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

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

8:30 a.m.

Douglas Fir Committee Room

Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C.

Videoconference: Nanaimo, Nelson, Prince Rupert

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 8:31 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 to the call of the Chair at 11:58 a.m.

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

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Issue No. 11

ISSN 1499-4178

[ Page 361 ]

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2009

The committee met at 8:31 a.m.

[J. Les in the chair.]

J. Les (Chair): Good morning, everyone. My name is John Les. I'm the MLA for Chilliwack and Chair of this committee.

Today we are conducting our second public hearing by video conference, allowing us to hold simultaneous hearings in Nanaimo, Nelson and Prince Rupert today. Just to reassure everyone, the presenters taking part in these sessions have the same standing as witnesses who would actually appear before our committee in person at a public hearing. I'd like to welcome each presenter and thank you for taking the time to participate 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, and it identifies the key issues that need to be addressed in the budget. It also provides a focus for the consultations of this committee, and it includes information on how members of the public may provide their views on budget priorities.

The Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services is the committee that is responsible for conducting public consultations on the forthcoming provincial budget. Our committee is required to report back to the Legislature no later than November 15 of this year.

Public hearings have been scheduled in conjunction with the ongoing fall session of the Legislature. This year we have held seven public hearings in different parts of the province — in Vancouver, Victoria, Smithers, Prince George, Kamloops, Kelowna and Surrey. Earlier this month we also had presentations from witnesses located in Courtenay, Cranbrook and Dawson Creek by video conference. Today's video conferencing session represents the committee's final public hearing on the 2010 budget. We will then commence drafting our report to the Legislature.

If you've not yet reviewed the 2010 consultation paper, that copy is available on the committees website at www.leg.bc.ca. In addition to public hearings, there are a variety of other ways that British Columbians can share their ideas with us. We accept written submissions, either by letter or by e-mail, and for the first time, we are also inviting video or audio files to be submitted to the committee. Further information on how people may participate using any one of these methods is available on our website at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultation.

Any input that the committee receives, however it is received, is given the same full consideration as any oral presentations that would be made here today or any other day. The deadline to receive written or electronic submissions is Friday, October 23 — in other words, the day after tomorrow.

Today we're hearing presenters from Nanaimo, Nelson and Prince Rupert who have registered in advance with the Office of the Clerk of Committees. To provide a smooth transition between witnesses, we will be rotating between the three communities based on the schedule that we have assembled for today. As with traditional presentations, each witness or organization may speak for ten minutes, with up to five additional minutes allotted for members' questions.

I'd like to quickly review the video conferencing procedures. First, I'd like to remind everyone that they are on camera and visible at all times to other participants. However, while we are both live webstreaming as well as archiving the audio feed of today's proceedings, the video component of these proceedings is not being broadcast outside of the conference facilities.

[0835]

Secondly, the equipment being used today is very sensitive and will pick up background noise. Please try to refrain from shuffling papers or coughing into microphones. This will allow for clearer two-way communications between Victoria and the video conferencing locations.

Finally, as there may be a lag of several seconds in the video conference feeds, it's imperative that witnesses and members wait until they have been acknowledged by the Chair before speaking. This will allow Hansard to switch the camera feed to the appropriate speaker.

Now I'd like to ask the various members of the committee here in Victoria to introduce themselves, starting with Don.

D. McRae: Good morning. My name is Don McRae, MLA for the Comox Valley.

N. Letnick: Good morning. Norm Letnick, MLA, Kelowna–Lake Country.

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

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

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Good morning. I'm Doug Donaldson, MLA for Stikine, and Deputy Chair of the committee.

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

B. Routley: Good morning. Bill Routley, MLA for the Cowichan Valley.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you. Also joining us today to my immediate left is Kate Ryan-Lloyd. She's the Clerk of the
[ Page 362 ]
committee. We also have Craig James, who is the Clerk of Committees. He is with us today at the Nanaimo location, and Kathryn Butler and Jonathan Fershau are assisting the witnesses in Nelson and in Prince Rupert, respectively. Our Hansard personnel today are Gail Swetlow and Michael Baer.

With those formalities out of the way, I'd now like to call on our first witness this morning, Dave Lang in Nelson.

Good morning, Dave.

Presentations

D. Lang: Good morning, John, and the rest of the committee. My name is Dave Lang, from Salmo, B.C. I'm here today to talk about property rights as it relates to the amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act that were passed in November of 2007.

I work in the building industry and build engineered wood trusses. I've also been employed by government at various levels over a number of years. My interest, I guess, is around economic development and some of the impediments that occur when policy changes happen at the legislative level.

To that regard, on November 19, 2007, amendments were passed to the Homeowner Protection Act which effectively extinguished property rights for property owners in B.C. This was done without any public debate, and I think it just squeaked by the people who were involved in the debate at the legislative level.

What has happened is that…. First, I would like to read you a definition of property rights, just to put this in context. "Property is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of persons, depending on the nature of the property. An owner of property has the right to consume, sell, rent, mortgage, transfer, exchange or destroy his or her property and/or to exclude others from doing these things."

Subsequent to the passing of the amendments in 2007 to the Homeowner Protection Act, the Homeowner Protection Office published a document for owner-builders. This is for people who actually own property that want to build their home on this property. What has happened is that property owners now have to ask permission to the Homeowner Protection Office in order to build their own shelter.

Shelter is a fundamental need for humans. We have food, shelter and clothing. Shelter and constructing your own shelter, up until 2007, was always a property right that was vested in the ownership of your own land.

[0840]

After that…. We now have to ask permission from the Homeowner Protection Office in order to build our own house with our own money on our own property, and they may or may not approve our application. They have the right, under the amendments, to adjudicate whether or not we are capable — whether they think we are capable — of building our own shelter.

In my mind, this is a violation of property rights and needs to be challenged because it affects economic development, particularly in the rural areas where owner-registered builders are not necessarily available and rural people have had to be self-reliant for years and years. It's a tradition in our area for people to build their own homes. What this has done is it has created another barrier to housing.

Homeless week has just passed last week, and affordable housing continues to be a big issue provincially, with escalating home costs and decreasing high-wage jobs. So affordability continues to be a big issue. My contention is that homeowners…. The right to make a decision about how much money they spend in building their homes, whether or not they can afford to build those homes on their own property, is vested with the property owner. It should not be vested with the Homeowner Protection Office.

The intention of creating the Homeowner Protection Office was to protect homeowners from structural problems with respect to homes that they had purchased, particularly in New Westminster Quay, where there was leaky-condo damage. The organization evolved from the Barrett Commission with respect to that.

What has happened now is that it has gone beyond the mandate of just protecting homeowners from making poor home-investment decisions. It has gone to the point now where property owners no longer have the right to build their own home on their own property. That is a fundamental problem both from an economic development perspective in the province and also from an employment perspective — but also just the basis of our democracy.

So I'm asking the committee to review this document. I don't know if you have a copy of it or not. It was a link that I attached to an e-mail. Under the Homeowner Protection Office website, it's called "Owner-builders." I'd just like to read you some of the sections, if I have time to do that.

"As of November 19, 2007, individuals wanting to be an owner-builder of a new home are required to obtain an owner-builder authorization from the Homeowner Protection Office and to pay a fee, prior to commencing construction of that new home. This requirement is in effect for all areas of British Columbia regardless of whether permits are required. These changes are in keeping with amendments to the Homeowner Protection Act and regulations.

"Owner-builders must build or directly manage the construction of their new home themselves. If an owner-builder engages a builder, construction manager, project manager or any third party to perform these functions, both the owner and the hired construction manager–builder are committing an offence under the Homeowner Protection Act and could face monetary penalties of up to $25,000 and/or prosecution."

This does nothing to help homeowners build sustainable, structurally safe buildings. It prevents them from getting the expertise they need to do the job correctly.

Another section:
[ Page 363 ]

"Although an owner-builder may be able to look to tradesmen to deal with some problems that occur, the owner-builder is ultimately responsible for the overall construction of the home for a period of ten years….

"In addition, unless they have arranged for home warranty insurance, owner-builders are personally liable for construction defects in the new home during this ten-year period to any or all subsequent purchasers during the same period."

[0845]

Now, what has happened is that they're trying to get warranty protection for new-home buyers. That's an honourable thing to be doing, but the problem is how home ownership has developed. It's a buyer-beware world. There are opportunities for prospective homeowners to hire home inspection companies to ensure that their investments are well-based — that structural integrity of the house that they're planning to buy is sound.

In these amendments, not only does the homeowner have to warranty the work for ten years, which is fine, except that they can't rent their property for one year after construction…. If they sell it within ten years, they have to transfer a warranty or buy insurance from an insurance company and put that along with the house.

Then there are restrictions on how often they can build their own home. If something were to happen, like if they were to pass away and their estate took possession of this home, those liabilities go along with it.

There are other alternatives, like transferring liability to the prospective buyer through a clause in a sales agreement, that don't require the Homeowner Protection Office to take away people's property rights — the right to decide whether or not they can actually build their own house on their own property.

What I'm saying is that there are ways to get to warranty coverage without having to take away people's property rights. To put that in the context of economic development and the Finance Committee and the budget process that's coming up in 2009, the way that you develop the economy in British Columbia is by giving people permission to get involved in the economy and do things that will create economic activity.

What has happened is that the Homeowner Protection Office now is in a position to adjudicate who builds their own home and who doesn't, and it also decides who is going to be licensed as a contractor and who is actually going to get the work of building that home. That decision no longer rests with the property owner. That's a fundamental violation of property rights, and I think it's something that all British Columbians should be concerned with.

That's my presentation. If anybody has any questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Dave, for your presentation. I think you referenced earlier an attachment that you had sent along to the Clerk's office. That information will all be available to committee members. We will review that information carefully.

I don't see, at this point, any questions from any members of the committee, but I do want to thank you for participating this morning.

Yes, we have one question.

B. Routley: Good morning, Dave. Obviously, from your passion on this issue, you have run into difficulties. Have you actually been building your own home and had a number of the problems that you've laid out? Or is there some other reason why this is a key issue for you?

D. Lang: Thank you for the question. I first started building homes…. I was raised by a single-parent mom — my brother and I. I was 17, and he was 19, and we built our mom and us a home in New Denver in the early 1960s. Since then I've been involved in building probably half a dozen homes.

My brother, who has been a carpenter for 40 years, was trying to build an affordable housing project in Salmo, B.C., for low-income residents, a multifamily dwelling. Because he wasn't registered with the Homeowner Protection Office, there was a four-week delay in construction, just over the last four weeks. So he's lost four weeks of construction time at a critical point in the year.

[0850]

I've talked to other homeowners who have expressed concerns about inspectors coming on site and the fact that they have to pay a fee and that somebody gets to adjudicate whether or not they get to build their own home on their own property. It just seems like it's another level of — I hesitate to use the word "bureaucracy" — approval that creates another barrier to people who want to build their own homes for their families.

J. Les (Chair): Okay, thank you very much, Dave, for your presentation. As I said earlier, we will look at your information closely and, if necessary, refer it to the appropriate ministry for further action as well.

The next presentation this morning is from Nanaimo. Vancouver Island University is represented this morning by Dr. Ralph Nilson. Good morning.

R. Nilson: Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to having a conversation this morning. I hope you can hear me all right.

J. Les (Chair): We can hear you fine.

R. Nilson: Okay, great.

We really appreciate the opportunity to come and have a conversation with you today and provide you with a little bit of understanding of some of the issues that we see as they relate to the budget as it develops.

First of all, I want to say thank you on behalf of our institution for the support that has been provided to post-secondary education in these last years. We know
[ Page 364 ]
that we're counter-cyclical to the economy, and certainly, that's demonstrated across the province with the numbers of students that are in our institutions. All of us seem to be up, and indeed the challenge for all of us tends to be finding space for everybody.

But that's a good thing, and I think the government recognized that in the context of the budget supports that we have received. So again, thank you for that.

Also, I just want to make the point, and this is really sort of the umbrella point that I want to make relative to post-secondary education and particularly the new universities…. When we look at the work that we're doing in the regions that we have responsibility for, and we look at British Columbia, there is a transition from a resource-based community to a knowledge-based community.

What we're in the business of is developing human capital. That's what it's all about. It's what we deliver. So we know that it's extremely important, and we play an extremely important role…development for this province. I just want to articulate a few things about that that I think demonstrate that we're doing well with the money that we do receive in terms of the delivery that we have.

I'll use the case point of VIU for this, because I won't speak for the whole system. Then I want to talk particularly about some things that I think we've got an extreme responsibility for and how I think the provincial government can help support us in some of that.

First of all, I want to say that for the money that we do receive.... I'll use VIU as an example. We receive from the provincial government a grant that is over $50 million, and our total aggregate budget is about $118 million. So of our total aggregate budget, less than 50 percent of that is our base operating grant.

In terms of that base operating grant and the money that we're provided, we leverage that up over two times, and I think that's an important point to be made. It's not as if the grants cover all of our costs, but they indeed provide the base funding for what we're doing. But then we leverage that money in our communities with the variety of partnerships that we develop across the regions that we serve and draw in other money from other jurisdictions, whether it be industry partnerships, whether it be funding we receive from the federal government — that sort of thing.

I think an important point to be made in that context…. I'll give you an example. I haven't been here a long time — 2½ years now. But the funding that we received as a community college back in 1982…. I'll use that as a date, because I used that in an annual report I just did. We received about $14 million in a base operating grant, and that constituted well over 80 percent of our aggregate budget.

Now, in 2009, at a $118 million aggregate budget, we're receiving somewhere in the order of $56 million. When you look at that, that is now 48 or 49 percent of our aggregate budget.

So while there has been a continued increase in the amount of funding that we have received from the provincial government in our base operating grant, indeed the institutions — ours is the one example that I can speak to, but I think it's consistent across the province — have been developing partnerships and different opportunities with that funding and leveraging it considerably. I think that's an important point to understand.

Also, when we look at, now, the situation in the economy and the demand that's being placed on changing to a knowledge-based economy from what has been strictly a resource-based economy — a predominantly resource-based economy, I should say — our role becomes even more significant.

[0855]

We are not only a critical economic and social driver within the communities in which we exist, but we also are an absolutely critical aspect of the evolution of the economy and the social environments in which we exist. So I think it's very important to recognize the instrument that we are and the importance of the continued funding levels that we have, and to recognize that demands are going to be placed on us and our communities in the future and how we're going to respond to that demand.

I want to further talk a little bit about what I think is very important in our role in Vancouver Island University. I think it can be reflected across other institutions, but this is very specific to us.

First of all, the role of regional development. Why do we look at ourselves as one of the largest employers in the region that we serve on Vancouver Island and up and down the coast? We're one of the largest employers. We have T4s of over 2,300 full-time. It's much less than that, probably down around 1,200 or 1,250, but that's a significant number of people in the workforce. When you look at the economic spinoff of that, it's very significant.

The other thing that we do in terms of our partnerships with a variety of different organizations…. I'll use our applied research mandate that is part of the new University Act. In our applied research mandate, we've been, for years, working with various coastal communities as it relates to aquaculture and, in particular, the focus on shellfish research. The shellfish research that we do, I think, is a prime example of the type of work that is critically important in these communities.

We're developing our new shellfish centre, for which we very much appreciated the infrastructure funding this spring — the field station's being developed and being sound. That particular facility and the work that goes on through that centre…. We partner with all the industries.

We look at the shellfish farmers up and down the coast. They don't make a lot of income, and they don't
[ Page 365 ]
have the capacity for doing R and D, but in partnership with us, there's a critical opportunity there to get some very important science done that helps them develop their capacity as shellfish farmers, increases their productivity. So that partnership is a prime example of what can be done through institutions like ours in partnership with industry.

Another prime example out of the shellfish centre is our partnership with the first nations up and down the coast. First nations have been farming shellfish on this coast for over 10,000 years. They've got a lot of knowledge about that. We partner with the first nations communities and the elders and have had just exceptional opportunities for learning from them, but also, they have been learning from us in terms of new species development. In fact, we do workshops and training for youth and for people who are involved in economic development in those communities.

That has really been a very positive aspect of our development, a positive aspect of development in those communities and helping them with their economics and social development. And that, again, is an example of the type of mandate that we serve.

The other one that I think is important to recognize, and I'll take off on that last point that I was making, is aboriginal education. We know that capacity-building within these communities is absolutely critical. We know that the two key social determinants of population and health in any population around the world are education and income.

Education is a very, very important part of our mandate, a very important part of development and capacity-building within first nations communities. We take this responsibility very seriously for the 51 communities that we have here on Vancouver Island as well as for communities up and down the coast. We are a destination site.

For the universities in the province, we have the largest number of aboriginal students of any university in this province. There are two community colleges that have a few more — Northwest Community College and CNC in Prince George — but for universities, we have the largest population. It's because we live in a small community, and we provide the kinds of supports that are necessary, and we focus on student success. We provide the supports so that these students can be successful.

It's an expensive model, and I think that's very important to recognize — that the investment up front in education may be expensive, and more expensive for some of these individuals coming from these communities because of the need for upgrading and the needs for support. But the cost up front is much less than the cost down the road.

So I think it's very important that the Treasury Board look at and understand the requests and recognize the importance of support for first nations education and also to continually…. I know it's not a provincial jurisdiction. To fund first nations education is a federal jurisdiction. But I also know that there are an awful lot of conversations between the provincial government and the federal government relative to this issue.

[0900]

Our chancellor is Chief Shawn A-in-chut Atleo. He is now the chief of AFN in Ottawa. He has education as one of his key platforms. I think that we're in a position provincially to recognize and to be able to leverage opportunities for these conversations to be enhanced considerably. So I think it's a very important agenda that we should take a look at as we move forward.

The other thing that I think is important for us to recognize is that these universities are portals for international students. We have about 1,250 international students that are in our institution in Nanaimo. It's a large number of students that is very productive. We've been very active internationally for over 30 years, particularly in the Asia Rim, Pacific Rim.

We as institutions are portals for international students, international talent, being attracted into this province. I think this is the place that is extremely important. We know on the statistics that come out of the provincial government that by 2015 the domestic population of B.C. with post-secondary education will only meet half of the needed skilled and educated labour in the province. Those are facts that you know. Those are facts that the provincial government publishes. We as institutions are portals for this.

The increase in the visibility of B.C. post-secondary education internationally is important. The new investment in BCIE, British Columbia international education, is an important first step in that, but also the recognition of what we do and how we can help support and develop this portal for this province, I think, is extremely important as well.

In conclusion, I just want to reiterate the fact that we as an institution are working in environments that indeed are changing. In Nanaimo fishing used to be very, very big for our economy. In Nanaimo mining used to be pretty big for our economy. In Nanaimo forestry used to be very big for our economy. We know that those industries are changing. We know that they still exist, but we know they've changed dramatically. We know that they are moving to a different type of industry, and that industry is demanding people with education.

The provincial government. We appreciate the support we've received to date, but I think we need to ensure that there are continued increases in support so that we can help the province as it addresses the critical challenges that are in front of it in the future, whether it be in looking at how we harvest protein from the sea….

We know the demand for protein from this beautiful, pristine coast that is producing protein at a rate that is considerably more than many other jurisdictions in the world. With the pristineness of this coast, we can do
[ Page 366 ]
things that other jurisdictions in the world can't do because of the lack of quality water, which we have. That's an area that we can help, as our institution.

We know that first nations populations — the opportunity for support there…. We know with forestry and the support there…. We know within the other types of knowledge-based economies that are going to be attractive to our environment….

Please remember in the context of our role in developing human capital — that's the business we're in. We know that's going to be critical for the future, and we encourage you to continue strongly supporting post-secondary education, as you have been over the last few years. But don't stop it. Thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation. I have two minutes left for questions. First one's to Don, second to Norm.

D. McRae: Dr. Nilson, first of all, thank you for very much for the leadership you've shown at Vancouver Island University. Also, the fact is you've taken advantage of sort of the natural resources and environment that Vancouver Island provides and concentrate your efforts in those areas, especially, like you mentioned, the shellfish industry.

My first question is: I was wondering if you could compare the tuition rates charged to both international students and B.C. students coming to your institution.

R. Nilson: Yes. We double the international student tuition from what the domestic students have, coming in. You probably noticed in the paper today that the average tuition for students across the country is about $4,700. If you look at our tuition annually, we're $3,800.

So the new universities are a considerable bargain. You take us compared to the four research universities, and we're at least $1,000 less tuition. The outcome is an undergraduate student that contributes to the province in significant ways. Our FTE funding is also different from the provincial government by about that same amount, about $1,000 per head.

[0905]

We are a wonderful bargain, frankly. We do an excellent job of providing very, very high quality education with very, very high production of students who contribute. They go on to graduate school, many of them. Many of them go directly into the workforce. I think the history of these new universities is very strong.

N. Letnick: Thank you, Dr. Nilson, for your very articulate presentation. You are definitely an example for many others who are going to your university.

The question I have is, I guess, in the mid to long term. As we move forward with the demographics that we're seeing, which has fewer students in our K-to-12 program coming up through to the college and university system, do you see more of your student FTEs coming from overseas?

R. Nilson: A very good question. Thank you for that. Yes, we do see an increased number, but the other thing to remember is that for open-access institutions like ours — I'm talking about the new universities and some of the colleges — the average age of our students is about 28 when we take all in. We've only got about 40 percent of our students who are straight out of high school, so already we're providing the support for this dramatically changing economy.

That logger who was in Port Alberni and who left high school in grade 10 could have a very honourable career, a very honourable position, making a family-level income in the forestry industry. All of a sudden, at 45, he doesn't have a job, doesn't have access.

Where does he go to get upgrading? Where does he go to get the training? He comes to our institution or an institution like it. He comes in, he gets an opportunity through the access to the high school programming or the adult basic education that we have, and then he makes a choice. Is he going to go to the trades? Is he going to go to the university program? But he comes in, and that's the open access.

Many students that we have, indeed, are people who have been affected dramatically by this change in economy or are coming back because they don't have the opportunities. That's a whole other population that's important to recognize.

We've got the international population, which we'll be a portal for, and it's very important that we provide that portal. We'll have the traditional-age students who will come in, not only from B.C. but from across the country. I know we will, as a province, see more and more people coming from across the country because of the demand that's happening in some of the larger urban areas. People will be looking for an opportunity here, especially as they continue to recognize the quality of education here.

Then, of course, this other population that's in transition is very important as well.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Dr. Nilson. We appreciate your participation this morning.

We are now going to go to Prince Rupert. I understand that we have Cathay Sousa standing by in Prince Rupert.

Please go ahead.

C. Sousa: Good morning. I'm Cathay Sousa, the new vice-president of finance and administration at Northwest Community College.

Northwest Community College wishes to thank the Select Standing Committee on Finance for the oppor-
[ Page 367 ]
tunity to participate in today's prebudget consultation process. The government is to be commended for giving British Columbians a voice in shaping the 2010-11 provincial budget.

We recognize and are sensitive to the fiscal challenges currently facing the province. As a representative of one of B.C.'s 11 community colleges, it is Northwest Community College's mandate to prepare a well-educated, highly skilled, job-ready workforce for the province.

B.C.'s 11 community colleges serve over 250,000 students annually. We're at the forefront for people in communities affected by the economic downturn, and we'll be catalysts for the social and economic recovery throughout B.C.

As more people turn to colleges for training or retraining because of the recession, the college faces both fiscal and financial capacity issues that will limit our future ability to serve British Columbians.

To provide a bit of context for Northwest Community College, I would just like to provide you with a few messages, starting with an introduction to our college area.

According to B.C. Stats, Northwest Community College's region has a population of approximately 72,000 people, 30 percent to 32 percent of whom are aboriginal. This is by far the largest percentage of aboriginal population of all colleges in British Columbia.

Our region encompasses just over 102,000 square kilometres, which is roughly the size of France. As you can imagine, travel issues become a real concern. Travel often prohibits students from commuting to and from campuses, especially during the winter, as travel is hazardous and sometimes impossible. In other words, we usually have to take the programming to the student, which again, as you can imagine, is a very costly venture.

Northwest Community College served over 8,000 students in 2008-09, with an annual operating budget of approximately $18 million.

[0910]

We're a community college that celebrates the diversity of our northern and aboriginal populations, and we reflect this diversity in our programs, services, workforce and operational processes.

As a community college, we play an important role in the growth and development of our local communities by providing programs in health, career, technical and applied studies, aboriginal programming, university transfer and associate degree programs, trades and apprenticeship programs and developmental education, including programs for students with disabilities and partnerships with our local literacy groups.

Within our vast geographical area, we operate physical facilities in ten communities throughout the region, with locations that reflect the population densities. We also serve 27 first nations communities and have offered community-based programming in 20 of these. On-line education and video conferencing is available throughout our region as well.

Northwest Community College is unique in the province in that 49 percent of our students in credit-based programs in 2008-09 were of aboriginal descent. This percentage is, by far, much greater than any other non-aboriginal post-secondary institution in the province of British Columbia.

Our exceptional faculty and staff are dedicated to our students' success. As a community college, we offer our students education and training that is of high quality, affordable and, importantly, close to home.

The northwest region is striving to relinquish our dependence upon the resource-based economy, as we have suffered significant economic decline in major industries over the past decade. The unemployment rates in our communities are higher than the provincial average, particularly in first nations communities.

In spite of this weakening economy and the fact that the northwest does remain the highest-hit region economically of all regions in B.C., we still find ourselves with a lack of a skilled workforce at both the trade and technical level and professional level.

Northwest Community College plays a critical role in addressing the labour needs of the northwest economy, and its standard program offerings are essential to the development of the economy. Students who are trained in the north are more apt to stay in the north. Also, the first nations population is not a transient one, and most want to live and/or work near the communities of their birth.

A few more interesting facts. The northwest ranks among the lowest in education levels in the province. This is a key area of focus for our college, and we are aggressively working with community partners and agencies to improve these statistics. Additionally, we are developing and delivering programs at all campuses and in first nations communities to create opportunities for those who lack entrance requirements for post-secondary participation.

This year our total enrolment is up 11 percent, and we find ourselves with wait-lists and increased demand in various programs. As more people turn to colleges for training and retraining, our college faces both physical and financial capacity challenges that limit our ability to serve our communities effectively.

Many of our students are learning with outdated equipment and technology, which makes providing a skilled, job-ready workforce challenging. We are up for the challenge. In order to deliver more cost efficiencies, we need to modernize our facilities and upgrade our systems and information technology, wireless access systems and document imaging.

In the past year, we have collaborated on various innovative cost savings to reduce costs and improve efficiency within our college. For example, we have implemented
[ Page 368 ]
various information energy-savings techniques as well as capital projects such as retrofitting of windows and seals at the Terrace campus, and we are currently constructing a new facility in the town of Smithers that is a LEED schools project — environmentally conscious.

We've also implemented video conferencing to a higher degree. This has resulted in a significant savings in travel, and it's utilized for interviews, administrative meetings and, most importantly, instructional programs.

Northwest Community College is preparing for B.C.'s workforce and responding to the change through collaboration and in partnership with various partners. For example, with the input from employers' national trade organizations and the northern college presidents, we were able to create a new on-line information technology diploma program.

Thanks to significant input from the city of Terrace, Northwest Community College developed a government certificate program, and one year after receiving the funding, the program is set to celebrate its first graduation class this month.

[0915]

The Terrace campus developed a new emergency service training centre facility that was built in cooperation and partnership with the city of Terrace and CN Rail. It has the endorsement of the First Nations Emergency Services.

This unique collaboration allows regional volunteer firefighters to train locally rather than going down south, allowing scarce travel dollars to stretch further and providing the opportunity to train as large groups more frequently. Volunteer firefighters are the backbone of rural and aboriginal communities and emergency services, and provide critical support to our region.

In Smithers the partnership between the Smithers Exploration Group and the Northwest Community College School of Exploration and Mining has been key in helping us to achieve a high employment placement rate of graduates of our School of Exploration and Mining, despite this recession.

Northwest Community College is helping B.C.'s economy and investing in B.C.'s future. Overall, 96 percent of B.C. college graduates stay and work in B.C., and B.C. colleges and their graduates contribute $7.7 billion of the income of the provincial economy. Northwest Community College alone contributes $219.3 million in added regional income to our local economy yearly.

The college plays a key role in educating and training the workforce in our region, with specific strategies targeting traditionally under-represented groups — for example, immigrant, aboriginal, disabled and illiterate populations. This training is critical to the economic recovery of British Columbia.

This recession is not a new phenomenon to the northwest. We have been experiencing a downturn in the economy due to mill closures, etc., for many years. Most of our programs — health, business, information technology, trades, university credit — are actually retraining for many of our mature students.

B.C. colleges require from the government the ability to help us provide a skilled, job-ready workforce, and we require an increase in base operating funding, despite the fiscal challenges, for 2010-11 to support the increased demand for our programs and our services.

We require restoration of the annual capital cost allowance funding to provide equipment and technology to meet the education and training needs of our students and their future employers as well as to provide continued operational efficiencies for our facilities.

We require funding for programs and services to address training for people traditionally under-represented, such as adults requiring increased literacy; our aboriginal population, which is the fastest-growing adult population in B.C.; new immigrants; and the disabled. These groups have been identified as being critical to advancing B.C.'s economic recovery.

In conclusion, B.C. colleges play an important role in building a stronger British Columbia and are critical to the economic recovery of this province. B.C. colleges are a great investment. They return $3.80 to the provincial government for every dollar of taxpayer financial support.

Being at the front line for people in communities affected by the economic downturn, Northwest Community College can provide responsive education and, importantly, training close to home. Northwest Community College is committed to working with our community to further the economic recovery by providing a skilled, job-ready workforce.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Cathay. We have a question from Doug.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Hi, Cathay.

C. Sousa: Good morning.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Good morning. Thanks very much for your presentation, and I know the good work that you and the college staff are doing because, as you know, I've been part of that in the past. You're doing a great job, so thanks.

My question to you is around the base operating funding. I realize that occasionally you get special injections, but my question is more around base operating funding and the fact that the college targets traditionally under-represented groups, as you point out in your presentation.

Does your base operating funding take that into account? Are you allotted more base operating funds for the fact that you're targeting under-represented groups?
[ Page 369 ]

C. Sousa: Thank you very much for the question, Doug. No, we're not, but we would…. That's definitely an area that we have been pursuing and hope to see in the near future.

[0920]

M. Mungall: Thanks very much for your presentation, Cathay. I'm just looking at your recommendations B and C, requiring restoration of the annual capital allowance and, of course, funding for programs and services to address training for under-represented students.

I'm just wondering. With a budget of $18 million, I heard you say, it seems like the north is getting a lot of bang for their dollar. I'm wondering how much you're looking at for these two recommendations.

C. Sousa: Oh my goodness, you caught me there — how much we're looking at. We were actually cut back, I believe it was close to $500,000, in our annual capital cost allowance. Can I get back to you with the actual dollar figures?

M. Mungall: That would be great.

C. Sousa: I'm sorry. I don't have that in front of me.

M. Mungall: Yeah. No problem. Thank you. Just send it to the Finance Committee.

J. Les (Chair): Anyone else have a question for Cathay?

Looks like we have no further questions, Cathay. On behalf of the committee, thank you for participating this morning. We very much appreciate it.

C. Sousa: Thank you for allowing us to.

J. Les (Chair): You bet.

Now we will head back to Nelson, and we have Joanna Maratta on behalf of the B.C. Touring Council.

Joanna, good morning.

J. Maratta: Good morning, and welcome to Nelson.

I'm joined today…. I don't know if we can see everyone. I think we can. Bessie Wapp is to my right. Bessie Wapp is an artist. Terran Orletsky, over my shoulder, is a board member of the Nelson and District Arts Council. Nicola Harwood, who will be presenting a little bit later this morning, is executive director of the Oxygen Art Centre — here for support and also to add some comments to this presentation.

My name is Joanna Maratta. I'm the executive director of the B.C. Touring Council, a provincial arts service organization for the performing arts. The B.C. Touring Council, or BCTC, was established as a non-profit organization in 1976 to serve community presenters of performing arts and professional artists touring in British Columbia.

Its goals are to expand touring opportunities in every part of the province, offering communities throughout B.C. the highest-quality performing arts experience. Our services and activities include capacity-building, professional network and audience development, and promoting and producing our annual conference, Pacific Contact, now going into its 34th year.

I come before the committee today to offer our priorities for the arts, creating a stronger and better British Columbia. We ask the B.C. government to reverse any proposed cuts to arts and culture funding in the 2011-2012 service plans, as well as reconsider recent changes to direct access.

On behalf of the board of the British Columbia Touring Council, its members and audiences across B.C., we ask that our provincial government restore arts and culture funding to the $19.5 million level of the 2008-2009 budget, a level that is still well below the recommendations of past Finance Committees; that the British Columbia Arts Council's arm's-length relationship with the province be maintained by funding it through the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts, not through gaming funds but rather through legislated appropriations.

We ask that direct-access gaming grants be fully restored and the 33 percent allotment for arts, culture and other non-profit and charitable organizations be honoured, and that one-year funding commitments to arts and culture organizations through gaming that were rescinded this year be restored. We ask that the multi-year funding program beyond the current three-year commitments be maintained.

I would like the standing committee and the provincial government to know that as the dust settles from recent funding cuts to direct access, we are hearing of the impact to presenters and their audiences — the citizens of British Columbia.

From ArtSpring on Saltspring Island, we hear that outreach activities, services to young audiences and other community projects will not be offered. From Mission Concert Society, we learn that direct-access funding typically used to pay their artistic director's honorarium will be honoured by cutting back on such things as newspaper advertisements — important and needed to promote their concerts.

[0925]

In Revelstoke, as a prudent measure while waiting for news of their $16,000 direct-access grant, a grant received for many years, the Arts Council tightened their belts sufficiently to proceed with plans for their current season. But if they are unable to get funding early next year, they will have to revert to a volunteer basis only, and that will mean that their planned activities will be severely curtailed.

Here in Nelson the local Overture Concerts Society, the oldest concert society in British Columbia, was forced
[ Page 370 ]
to reschedule a booking of a well-known and loved B.C. ensemble who, because of the sudden news of their direct-access grant being cut, had to cancel their tour. This happened after Overture's season brochure was printed and season's passes were for sale.

The B.C. Touring Council has been very fortunate so far. We do not receive gaming funding, and our B.C. Arts Council funding remains stable — for now. Funding to the B.C. Touring Council includes an important and unique community arts program that BCTC administers on behalf of the B.C. Arts Council.

It is called community presenters assistance, and BCTC has been administering it for over ten years. It is an awards program available on a project basis to assist non-profit community organizations that present British Columbia and Canadian professional performing artist touring events. Relatively small grants are given to presenters to help offset costs and pay fees to touring artists.

In 2008-2009 the community presenters program awarded $260,000 to 52 communities outside of the GVRD and greater Victoria CRD. In total, performance fees paid to artists were almost $1.6 million. Total revenues and expenses for these organizations — many volunteer — totalled $3.7 million, and 58 percent of the artists booked came from British Columbia.

British Columbia artists were paid over $800,000 in performance fees. Overall, a total audience of over 115,000 British Columbians came out for 442 performances, and besides paid staff, these organizations are supported by 2,570 volunteers.

If cuts to the B.C. Arts Council reduce or eliminate this program, communities across British Columbia will be affected. Cuts to arts and culture have a widespread effect as community presenting organizations reduce their activities and performers lose work. Moreover, it is the audiences that will dearly feel the repercussions. Many of the communities are small and remote and are already struggling with an economic downturn and declining industries.

We believe that these B.C. communities deserve and need access to quality arts and entertainment. With more artists working in British Columbia than in Ontario and Alberta and a larger workforce than the forestry and fishing industries combined, B.C.'s cultural sector is recognized across the country and beyond for its vitality and vibrancy.

Arts and culture are significant contributors to the well-being of communities and each province's economy and identity. The people of British Columbia can be extremely proud of what has been achieved by its artistic creators and cultural workers, even more so knowing that the growth of this sector has been sustained up till now by the provincial government.

Sadly, the very value and infrastructure the government helped to nurture will be quickly eroded with the drastic and sudden shift in funding. As a foundation for healthy communities, the arts create vision and cultural identity. They entertain and stimulate, bringing people together with a sense of belonging and pride.

[0930]

Please do not allow our province's reputation to be tarnished. Instead, we urge the provincial government to demonstrate strength and leadership to forward and maintain the progress that has assiduously been achieved. Allow British Columbia to celebrate its cultural accomplishments and identity and shine across the country.

Now I'd like to ask Bessie if she would like to share.

B. Wapp: Sure. I am a performing artist. I have been working in the field for 25-plus years. I have created and toured original works extensively across Canada, the United States and in Europe and worked with numerous B.C. groups.

Just to give you an example of my week, this week I taught and rehearsed at two different venues run by small organizations: the Oxygen Art Centre and Nelson History Theatre. Both of these groups have lost their direct-access funding. Nicola will speak to Oxygen's situation. I know that this has dramatically affected Nelson History Theatre. So now, potentially, two rehearsal and teaching venues will be lost to me.

At the end of this week I will perform at the Capitol Theatre. The Capitol Theatre has not lost its direct-access funding, but I wonder who will be left to perform at the Capitol Theatre should it continue to run. I predict that artists and art administrators will flood the workforce, knowing there are no opportunities available in their fields because the industry has been so devastated.

It is well known, through studies done over and over again, that dollars invested in the arts return handsomely in tax dollars, so I think it is unwise to continue on the road that has been proposed. I suggest that over the next three years arts funding not be reduced as dramatically as has been proposed.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much to both of you. I have a question from a committee member who is probably familiar to you.

M. Mungall: Thanks very much. It's great to see some Nelson folk. It's great to see you. Hi.

Thanks very much, Bessie, Terran and Joanna, and I'll be thanking you later, Nicola, for your presentation. I have to say, Joanna, that the volunteer-to-staff ratio you gave, where there were over 2,000 volunteers and two staff people, was incredible.

It sounds to me with your presentation, especially your own personal experience, Bessie, that a cut to arts funding is a direct cut to jobs in this province at a time when we, of course, need to be creating jobs. I'm wondering if you can elaborate a little bit on that and what it's going to mean for local economies in rural areas.
[ Page 371 ]

J. Maratta: Thank you for that question, Michelle. As a matter of fact, two weeks ago I returned from a trip north. I drove from Nelson to Valemount, on to Prince George and into Smithers where, along with 2010 Legacies Now, we co-hosted an arts summit in Smithers. I continued along to Prince Rupert and then, on my way back down, through Quesnel, Kamloops and the Okanagan, specifically to talk to communities.

I was hearing everywhere we went that our arts community presenters…. I want the committee to know that these, by and large, are volunteer organizations. People in small communities of a thousand like Valemount have seen their industry move out of their community — at least one of maybe two. They are very uncertain, but they're passionate and resourceful in their spirit.

It's interesting because there was a tour by some very well-known Canadian artists. The show is called Lunch at Allen's and includes Murray McLauchlan, Cindy Church, Marc Jordan and Dave Thomas. That tour just recently completed a tour through Prince Rupert, Terrace and Smithers and all through Highway 16. It was fabulous. Their audiences came out. They were very….

[0935]

Burns Lake is selling out their subscription series, but it's tough. It's very tough on small communities.

Also, the statistic that I gave about the funding that goes to these communities does not include the professional associations and their volunteers and their statistics in the greater Vancouver area, Victoria and the CRD.

J. Les (Chair): Any further questions from committee members? We're almost out of time anyway.

Thank you, Joanna and Bessie.

Nicola, we'll be back in touch with you in about a half-hour.

Now we're going to go back to Nanaimo, where standing by is Rick Christiaanse from Sport B.C.

P. Varian: Good morning, members of the committee, from Nanaimo. My name is actually Paul Varian. I'm the president and CEO of Sport B.C. Mr. Rick Christiaanse, our executive vice-president, is to my right.

We sit here before you representing the over 65 provincial sport organizations that make organized sport happen on the fields, rinks and gyms around British Columbia every day and the approximate 700,000 citizens that they have, in turn, enrolled in their clubs.

Members of the committee, my message today is a simple one. In just 114 days we welcome the world to this great province to celebrate the Vancouver 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. The investment in these games has been considerable, and the effort put in by VANOC and its partners has been huge.

But outside of experiencing the thrill of the games when they arrive in February, some are questioning what it is all for. If you aren't an elite athlete or if you don't live in Vancouver or Whistler or if you can't afford to buy tickets to attend, how has this been worthwhile for you?

Last week at the Vancouver Convention Centre VANOC CEO John Furlong passionately spoke about his vision for these games, about how important it is that the games were for everyone and how central this is in making the games vision compelling to all. At Sport B.C. we passionately agree with John. These games have to be for everyone, but how do we do this?

We believe that the key is in what the games deliver long after they are gone, irrespective of the benefits at games time. We must create a unique legacy from Vancouver 2010 that everyone can touch, whether they participated in the games or not. We owe it to the people of this province to do so.

If you ask people about legacies from Olympics past, you'll usually be told about Olympic legacy trust funds or maybe Olympic facilities. These are fine, valuable legacies.

But what if Vancouver 2010 was to be the first jurisdiction in the history of the games to truly capture a new, unique legacy that could be felt by all, a human legacy that could better the lives of all British Columbians from all walks of life located all around the province? This legacy can be built through an investment in amateur sport and its ability to better people's lives in so many ways right to the heart of community.

I hope you can see this. This is Zack. Meet Zack. Zack is a young boy from Hazelton who loves hockey. He's a budding young goaltender. He probably won't be attending the Olympics, but he can benefit from them if he can continue to participate in the sport that is his passion: hockey.

Last year the true power that sport brings to a community like Hazelton was demonstrated when KidSport teamed up with Health Canada and the NHLPA to bring new hockey, basketball and lacrosse programs to the region. This was a dream come true for young Zack, as he had the opportunity to face shots from former Canucks legend Gino Odjick.

Says Zack, "I wanted to play goalie because I like to be the person that everyone looks up to. Gino shot at me 14 or 15 times, and I only let two in," which is probably better than Roberto Luongo right now. "It felt cool. I was nervous because I didn't know how he was going to shoot. He's an NHL player. I felt like I was a celebrity being shot on by Gino Odjick."

Now, it may seem simple and unimportant, but the fact is that sport is a unique glue that binds communities together. An investment in sport is an investment in kids just like Zack, but not just in their entertainment.

[0940]

KidSport's project in Hazelton last year was in response to the critical levels of aboriginal youth suicide that the
[ Page 372 ]
region is experiencing. It's just one project, but it's already making a difference, combatting the range of social issues simultaneously in the context of pure, honest fun.

It's an example of how an investment in sport is more than an investment in Zack's dreams. It's an investment in his health, in his physical literacy and in his early childhood development. It's a key driver of social inclusion in the region, and in its most extreme form, it's an investment in hope when some people have none.

The value sport brings is not subjective opinion anymore. It's proven fact. I won't bore you with the statistics, but here are a few that may be of interest to you.

For one, $573 million — that's the cost of physical inactivity to B.C. through direct health care costs and loss of productivity. Some 40 percent to 60 percent — that's the reduction in risk of diseases such as heart disease and diabetes for those who do participate in sport. And 3.54 to 1 — that's the ratio the provincial sport organizations that we represent are leveraging provincial public investment, making the investment inherently sustainable in its nature.

Members of the committee, I put to you this. If a small program like KidSport can better people's lives in Hazelton, what could the entire amateur sport system do at large for this province? On the back of Olympic athletic success and a fistful of medals, there'll be an unprecedented interest in sport participation that these medals will bring.

Local sport participation in Australia increased by 11.8 percent in the five proceeding years following the Sydney 2000 Olympic and Paralympic Summer Games. We can expect something similar here post-2010.

What better time to invest in the B.C. sports system and the social and community benefits that it brings? What bolder vision for our legacy from 2010 can we aim for than this? Surely, this human legacy is what John Furlong speaks so passionately about and what ultimately makes bringing these games here all worthwhile for everyone.

Currently Sport B.C. is working collaboratively with other B.C. sport organizations through the B.C. Sport Alliance to detail this very vision: a new amateur sports system for British Columbia that can be accessed by everyone, is inherently sustainable and can be a central instrument to better the lives of British Columbians in an accountable and measurable way.

This vision has been worked on for well over a year now in close consultation with the Ministry for Healthy Living and Sport. We urge the committee to capture the unmissable opportunity that Vancouver 2010 presents to us by providing the necessary funding capacity to allow this vision to be executed post-2010.

In British Columbia we have a lot to be proud of. We've led the world in demonstrating how to prepare for the hosting of an Olympic Games event. Help us now lead the world in showing how to leverage the games benefit long after the Olympic flame has gone out here and the games have passed.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to taking any questions you may have for me at this time.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much. We have a couple of questions. First one is to Doug.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. I actually am from Hazelton, and I want to let the committee members know that we've never met — have we?

P. Varian: No, we have not. I noted your riding.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for that fine example. I just wanted to let you know that…. I was travelling through the airport a week ago. It wasn't Zack's mother, but I met a mother who was bringing back a Luongo shirt, who had had Gino Odjick sign it at the Hazelton event that you describe. The legacy lives on from those small tours that you're able to put together. So thank you for that.

The social inclusion aspect of sport is something that I'm glad you touched on. Oftentimes we overlook it because we focus on the health aspects. I can tell you that at the Hazelton hockey rink the social inclusion aspect is that it's a place — we have very few of those places in the community, not a lot of facilities — where people from all walks of life come together and share a common purpose. That then can be used to go out and address more critical issues in the community. So the social inclusion aspect is something that I'm really happy you mentioned.

My question is around…. You talked about the leveraging of the funding that you have been able to do, the multiplier that you have had. What kind of support have you had from the provincial government this year, and what kind of support are you talking about to implement what you described?

[0945]

P. Varian: The provincial government support has been multifaceted. Obviously, it flows through a number of funding lines — through some gaming support; through some provincial funding through our ministry; through some support through SportsFunder, that lottery program.

In terms of what we require for this vision to be executed, the full, detailed plans will be coming through our ministry in the next number of weeks, but we would like to see a return to the funding levels of 2008-2009 and to using those funding levels as a benchmark for future planning.

We estimate those funding levels to be approximately $60 million in 2008-2009 in total, including things like
[ Page 373 ]
ActNow. We think that's an excellent benchmark. We think the sector managed to accomplish a lot in the five years approaching these games, and as I've attempted to outline today, we feel that the key benefit from the investment in these games moving forward is yet to come. We need the further investment post-2010 to capture that.

B. Ralston: I share your enthusiasm for the benefits of sport. We did hear on Friday in Surrey from representative Raj Puri from the representatives of the B.C. School Sports organization. As you may know, they suffered a major cut of $130,000 to their budget. Have you expressed your concern about that cut to the School Sports organization — which is, of course, allied in purpose with the purposes of your organization?

P. Varian: I think our messaging has been towards funding in the sector in general. There are many organizations that receive operational grants and contributions from the province to support their activities. The phenomenon of sport in the school environment is a large one, supported from multiple areas.

We would endorse the continued support of funding in that environment, largely because, obviously, kids are in school and a lot of the benefits of sport are for kids at that early age, in terms of early childhood development and physical literacy. We'd like to see a policy of continued support for sport and sport activity in curriculum in the education system.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much for your presentation. Are you going to be giving us a written submission in addition to your oral submission?

P. Varian: I will be submitting a copy of the speech I've just made. Then, as part of the B.C. Sport Alliance, there will be further submissions that detail a lot of the vision that I've been referring to, which will be coming through our ministry in the forthcoming weeks as part of the fiscal planning for the next year.

J. Thornthwaite: That would be very much appreciated. Could you please outline where, right now, you are getting funding from the provincial government — you mentioned many spots — and where you want those recommendations to be improved in the future?

P. Varian: Certainly.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much for your presentation this morning.

We're now going to go back to Prince Rupert, where we have Robynne Devine standing by on behalf of the Prince Rupert Amateur Swim Club.

Good morning.

R. Devine: Good morning. I'm going to be reading a letter written by our president, Christine Komadina, and then I will talk a bit about my personal feelings on this.

To the Standing Committee on Finance:

The Prince Rupert Amateur Swim Club is a non-profit group offering a well-organized swim club for children of Prince Rupert. Our swim club is a very important recreational option for many families in our community. There are close to a hundred children registered to swim this year, and our club is excited to be hosting the Northern B.C. Winter Games in February.

During 2008-09, our club sent two swimmers to the national meet in July. By the end of the season we sent approximately 12 swimmers to double-A provincials and eight swimmers to triple-A provincials.

The Prince Rupert Amateur Swim Club relies heavily on the gaming funds, which we receive through membership and participaction in the Prince Rupert Bingo Association, to keep our club accessible to all children in our community.

[0950]

In the previous years PRASC has received funding from gaming in an amount just short of $40,000 a year. This funding is used to retain a professional coach for our club. Our members pay monthly dues to cover the cost of pool rental and other club expenses.

We also fundraise close to $20,000 per year to help offset the costs of travel for our swimmers. Our swimmers travel to approximately five out-of-town swim meets per year, which does not include the provincial swim meets that a lot of us travel to.

By keeping our children in organized sport — be it swimming, hockey, basketball, soccer, etc. — our children are learning many life lessons, such as working together as a team, how to set and achieve goals, how to stay focused and, most importantly, how to stay healthy.

The B.C. government talks about preventative measures to make sure that we stay healthy. How can this be achieved if small non-profit amateur sports organizations lose their gaming funding?

Prince Rupert is not a community with a lot of money, but we are rich in community spirit because of the exceptional organizations within our community. But I am afraid that with a loss of gaming money, we are going to see many of these exceptional organizations fold due to the lack of funding.

I ask that when deciding on what should be cut, the government please remember the children because, at the end, it's all about our children and what we can do for them.

Sincerely,

Christine Komadina

To elaborate on that, I do have a copy of our budget here for you guys to look at when we're done.

As a parent with a provincial…. My daughter competes to double-A and triple-A level. With the travel, even with it being subsidized for the other five meets, that probably costs me at least $5,000 a year for her travelling. With the loss, or even a partial loss, of bingo, that would mean that we would now probably be at least doubling our fees.

We went over it as an executive. That would probably be the only option. Fundraising in this community hasn't been that successful. There are pretty limited funds right now.
[ Page 374 ]

We're expecting that we would probably lose at least 50 percent of our children swimming because nobody would be able to afford to pay the monthly dues, and travel would probably be obsolete. We would not probably be able to afford to travel.

That's about it.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Thank you very much, Robynne.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Robynne, for the letter and then your specific examples. They're definitely real and hit home, especially coming from the northwest, where I know that fundraising opportunities have been difficult for a long time.

I just wanted to have you elaborate on what impact potentially losing half of the swimmers in the club will have on access for young children — not just to this kind of activity but to the use of the pool — the impact of the fees you pay to the pool, and then how that impacts the ability of the pool to stay viable as well. Can you talk a bit about that?

R. Devine: Yeah, absolutely. We currently have a yearly contract that we have to pay the pool $18,000. On top of that, they probably receive another $8,000 for our swim meets that we host. I think that in a community like ours that's probably a fairly big portion of their income.

Yeah, it's a ripple effect. We have no kids in the pool, and we don't have the fees coming in to cover our costs. They won't be getting the money.

J. Les (Chair): Any other questions from anyone?

Looks like you've got us all convinced, Robynne, so we'll let you go. Thank you for your presentation.

We're now going to go back to Nelson. I know that Nicola Harwood is there.

Good morning again.

[0955]

N. Harwood: Here we are. Good morning. Thank you very much.

I'm representing today as the executive director of the Oxygen Art Centre in Nelson. My presentation — I'm sorry that I wasn't able to get it to you ahead of time, but I will submit it after the fact — is called "Invest, Protect and Respect."

I'm the executive director of the Oxygen Art Centre, a small artist-run centre in Nelson, B.C., that has been running in its current form since 2004. Our mandate includes providing professional contemporary art and literary programming while engaging the community at all levels.

Our programming consists of 20 weeks a year of arts education and visual art, performance, film and writing, four professionally curated exhibitions per year, three month-long artist residencies per year and an event series on literary art and community issues.

Our programming runs year-round, and the centre is very busy. We employ many local professional artists on a part-time basis to teach and deliver programming and pay professional artist exhibition fees. We have a large volunteer base and offer many incentives to volunteers, including price breaks on classes in exchange for labour.

For the first three years we ran the centre entirely as a volunteer artist collective. During that time we built our infrastructure, including a board of directors and four major programming committees. We also established a record of public funding, including B.C. Arts Council project funding and various project grants from local foundations.

The B.C. Arts Council have annually increased our project support to the centre, and I've been told by the staff of the council that we are seen as a model organization for delivering arts programming. I believe that that estimation is a result of Oxygen achieving both professional standards while providing accessible programming that results in our centre being an active hub of community engagement.

In 2007 we received our first B.C. gaming direct-access grant, and for the first time we were able to afford to pay administrative staff. We now employ one executive director at ten hours per week and one publicist on a small annual contract. We run a full-time organization on a one-third-time wage.

In 2008 we were awarded the innovative organization of the year award from the Nelson-based Centre for Innovative and Entrepreneurial Leadership. Thus, the cutting of B.C. gaming and the impending cuts anticipated at the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts come as very disturbing news to us.

Our organization is healthy. We are fiscally responsible, managing a very modest budget in the black. We've worked very hard over the past five years to put organizational systems in place and to create a consistent flow of earned income and public funding while offering challenging and dynamic programming. We don't want to lose what we have built.

I tell you all of this as a way of making visible what the results of the cuts to the arts will mean to our organization and many other organizations across the province operating on similarly small budgets.

Programming cuts we can all understand and cope with, if we have to. But what I do not understand is the rationale for destroying organizational infrastructure.

It is very important that the standing committee understand that this government's approach to cutting the arts sector with a loss of gaming funding and the anticipation of 90 percent cuts to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts will obliterate organizations and wipe out jobs. It is unthinking, unkind and devastating to the sector and to the citizens and families who support it and the communities they serve.
[ Page 375 ]

Invest. I find it tiresome to defend the common sense of funding the arts. Tourists don't flock to Paris for the bagels or to Berlin for the pastry. They go because of the ambiance of a dynamic, creative culture. When the federal government decided to create the National Film Board of Canada and invest in Canadian film-making, Canada became a world leader in documentary film-making.

The Canadian tax incentive in the motion picture industry was another investment that led to a flourishing film industry in both Toronto and Vancouver. When the city of Calgary wanted to attract the head offices of oil companies to relocate to the city, they invested $20 million in the arts.

Investing in creativity is an investment in global cultural leadership. Culturally dynamic cities attract not only tourists but entrepreneurs, new businesses and dynamic, innovative industries.

Nelson, B.C., is an example. We are weathering a change from a resource-extraction economy to a tourism-based economy precisely because in the early 1980s, in the middle of a recession, the city invested in a cultural asset, its heritage architecture. The city is now reaping the benefits of that investment, and we have become a destination town both for tourists and new citizens and businesses that are drawn here because of the cultural ambiance.

Protect and respect. I would like to challenge this government to understand that in difficult economic times we must protect the most vulnerable of our citizens, institutions and organizations. According to the Canada Council for the Arts analysis of the 2006 census, a Canadian artist's annual average income ranges from $19,000 to $23,000.

[1000]

British Columbia currently spends only 1⁄₂₀ of 1 percent of its annual budget on arts and culture. Taking 1⁄₂₀ of 1 percent of the annual budget away from the already underfunded arts and throwing it at the deficit will do almost nothing to change the deficit. It will, however, destroy our sector.

I would like to challenge this government to respect the work and lives of its cultural workers and organizations, who often survive at or below the poverty line and deliver exceptional programming on budgets so small and inadequate that most businesses and government departments couldn't detect them with a microscope.

We are citizens of this province and deserve to be respected for the work we do to encourage literacy, education, human values, human rights and the social and spiritual well-being of our citizens. If I felt that the government respected our work, I could support tightening our belts to weather an economic storm. Instead, facing the bewildering enormity of the proposed cuts, I feel insulted and disrespected as a citizen. As a citizen of this province, I would like to remind this government that the money you are managing is mine and not yours.

The wholesale destruction of the culture budget will lead to the destruction of organizational infrastructure which may never be recovered. Organizations will close, workers will face job loss, and families who are already surviving on the edge will suffer. When Minister Coleman says he'd rather feed hungry children than fund a fringe festival, I hope he is prepared to be feeding the families and children of artists and cultural workers.

I would like to challenge the provincial government to respect the initial agreement with the citizens that promised that 33 percent of gaming funding would be invested in the non-profit sector and to reinstate B.C. gaming funding to the arts as well as maintain funding to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts at current levels.

Albert Einstein said that in moments of crisis only imagination is more important than knowledge. Perhaps now is a time similar to the early 1980s in Nelson, when in the midst of closing industries and a recession, a few imaginative citizens pushed forward what seemed a crazy idea: invest in culture.

Perhaps if the provincial government applies some imagination now, we will be rewarded in 25 years when the results of that risk become apparent and the province of British Columbia is a world cultural leader, rather than a cultural backwater subscribing to outmoded business models that mistakenly place investment in culture at the bottom rather than at the top of the financial agenda.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Nicola. I have a question from Michelle.

M. Mungall: Thanks very much for your presentation, Nicola and Stephanie. Well, I could sit here and tell the story, of course, of how Nelson has become this great cultural mecca, much because of the work that both of you have done. But I thought maybe you could tell my colleagues what I already know about how the arts have had such a positive impact on Nelson's local economy and what these few dollars in cuts are going to mean. What are the ripple effects that they are going to have on our rural community?

N. Harwood: I believe we are facing pretty serious job loss. As I said, we all do triple duty in terms of running the arts organizations in town. Gaming funding is particularly valuable to arts organizations because we can use it to pay administrative staff and operations. With project funding, we are not allowed to do that. We have, of course, at Oxygen a certain stream of earned income that we can use toward that, but we also have to pay our lease costs and our heat, etc.

Direct-access gaming funding — the loss of that actually guts organizations. It takes the person at the core who's then going to fundraise for all the programming
[ Page 376 ]
and keep the organization alive…. It actually takes away that job. It's kind of like cutting up the core of a tree. It's pretty hard for the branches to survive.

S. Fischer: As a cultural centre in Nelson, we are working very closely with the Nelson economic development partnership and the tourism sector. It is recognized by the business community that the cultural sector and the arts and culture in Nelson are a vital sector said to contribute to the economy in Nelson.

D. McRae: Thank you very much. You're truly lucky to live in Nelson. I've been there myself, and my wife actually invested heavily in the arts when she was there. She bought, I think, a painting and some jewellery. It's a beautiful place.

[1005]

In 2008 the government, when we had the 150th anniversary of British Columbia, invested $150 million in the arts funding for some more stability. What do you think of the government policy of doing that and of giving some certainty in actually having the seed dollars to provide funding for the arts that is going to be independent of the economic realities of the economy as it goes up and down in various cycles?

Do you think that's something the government should continue to do — invest those kinds of dollars?

N. Harwood: Absolutely. As I stated in my presentation, we exist on such a thin margin that we're very vulnerable organizations and institutions in the arts. We're extremely vulnerable to fundraising at a corporate level because, once again, people don't understand how the arts are an investment.

If the provincial government can create a stable, ongoing funding base for its organizations just to provide that basic lifeline, then we can cope. Artists are extremely creative. I often tell my students when I teach that one of the most creative things you're going to learn to do is learn how to raise money. We're very good at it.

A friend of mine said that we can build castles out of scotch tape. But we need some kind of baseline for security so that we can continue, so that the very hard work we do to build and maintain arts organizations is not lost in the swipe of a pen. So yes, stable funding is absolutely necessary.

B. Routley: Good morning. We're hearing a lot from different communities throughout British Columbia, and there seem to be two themes. The groups could be divided into those that are being impacted by all kinds of cuts, whether it's schools or arts and culture, and on the other hand we have the group that's coming in quite gleeful about the HST and telling us what a wonderful job the government is doing in proposing an HST that's going to provide major tax benefits to multinational corporations.

One thing that we're not hearing about from arts and culture is that there would also be the potential impact of HST on arts and culture — for example, tickets to events and that kind of thing.

Could you comment on the HST? We're not hearing about that part of it from arts and culture, so I'd like to hear your views on the additional taxes that would be placed on events and anything to do with arts and culture. Will that propose some kind of benefit for you in the future? Can you see some trickle-down benefits of corporations getting massive tax cuts? Is that going to be a wonderful thing for arts and culture in the future?

N. Harwood: I think probably we haven't had a chance to respond to the HST because we've been so busy trying to respond to the direct-access cuts and the proposed cuts to the ministry of arts, culture and tourism.

If I felt like my tax dollars were going to be spent in a way that respected the work that I do, then I understand we need to pay for the services we have in this province. I don't believe that that's a problem. I would rather pay taxes.

What's difficult is when I lose faith in the economic decisions around where that money is spent. And if it is true that it goes toward supporting only corporate culture and not the non-profit sector and not the citizens of British Columbia, who are working at a low- and middle-income level, then that would be a difficult thing for me to support.

Joanna Maratta would like to comment on this, from the B.C. Touring Council.

J. Maratta: I'll just sneak in, if I might. The HST issue does concern the arts and culture community. The presentations by the Alliance for Arts and Culture in Surrey and ProArts in Victoria, I believe, were beginning to address the issue in their presentations to the standing committee. But they are also meeting with minister and staff to try to understand it better. It's an organization that works with live performing arts.

I can tell you that our members are very concerned about it. We have been in discussions with colleagues across the country, particularly in Ontario, who are also being faced with the potential impacts of HST.

[1010]

We need to understand it better in terms of how it will affect our sector. I do believe that that is definitely what's going on right now in meetings at the ministerial level.

J. Les (Chair): Any other questions? On behalf of the committee, then, thank you very much for your presentations this morning.

We are now going to go back to Nanaimo. I believe there we have representatives from the Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce.

I'm not sure whether we have Mike Delves or Wally Wells, so you'll have to introduce yourself. Go ahead.
[ Page 377 ]

M. Delves: Good morning and thank you. My name is Mike Delves. I'm a certified general accountant, and I'm here representing the Greater Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce. I'm the treasurer for that organization.

We would like to thank you for the opportunity to provide input into the budget process. It's a very valuable tool to be able to communicate our needs at this time. Our chamber represents 800 members.

We would like to start by stating that we appreciate the provincial government's sincere effort to make B.C. a more competitive tax jurisdiction and to provide incentives for new businesses to invest and for existing businesses to reinvest.

That, of course, stems from the implementation of the HST, which will significantly benefit the majority of businesses, as well as the tax changes that have been made in the immediate past — reductions in corporate tax rate as well as the increase of the small business income threshold from $400,000 to $500,000. These are all positive things that we see the provincial government having done for us.

We do have a couple of concerns, particularly in relation to the HST, not so much the HST program itself but particularly stemming from the lack of communication from the provincial government initially in the rollout of HST. We feel that there could have been a lot more done to help support businesses and all organizations with the announcement and understanding of the beneficial impacts.

This is going to be the major tax issue for all businesses next year, to deal with the transition., so having some detailed technical information, we feel, is critical.

Consequently, our recommendation is that we would like to see representatives from both the Ministry of Finance as well as Revenue Canada come together and put together a comprehensive communication program throughout the province to provide assistance and advice on implementation.

We at the chamber have already put on a session to help businesses understand the implications of HST, which we're not fully informed on as well. We have more to come. I've personally spoken to individuals at the ministry, and no one there seems to be aware of any program that's coming out to directly be on site to help businesses with the transition. We feel that's going to be essential for an effective implementation of the HST.

Furthermore, on the issue of the transition from PST to HST, I reiterate some comments made by the Kamloops Chamber of Commerce in one of these earlier sessions in that PST is going to close, essentially, as of July 1, 2010. The resources for dealing with GST and the knowledge base will be diminishing rapidly. Therefore, we would like to see PST closed off as soon as possible.

[1015]

PST audits can take place for up to six years subsequent to that date. Again, with the loss of resources and understanding with relation to PST, if businesses are getting audits five or six years down the road, their ability to manage those audits and to be clear on what was happening in the past will be significantly diminished, because they're no longer part of that program. PST isn't going to be an issue that's on the top of their minds.

We would like to stress the importance of having those issues closed off as soon as possible. Our recommendation would be to try and get your audits out of the way within a two-year period.

There are a number of specific things, again with relation to HST, as far as clarifying the exemptions so that we can provide better information to the businesses that we represent and the business community as a whole as to what the exemptions are going to be. Some of the concerns that we've been dealing with lately are with relation to mutual fund fees.

I know that Ontario is talking about exemptions for this. I know it's difficult to compare the two provinces. There are differences between how they're handling HST and their allotment of available exemptions, so we would just like to make sure that we see some clarity on that.

Businesses right now are already making their budgets and plans for 2010 activities. If they're doing so with incomplete information on such a significant change as the HST, it's making things difficult for them as well as difficult for us to assist our members with the transition. We would like to see clarity in those exemptions as well as in how the HST is going to be handled and some further assistance on that.

The last issue that I have here is with relation to education and health care funding. Where we have had assistance with the business community in relation to their taxation, as I've mentioned, we're having members still concerned with the funding of government programs, particularly with relation to health care and education.

We see in the budget consultation paper that funding for both of these programs…. It is saying that it's to be increased. However, we're seeing cuts appearing. The media is saying and representatives from those organizations are saying there are cuts to these programs. We need someone to tell us what the truth really is here and why there's such a disparity between these two issues.

That is, as treasurer, my part of the portion. We have another representative from the chamber, Mr. Wally Wells. He would like to speak with relation to a couple of issues. I'll let Wally introduce himself.

W. Wells: Good morning. My name is Wally Wells. I'm a director of our chamber of commerce.

There are three issues I would like to address very quickly this morning. One is revenue-sharing. My background has an awful lot to do with municipal infrastructure, and we certainly are aware, not only in British Columbia but in other provinces across Canada, that our municipalities are essentially going broke over time.
[ Page 378 ]

We do know that a high proportion of municipal revenue comes from our industry and business tax base, as opposed to residential. Normally, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, residential does not fully pay for municipal services.

The existing system is proving to be increasingly inadequate for the services required, particularly as it relates to our aging infrastructure. Consequently, we would encourage that a new system of revenue-sharing from senior levels of government with municipalities must be created. The unfortunate alternative would be that our municipalities are going to have to look seriously at reducing the level of service.

We clearly are aware of a number of the stimulus programs and the funding programs already in existence. However, we know, in working with governments, that those are intended to be interim funding programs and not long-term for the sustainability of our community. We would encourage the province to look seriously at new funding models for municipalities to sustain our communities.

I'd like to speak specifically to the stimulus funding. The stimulus packages were developed in order to support shovel-ready projects in our local communities. We were pleased to see the government recently make major announcements of many millions of dollars to stimulate projects, employment and business throughout the province.

We do understand that those are not the final announcements within the program and that there is more funding coming. We recommend that this be moved through as quickly as possible, as we understand and know that there is a time frame in which the funds must be expended.

[1020]

However, one of the difficulties we've had over many decades of capital spending on our infrastructure and facilities is the ability to sustain the operations and maintenance. That in itself, though — putting a lot of money into capital projects now — will, in a lot of cases, increase the maintenance and operations requirements of our municipalities, both from supply of goods and services and from an employment base.

Again, we would encourage the province to consider revenue-sharing on a different model than is currently active.

The third area we would like to address is transportation, more as it affects our local environment. We are very appreciative of the government's efforts in moving B.C. Ferries into, essentially, a Crown corporation. We commend the government for doing that. We commend B.C. Ferries for the approaches they have taking to running the effectiveness of the system and the business model that they have.

However, the province does subsidize B.C. Ferries in a number of areas, and we are concerned that the decisions made by B.C. Ferries may consider their business model more than it does the greater good of the community.

We would recommend, therefore, that the government look seriously at how that funding is used and whether it is sufficient and allocated in the right directions. The recent example of that is the cancellation of ferry service on weekdays over the winter between Nanaimo and Vancouver.

Our chamber has undertaken a survey — is in the middle of a survey — with many of our businesses. Most of the responses received to date have shown that there is major impact on the businesses in Nanaimo and potentially on the other side of the ferry service. Therefore, we would suggest that the funding for the ferry service be looked at in relation to the greater good and not just for what it does for B.C. Ferries.

Those, essentially, are the three points dealing with funding for infrastructure that we would like to bring to your attention.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you, Wally and Mike. I've got several questions here, the first one from Michelle.

M. Mungall: Mike, going back to your comments around the HST, you bring up several points around how there was a lack of consultation and that there are a lot of questions and that it's quite vague in terms of the implementation. I share that.

I also wanted, though, to touch on your points about the reinvestment. The reason I bring that up is that in the last eight years we have seen a lot of corporate tax cuts. In fact, almost year after year we see a significant number of corporate tax cuts. The theory was that it would be reinvested. The corporations would then reinvest into British Columbia and create greater jobs, greater infrastructure, and so on.

That is not the case. So if that's not the case, I'm wondering how the HST, with the input tax credits, is going to, therefore, create greater investment in British Columbia. Maybe you could shed some light on that.

M. Delves: Certainly, that is a common question. Is this really going to result in reinvestment in business assets? I think that PST has been a significant hindrance to that because we have had such a significant….

You know, this is 7 percent on every capital item. When a business wants to go and buy a new delivery vehicle, it is 7 percent on top of that. It's a $3,500 difference. It's a material difference.

Essentially, from the small business point of view we're seeing that it is going to provide some incentive. We really, truly believe that is the case for existing businesses, certainly, to invest their assets.

The corporate tax reductions, whether they are sincerely an incentive for new businesses to come…. We certainly hope that's the case. But really, I think the HST
[ Page 379 ]
is going to be a greater impact for individual business investment in assets.

As well, in the past couple of years, through a difficult economy, I don't know whether, if we had eliminated all taxes, it would have inspired new business investment. But we're hoping with the improved….

M. Mungall: Could you cite any studies to support what you're saying? I'm just wondering if there's been any research on this to suggest that some things like the HST would actually inspire investment. Do we know any facts around that, rather than hope?

M. Delves: Certainly, there has been some evidence in Atlantic Canada, because of course they've already had four provinces that have been involved in a harmonized sales tax situation.

[1025]

The results that we have seen reported from those provinces are that yes, it has increased business investment in assets. I don't have the details available to me on that. Really, actually, that is one the things we're asking for here today, because we've had a lack of communication from the provincial government on that. We feel that it should have been the provincial government that was providing those statistics, so we're wanting to, you know, indicate that we want to see those communications come out and help us move forward and understand the HST as it comes forward.

B. Ralston: Thanks very much. I'll resist the temptation to get into the broader debate on the HST.

You mentioned HST, and you wanted some clarification on exemptions. In the agreement, as I understand it, the exemptions are limited to 5 percent of the GST tax base, and they are already allocated in the agreement. So when you speak of further exemptions…. You cite the example of mutual funds. Obviously, there's a furor in the mutual fund industry, largely based in Toronto, because of the increased cost to operate mutual funds and the impact that that will have on holders of mutual funds.

Are you serious when you say that there is a possibility of further exemptions? Because I understood that they're all completely allocated.

M. Delves: That's a good question. Unfortunately, that's not up to us. Really, we're responding to questions from our members as well as from media that there are groups lobbying for additional exemptions, indicating that there is a potential out there for that. We want to know for sure if that's the case. If there are no more exemptions, okay, we'll be able to do our business planning based upon that.

B. Ralston: Just, if I might, one follow-up, Mr. Chair.

The initial agreement does say — and we're a long way from…. There's a secondary agreement that was supposed to be signed on September 30, which hasn't appeared yet. There is still legislation to be introduced, if it is introduced. But the initial agreement says that it's limited to 5 percent of the GST tax base. That's in the agreement.

Are you not familiar with the agreement?

M. Delves: Is that question directly to me? Yes, I am familiar with the fact that 5 percent is the limitation. It's just where those exemptions are coming from and going to. I'm not sure that the allocation has been finalized at this point.

I know the biggest portion of it is going to be for fuels, for transportation and motor vehicles. I believe the reasoning behind that was because it provides an exemption to everyone regardless of your organization, whether it's individuals or businesses or not-for-profit organizations. We certainly can appreciate that.

We're looking for clarification on if there are any further exemptions out there.

J. Thornthwaite: Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate all of your comments with regards to what we could do and our recommendations with regards to better communication on the benefits of the HST.

My question is: have you and your group had conversations or requested those clarifications through the Ministry of Finance?

M. Delves: Via the B.C. chamber, yes, indeed we have. We're still waiting for final communications on those. I think, really, the case is that many of the groups that are looking for exemptions, such as the investors and whatnot, are still lobbying for that. They're hoping they are out there. Again, we haven't heard back from the B.C. chamber whether that's final or not yet — or from the provincial government.

J. Thornthwaite: It's my understanding, talking to the Minister of Finance, that those discussions are ongoing and that the ministry has been very willing to discuss all of the issues that you discuss in your presentations. So I would expect that those are forthcoming.

M. Delves: I appreciate that.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Wally, Mike, thank you very much for coming out this morning and presenting to the committee. We appreciate your input.

We are now going to go back to Prince Rupert, where, I understand, Melanie Basso is standing by to make her presentation. Melanie is speaking on behalf of Prince Rupert Minor Basketball.

Good morning, Melanie.

M. Basso: Good morning. Thank you for allowing us to attend. I'm here to represent the Prince Rupert Minor
[ Page 380 ]
Basketball Association. Our association is a volunteer non-profit group. We offer a well-organized basketball league for children in grades 3 to 10.

[1030]

Our league is a very important recreational option for many families in our impoverished end of the province. We have almost 200 children registered to play this year, and the volunteer coaches and organizers are keen to make it another successful season.

Our league emphasizes equal playing time for all skill levels, basic fundamentals of the game, having fun, learning fair play. Our children get to meet new friends and learn to work together as a team while they improve their skills.

Despite substantial expenses such as uniforms, referees, scorekeepers, gym rentals, we've managed to keep our registration fees at a reasonable level. We rely heavily on gaming funds that we receive from bingo to keep the league accessible to all the children in our community.

It has recently come to our attention that the gaming funds, such as the ones that minor basketball relies on, are scheduled to be cut or eliminated. Because approximately half of our budget comes from bingo funding, it would likely mean that we would have to double our registration fees.

Many of our children that are registered come from low-income families, and doing this would make it impossible for them to continue playing. Along with that, it's likely that our entire league would be forced to shut down with a loss of more than 25 percent of kids, which is what I anticipate would happen. That many kids lost to each age group would mean that we wouldn't have enough kids to make up teams any more. Everybody loses. The whole thing would be gone.

There are not many options for kids in the north to have easy access to sports. We're asking that you not take away the few options that our kids have. Even if we were able to continue running with the drastic increase in fees that we would have to do, what happens to those kids that have been forced out because they come from the low-income families? What happens to their health, their sense of well-being, their sense of belonging to the group and to the community? These kids deserve to have healthy options and the opportunity to participate.

We're asking you to reconsider taking this funding away. The negative impact will be felt across our community as the children lose the ability to become involved in these activities that help them to have a healthy body, a healthy mind and a healthy environment while they are playing. It keeps them off the streets, and it allows them to be involved in their community.

As well, just for the committee, I believe there are five of our sports groups that do receive funding. I don't know that there are many other sports in the town other than the five groups. If all of our groups lose funding, a lot of them are probably going to be forced with shutting their whole thing down. We all fight to have enough numbers to keep our associations going right now.

There'll be no sports options left in Prince Rupert. There'll be dance and tae kwon do. That would be it for our children in Prince Rupert if these groups have to shut down. With the loss of funding, I really anticipate that's going to happen.

That's what I have to say. If you have any questions for me?

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

D. McRae: Thank you very much, Melanie. My question is about just the league itself. How long does the league run for in a season, and what do you currently charge for registration fees for the participants?

M. Basso: It is approximately three months. We get going about the end of September, we shut down just before Christmas, and we charge $50 per child.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. I'm well aware of the impact and the importance of basketball in Prince Rupert. It's a major activity there, a major sport.

Can you just let me know a little bit about how you've been informed that the gaming grant that you receive, that your organization receives, has been cut or eliminated? And when did that happen, given that your season starts in September? What was the timing of that?

Secondly, can you describe a little bit the importance of your league as it relates to what the big event in the whole northwest is, the Prince Rupert All-Native Tournament, and how the league provides a feeder to that or enhances that huge economic activity for Prince Rupert?

M. Basso: Okay. The first question: how did we find it out? Primarily, through the media. It hasn't affected our season this year because we did receive all our funding at the beginning of our fiscal year, which was in April, so we did have enough money to make our league go as usual for this season. It's next season that we're worried about.

[1035]

As far as the relationship with the all-native tournament, we don't have a direct relationship with them, other than that they do sponsor a team for us. However, a number of our children — well, probably 50 percent, I'm guessing — in the minor basketball are first nations, and a lot of them do go on to participate. Last year, I believe, at the all-native tournament a number of our kids who were aboriginal did participate on some junior teams, just as exhibition.

A lot of the people participating in the all-native did come up through the ranks of the minor basketball — absolutely.
[ Page 381 ]

M. Mungall: Thanks very much, Melanie, for your presentation. Something you said really made me think of the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. That was when you were saying how sport — especially the basketball program, but sports in general — helps keep kids off the street. That's a very interesting point, because there are financial implications for that, as we know that the justice system is much more expensive than a basketball team.

I'm just wondering if you could maybe highlight that issue or comment on that a little bit, what it's going to mean for your community to take money out of sports and how that might impact the justice system and then, of course, the provincial budget.

M. Basso: Well, I think it's huge. For minor basketball, I know that there are a lot of kids that just hang out even around the gym. Lots of kids hang out around the gym.

A lot of these kids are kids that I've tried to draw into basketball. There are a couple of options for them to get funding if they're from low-income families that I direct them to. We've brought these kids into our league, and I think that's a positive thing. If these kids have nowhere to go, they're going to be on the streets. We already see significant amounts of kids on the streets. Hopefully, we're keeping these ones focused on basketball.

Someone had already mentioned what a big basketball town we are. It is. Basketball is huge here. If we can draw the kids in there and keep them there, they're focused. They can come back for free gym time if they really get drawn into the basketball culture, and they do. They really do.

J. Les (Chair): Jane, go ahead. You're on.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay. Sorry. I can't see.

Thank you very much for your presentation. Just a couple of questions. For this year, you got 100 percent of your funding. Is that correct?

M. Basso: Yes, we did.

J. Thornthwaite: So what you're requesting right now from the committee is a recommendation to ensure that you get the same funding that you did this year for next year?

M. Basso: Absolutely.

J. Thornthwaite: And how much is that?

M. Basso: It's approximately $11,000.

J. Thornthwaite: And that's for approximately 200 students?

M. Basso: Yes.

J. Thornthwaite: Okay.

J. Rustad: Melanie, thank you very much for your presentation. I'm just curious. How long has your organization been in existence in terms of promoting minor league basketball?

M. Basso: I'm going to have to guess on that. I'm thinking approximately 15 years.

J. Rustad: About 15 years. And I'm just wondering, over that period of time, the level of participation by students. Are we seeing that increase over time, or have there been changes in the number of students involved in the sport?

M. Basso: I would say in the last six years we've seen a decrease, but that would probably be because of the drastic decrease in our city's population, so it's directly related to that.

J. Rustad: Okay. So that's sort of just a reflection on some of the economic changes that have happened in the community over that period of time in terms of some of the industry shutting down, I suppose, and people going elsewhere for work?

M. Basso: Yes.

J. Rustad: I'm just thinking in terms of the population in Prince Rupert.

M. Basso: Sorry. Can you repeat that?

J. Rustad: I was just thinking about that in terms of the overall population of Prince Rupert. There has been a bit of a decrease over time because of some of those shifts in the corporate structure. Is that correct?

M. Basso: Yes. There probably used to be about 18,000 people in Prince Rupert. In the last ten years we're down to about 12,000 now, so that's impacted the amount of children available to play.

J. Rustad: Right. Okay.

J. Les (Chair): Any other questions from anyone? If not, thank you very much, Melanie. We appreciate you participating this morning all the way from Prince Rupert.

We will now go back to Nelson. It's my understanding that we have Zachary Crispin standing by from Selkirk College Students Union.

Zachary, it looks like you have company as well. Please go ahead.

[1040]
[ Page 382 ]

Z. Crispin: Yes, this is Dave Lubbers. He's on staff at our students union. He's here to help answer any questions afterwards.

Good morning. Before I begin, I'd like to acknowledge the Sinixt people, whose traditional territory I'm on today. My name is Zachary Crispin. I'm the external director of Selkirk College Students Union. I'm a history student and a student member of the college board of governors. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee for hearing our presentation today and note our appreciation for the opportunity to participate in this process.

Our students union represents more than 2,000 students at Selkirk College. We study in Castlegar and Nelson. We exist to advocate for students, to provide services that assist in making students' lives easier, to offer extracurricular activities and to improve student experience.

Additionally, the students union is mandated by its members to advocate for a system of post-secondary education which is accessible, of high quality and well organized. It is on this point that I address your committee today.

The first issue I'd like to discuss is funding for B.C.'s colleges and universities. Public funding for Selkirk College continues to fall short of institution and student needs. In fact, per-student funding is 15 percent less than 2001 levels across the province, leading to three programs being cut last year at Selkirk College. This year the massive funding gap has led the board of governors to again consider entire program cuts.

The chronic underfunding at Selkirk has caused students to leave the area, which hurts the local economy and furthers deterioration at the college. This government has overseen an increase in student numbers and funding for colleges and universities in B.C., for which credit is due, but like the other governments that came before, increases in funding have not nearly kept pace with the growth of costs and inflation.

As we look toward the future, the numbers only get worse. The projected $700,000 to $1.4 million deficit at Selkirk College next year, coupled with the prospect of frozen levels of funding, will go further and further towards private funding such as tuition fees. The story at other institutions is no different. Like I said, across the system per-student funding has declined by 15 percent in the past eight years. Every year that this underfunding has not been addressed, the funding gap worsens.

This is why we are today asking your committee to recommend that the government restore operational funding to universities and colleges to 2001 levels. The decline in government funding in universities and colleges continues to fuel increases in tuition fees.

Tuition fees in B.C. increased from an average of $2,527 in 2001-2002 to an average of $5,040 last year. In comparison to other provinces, B.C. went from having tuition fees 30 percent below the national average to now surpassing that average by 7 percent. In the past eight years we have set a record among provinces for the highest increase in tuition fees.

There's ample evidence that financial barriers are the most significant obstacle to many citizens achieving entry to colleges and universities. I'm not going to repeat any of the data that's been presented by the Canadian Federation of Students B.C. in support of that fact. The data is clear, well-researched and already on the record. For this reason, we urge the committee to recommend that tuition fees be progressively reduced to 2001 levels.

I would like now to turn to the issue of student debt. At an average of $27,000 upon graduation from a four-year program, B.C. has the highest student debt in Canada outside the Maritime provinces. It is important to note that this figure only includes public student loan debt. According to Statistics Canada, that number is in excess of $32,000 when private debt is included.

Members should be aware that following graduation, student loan borrowers pay interest on their public student loans substantially above this government's borrowing cost. Members may not be aware that nearly every province charges a lower interest rate on student loans than in B.C.

As you know, students with higher debt levels upon graduation pay more for their education through higher interest rates than those who have had to borrow less or nothing in order to get their education. A system in which lower- and middle-income students are expected to pay more for the same education than those who can afford to pay up front is fundamentally inequitable. By keeping interest rates as high as they are, the government is penalizing those students and their families with the least amount of financial resources.

[1045]

Meanwhile, in terms of the impact on the provincial treasury, the annual cost of the complete elimination of interest on student loans is negligible. Accordingly, we ask that the committee recommend that the government progressively eliminate interest charged on government student loans to ensure that those who can least afford an education no longer have to pay the most for it.

Not only is B.C.'s rate of interest higher than average; B.C. is the last among all provinces in the provision of non-repayable student financial aid, at 60 percent below the national average. Additionally, provinces with comparable tuition fees — Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario — all designate approximately one-third of their financial aid as non-repayable, where in B.C. less than 12 percent of financial aid is non-repayable.

Given B.C.'s relative wealth as a province, it is not reasonable that we are lagging so far behind other provinces in provisions of support for low- and middle-income students. Because B.C. families deserve no less than
[ Page 383 ]
other families across Canada, we ask that the committee recommend the creation of a provincial, non-repayable, upfront grant system.

The issues of institutional funding, overinflated tuition fees and skyrocketing student debt are presented here together because they are tied to each other. Cuts in funding create pressures to increase tuition fees, which in turn increases student debt. This means that our universities and colleges are pushed to privatization and that students are pushed into debt.

As I noted earlier, the mandate of our students union is to promote a post-secondary system that is organized, accessible and of high quality. In B.C. we have created a system that does not meet either of the first standards and will inevitably fail to meet the third.

The recommendations presented today — reducing tuition fees, increasing institutional funding, eliminating student loan interest and offering more non-repayable student aid — are not final solutions to the issues facing our post-secondary system. They're the beginning of a process to reverse the erosion of our public post-secondary system that started 25 years ago — two governments and seven premiers ago.

We ask that the committee members come together and demonstrate the foresight and leadership needed to change the course of our public colleges and universities for the better. Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Zachary.

Questions from committee members, starting with Michelle.

M. Mungall: Thanks very much for your presentation. My question is more of a very broad brush stroke of how student debt might further negatively impact British Columbia's economy and then, of course, how that impacts the B.C. budget.

Coming from that perspective, we know that student debt is growing and growing. We lost supports — a financial budget cut, a $17 million cut to student aid this year. When we cut back on that, on grants and student aid, allowing tuition to increase and graduating students with a very high debt load, how do you see that impacting the economy further on?

The reason I bring that up is that I just immediately went to thinking about how 20, 30 years ago, people would graduate from university. They wouldn't have this big debt. They'd be able to get a job and jump right back into the economy, particularly with mortgages.

Now, we know that in B.C. we have a very high problem with housing unaffordability, so young people cannot buy homes because it's unaffordable. Now they're going to be already strapped down with a very large student debt. How do you see that impacting the rest of our economy?

Z. Crispin: Well, I'll start with the first point about high tuition fees. The issue with raising tuition fees at such an exponential rate is that those who can just barely afford to get into school…. We have issues with students living in their cars, that kind of thing, so that they can afford to get into the classroom. Many students just can't afford to even set foot on campus because there's no way that they could pay for it.

As far as the economy goes, with student debt after they've graduated, a lot of students realize halfway through their education that the student debt they've incurred already is not worth it for the diploma, so they just drop out. Those that do graduate, they can't pay into the economy as much because they have no money to do so. Many people end up using their degrees at work but still living on the couch with their parents. I mean, it hinders the economy to a great extent.

D. Lubbers: If I might, I think that's a very good point, Michelle. When students are graduating with $27,000 or $37,000 worth of student debt, they're not doing the things that we think of British Columbians doing. They're not going out, and they're not buying a home. They're not buying a new car. They're not supporting the economy.

[1050]

I would say that in the long run we're going to see people not having as large a family. We're going to have people not having families at all, because we can't afford to do that.

Unless we do something to drastically reduce the amount of student debt that people are getting, we're going to see average British Columbians doing worse and worse, not getting ahead and — probably, worse than that — not enriching the B.C. economy in general.

D. McRae: Thank you very much for your presentation. I sympathize with your thoughts on student loans. When my wife and I both graduated in 1993, we had $12,000 student loans, and by the year 2003 we were very proud to pay them off. It wasn't enjoyable. I would have rather had the money go towards a car or something. I understand that there is a weight around one's neck when you have your student loan payments.

Two questions, if I may. You talked about student loan debt now of about $26,000 per year. What percent of that debt would you suggest would be actual tuition, compared to living expenses?

Z. Crispin: Tuition is $5,000 or $6,000 a year plus interest. As far as living expenses go, it makes up quite a small amount of that actual debt.

D. McRae: I'd be interested to see some real figures on that, because we just had a presentation earlier saying the average college tuition was about $3,800 per student.
[ Page 384 ]
I know from my own experiences — again, it was a long time ago — that the vast majority of my debt went towards living expenses when I was in Vancouver.

The other question I have is…. One of the research numbers I looked up was the percentage of students that default on their student loans. The number I was able to find was that 11 percent of students in British Columbia default. However, if that's a number you disagree with, could you please supply, at your leisure, some numbers that would contradict that?

D. Lubbers: I don't have the number of students that renege on their student loans. I don't have that information at my fingertips. But I can say that the more student debt that students incur, the harder it is for students to pay that back and the more we'll probably see people reneging on their student loans, which is probably not the situation that the B.C. government would like to set up.

As far as living expenses versus tuition fees, I don't know where you attended in Vancouver, but living expenses will take up about 50 percent of your student loan. Just to give you an idea, from when you went to university to when Zach has been going to university, or even me…. When I first went to university in 1997, my tuition was roughly $1,600 a year at UBC. That tuition now at UBC is roughly $500 a course — before books, before lab fees and before any other ancillary fees that were actually introduced, maybe, just after you were going to university.

So there are a lot more fees at universities now that never existed before, to try and make up for the funding cuts from the government over the last few years, which is why we're asking for higher funding for post-secondary education and not putting the burden back on students so they'll then go on to possibly renege on these debts.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thanks to both of you for taking the time to come in and make the presentation. I have a question around the program cuts that you alluded to, Zach. I know of two people, for instance, in Hazelton, in northwest B.C., who were looking at travelling to the southeast part of the province, to Selkirk, to attend school. Instead, now, because the courses that they wanted aren't being offered, they're looking at going to the Yukon, which is just as close. Whitehorse is just as close as Nelson.

[1055]

My question is around program cuts and the ripple effect it has in the community — you know, not having people coming to not only partake in the courses but spend money locally and add to the local culture. Do you have some examples right off the top of your head? Have you heard stories of people — friends of yours or people that you've heard — who aren't coming because of those programs cuts or who have left to pursue schooling elsewhere because of programs not being offered?

Z. Crispin: I myself had to change the program that I was in because the program that I was planning on taking at Selkirk College was no longer offered the year before I started there.

Other students I know have gone to UBCO or UBC or have gone to the coast for school because the program that they were going to take has been cut. That provides a large financial burden for them because of the cost of living and the cost of moving and whatnot, and it also takes away from the economy of the area. That person is no longer here spending money. They are also not renting a place, they're not living here, and they're not working here. So it does have a ripple effect.

When those people aren't graduating from that program at Selkirk College and if you start cutting programs where they can go right into the workforce at Selkirk College — there are a few — then we have large parts of our workforce that are being brought in because we refuse to train these people at Selkirk College.

J. Les (Chair): Okay. Our thanks to both of you for making your presentations this morning.

We are now going to go back to Nanaimo, where we have Theo Boere standing by on behalf of the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre and the Men's Affordable Resources Society of B.C.

Good morning. It looks, Theo, like you have some company there as well.

T. Boere: I do. Good morning, gentlemen and gentlewomen of the Finance Committee. I did bring with me today Kim Howland, who works at the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre and also for MARS B.C. She's very familiar with the issues.

Just by way of introduction, I'm the executive director of the Nanaimo Men's Resource Centre. The NMRC is a non-profit charitable organization founded in 2001. The NMRC provides support services to fathers and men in the mid-Island area and around the province through telephone, e-mail, and partnerships with other agencies.

I am also the co-president of the Men's Affordable Resources Society of British Columbia — or MARS B.C., for short. This non-profit society represents the interests of organizations who provide services for fathers and men around the province.

So I wanted to look at some facts. Men commit suicide 4 to 1 versus women — 8 to 1 during the process of separation and divorce, and 12 to 1 for men over 65 in the process of separation and divorce. Statistics Canada states that domestic violence occurs in approximately 7 percent of women and 6 percent of men who say that they have been abused by their current or former partners over the last five years.
[ Page 385 ]

These are relatively equal numbers, yet approximately 75 percent of the $100 million in annual provincial funding for women's services is based on the principle of protecting women from domestic violence. We have an attachment on those numbers. As little as $500,000 was spent on men's resources. How has this huge inequity developed, and why has the provincial government done so little to rectify this?

Three years ago we heard recommendations from a coroner's jury in Nanaimo composed of four women and one man — that the province needs to provide "permanent funding to the men's centre in Nanaimo in order to help prevent domestic violence." This has still not occurred.

In each of the last three years I've had to lay off staff to ensure the men's centre in Nanaimo survives. This has, of course, has been totally devastating to our 13 support programs and continues to create an expand-and-contract kind of philosophy, which seriously affects the quality of the programs offered.

The family court system still awards sole custody to mothers 9 to 1 over fathers. This cuts many fathers out of the picture. Granted, the family court system is not the only culprit here. There are many barriers to involved fatherhood, not the least of which are fathers themselves. Regardless of causes, the effects of fatherlessness in our society are huge.

[1100]

Just look at some of the effects. Fatherless children have dramatically increased rates of dropping out of school, emotional and behavioural problems, crime and drug use, incarceration, pregnancy, having children outside of marriage or a relationship and failure in their own marriages. We also know that the majority of gang members come from fatherless homes.

In all of this, the most frightening statistic to me is that children from father-absent homes make up 63 percent of youth suicides. The other simple factor, which most of us don't know, is that the most reliable predictor of crime is neither poverty nor race but growing up fatherless.

These statistics show one simple preventative remedy for what spawns many of the social ills we deal with today. So why is it that we are not supporting fathers to stay connected with their children and be the best fathers that they can be?

In contrast, what we do is to continue to separate them from their children through our family court system and through the lack of social support systems. The consequence of this lack of supports is increased suicide, increased domestic violence and increased fatherlessness. Imagine being deprived of your own children. Regardless of the reasons, being deprived of your children can surely drive you crazy.

The NMRC is now in the leading edge of men's programs in this country. Unfortunately, there isn't time to explain each of our programs to you, but we've left brochures and information with your Finance Committee staff here in Nanaimo. We will also e-mail you all the supporting information.

I would like to mention that I have presented to the Finance Committee in the previous two years. Last year a total of five different organizations presented here on the need for more resources for fathers and men. Unfortunately, there was not even a mention of those presentations in their final report, least of all a recommendation for any kind of funding of resources for men. This leads me to fear that there were gender politics involved in that committee's process.

Funding for resources for fathers and men is not a gender issue. It is an issue of essential resources. It is an issue of supporting families in crisis. It is an issue for reducing domestic violence and an issue of supporting fathers to remain in the lives of their children. It is an issue of giving our children the best opportunities to be the best adults that they can be. I hope that this committee will be able to see beyond any gender politics and focus on supporting balance, for a better and stronger society.

It has been said that the NMRC or MARS B.C. should get on government contracts like every other organization vying for government dollars. That is an interesting and cruel catch-22, as the government does not provide any such contracts to bid on.

We know that this government has been providing services for women in the form of transition houses for more than a decade without the necessity to bid on those services, to the tune of about $50 million annually. We also know that this government has been providing additional support services for women through various ministries to the tune of another $50 million or so — and most of those also without any competitive bidding process. These are valuable services, and we are not suggesting that these services be cut, but rather to complement them with services for men, which are equally as valuable in our society.

I see that the two women's organizations in Nanaimo have combined annual budgets of over $1.5 million. I see that one of them is currently building a new complex to provide services for women while the NMRC continues to struggle for survival in the basement of the old courthouse. We need to begin to level the playing field in support services for men and women.

Government funding, as well as legislated funding — like the Law Foundation of B.C., which spends approximately $700,000 annually on legal supports for women and absolutely nothing for men — all contribute to a family law system which is currently slanted. They all contribute to a society which has many support services for women that are inaccessible to men.

To my understanding, only a few men's and fathers' organizations received any provincial funding last year,
[ Page 386 ]
which amounted to less than $500,000. That is approximately 0.05 percent of provincial women's funding.

[1105]

We do understand that money is tight, given the current economic conditions. There are a number of inexpensive stopgap measures which we can suggest, which would help implement some provincial resources.

Firstly, a 1-800 line for men in crisis would help to create provincial resources without the necessity of putting a centre in each community.

Secondly, a pilot project related to domestic violence which addresses both sides of the equation — for instance, a transition house for men who experience violence from their partners or ex-partners, of which there are currently none, or a project related to police domestic violence calls, whereby one male and one female counsellor go out with police on the first response. We know that almost all severe cases of domestic violence have had a history of at least one previous police call. Immediate mandatory counselling for both parties would be an immense prevention.

Thirdly, a committee of ministry representatives — first suggested by John Les when he was Solicitor General — to address the various issues and responsibility for those different issues. We need to start dealing with these issues. If not by direct funding, then let's prepare for the time when there is more money available.

In closing, I urge you to do the right thing and start to create some gender-balanced funding for resources for men and women. We will all benefit.

For you as a committee, it is actually a simple step. Recommend to the Finance Minister that the creation of resources for fathers and men needs to be a priority for this government. Recommend that the Finance Minister create funding for men's resources in this province, and specifically funding for fathers in order to create support systems to help them stay connected with their children. A small investment today will go a long way and be multiplied over many future generations.

There is one more thing that you can do as individuals. We are currently waiting on the Gaming Commission to see if our funding will be coming this year. Our survival depends on it. I ask each and every one of you individually to make the effort to speak to the Hon. Rich Coleman, the Minister of Housing and Social Development.

Ask him to ensure that both the NMRC and the MARS B.C. community gaming grant applications be awarded as per the full amount of our requests. Ask him to support any other community gaming grant applications coming from other fathers and men's resource organizations. This is something that you can do right now.

We wish to thank you sincerely for your attention to these important issues.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much for that presentation, Theo. The first question is from Michelle.

M. Mungall: Thanks very much for your presentation.

I just want to be very clear that when you talk about creating or increasing the funding for men's resources and men's services around domestic violence that you're not suggesting it's at the expense of the existing funding for women's services. Is that correct?

T. Boere: No, that's absolutely correct. We have always said that the money that is spent for women's services related to domestic violence or any other programs that we've mentioned…. We're including a breakdown with our attachments which shows the funding that we have found that is going for women's services, both for domestic violence, for transition houses, for other services, whether it's re-entry into the workforce. There are a number of programs that we've discovered. All of those are important services provided for women.

What we're saying is that there's such a huge inequity — one-half of 1 percent of funding for women versus funding for men. It just boggles the brain when you think about it. So we're not suggesting that any services be cut. We're suggesting that there needs to be more equity in those services and that men have a need for a lot of those services as well, but they are not available for them.

J. Les (Chair): Next question from Jane.

[1110]

J. Thornthwaite: It was my understanding that now, with regards to the court system and access, the court determines that you start out at 50 percent access with the children. You mentioned a statistic that it was 9 to 1 in favour of mothers. I think that's what you said. It was my understanding that everything is equalized, at least starting now — 50-50. Then they go from there, depending on the individual circumstances. But I wanted some clarification on that.

Then the next question was: how many men does your group serve, and where do you get the funding from now, if you're not getting any from the provincial government?

T. Boere: To address the custody issue, there is currently a bill before the Canadian Parliament which would turn into law what you're suggesting — that there is a rebuttable joint custody. That hasn't passed, and it's probably not even going to come before the Canadian Parliament for another year. Realistically speaking, it's probably unlikely that the Canadian government is going to last that long, so the chances of that bill passing are fairly low.
[ Page 387 ]

The 9-to-1 statistic that I talked about. Yes, that's correct. The courts are still awarding custody 9 to 1 to mothers versus fathers. In the last statistics that we have, there are about 37 percent across Canada that are awarded joint custody. The other 63 percent breaks down 9 to 1.

The joint custody is also a bit deceptive. Even though it's joint custody, frequently — I would say most of the time — with joint custody, the children are still living with one of the parents. Even though there is a joint custody, there's still not an equal playing field, if you will.

I'm going to let Kim answer the other question that you asked.

K. Howland: In regards to the number of people that we serve in the centre, right now our stats are showing that approximately 80 people come through our doors. Our counsellors see anywhere between 35 to 50 of those a week for an hourly visit.

We also don't just serve men. Our clients include women as well. We do couple counselling as well as assistance for both men and women in their issues they might be serving.

J. Les (Chair): Next question from John van Dongen.

J. van Dongen: Thanks very much for your presentation, Theo and Kim.

Just to follow up on Jane's question, what is your total budget? Whatever funding you do have, where do you source it from? And how much of the counselling time that you provide is volunteer?

T. Boere: Good questions, John.

Our budget the last number of years runs in the range of $400,000 to $600,000 a year. Half of that is, essentially, contributions by volunteers. Over the last three years our volunteer contributions have been valued at about $300,000.

Primarily, our funding comes from the Gaming Commission. We do currently get $250,000 a year from the Gaming Commission, which is the maximum amount. We're certainly very appreciative of that. We're also very dependent on that for survival.

We do get money from other sources. We get donations, both monetary and all the volunteer contributions, and we apply constantly to various foundations, not only in British Columbia but across the country, for funding. In the last few years that funding has tailed off. We've gotten funding from, for instance, the Vancouver Foundation, the Law Foundation about five or six years ago, Queen Alexandra Foundation in Victoria and a number of smaller foundations.

In terms of cash revenues, we're probably sitting somewhere between $300,000 and $400,000 a year — somewhere in that range. But when you compare it to budgets for, for instance, women's centres across the province or the women's centre that we see in Nanaimo, their budgets are a lot higher.

[1115]

We're not able to provide all the services that we would hope to be providing with that kind of a budget. Because there is no security with that funding, we're constantly having to deal with this sort of expand-contract phenomenon that makes it very difficult. Last year, for instance, we were a couple of weeks away from actually closing our doors. It makes it very difficult to run programs when all you've got on your mind is survival.

I believe you asked another question, about counsellors. We currently have four counsellors in the centre, all of them working on a part-time basis. The head counsellor, lead counsellor, is paid, and the other counsellors are volunteers.

I'm not sure if that answered your question about counselling.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you for the presentation. I became very familiar with what you are discussing…. The Bulkley Valley school district brought Jackson Katz up into our area for a tour last year. I'm not sure if you are familiar with his work, noted around North America in addressing the issue of men's roles in domestic violence and the resources that are required there.

As a spinoff, we voluntarily started a men's meeting group in Hazelton as a result of that tour. So I thoroughly understand where you are coming from.

My question is around the funding. The $250,000 was from gaming grant? Have you been notified that that is not available to you for next year? Would it be in your best-case scenario to see the services you describe wrapped into core funding under a ministry?

T. Boere: Well, that would be lovely. That's something we've been longing for, for about eight years — to have some core funding that provides some stability. We haven't heard from the Gaming Commission yet. We're hopeful and we're confident that we will get some funding. My bigger concern is that we get the full amount of our funding, because it's so critical to our survival.

If we got less than the full amount that we've been receiving the last few years, we would certainly have to cut programs. It currently acts as our core funding, and we'd love to diversify our revenues so that we are not so dependant on government funding, but that's been a difficult push.

Every year our funding varies somewhat from different sources, but certainly over the last year, with the economy, a lot of the private foundations have curtailed the grants that they've been handing out as well. So that seems to have dropped off somewhat over the last year.

Did that answer your question?
[ Page 388 ]

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Yes, thank you.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you both, Theo and Kim, for making your presentation this morning. We appreciated hearing from you.

We are now going to go back to Prince Rupert, and there we have Peggy Davenport, who is going to be presenting on behalf of Concerned Citizens for Addictions Care.

Go ahead, Peggy.

P. Davenport: Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you this directly. I represent a large, diverse, loosely connected group of people. We are community leaders, business representatives, care providers and individuals. We call ourselves Concerned Citizens for Addictions Care.

We want to draw your attention to an extremely exciting and hopeful event. This is the BCMA, the B.C. Medical Association, policy paper dated March 2009 called Stepping Forward: Improving Addiction Care in British Columbia. The physicians describe addictions as a chronic, treatable disease, and this validates our own personal experiences.

[1120]

We know people in our community who are addicted, and the addiction is an illness. Instead of the rejection they suffer now, they need a system of care that will respond to their needs.

According to the BCMA paper, in 2006 substance abuse cost B.C. over $6 billion, or $1,500 per year for every British Columbian. Each year B.C. uses enough hospital beds for substance abuse care to fill Kelowna General Hospital every day for a year.

The problem of addictions has cursed our area like no other region, for a considerable period of time. We are losing our youth to overdoses and suicides, as well as their future potential. Our municipal leaders and leaders of the surrounding communities have recognized the issue as being of an epidemic severity.

We live with the devastation that addictions cause. We see it on the streets, in the schools, in the workplace and in the destruction of families and homes. The prevalence of addictions and the detrimental physical, social and psychological results affect us all.

There are burglaries, suicidal behaviours, employment problems, increased need for policing and incarcerations, as well as visits to the emergency room.

The BCMA policy paper calls on the Premier and Minister of Health to formally recognize addiction as a chronic, treatable disease under the B.C. primary care charter and the B.C. chronic disease management program. Our health care dollars should be invested in the same way as we have started to do for diabetes and heart disease.

The policy paper also states: "Over time, addiction has been shown not only to affect all parts of the brain but to alter it." We see the range of harms associated with addictions — harm to the individual and to others, such as fetal alcohol effect, and to the community.

Leading up to addictions, the disease is generally progressive, with behaviours including use, abuse and dependence. Addiction is defined as a chronic disorder characterized by an inability to control use of the substance or substances.

Within each of our communities, we are helping one another as much as we can. We reach out to access and develop whatever counselling and support services that are possible with our community resources. But these are not enough. We need the help of the health care system and doctors who can work with a medical model that is responsible to the needs of the people with addictions.

A positive medical approach is a good investment because the economic benefits far outweigh the cost. When you make plans for the 2010 budget, will you please encourage the Health Ministry to include a consultation process with members of the BCMA who are familiar with the policy paper about addictions and its overall objectives.

I will be sending a copy of my speaking notes along with some information about some of the core members of our group — we are not a formal organization — after I go home later.

[1125]

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much. We will be looking forward to receiving that additional information, Peggy.

Are there any questions? Doug and then Bill.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you, Peggy, for your presentation.

You talk at the latter part about a consultation process. It reminded me that there was some consultation process initiated by this government called Conversation on Health. That was at least a couple of years ago. They stopped in Smithers. I went and spent the day there. We were asked all our ideas, and one of the top ideas that came forward in that Conversation on Health was the absolute need for an addictions treatment centre in the northwest because of all the topics you've described.

I'm wondering if you participated in that Conversation on Health and your thoughts on the need for an addictions treatment centre, which we haven't seen any movement on since the Conversation on Health.

P. Davenport: Yes, we need a full range of services for people with addictions. Most people who are recovering, detoxifying, don't require hospitalization, but they certainly require a supportive attitude and a caring environment.
[ Page 389 ]

We need everything. Here in the northwest we have nothing — virtually nothing — except talking therapy. And we've all been talking and talking and talking.

We do verbal encouragement. We have very strong 12-step programs. We have counsellors. We have no formal medical response, except when someone is in a life-threatening physical case and requires physical medical care to save their lives in the hospital, and then they're sent home. We have no treatment programs except talk.

J. Les (Chair): The next question's from Bill.

B. Routley: Good morning, Peggy, and thank you for the work that you do in advocating for people with addictions.

In a previous career, I had participated in employee and family assistance programs, and I know the devastating impacts that addictions have — whether it's drug or alcohol or other forms of addictions — on families and the cost to business, the community and certainly society in general.

Do you have any additional comments that you would like to make in regards to the economic impacts to both business and to communities? Really, it's a failed policy idea not to address addiction, because without addressing addiction, there are certainly trickle-down impacts that have huge economic impacts.

P. Davenport: Yes, the impact is certainly economic when we look at policing; when we look at homeless children, youth — at the lost potential that is going on as far as our youth are concerned.

We have to pay attention to the affect that addictions have on the brain. When we see diabetes early on, we recognize diabetes as having an effect on the islets of Langerhans, the liver, the body generally. We now recognize a whole syndrome that involves diabetes and heart disease and other impacts on the body.

[1130]

When we first started out looking at diabetes and the need for diabetes education as well as regular, formal medical follow-up, we didn't treat people as appropriately and effectively as we do now.

We need the same kind of approach for people with addictions. We need to have an engaging, encouraging approach rather than saying: "Yeah, yeah. Go home and quit." That doesn't work. When someone with diabetes falls off the wagon and eats a candy bar and ends up with a glucose overdose, they're treated, they're encouraged, they're sent for diabetes education, and they're taught how to treat themselves and how to look after themselves — a lifestyle change, diet change.

We have a lot of knowledge about the need for lifestyle changes with people with addictions. That happens, and we do that as much as we can. But we need the medical treatment along with it — also the research that goes along with it.

We know that there are people who are more vulnerable to addictions than other people. The vulnerabilities are physical, psychological, sometimes inherited. There are environmental vulnerabilities. There is also the vulnerability that has to do with the drug of choice or the drug that the individual is using and the means that they are taking that drug.

Right now we have what we call harm reduction and what we call needle exchange. Needle exchange loses the real objective, the original objective of needle exchange. We're sending out clean needles and syringes helter-skelter all over the place, calling it needle exchange, calling it harm reduction, because we think that we're justifying this by telling ourselves and the public that this is preventing needle-related diseases such as hepatitis and HIV.

What we don't pay attention to is that those needles are out there for kids to play around with, for kids to experiment with. The younger the person is when they began using substances, the more vulnerable they are to addictions.

Then there is the need to pay attention to the means. A person who snores….

J. Les (Chair): We're going to have to leave it there, Peggy. We're out of time.

P. Davenport: Sorry.

J. Les (Chair): No, don't be sorry. We appreciate the presentation you've made, but we only have a certain amount of time for every delegation to make their presentation, and unfortunately, we're out of time. So thank you on behalf of the committee.

We are now going to move on to Nelson, where David George is standing by.

Good morning, David.

D. George: Good morning. I have a $64,000 question for the standing committee. Well, $64,000 sounded like a lot of money back in the 1960s, when that show was on television. Today it doesn't sound like so much — probably less than most of the people on this standing committee earn in a year — but it represents the amount of money necessary to level the playing field for the 18 reading centres in British Columbia with that of the public libraries after this provincial government backed down from a complete cut to library funding and restored 78 percent of the libraries' grants.

[1135]

About the time in August when our east shore reading centre usually received its annual grant of about $1,880 for new books from the provincial government, we received instead a letter, dated August 21, denying us our annual grant.
[ Page 390 ]

The public libraries in this province also received similar letters and commenced making a very great deal of noise. Within a matter of weeks the public libraries had 78 percent of their grant money restored. The 18 reading centres were left out in the cold to get by for the next year on whatever funds they could find elsewhere.

Now, perhaps those of us involved with reading centres are not as well organized as the public libraries of British Columbia. Some of us, however, plan to continue making as much noise as possible until we have 78 percent of our grants restored. That 78 percent, by my guess, will be less than $64,000.

Some of us have sent e-mails and letters to our MLAs, to the Minister of Education and to the Premier. Our own MLA, Michelle Mungall, has two of these reading centres in her riding, the east shore in Crawford Bay and in Riondel. Doug Donaldson has raised the matter of these cuts in this Legislature on September 22.

Robin Austin, MLA for Skeena, has also raised the matter in the Legislature on September 22. Robin has even quoted my letter to him regarding our reading centre in Crawford Bay in the Legislature on October 5. I'll read a small portion of that from the Hansard of October 5, about 11 a.m.

"This government has also eliminated grants to reading centres located in many small communities. The province's reading centres get very little support from the province yet often serve vast areas that have no other public access to books….

"Here is what David George said to me about his local reading centre.

"'Our little reading centre based in Crawford Bay on the east shore of Kootenay Lake serves nearly 600 cardholders, and together with the Riondel reading centre, it serves a local population of around 1,500 residents. Our nearest other libraries are Nelson, across the lake — only free to Nelson residents — and Creston, 75 kilometres down the lake.

"'Our collection includes more than 10,000 items: books, books on tape and CD, videotapes and some DVDs. We need our annual grant, which last year was $1,880, to buy new books. The level of service we provide will be adversely affected by the loss of our annual grant from the province.'"

Robin goes on to say:

"Such a little money, but it means so much to people who live in small, rural communities. What a shortsighted cut to programming this is, one that directly hurts all of us in B.C. as we attempt to deal with the low literacy levels that I've already noted."

The 18 reading centres — and I'm a little unsure whether it's actually 17 or 18; it depends on whose list you look at — are of great importance to the people who live in remote parts of this province. We do not have public libraries within reasonable travel distance. We depend on our reading centres for recent books, books on tape, documentaries on VHS or DVD and interlibrary loans from the public system. Our reading centres are essential to us.

Now, I challenge the standing committee to correctly answer the $64,000 question and, as well as putting this in the budget for next year, to restore at least 78 percent of reading centre funding right away. This could even be regarded as a Christmas present, if you wish. But I would really like the right answer to the $64,000 question.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, David.

Are there any questions from committee members?

M. Mungall: Thanks very much, David. I know you're very passionate about this issue. I had a meeting scheduled with the minister about it on October 5, but she cancelled and rescheduled till November 17. We'll see what happens there.

I guess my question is to do with…. You've been bringing forward the information about how valuable reading centres are to our rural areas and that, of course, what might look like something that's close to another community on a map isn't, because we live in the mountains.

I'm wondering if you can kind of maybe correlate how literacy and the reading centres ensure literacy in rural and remote areas and how that impacts people's skill level — employability, essentially.

[1140]

D. George: I think that's more of a question that should be answered by somebody from our local Crawford Bay School rather than me. I certainly think that we are seeing a number of people bringing their children into the libraries. Children are still reading. They're not just watching TV at home.

I think that if we don't get a number of new books every year — and that was specifically what the reading centre grant was to cover — this will, in the long term as well as in the short term, result in basically lower levels of literacy.

D. Donaldson (Deputy Chair): Thank you, David, for reinforcing the importance of the reading centres in small rural communities. As you are probably aware, I have at least three in Stikine, and two of them are Dease Lake and Atlin, which are phenomenally far distances from any public libraries. There are 10,000 books in the Dease Lake reading centre, and it's a well-used facility.

I just have a question for you. Between those two, for instance, it's a total of a $3,000 cut — $1,600 in one reading centre and $1,400 in another — but it means the difference between access for a lot of people to those books…. Some of that, for instance, might be used not only to acquire new books or to support volunteers but to heat the building in the far north of B.C.

My question to you is…. One of the suggestions you're putting forward is the 78 percent level that public libraries got — perhaps looking at that, if not a full 100 percent. But at the 78 percent level for reading centres, would that enable the reading centre that you're involved with to continue the level of service that you're providing?

D. George: I believe it would, yes. We were also looking at the possibility of getting some fill-in emergency
[ Page 391 ]
funding from the Columbia Basin Trust and also from our local Lions Club. Yes, 78 percent would satisfy me, and I think it would satisfy most of the reading centres, with the possible exception of View Royal, which had an enormous grant cut of roughly $16,000 this year. They're a separate case, I suspect.

Yes, I think it would satisfy most of the reading centres if 78 percent were restored for this year.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, David. We appreciate your presenting this morning.

We are now going to go back to Nanaimo, where I understand we have Michael Wright, speaking on the behalf of the Crimson Coast Dance Society.

Good morning, Michael.

M. Wright: Good morning. Yes, I'm here to represent Crimson Coast Dance Society. This is a not-for-profit registered charity in Nanaimo, and our mission involves the presentation of contemporary dance in central Vancouver Island. We've been going now for 12 years, and I'm currently the general manager of the society.

Let me give you a few quotes. "The government has recognized the major social and economic roles that arts and culture play in our province." "The arts and culture sector contributes to the strength and stability of our economy." "B.C. must build on the obvious strengths of our cultural and artistic sectors." "The social fabric of the province is strengthened by its robust arts, culture and heritage sectors."

I'm sure you all recognize these statement from the 2009-10 to 2011-12 service plan update from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and the Arts. The first three comments were taken directly from the message from Minister Krueger.

Support from successive governments over the years has helped lead to the development of this vibrant arts and culture sector. The health of that sector is part of what attracts not only tourists but new residents to the province, and this in turn produces all kinds of financial benefits to our province.

The research paper, Socio-Economic Impacts of Arts and Culture Organizations in B.C., produced in December 2006 by G.S. Sandhu and Associates, completely confirmed this proposition. As I understand that this paper has recently been removed from the ministry website, it's perhaps appropriate to remind you that its main conclusion was that for every dollar of provincial expenditure in support of arts and culture, the province received a return of $1.38.

Now, a return of that size on any investment is pretty amazing, and although one would like to think that successive provincial governments have been entirely altruistic in devoting a part of their annual budgets to the support of the arts and culture sector, it clearly also makes very sound economic sense. A real demonstration of "Build this, and they will come."

[1145]

The economic effects of the support for the arts are only one element of this complicated equation, but of course, this is a budget consultation, so I mentioned it first. I do need you to hear my views on what makes sense so far as other aspects of the return, apart from the economics.

The social benefits, which I believe most community members would understand, include the pleasure of the individuals' response to a live artistic presentation or performance. This is surely one of the core social values in a civilized society. It enables people better to understand their wider philosophy about who they are and how they fit into society.

Basically, for a very large number of our community members, life without arts would simply be boring. The arts have always had a vital role in education and social welfare, both areas for which governments have accepted responsibilities for many, many years.

It's no doubt a combination of these financial and social arguments have persuaded successive governments at all levels — federal, provincial and local — to devote some small part of their annual funding to supporting arts and culture. Yet the present provincial budget proposals have singled out support for arts and culture for almost the largest cuts over the next two years.

The proposal in last month's service plan update — since somewhat modified, I know, by the retraction of the threat to terminate the three-year gaming funding cancellations — appears to suggest that overall arts funding is to be reduced from the original estimate of around $45 million for the current year to $35 million, or possibly less, for this year, and then slashed to just under $7 million in 2010-11, and then once again to $3.675 million in 2011-12. Put another way, the total funding for arts and culture to be made available to the thousands of currently funded arts and culture groups in British Columbia is to be reduced by over 91 percent.

If the cuts operated evenly across the board, a group receiving $10,000 funding this year can expect to receive under $1,000 in 2011. But cuts won't be made evenly. Many arts and culture organizations, particularly those that rely on direct-access gaming funding alone and that are not eligible for funding through B.C. Arts Council, will lose, substantially, all of their provincial funding.

I'd just like to tell you a little bit about Crimson Coast Dance Society. It was created in 1998 to serve as an established structure for dancer and current artistic director Holly Bright's ongoing contemporary dance activities, which have been taking root in Nanaimo since 1996.

The programming has developed over the years. We began by presenting mainstage events by established
[ Page 392 ]
dance artists and after three years started integrating workshops. These workshops developed into residences with professional guest artists. Classes were offered to the general public and local dance enthusiasts.

The society has continued to grow, offering an annual festival, a season of outstanding performances, residencies for professional development and extensive outreach programming, particularly for youth.

In the year we've just completed, 2008-09, the society had a cash turnover approaching $160,000. After adding in the value of volunteerism and gifts in kind, because we get huge support from community members and businesses, turnover exceeded $180,000.

During that financial year, the society was supported by grants from all three levels of government. Provincial operating funding amounted to $28,000 from B.C. Arts Council and $23,000 from direct-access gaming. Looking at the budget proposals as they now stand, direct gaming funding may completely disappear, leaving as our sole provincial support whatever may be made available through B.C. Arts Council. This could leave us in a huge dilemma.

Federal funding, principally through operational funding from Canadian Heritage, is linked to certain minimum program requirements. The society currently delivers this minimum. Much as we would like to do so, we can't afford to do more.

With the cut in provincial gaming funding of $23,000, plus any reduction in the moneys available through B.C. Arts Council, we would not be able to fulfil our program requirements to Canadian Heritage. If that should occur, we would likely also lose that funding source, and that would leave us, on 2008-09 figures, a further $25,000 short of our funding target. Put another way, we would have lost more than a third of our income.

If total funding from the province were to be reduced by the proposed 91 percent, combined with the loss of federal funding, we would have a 48 percent reduction in income. I can't see how any not-for-profit group, without the benefit of substantial private sponsor, can survive such a reduction. No doubt a proportion of other organizations funded in a similar way will arrive at the same conclusion.

[1150]

If all of those groups were to cease operation, in addition to the groups funded by direct access alone, there would likely be massive fallout in the number of arts and cultural groups in the province. Following from the economic impact disclosed by the report I mentioned earlier, this would lead to a large drop in revenues previously generated by their operations in the province.

In Nanaimo, specifically, a number of groups which have been refused, currently, direct-access gaming funding have already decided to close. Most notable amongst these is the Vancouver Island Children's Festival, which has had a solid ten-year record of delivering live performances in the performing arts to thousands of school-aged children. Future generations of schoolchildren will now be less likely to have that pleasure or stimulation.

You might feel that this is an unfortunate effect of necessary action taken in difficult economic times. But how will the removal of this money from the economy help the revival of the province's finances?

Crimson Coast alone spent well over $120,000 in the province in 2008-09. How will the loss of opportunities for professional artists affect working artists in the province? In 2008-09 all but three of the artists engaged by Crimson Coast were B.C.-based dance professionals. And how will the loss of full- and part-time employment for those who helped run or contract their services to those arts groups assist in the creation of new jobs in B.C.?

It is no use suggesting that this will be short-term pain for short-term gain, because the loss of these organizations will cause the arts in British Columbia an enormous blow. Artists will leave for other, more artistically friendly provinces. Audience members may decide that B.C. is no longer the place they want to stay if it allows its arts organizations and the artists themselves to be hung out in a cultural vacuum.

These effects will be such that it will take many, many years for any substantial arts community to recover. It took Crimson Coast's artistic director and founder at least eight years to move from the initial inspired idea to what has become a major part of our local arts community. Are you prepared to wait until 2020 for the community to rebuild? What will life will be like in the province in the artistic desert that may be created during those intervening years? What damage will be caused to our social structures in that time?

Arts funding is only a minuscule part of the provincial budget, but every cent of it is used for community social benefit. If you cut it by 90 percent, you might as well cut it all and abandon any pretence that the government continues to value its arts community. Support by words will do no good if not accompanied by reasonable levels of funding. These words do not enable the artists to earn a living nor the audience to have access to the levels of art and culture which we expect in a civilized society.

It would make very little impact on efforts to pay down the provincial deficit if arts funding were to be maintained at least at this year's level, but the failure to do so will have an incalculable impact on communities throughout B.C.

I urge you to undertake a review of these proposed cuts to ensure that, whether through the B.C. Arts Council or through direct-access gaming, a sufficient funding level is maintained to ensure the continued operation of the efficiently run and artistically productive arts and culture organizations in this province and allow them to continue their valuable contributions to making B.C. the best place on earth.
[ Page 393 ]

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Michael. I have a question from Bill.

B. Routley: Thank you for your presentation. You make, certainly, a lot of valid points about the disproportionate impact on your group of the huge funding cuts. Before I ask my question, I wanted to mention that I had heard — years ago, while I was a school trustee — a professor talk about the potential for improvement in education if, in the early years of learning, more children had the opportunity to be involved in drama, music, dance.

Certainly, the arts and culture fit into those areas. Maybe the ministers responsible for this didn't have enough drama, I don't know, in their life. They certainly brought on some drama with what they've proposed with these levels of cuts.

What I'm interested in as a question is: what kind of answer or response have you got from the minister responsible on what are clearly disproportional cuts to your groups, as compared to the good news that the government is quite gleeful about announcing to major corporations and major businesses?

[1155]

I'm sure you're aware of the major transfer in taxation — $2 billion from big business onto the consumer. Are you looking forward to being one of the groups that maybe benefit from the trickle-down that…? We're hearing all about this trickle-down. It's going to be quite wonderful, if you believe the public affairs bureau. They're telling us there's wonderful news to come. Do you think there will be any help there?

M. Wright: It's possible. There may be, but I'm not a great believer in trickle-down effects. I feel that arts funding for commercial organizations is something which is very low down on their list, except at times when they're particularly flush with money and like to have the kudos of making charitable donations.

Our corporate funding activities have come up with very little in the last two years since the economic downturn started to make its appearance, and we've found it more and more difficult to obtain any reasonably large sums of money from businesses. Yes, as I said in my presentation, we have a lot of support in kind and help like that, particularly from businesses in the local community. But these are not going to pay the artists' fees. These are not going to pay the travel costs. These are not going to pay the presentation costs. We have to find substantial cash funding to do that.

B. Routley: Was there any explanation to your group?

M. Wright: I haven't been in touch with the ministry directly. We are members of various umbrella organizations, and they've all, I know, seen the ministers involved and had discussions. They report back to us regularly.

I've taken the view that as long as my group's concerns are made known — and that's why I'm here today — it is not particularly useful to the time of the ministers to have individual groups bombarding them with their individual problems so long as the umbrella organizations do, and I know they do very strongly promote the concerns of the arts community.

J. Les (Chair): Thank you very much, Michael. That is all the time we have this morning. I want to thank you for taking time to present to us.

M. Wright: Thank you for listening to me.

J. Les (Chair): That concludes the delegations that we have on the agenda this morning, so that means our final consultation meeting is done. If committee members want to stick around for a very quick informal meeting as soon as this one is off line, then we can go to lunch.

Motion to adjourn. We've got to do this in order — John and Don.

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 11:58 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