and it comes to a total of $222. They would then have $53 to cover other costs that might be incurred, which would perhaps be wheelchair purchase and maintenance. It could be wheelchair rental.

Walker rental at the facility where my mother is — my mother does have her own walker — would be $50 a month. Dental visits, such as cleanings and fillings; non-prescription drugs; shoes and clothing; outings, perhaps; and transportation….

My own personal experience is not just with my mother but with friends who have family members in residential care who perhaps have Parkinson's. A friend of mine's husband has Parkinson's. He is in a care facility. She visits him daily, and she's also able, quite fortunately — he's quite mentally capable — to take him on family outings. They recently flew to Alberta.

[1100]

These are costs over and above that would be coming out of his $275 a month or, if he has a higher income, perhaps his $454 a month that he would be retaining from 20 percent of his income.

I think I'd like to ask people to really consider what this increase means to people. I would ask committee members to consider whether they would be able to provide for themselves the items that I've listed here on $275 per month. What would it mean to you if somebody came to you and said, "Your family expenses, your mortgage, your hydro, everything else is suddenly going up 10 percent in the year" — well, over a period…? It's 5 percent this year, 5 percent next year.

It's indicated that these increases will generate $53.7 million in revenue. Health authorities will be able to have this fund to increase the care. However, given the decreases in funding or the levelling of funding for health authorities, I don't anticipate that they will see an increase in care, but this money will then be used to just maintain care that exists today.

I feel that the government is placing the burden of making up funding shortfalls at this point in time based on the economy, except perhaps even the cost of the Olympics, on the backs of seniors who are not able to stand up and defend themselves or to fight for their rights in this area.

I do say, however, that it's kudos to folks that you actually are decreasing the costs to seniors who are on lower incomes and allowing them to keep a greater portion of their income to provide for expenses that they have currently. But I would ask that you reconsider implementing the increase to 80 percent from 70 percent for seniors who are in residential care at this point in time.

The other thing that I would like to say…. I perhaps on another day would have been here asking you to decrease the 70 percent. The cynical part of me says: "Perhaps I'm actually here fighting against 80 percent rather than asking for a decrease, and perhaps that's a political ploy." However, having said that, that is the way it is.

I have another question, however. I need to know whatever happened — and it perhaps came out and I missed it…. But last year our family presented a report to the ombudsperson because there was a review happening. The ombudsperson was to present a report on seniors care in British Columbia. I have not seen or heard from the ombudsperson, or have not seen or heard anything of that review. I would actually like to know what happened to it.

J. Les (Chair): Well, just before I start taking questions, I believe that report is due very soon — within the next month, or thereabouts, is my understanding.

S. Park: I'm wondering if there was going to be a recommendation of a 10 percent fee increase within that report.

J. Les (Chair): I cannot presuppose what might be in the Ombudsman's report. Questions.

N. Letnick: Sheila, thank you for your presentation. It's obviously something that is very recent. I appreciate your coming out to the committee and talking about it.

I haven't had the chance to look at all the details, but I believe part of the conversation is also to index the rate increases for the future to the rate of inflation, or something like that. Could you comment on that proposal?

S. Park: I've just had the information that I have before me that there's no indication of that. However, having said that, if you look at the 70 percent that they pay, seniors pensions are indexed already. So it being the case, then your 70 percent…. You get 70 percent of the indexing amount that pensions get. For example, Canada Pension and old age pension — they're all indexed. So there has always been that indexing built in.

If you're on a teacher's pension or other kinds of pensions that have indexing, then that indexing is built into the percentage that you increase on a yearly basis because your income is increasing. So your 70 percent is increasing. But having said that, you are talking of an indexing in terms of a 70 percent increase or the 80 percent increase being indexed or going up or….

N. Letnick: Right. So maybe that's how the indexing happens. The incomes are going up, and therefore — to
[ Page 236 ]
index it — so will revenues because of that. I'll have to find out.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions from anyone? Seeing none, thank you very much, Sheila, for your presentation this morning.

S. Park: Thank you for listening to me.

J. Les (Chair): You bet.

The next presenter is Debbie Joujan.

[1105]

D. Joujan: Thank you for seeing me today. I'm here to ask for additional funding for children with autism over the age of six. Right now there seems to be a lot of focus on children under the age of six. However, autism isn't cured when they're six years old.

I have three boys. Two of my boys have autism — my 11-year-old and my six-year-old — and my three-year-old is a typically developing child. We're very busy in our house.

My 11-year-old is the one that has the most needs. My six-year-old is actually higher functioning. For children that are higher functioning, the $6,000 that is provided from the government to help them with services over the years may be fairly adequate. The families still have to add some money to that. But for children such as my 11-year-old…. He is very low functioning, so there are a lot of services that he requires.

Just looking at A Parent's Handbook: Your Guide to Autism, which is put out by the Ministry of Children and Family Development, here it just talks about some of the fee guidelines for occupational therapists, speech therapists, etc. When you have those people that are charging out at $100 an hour, $6,000 for the year is not much when you have a child that needs occupational therapy and speech therapy.

My 11-year-old is still trying very hard to learn how to speak. He has a long way to go. He has come just an amazing way since he was diagnosed at three, but we need him to come a lot further before he becomes an adult. In order for him to do that, he needs those services.

My six-year-old talks a mile a minute. His problem is more in the behavioural area, so we can address those things through a behavioural consultant and such with that $6,000. But for the lower-functioning children it is almost impossible to access anything with the $6,000.

I've just been not even watching what I'm saying. I have notes, but I'm not reading them.

Basically, that's what I'm suggesting. In the eight years since his diagnosis he has come a long way, but with proper funding I'm sure he can come a lot further. I'm not going to be around forever, and the government, I'm sure, doesn't want to have my 11-year-old in a home when he's an adult because he can't function out there on his own.

Our goal is to get these kids as independent as possible, and I think the only way that's going to happen is if there is some additional funding that can be gotten, somehow, by the families.

I don't know what's available out there. I know that, unfortunately, the budget has been set for this year. I don't know if there are any other resources that are available out there for families that we could access at this time. But in the future I would like the government to seriously consider putting it up from the $6,000 to something higher.

I was just doing a rough calculation. At 52 weeks in a year, if we got occupational therapy, speech therapy, a behavioural consultant and a BI — which is just somebody who really implements a lot of the things at $15 an hour — then we would be looking at closer to $20,000 than $6,000.

That was the other thing I was going to mention. It is being said that the services are supposed to be provided through the school, but with the cutbacks in the school and the huge volume of kids on the caseloads of the SLPs and OTs in the schools, it's just not happening.

[1110]

Even outside of what he gets at school, he still requires more of those services than what he's getting at school. He may see the SLP, the speech language pathologist, once or twice. He's lucky if he gets three times a year, but it's really doubtful. That's not going to help him if he's not speaking.

I think that's about all I have to say on that. I don't know if you have any questions for me.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. I have several questions from committee members, starting with Bruce.

B. Ralston: I've received letters at my constituency office from parents whose children have autism, who've expressed the concern that if the intervention isn't made now and the money isn't spent now, then the public will bear the lifetime cost of having a person who is not really able to integrate into society and participate fully.

I understand that parents in the Kamloops area feel quite strongly about this and that there's a demonstration scheduled this Saturday. I'm wondering if you could tell me a bit more about that.

D. Joujan: My understanding is that the demonstration that is scheduled for Saturday is over the cuts to the EIBI program, which is for under six. It just doesn't have anything to do with the children over six at all. Basically, my opinion is that the children over six are being forgotten.

Yes, I do feel that early intervention is important, but we have to continue on for the kids that require that.
[ Page 237 ]
Some of the kids with early intervention are doing really well, like my six-year-old, Daniel. He's just off and flying, and I think by the time he's an adult he should be out there living on his own. But Nathan, on the other hand, who's my 11-year-old, at this stage of the game absolutely cannot function in the real world on his own at all.

B. Ralston: My personal idea of early intervention would be under the age of 19…

D. Joujan: Well, that would be pretty good.

B. Ralston: …sort of separate from the categories that the ministry may have imposed upon these programs.

D. Joujan: Right, and I think at the moment the definition of "early intervention" is before six.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have two very good friends who have amongst them three children — boys — with autism, so I totally appreciate your comments and congratulate you for coming in.

I'm just wondering if you are going to be submitting to us a written report.

D. Joujan: I could do, if that would be helpful.

J. Thornthwaite: Yes, I think it would be really helpful — also, in that report, if you could possibly give us some suggestions of how we could make the system more efficient with regard to funding towards autism.

You mentioned that you think the over-age-six are being forgotten because the focus has been on the under-aged. Could you be more specific as to what your low-functioning son could benefit from more than what you're saying that we're not doing? I would really appreciate more specifics — and efficiencies on where, maybe, we don't need the funding so much and it should go to some other area. That would be helpful.

D. Joujan: Okay. Thank you.

J. van Dongen: Thanks, Debbie, for your presentation. I'm just wondering: what were the services provided to your 11-year-old son from the ages of three to six? And secondly, what has been the pattern of progress over the last eight years since he was first diagnosed?

D. Joujan: When he was first diagnosed, we were in Medicine Hat, Alberta, and I was told there was nothing available for my kids. I had to make my own proposal and present it to the powers that be, to try and get some money and put together my own team, because we required a team: a coordinator who had to have their master's, an OT who had to have their master's and a speech path who had to have their master's, as well as — I forgot the acronym; it's different there — what we have here as the BI. It's the person who is kind of doing the day-to-day work and taking instruction from the professionals.

We did that, and we went ahead and got those things up and running. We had, I believe, $40,000 a year for Nathan when he was…. By the time he was about 3½ going on four we started intervention, and we started with an ABA program.

[1115]

Now he just had a huge area of sensory difficulties, so he couldn't sit at a table. He couldn't speak at all — totally very hard to deal with. He wasn't toilet-trained or any of that sort of thing, and so we had to start on the floor. We had to start where we could start, so we had to start on the floor with him. Eventually we got him up and stretched out the period of time. We worked on a lot of sensory issues.

I had a larger house in Medicine Hat. I had my whole downstairs, which I made into an occupational therapy room — they did all kinds of things in the home — as well as another room that we had for ABA therapy as well. I had everybody coming into my house, and we did the whole program there. Then, when I moved to B.C., I had to start all over again and do what we could do here. Then after six I just carried on, as best as I could with the funding that I've had, with ABA.

He went to the Chris Rose Therapy Centre for Autism here, which has just been fantastic. Over the years we've gradually tried to get him into the school system, the public school system. We started with five days at the Chris Rose and then worked our way back. Now he's full-time in the school system with an aide, so he's just come leaps and bounds.

He can speak, although it's like pulling teeth. We have to really try and get it out of him. He has still a lot of sensory issues. He is toilet-trained, though. He can do a lot of his personal care things now, and he's managing in the classroom. He's at about grade 3 math, and he's doing a program called Language for Learning in the class for language, English.

J. van Dongen: Thank you very much. I commend you for your diligence as a parent.

B. Routley: Thank you for your presentation, Debbie. Just so you know, I'm a grandfather of an autistic boy who's nine years old. I know how much work it is for our daughter, so with two of them, I know that you're heavily burdened with all the challenges that go along with an autistic child. There are also, I'm sure you'd agree, many rewards along the way as well, even though it's a huge challenge.

Because it's a disorder that is really a spectrum disorder, and there are all these different levels, have you
[ Page 238 ]
got any views on whether there should be more money at certain levels, based on what level a child is at? For example, when my grandson was three or four, I lay under a swing to try to get eye contact with him, because he wouldn't even look at me. I'm happy to say that today he's not only able to look at you, but I went to his first play a little while ago.

D. Joujan: Wonderful.

B. Routley: He's speaking well, with the help of speech therapists and all the rest of it. I understand firsthand the value of all of the early intervention, but have you talked to any others in the group? I assume that you belong to some kind of a group.

D. Joujan: No.

B. Routley: Oh, you don't. Have you any thoughts, then, on the spectrum, on whether or not there should be more or less funding based on the level of intervention that's necessary?

D. Joujan: I think so. I think nobody's out there just to spend money for the sake of spending money, but there are a lot of kids, as I suggested at the beginning here, that are doing well at six. They're doing well. I mean, they're still not typically developing children, but they're doing very well at six. I think most families are putting in extra money all the time. With the $6,000 and what the families are putting in, they'll make it.

The other ones, however, are the children that concern me the most, because they absolutely need way more help than the ones that are higher-functioning — way more help. I don't know. I don't have the credentials. I just have the master's in mom. I don't know where you would draw the line, but I think that there should be somewhere that you would be able to do some sort of testing and, at a certain level, say: "They still need a lot of help here" or "These ones, obviously, are doing quite fine."

[1120]

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Debbie. I want to echo what my colleague John van Dongen said. Tip of the hat to you for all the work you've done.

D. Joujan: Well, thanks very much for hearing me.

J. Les (Chair): Our next presenter is Marilyn Martin.

M. Martin: Thank you for giving me the opportunity. I bring a very short presentation to you today based on my concerns to the proposed cuts for arts and culture. My motivation is just from getting a sense in our community of Kamloops of the panic that I know our theatre companies and art gallery and whatever were feeling when the announcement of the lottery fund change came out, and I think there's still a great deal of concern.

I know that I saw on your agenda today that Western Canada Theatre Company has been here, and the president of TRU has been here. I may echo some of their concerns, but I'm only here as a citizen. I'm not representing anyone.

I'm a very concerned citizen who is passionate about the arts, and I have grave concern about our culture if we continue to erode the economic underpinnings of artists.

I have a strong sense of my community as well as a commitment to maintain the essence of what brings people together to reflect on what is human and what we share. I have a sense that it's just too easy to devalue what artists bring to our appreciation of life. So I have a couple of ideas.

I think that maintaining funding provides the greatest possible employment in productive pursuits at a rather minimal cost. As we know, performing in fine arts occupies a wide range of work, often for very low salaries or pay. This is a very efficient way to spread out the stimulus funding and avoid unemployment leading to UI and, perhaps, income assistance.

As a senior — I'm a senior who is semi-retired — I now have time to take advantage of the cultural amenities of my community. Like my peers in my generation, I've worked and paid taxes in B.C. for my entire adult life and still continue to pay those. My generation has supported and helped to create these cultural institutions that provide such pleasure.

Although I'm concerned about the cuts to arts in the country and also throughout our province, I can only speak to some of the things that really enrich my life in Kamloops. Some of those are the Western Canada Theatre Company, the Kamloops Art Gallery, the Kamloops Symphony, the Youth Orchestra, the Kamloops Museum, our amateur theatre groups, writers, musicians, film-makers, sculptors, painters, potters, dancers. These are the people who work in the arts not for fame or fortune, but rather for the enrichment and celebration of life.

It's unthinkable to me to have financial support ripped away for a short-term gain. My understanding is that B.C. lottery funding was to support many other activities and agencies but also to support cultural activities and not to be moved into general revenue.

Thompson Rivers University in our community offers a bachelor of fine arts degree as well as a very vibrant theatre program, which are integrated well into our arts community. My question would be: if we have cutbacks, and these organizations are having to do less, where do these students look for their models or their inspiration, if not in our community?

I am suggesting that the proposed cuts to arts and culture in British Columbia is a prime example of the phrase "being penny-wise and pound-foolish."
[ Page 239 ]

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Marilyn. A question from Doug.

[1125]

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation, Marilyn. It stimulated a number of thoughts I've heard from people as this committee has travelled the province. Also, thank you for the legacy that you and others, through your work and tax dollars, have left the rest of us around artistic institutions in communities like Kamloops and elsewhere.

I had a question for you around the aspect that you mentioned around the arts bringing people together and drawing out the humanity in each other. You know, there's a word out there called social trust, which has been put out there more lately by people who study these kinds of things.

I think about the really contentious issues that we're facing in this province — certainty on the land base with the first nations, environmental assessment review processes, faith in institutions like the justice system or in our ability to create a budget. I wonder if you had any comments on how social trust from artistic activities, developed through community events like that, impacts our ability to address these more contentious issues.

M. Martin: If I understand your question, it's asking me about, perhaps, the social trust that people have, in terms of whether or not the artistic pursuits would be as valuable as some of the other ways that you need to spread the money. Is that what you're asking me?

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): I'm asking you about the bringing together of people that the arts community does and the social trust that that has created amongst those people. Then it allows people to go out and address more contentious issues that are often….

M. Martin: Oh yes. In fact, I acknowledge the previous speaker, Debbie — was that her name? I just heard the last of her presentation.

A large part of my career has been teaching students at the university here to provide the support to people like her children. I often think to myself how much my teaching was enriched, in working with students, by perhaps seeing a play that addressed those issues, by looking at some art that could sort of reframe the way I might think of some of those issues.

I believe that that's the kind of trust people gain, looking at the value of art. How it does effect and produce our culture is through our own personal experience of how the artist is interpreting our culture and life.

Does that answer your question?

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Yeah.

M. Martin: It's been very powerful for me. I would say more powerful than any textbook on theory that I've ever read is the impact that I get sometimes from film, sometimes from theatre, sometimes from looking at a painting. I think that develops for people who….

I know that there are always the other groups that perhaps are not interested in that. I have to say that I also like sports. But I think that when people have developed the trust that it brings to you, I would really feel threatened by that area not being supported.

M. Mungall: Thanks very much, Marilyn. One of the things I've been hearing from some of the leading economists in the country is that part of B.C.'s deficit is attributable to the amount of corporate tax cuts that the government has been doing in the last eight years. This year alone, just as an example, we see in the 2009 budget a $120 million cut from our royalties from oil and gas.

Instead of cutting corporate taxes, would you rather see us keeping that revenue and investing it into the arts?

M. Martin: I would, thank you.

N. Letnick: My question was somewhat along the same lines as Michelle's but coming from a different approach.

We've had the pleasure of being in some great communities over the last couple of weeks and listening to them from Victoria, as well, via video conferencing. A lot of the themes are the same, and I think that around the table you'll find that the people here support the arts. We support more money for autism. We…child. We support helping students, because that's an investment in our future.

[1130]

All the themes are there, but within a fixed budget, limited pie, we have to make recommendations to government as to how to distribute that.

So if I can take you out of the arts chair for a moment and put you into the general citizen's chair, what philosophy would you like to leave us with as we go forward in this? How do we handle all of these demands, on limited financial resources?

M. Martin: Wow. That's a big question. I really do appreciate and, in fact, empathize with your task. It's enormous. It's huge.

I do need a bit of time to think about it in terms of a philosophy. I am composing a letter that I will send to Minister Krueger, in fact, where I think I will, you know, quote some of the kinds of theories that are related to philosophies affecting culture.

I think that I would like to recommend — and I know that you are looking at all of these aspects — that we avoid looking at funding just a materialistic world. In terms of, you know, if there are tax cuts to big corporations, perhaps they need to redevelop and reframe what their act in the world is. We need….
[ Page 240 ]

Like I said, I'm a senior citizen, now on a fixed income, so I see downloading more and more onto the individual. I could see you saying: "Well, people will just have to pay more at the gate to go into things." That affects people going. So there has to be, I think, some motivation and value coming from our government in terms of the kind of culture we want to create.

I think I'd need a bit more time to expand on that, but I do appreciate the task that you have, and I will think about that and write more recommendations to Minister Krueger. I just wanted to come today because I personally felt really concerned if we were to not value what we hold in terms of our arts and how that affects culture.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Marilyn. I'd remind you — you probably weren't here earlier when I said — that you can contribute to the committee through e-mail as well. Just go to our website. Any other information that you'd like to share with us, please feel free.

M. Martin: Thank you. I may expand more on Norm's question there.

J. Les (Chair): So that is the end of the scheduled presentations. I did say earlier this morning that if we still had people left after the scheduled presentations were done, we would hear from those — five minutes each.

Welcome aboard. I think you've been here for quite a while this morning.

A. Glover: I have.

I'm Annette Glover, one of the school trustees of school district 73, Kamloops-Thompson, and I really congratulate you on the response that you got from this area and our citizens and our jurisdiction. Within 48 hours of having to have applied on line to present to you, it was booked, and here I am on a waiting list.

So thank you for coming to our area, and also thank you for coming to our quasi-rural area out here on the outskirts of Kamloops, and that, you will hear in my presentation, is one of our concerns right now — rural B.C.

First of all, can I clarify…? If there is no one behind me, and the five minutes that I am given, can I expand on the five minutes, or am I limited to five minutes?

J. Les (Chair): Just let me check that.

Is there anyone else here that would like to speak to the committee this morning? It looks like there is not, so…. There is one?

C. Walmsley: I just want to introduce this group here. It will take one minute to do that.

J. Les (Chair): Sure. We'll keep that in mind.

With that in mind, Annette, why don't we just give you the standard 15 minutes that everybody else had this morning.

[1135]

A. Glover: Thank you.

I'm not sure what the group is — I don't know — but does it ever feel good that there are young adults behind me.

J. Les (Chair): I would agree with that. Absolutely.

A. Glover: My jurisdiction, as I have told you, is K-to-12. Just a little background on myself. I have been 30 years in public health. I work at the hospital, at Royal Inland, and I'm well versed in the health care aspect as well. I know it's number one. I absolutely know that. I do not envy your position, as much as others do not envy mine, but we're all here to do our jobs, and that is what I'm going to try and do.

As far as school trustee, I have been with our district since 1993, so that's some time as well. I have seen some peaks and valleys, and I've got to say this is the deepest valley we have ever hit in my experience with public education, K-to-12. I am very involved at the provincial level as well. In fact, I just came back from Vancouver yesterday.

I just want to put an overview on this presentation. Rural B.C. is one of our top concerns, as I've just said, and we have a five-year plan that we are implementing right now. I really respect our district in that we had the foresight, knowing what is happening due to declining enrolment, that we are proceeding with the five-year plan. I encourage all of you to go onto the www.sd73.bc.ca website — that address is included with my presentation — to take a look at the specific reports. They're all on there for our public to see.

Number 2 is that I was really — I'm not sure what the descriptive words were — frustrated with the idea that when we met with our MLAs, the deficit for B.C. of $2 billion over the spring and summer months was a surprise to the finance of our provincial government — that the deficit did hit, in fact, that large figure.

I would sincerely hope that — our plan, as a province, not only in education, but for the sake of our province's future — we have a predictable, sustainable funding plan in place. As I really tried to express with our MLAs that were in attendance — three of them, one of whom is Dr. Terry Lake, who was here earlier this morning, as well as Kevin Krueger, that are working with the government right now — we have a vision. We really have a vision that expands out further than a 12-month base.

When this government first came in, in 2001 — the original change in government — we as a school district, as Ministry of Education, were promised…. The word was a three-year predictable funding base. That, as you
[ Page 241 ]
know — this past, what, three months, four months — is gone. We do not even have a 12-month funding base right now. Moneys are being pulled back.

The third item is capital dollars. We here in Kamloops have some buildings that are, in fact, declared heritage sites. In doing so, the city of Kamloops, and there was a…. I respect what their decision was, but at the same time, we have to maintain those facilities. So as you can imagine — and I really appreciated Mr. Barnsley's reference to maintenance to our B.C. buildings — we are respected.

Thanks to our staff within school district 73 — Mr. McDonald has been the primary person there — our buildings are held at a very high standard. In doing so, we have not received a capital dollar in our district since 2001. Not a dollar. Mr. Krueger was very amazed with that, with some of the innovative and progressive items that we have in our district.

Again, I welcome you to do a review of our district. We have one that I really am especially proud of, given my science background. We have the first science technology elementary school in Kamloops, and with it we have the BIG Little Science Centre that's working along with the staff to really expand on the support of B.C.'s future in the world of science and technology. We're very innovative here.

As far as my written presentation, I do have a copy of it here that I will turn over, and now I'll proceed with that.

One of my recommendations is that the public education funding formula absolutely needs to have a review. There are aspects of that formula that have changed dramatically since 2001, one of those being transportation. To date, our district alone has a deficit accumulated of $4.5 million since the change of that formula.

[1140]

I have a very detailed report within this package of, in fact, our Okanagan branch, which involves, I believe, eight districts now. That will give you a lot of background on that. Again, that report is on our website for our jurisdiction to see.

In addition to the formula change, there are several areas where the formula does not recognize variations throughout the province. Here within the Kamloops school district we have the urban; we also have the rural. Right now, I'm sure, in the media you have seen us dealing with the rural, and we are trying to be very sensitive. I dearly hope that Minister Bennett, the Minister of Rural Development, as well as Minister MacDiarmid, answer our invitation to come and visit with us, especially before our big decision the night of November 23. We'll be watching for that response, I can assure you.

We know that the transportation funding review, as one example, has been on the books to be reviewed by the technical committee since, I believe, 2001. We have not received a final report. Again, there has been a deadline put in place this past spring by both the BCCPAC representative as well as the BCSTA.

So we are working with the government. We're really trying hard to do that in order to come up with something that is a compromise, recognizing full well the $2 billion deficit that, alone this year, apparently, has created part of this problem. But there again I fall back to the vision, a plan, in place.

As far as the recommendations on what to do, my next item will refer to that — what, specifically, the government can do to release some funds and increase the opportunities for public education in this instance.

One is the GAAP, referred to as the generally accepted accounting principles. This was a principle of accounting that was brought in some time ago. I've been chair of the finance and planning committee with our district for, I believe, five years now, and I've been on the committee for a good portion of the 13 years that I've been a trustee. So I know our budget very well. This was a huge change to us.

We have, in fact, got $5 million set aside in case our district no longer exists, so our public, unfunded liabilities are covered. That's $5 million for our district alone. I, as finance chair, have wondered, over the past months, what the total is provincially. Every time I think of that, I think of our previous secretary-treasurer, who was in his duties when that was brought in. I have to feel, as Mr. Hansen referred to, that rainy day funds need to be used. That is purely a rainy day fund, and we would like to have it released — at least looked at and reviewed.

The next item I will go to on that note is full-day kindergarten. This is another one that will, in fact, take some pressure off the government, especially with public education. We as school trustees really want to do our best for K-to-12, recognizing our increased mandate of both ends of that K-to-12 — early learning, as well as seniors, on the other spectrum. We here are very proud of what we have been able to do with our staff and working with our community in the area of literacy especially, but also in the areas of Action Schools B.C. and, especially with the Olympics coming now, with the fitness aspects. We're working with our staff on that.

But the item I'm specifically referring to is full-day kindergarten. For our district alone, our staff has estimated that the cost to our district to be $2.5 million, minimum, to instate full-day kindergarten. I truly wish we had the money that we could do that. I truly do, because I have seen two research studies that have absolutely shown that…. Especially those children who the parents feel this would benefit, or who we feel we would want to encourage to have increased prep in order to enter kindergarten at a fair level on their first day of public school….

We would absolutely want to do that. But at the cost of $2.5 million, minimum, to our district alone, again I go back to: "What is this costing provincewide?" I
[ Page 242 ]
have to be honest that as someone who has been very involved with education for the number of years that I have, I was shocked that at the same time the budget was coming out, with the cutbacks that were being spoken of, right down to B.C. School Sports funding being cut…. I was just astounded that full-day kindergarten was announced as coming forward. I thought: "Where is the rationalizing of this?"

[1145]

If I had to summarize in one sentence to my jurisdiction what I have learned as a school trustee, it's that you always know that there are at least six sides to every story. Until I get the seventh, eighth and ninth, my hand will not be going anywhere with the motion. You sit in those same seats, and I truly believe that you understand what I am saying.

I have a good friend that I work with who…. "Annette, you never say it in black and white," because there's always more to the story. I would love to hear the "more to the story" for why full-day kindergarten was announced for a start-up in 2010 at the cost of what it is, knowing full well that, hopefully, the outcome of the 2010 winter games coming, which I am in favour of…. I truly am. But at the same time, when I see what it has done to this province in a short snapshot — I'm sure you understand that word too — of financial considerations, it just doesn't fit.

So I would like those two items in particular looked at for public education — the full-day kindergarten and the GAAP moneys.

The next item I will go to is provincial funding chronic issues. The two issues that, as school trustee, if someone had the opportunity to ask me what are some areas that…. The funding crunch is always there. Because our funding comes directly from the Ministry of Education, from the finance department, we have a limited number of block fund dollars.

Two items that have cost us an extreme amount of money are special education and info technology. Special education — I think that's no secret, and I really appreciated the mom being here with the autism aspect.

On the IT, BCeSIS and the costs of that. Our district has…. Again, they're very innovative. We have taken the opportunity to work with the ministry in order that our staff are really up to date, progressive and working on getting that program implemented in our district. In fact, our staff continually get seconded, which we're struggling with this year. But those items in particular cost a lot of money, and it's never been recognized what the full cost of that is.

Again, I fall back to the funding formula review, which I do believe will come up because of the tightness of that and the restrictions on that funding formula.

A part of the funding formula that I haven't mentioned yet is the capital dollars in reference to…. We have some closed school properties here in our district that are wonderful, beautiful pieces of land. The cost of that land here versus what the dollar value of that parcel of land would cost in Metro Vancouver, as an example, or some of the Lower Mainland areas…. The capital moneys process that is in place just does not justify equitable education. It is district level, and it's not a big-picture item, and we really request that that portion be looked at in review as well.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Annette. I've got a couple of questions here. One, first of all, from Jane.

J. Thornthwaite: Thanks, Annette. As you probably know, I was a school trustee up until the May election as well. I didn't know this, but I also did my internship at the Royal Inland Hospital as a dietitian-nutritionist, so we've got that similarity as well.

Not to worry about your presentation with regards to timing. All the presentations that the Finance Committee gets — be it personal, like you coming to see us face to face, or any other school district or any other group that gives us written submissions — will be looked at equally. I know that's been a concern. We have had other school districts that have presented to us, and we will be getting other presentations from other school districts through electronic means as well.

I also would like to congratulate you on your innovative and progressive first science and technology elementary school. Congratulations for that. That's what we need.

But my question is…. You've given us a lot of information, and I'm assuming you're going to give us more in a written report. Where do you think…? If we were to come to the Kamloops school district and say, "There is no more money. You've got the same money, but there is no more money," where would you suggest we cut with efficiencies? Where could we nip and tuck so that the money going to the classrooms would not be affected, but we could make inroads in efficiencies? If you don't have the answer right now, maybe you could include that in your report.

[1150]

A. Glover: I already gave you two. One is the GAAP moneys. Second is full-day kindergarten. If, for example, full-day kindergarten…. Right now it's referred to as not a mandatory program. For example, we have 60 school districts in this province. If only 30 of them opt to go into that program, my big concern here is that…. I do believe our staff would want us to be progressive and implement it. But if that is to the detriment of other districts because it comes off….

The block funding is this amount. Full-day kindergarten comes off, and the block funding shrinks. Then the amount going out to the districts is shrunk. Don't go there. That is too expensive to the future of B.C. We
[ Page 243 ]
want to do the best we can for our kids, and if right now is not the good timing for this, for whatever your budget issues are, please look at that as number two.

The third one is the AFG moneys, and I'm sure you've heard of those. The pulling-back to this district of $2.1 million — total shock, and we did not receive an announcement. I can get into the details of that if you wish. That's not a problem. I know exactly how it played out.

There was no formal notice of that. We already had our contracts tendered and in place to do the bulk of the work in July and August. That just makes sense — right? It's got to be common sense. The kids are out of our building. Because of allergies — whatever — the most productive, efficient time to do work in our public school buildings is during July and August. So all those tenders were in place.

The election happened on May 12. We did not get an answer…. I say "answer" because it was not a response. It was a request by our staff. Where's the allotment? We haven't gotten it yet. Why didn't we get it? Is it coming? Because we've already tendered legal contracts, tendered according to the contract regulations the Ministry of Education puts out. So they followed procedure and regulation, and then there's no money.

What has happened now in our district…. Those moneys were well-utilized in our district to the tune of approximately $400,000. Because of the improvements to our facilities, whether it was greening issues or other initiatives — partnerships with B.C. Hydro — the moneys that came in…. The outcome of that was that over $400,000 per year was returned directly to the classroom, because moneys were freed up.

Taking away those moneys…. What has happened now…. We've already told our communities that yes, this year's contracts are going to be paid, because they're legal. The next two years: no projects, because we have to cover the deficit that this has created. It will take two summers to do that. In fact, we will not tender the contracts until the money is in our bank account, because we won't be caught like this again.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, I'm going to have to hurry us along here, because we absolutely must finish at 12 o'clock precisely. So the final question will go to Michelle.

M. Mungall: Thank you very much, Annette. You actually answered one of my questions, which was about the announcements for the AFGs. I'll go to transportation.

I understand that the Kamloops school district, SD 73, has quite a difficulty around transportation and meeting its transportation budget. Can you maybe elaborate a little bit on that?

A. Glover: What has happened since the change in the funding formula back in 2001 is that we have now accumulated a shortfall per year of approximately $250,000 directly related to the funding formula. On top of that, because that funding formula of the moneys that we were getting was not covering our expenses, our actual deficit per year in our transportation has now climbed to $500,000 a year. So the shortfall directly related to the funding of $250,000, with the accumulated deficit that has been there for so long because the money is tight, is now at $4.5 million — the deficit for that budget line over the past nine years, $500,000 per year.

In fact, we have taken that so far as to let our jurisdiction know that we are aware that other districts charge for busing fees, and we are considering that in our upcoming budget planning.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Annette. I think you took more time than anybody else this morning. That's okay. We actually had the time, so no problem at all, and we appreciate you coming.

A. Glover: It was a benefit to our district.

J. Les (Chair): Sure.

A. Glover: And you're doing your job; I'm doing mine.

J. Les (Chair): You bet.

We have a few minutes left. It's Mr. Walmsley, I believe, that would like to make an introduction.

C. Walmsley: I'm glad you've got just a couple of minutes left. I just wanted to explain who all these fascinating, interested young people are that quadrupled your audience…

J. Les (Chair): And then some.

[1155]

C. Walmsley: …at about 10:30 this morning. These are students from the Canadian social policy course, Thompson Rivers University. They're students working toward their bachelor of social work. They're studying about government and the development of Canada's social programs and don't get the opportunity to see government policy-making in action. That's why we're here — to observe.

I thought you just might like to know…. As you look at this group, you see that about 90 percent are women, probably between the ages of 20 and 30. We did a poll a couple of weeks back in the class to see what people's most significant issues for action would be by government.

Health care came out at number one. The specifics related to health care were the lack of primary care physicians in the Kamloops area, particularly to serve pregnant women.

The second issue, and probably it was about equal with the other one I'm going to mention, was the need for a
[ Page 244 ]
universal child care program for kids under six. Later on in the course I give them some readings about Quebec and their $7-a-day, day care programs. The comments I always get in end-of-term papers are: if Quebec can do it, why can't we in British Columbia?

The last, which would not surprise you for a group of social work students, is action on poverty — to raise incomes to the minimum level.

That's the group, and that's a little bit about their thinking. So thanks very much.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you so much, and thank you to all of your students for being here this morning. It's always a lot more interesting for us when we actually have an audience, as opposed to a whole bunch of empty chairs. So you've made our day, and I hope that you found it interesting.

With that, we will conclude this morning's hearing. We will reconvene in Kelowna at three o'clock.

The committee adjourned at 11:57 a.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 © 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada