Finance and Government Services — Issue No. 86 — Wednesday, October 17, 2012 (HTML)

Present: Douglas Horne, MLA (Chair); Mable Elmore, MLA (Deputy Chair); Gary Coons, MLA; Marc Dalton, MLA; John Les, MLA; Pat Pimm, MLA; Bruce Ralston, MLA; John Slater, MLA

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

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


CONTENTS
Page
Presentations	2323
R. Kishi
M. Colclough
L. Aitken
G. Hill
T. Odeneal
J. Lindsay
B. Scales
D. Cooper
I. Wharton
J. Collis
L. Robert
R. Hutchins
D. Smith
J. Leech
M. Reynolds
L. Shorten
S. Skene
P. Simpson
K. Harrington

D. Horne (Chair): Good morning, everyone. I'm Douglas Horne. I'm the MLA for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain and the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services. This is an all-party committee of the Legislative Assembly whose mandate includes conducting annual public consultations on the upcoming budget. I'd like to welcome everyone in the audience and thank you for taking time to participate in this important process.

Every year for next year's budget the Minister of Finance releases a budget consultation paper. This paper presents a current fiscal and economic forecast and identifies key issues that need to be addressed in the next provincial budget. Printed copies of the Budget 2013 consultation paper are available at the information desk at the back of the room.

Once the paper is released this committee holds public consultations and invites input from British Columbians. Following the consultation period the committee releases a report containing a series of recommendations for the upcoming budget. This report must be presented to the Legislative Assembly no later than November 15.

There are several ways for British Columbians to participate. This year the committee is holding 18 public meetings throughout British Columbia. We've already visited Surrey, Castlegar, Cranbrook, Kelowna, Vernon, Vancouver, Coquitlam, Abbotsford, Fort St. John, Quesnel, Kamloops, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Smithers, and Prince George last evening. We also held video conferencing sessions with Dawson Creek, Fort Nelson and Salmon Arm. After today's meeting we are scheduled to travel to Parksville, and we will conclude tomorrow in Victoria.

In addition to the public hearings, British Columbians can also share their ideas by sending us a written submission by e-mail, letter or fax, along with audio or video files. As well, British Columbians can fill out a short on-line survey on our website, which is located at www.leg.bc.ca/budgetconsultations.

There you'll find further information on the consultation process. Download a copy of the budget consultation paper and learn more about the work of this committee. All the public info we receive is carefully considered, and the deadline for submissions is actually Thursday, October 18, which I believe is, at this point, tomorrow — although it's all a blur at this point.

J. Slater: Good morning. My name is John Slater. I'm the MLA for Boundary-Similkameen, and I live in Osoyoos.

P. Pimm: Good morning. I'm Pat Pimm. I'm the MLA for Peace River North. I live in Fort St. John.

M. Dalton: I'm Marc Dalton. I'm the MLA for Maple Ridge–Mission. It's great to be here.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Good morning. Mable Elmore, MLA for Vancouver-Kensington and Deputy Chair of the committee.

D. Horne (Chair): Also joining us today from the parliamentary committees office is our Clerk, Susan Sourial, who is sitting to my left, along with Stephanie Raymond, who is sitting at the table at the back of the room manning the registration desk, as well as Jean and Steve with Hansard Services.

In today's meeting, each presenter will have ten minutes to speak, followed by five minutes additional for questions. Time permitting, we will also have an open mike at the end of the day. Anyone who is interested in participating in the open mike and isn't registered as a presenter is more than welcome to register at the back of the room with Stephanie.

Today's meeting is a public hearing which will be recorded and transcribed, as I said, by Hansard Services. A copy of this transcript, along with the minutes, will be printed and made available on the committee's website. In addition to the transcript, an audio webcast of this meeting will also be posted on the committee's website.

I'd like to begin. The first, I believe, are Roger and Michael from the local friendship centre.

Welcome, both. As you have heard, you have ten minutes to present, followed by five minutes for questions, and your time begins now.

R. Kishi: Good morning, and thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Roger Kishi, and I'm joined today by Michael Colclough, who is the executive director of the Wachiay Friendship Centre. The Wachiay Friendship Centre appreciates the opportunity to speak to the committee today and would like to begin by acknowledging that today's meeting is being held on the traditional territory of the Comox First Nation.

Wachiay has been providing services in the Comox Valley, primarily to the off-reserve urban aboriginal population since 1995. We also provide services like advocacy and homeless outreach to the general population.

Our mission statement is: "To build a strong community rooted in the philosophy and cultures of our peoples." This is the third year that we have participated in the provincial budget consultations. We appeared before this committee in Courtenay in October 2010, last year we submitted written comments on line, and this year we're here before you again.

Friendship centres saw a 17 percent reduction from the province's first citizens fund in 2010, which has not been made up, to date. It's not the time for further rollbacks to friendship centres. Instead, the opportunity exists to capitalize on the success of friendship centres by establishing funding that matches the level of need of the off-reserve aboriginal population.

The B.C. government has made important investments in First Nations communities on reserve, in the $100 million targeted investment in the new relationship trust. While it is essential that these investments continue, it is equally important to invest in the capacity of the off-reserve aboriginal population.

The government committed to an off-reserve aboriginal action plan, or ORAAP, in the 2011 throne speech. As friendship centres play an essential role for the off-reserve population, it is critical that an ORAAP include a long-term, annualized $3.1 million investment in aboriginal friendship centres. We are requesting this committee's support for a fully funded ORAAP. We would like to think that your endorsement would go a long way in securing this much-needed funding.

Friendship centres look forward to working with the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Ida Chong, on this important government initiative. The minister is joining the B.C. association meetings this Friday in Victoria.

Lasting economic prosperity cannot be realized if the educational, health and housing needs of aboriginal people are not met. Aboriginal people rank at the bottom of almost every measure we use in Canada to gauge well-being, health and economic potential. Our friendship centre provides a wide variety of services that are proven to help reserve aboriginal people lead healthy and productive lives, including support programs for children, youth, families, elders, homeless outreach and prevention.

Friendship centres are the largest network of social infrastructure for more than 70 percent of B.C.'s aboriginal population who live in urban and rural areas, and we are increasingly burdened with a growing demand for social, cultural, educational and health support services.

As B.C. works to create more jobs that will build our economy, the government needs to consider aboriginal people as a significant source of future labour. Aboriginal people are B.C.'s youngest and fastest-growing population group, and friendship centres support and improve social and economic outcomes which helps to reduce barriers to full participation in B.C.'s economy and labour market.

An increased investment in friendship centres will create downstream benefits in social and economic outcomes for aboriginal people. Our centres ultimately save the government money in social, health and education costs.

With an ORAAP that includes long-term, annualized investments in friendship centres, centres are better able to respond to rising demands for services to B.C.'s fastest-growing population group, as well as providing preventative resources. Community-based resources and preventative measures are linked with significantly reduced costs in health, education, justice and the child protection system, which creates budget efficiencies for our province.

Thank you for listening to us today. We would welcome any questions from the committee.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll begin our questions with Gary.

G. Coons: Thank you so much, Roger and Michael, and thank you for the work that you do in your community in the region. We've heard from many friendship centres already, whether it's in the Kootenays or Prince Rupert or Smithers or Prince George. We're hearing loud and clear the need for the funding.

This is the first time I've heard of the 17 percent reduction from the province's first citizens fund in 2010. My first question is: is that sort of the reason that the ask is for the $3.1 million there? Is it there to make up for the 17 percent reduction? On the other one, you talk about the off-reserve aboriginal action plan, and you ask for a fully funded ORAAP. What would be the key components, as you see it, in an action plan — just some of the key components? So there are two questions.

R. Kishi: Well, I suppose that the reduction in 2010 was a prompt to friendship centres to become engaged in the public consultation process, in the budget consultations for the next fiscal year. That reduction was $5,000. Friendship centres were getting $30,000 from the province annually, and that was reduced in 2010 to $25,000. That was to support the program directors in each of the friendship centres.

In each of the friendship centres the basic functions of the program director are administrative and seeking other sources of funding. The number of programs that we offer at the friendship centres are funded through various sources — the federal government, the provincial government, foundations, fundraising. Everything that we can creatively do to raise funds to support our
[ Page 2325 ]
programs, we seek those out.

M. Colclough: The 17 percent that Roger is referring to in the reduction from the first citizens fund would not replace or have anything to do with the $3.1 million in base core funding we're requesting. That is the funding that we're requesting to match the federal government's contribution to each friendship centre.

We receive approximately $85,000 a year from the federal government to operate the friendship centre. To operate our friendship centre, rent and overhead is approximately $120,000 a year. That $85,000 is to pay for my salary and to pay for our rent, for our overhead and for our bookkeeper. So it is drastically low in providing for those costs.

If the provincial government were to match that, then we would have approximately $170,000 annually. That would assist us in maintaining, keeping the doors open and our infrastructure.

M. Dalton: Thank you very much, Roger and Michael. I'm just wondering what the off-reserve population is in this area — or actually, the aboriginal population in general — and then also what the employment levels are among aboriginals in the area. Then secondly, if you could just give us an idea of what your hours of opening are. Are you open in the evenings, the weekends? Is it more nine to five? What's your schedule?

R. Kishi: Well, the aboriginal population numbers are according to the census. The census reports that there are about 2,500 aboriginal people that live in the Comox Valley. Of that, the Comox First Nation represents a little less than 300. So the majority of the aboriginal people that live in the Comox Valley are living off reserve, just like the rest of the province. As for the employment numbers, I don't have them at the top of my head, but I'm sure that B.C. Stats has all that breakdown.

But the numbers themselves are also a little deceiving. Although the census numbers indicate there are 2,500 aboriginal people that live in the Comox Valley, the numbers that the local school district uses…. Based on student enrolment and family size, they estimate there are 4,000 aboriginal people in the Comox Valley. That's because, through the census, you have to check the box to be counted as being an aboriginal person, and some people don't check the box.

M. Dalton: I'm Métis myself, and I'm just wondering: out of that proportion, how many would be Métis out of this?

R. Kishi: I would say in our community it would probably be close to 20 percent or so. There are even some Inuit in this community. According to the census, there are four.

M. Colclough: We have Métis, Cree, Nuu-chah-nulth. There's a large population of the Nuu-chah-nulth in our territory and First Nations people from across the country — Mohawk, Ahkwesahsne, Onondaga, Oneida. Many people of many cultures across the country live here. If you look at the 2006 census stats, this regional district and the Strathcona regional district, the population of aboriginals is around 7,200. We have that capture area, so we have First Nations people visiting our friendship centre from as far north as Campbell River and as far south as Parksville.

We look at, approximately, a population of 7,200 that we're serving because there are no friendship centres between Port Hardy and Nanaimo other than ours. We registered 11,000 non-discrete client visits to our offices last year for access to our programs.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Thanks, Roger and Michael, for your presentation. I'd like if you could share some of the programs that you offer to engage youth in the community and also share what you see in terms of challenges for youth and the importance of the programming to meet their needs.

M. Colclough: With regards to our youth programs, we have an early childhood development program, zero to six years of age. We have our bears program that's from seven to 13 years of age, and we have our Raven Back program which is from 14 to 19 years of age, and then our eagles program from 20 to 24 years of age. Those programs are not exclusive to First Nations people. There are other individuals that sympathize with our situation or wish to experience the First Nations culture, so they also engage in it. But predominantly, the majority is First Nations participants.

The early childhood development program is presently being run. We have many families, a dozen or so families, that drop in every Tuesday with their children. We discuss nutrition. We work with them on housing needs. We have a rental subsidy that we make available to all members of the community, not just First Nations people. We work with them on employment strategies and training, employment readiness. Our youth go through the same programs. We do life skills training, employment readiness, work experience placement with many of the major employers — Home Depot, Safeway, Walmart and other commercial organizations here in the valley.

The eagles are an older age group. The majority of them have graduated from school. They have their grade 12. I would say approximately, out of the 42 youth that are in our programs, there is 90 percent unemployment in that age group. Then in the older age group as well, there's in
[ Page 2326 ]
the area of 90 percent unemployment. They are mentors to our younger youth and participate in the younger programs, teaching culture and language, singing and dancing, drumming, arts and crafts.

We presently run a women in business program funded by Status of Women Canada for two years. It is an entrepreneurial training program that runs for ten weeks and teaches aboriginal women entrepreneurial skills. We help them develop a business plan, etc., marketing of their product, web development. We forecast that we would, in our projections, have 30 young women go through that program. We now are over 225, and we haven't even finished the program. It goes to the end of this fiscal, March 31, 2013.

We see a very big need for employment training and placement. We are a registered B.C. Works office with the provincial government under a five-year agreement. We have an employment placement counsellor there under that program to work with youth and anyone that walks in the front door.

D. Horne (Chair): We have less than a minute. We'll move to a last question from Pat.

P. Pimm: Thanks a lot for your presentation. I know friendship centres do a good job around the province.

I'm a little confused. I guess I want to know what your total budget is and how the funding is split, because we've heard that the federal funding in other areas is substantially less than the provincial funding. So total budget, what your funding split is, what portion the province puts in. I've just heard you talk about how much we've cut, so I'd like to know how much we actually contribute.

M. Colclough: Our total budget is $1.2 million. We run 52 discrete programs or departments at the friendship centre. The majority of that funding is federal. I would say that when we're looking at provincial, it's approximately 20 to 25 percent.

P. Pimm: You said $85,000 that the federal government puts in. Does that mean the provincial government puts in…?

M. Colclough: The provincial government at the moment funds three of our key programs. The key worker deals with FASD families and is for the entire community. We are the only employer for that position. They also fund our Out of the Shadows Youth Legacy — again, FASD programs. They fund our Roots worker, who works with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to develop life plans for those children in care with the ministry and to repatriate them with their culture and their communities. That funding comes to approximately $300,000, so 25 percent of our total funding in that area comes from the provincial government.

The other comes from the federal government and then from various ministries and departments within the federal government. For instance, Status of Women funded us for $259,000 for that program. Service Canada funds us. Heritage Canada funds us for our youth programs. We see the bulk of our funding coming through federal government agencies, departments and ministries.

D. Horne (Chair): That brings us to the end of our allotted time. So thank you for your presentation.

D. Horne (Chair): I'll now call our next presenter, being Comox Valley Child Development Association, represented by Lorraine Aitken.

Lorraine, welcome to the committee. You have ten minutes to present, followed by five minutes of questions. You can begin anytime.

L. Aitken: Good morning. I'm Lorraine Aitken. I'm the executive director of the Comox Valley Child Development Association. Thank you for this opportunity to present to the select standing committee.

First, I'd like to tell you a little bit about the Comox Valley Child Development Association. We're a community-based, not-for-profit organization founded in 1974 and governed by a board of community volunteers. We provide screening, assessment, therapy, intervention, training resources and support for children and youth with special needs, their families and community care providers. We serve the Comox Valley, which includes Courtenay, Comox, Cumberland and the surrounding areas, including Denman and Hornby islands.

In the past fiscal year we have provided services to 798 children and youth. Last year we had over 11,000 visits to our facility by children and families and community partners for therapy appointments, support services, training events, parent meetings and play groups.

The core provincially funded programs provided by us are early intervention therapy services for children from birth to school age, which includes physiotherapy, occupational therapy and speech therapy; the infant development program for infants from birth to three with developmental delays and disabilities; and the supported child development program for children up to age 12.

In addition, we provide a range of other locally developed programs and support services for children and
[ Page 2327 ]
youth with developmental delays and disabilities. We're also in the ninth year of providing a program of intensive early intervention for preschool-aged children with autism spectrum disorder, and after-school programs that focus on social learning and social communication for school-aged children with autism spectrum disorder.

In partnership with the Comox Valley Transition Society we co-host a support group for grandparents raising grandchildren, a newly recognized and growing demographic group often dealing with a range of exceptional challenges, and we're the community hub for services and programs for children with special needs, their families and caregivers.

In addition, we provide space to other non-profit community agencies to deliver programs and services to vulnerable children and families in our community. We have been accredited since 2004.

Our recommendations are based on three key principles. One is that children and youth with special needs are priority programs that, while funded mainly through the Ministry of Children and Family Development, are interconnected and interdependent with local education and health services and are equally as important as education and health.

Two, children and youth who require extra support require adequately funded programs and services to reach their full potential. The third principle is that families and healthy communities require adequately funded programs and services as a foundation for economic stability and development.

With those principles in mind, I have four key recommendations and issues to bring to you today. They're on the first page of the handout, but they're fleshed out in detail starting on page 5.

The first is around the contracts for accredited not-for-profit agencies. Each year the Ministry of Children and Family Development expends considerable resources to renew our annual contracts. This exercise is repeated for every contract and every contractor across the entire province.

Just to give you a bit of background from our perspective, we've been a community partner with the Ministry of Children and Family Development for 37 years. We provide annual audited financial statements, annual reports, monthly reports, monthly statistics. We follow provincial guidelines for program standards.

The ministry has invested heavily in accreditation, and in order for us to be a contractor, we have to be accredited. There's been a lot of money spent to support agencies like ours to become accredited. We've met these high standards of accreditation since 2004. We have to submit annual performance reports, and we're resurveyed every three years.

We think that with all of that foundation to build on, government could make considerable savings and improve front-line service delivery by moving to multi-year contracts with accredited not-for-profit agencies like ourselves. It would reduce costs for MCFD. There's a whole contract shop in each region, in each community that's working on the contracts for agencies like ours. It would reduce and refocus the workload within MCFD to front-line service delivery. It would also do the same for us.

It would reduce costs to our agency and allow us to refocus our energies on front-line service delivery instead of annual contract management. This would reduce the wait-lists and wait times for children and families. It would provide stability for accredited agencies like ours, where we have to wait every year to find out if our contracts are going to be renewed and what the amounts are going to be.

It would also provide a concrete return to government on the huge investment in accreditation. All of this money and energy has been spent to ensure that we're accredited and to the standards, and yet we believe that investment could be further realized by using that as a foundation for multi-year contracts.

Like all other not-for-profit child development agencies, we rely on community donations, local fundraisers and grants to build and maintain our facility, purchase equipment and resources, cover operational costs. However, we need to maintain and upgrade our facilities and infrastructures to meet new and changing accessibility, environmental, privacy and safety standards.

Government contracts have not kept pace with our increasing costs under terms of our collective agreement, such as retirement allowances, pension plan costs, benefit plan costs and staff reimbursement for travel. Professional costs for things like audit have doubled over the past five years, as new standards have been set by the federal government, and operational costs such as equipment supplies, maintenance and repairs have increased.

Our recommendation is that if government moves to multi-year contracts with accredited not-for-profit agencies like ours and allocates those savings to improve front-line service delivery, reduce wait times and cover our operational costs for delivering services — keeping contract levels the same — we could all realize savings.

Our second area of focus is around services for children and youth with autism spectrum disorder. We're in the ninth year of offering a highly successful program — this is a mouthful, I'll warn you — of intensive early intervention for preschool children with autism spectrum disorder and after-school programs for school-aged children that focus on social learning and social communication. We also provide a two-week summer camp for youth living with ASD every summer. In total, we provide services for 55 children and youth with autism spectrum disorder each year in our program.

We spend an unbelievable amount of administrative time meeting the requirements of the autism funding
[ Page 2328 ]
processing unit in Victoria for daily recordkeeping and monthly management of invoicing and payments. This process of invoicing and billing is overwhelmingly onerous, time-consuming, excessive and financially punitive for agencies like ours. We spend more administrative time on the autism program than all of our other programs put together, and it's a smaller portion of our overall contracts and services.

While a recent business review of the autism funds processing unit led to minor improvements in the billing and payment process, the overall system is still a heavy burden.

When the Ministry of Children and Family Development closed four early intensive behavioural intervention programs in January 2010, MCFD redirected $5 million to increase individual funding for children under the age of six from $20,000 a year to $22,000 a year. While it's a helpful increase, it still only covers a portion of the full cost of services for many children with autism spectrum disorder.

Our recommendation is to eliminate this onerous monthly billing and payment system, again, for accredited agencies like ourselves — non-profit. We already contract with government for many other services for children and youth with special needs. We'd like to see a move to annual contracts, and again, reallocate all the savings from this onerous financial administrative system to direct front-line services for children with autism spectrum disorder.

D. Horne (Chair): I know you've got two more points to make, and you've only got less than a minute now.

Number 3. We deliver multidisciplinary services to children with special needs and their families. This is around early intervention therapy. We have, as you will probably hear as you go around the province, huge wait-lists for, particularly, speech-language therapy and occupational therapy. We have been making recommendations to reduce wait-lists for this critical window of development for the last seven years to this committee. Often those recommendations make it forward to government, but we never see them in the government funding allocations.

Our recommendation here is to allocate new funding to the Ministry of Children and Family Development to reduce the wait times and the wait-lists for early intervention therapies, particularly occupational therapy and speech-language therapy.

Our fourth recommendation is around services for youth with special needs. Youth are chronically underfunded in every community in this province. Youth with special needs have a very small part of the budget, and their families do not have the kind of adequate support that they need to participate fully in the workforce. Our recommendation there is around funding for age-appropriate services for youth age 13 to 19 to support their families to access employment and education.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll start our questions with Mable.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Hi, Lorraine. Thanks for your presentation. I have a question with regards to recommendation No. 2 — that government should streamline the invoicing and payment systems. Can you explain a little bit around that? In what way would that be effective?

L. Aitken: I'll compare something like early intervention therapy. We have an annual contract with government to provide speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language pathology. There's a set amount of money in it. There's a set amount of service hours that we deliver. There are the populations described. Then we are on our own, following all the provincial guidelines, to address all the referrals that come through our door. We hire trained professionals that are accredited and certified in their area of service delivery.

We do a fabulous job. With autism every single…. We have to count attendance for every child that attends. We have to keep spreadsheets upon spreadsheets upon spreadsheets for the individual service for each child — how many hours we've spent on each child, what the service delivery looks like for each child. Then we have to do monthly billing. The parents have to sign off on the billing. We have to send it in. There are six-month service plans for each child. It's an enormous amount of paperwork, an enormous amount of our administrative time, to deliver services to 55 children that are critically needed.

We spend just so much time and energy on it, and then the ministry cuts us cheques. Actually, they're direct deposit. They're not physically cheques. Instead of a contract that includes all those services, we get a payment for every single child, which means someone at the other end of the process is processing a payment for every single child every month.

M. Dalton: Thank you very much, Lorraine. I think we all share a concern about excessive bureaucracy and paperwork, and don't want to see funding going into that. At the same time there's accountability, so it's finding that perfect mix, I guess.

How long are the multi-year contracts? Has that been recently removed, those multi-year contracts? Or you've never had them?

L. Aitken: We've never had multi-year contracts. We've always had one-year contracts. So what we're proposing is something that looks like a three- to five-year
[ Page 2329 ]
contract.

B. Ralston: I'm familiar with recommendation No. 3. I think I've been on the committee every year that you've come and presented it. It has made its way, as you've said, into the recommendations in some years, but nothing has happened, particularly.

I guess I'm interested in recommendations 1 and 2. We do hear from government. They talk about red-tape reduction. That usually applies to the relationship between government and business.

Have you suggested these recommendations to the ministry, and what would you expect? If you have, what's been the response? If you haven't, what would you expect their response to be in defending these processes? They do seem — I think you make a very compelling point — to be excessive. Really, the utility of them is dubious.

L. Aitken: We have made the recommendation to the bureaucrats that we have access to at our level. The response has been that they're not allowed to do one-year contracts. Yet we hear there are more-than-one-year contracts in highways and other ministries, so why not in the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

B. Ralston: And on the individual billing that you've spoken of in recommendation 2?

L. Aitken: We have asked for that. Their response, again, is at sort of the management bureaucratic level, and they're told that they're not allowed to do that because of legislation.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation today. That brings us to the end of our time, and I'll now call our next presenter.

Our next presenter will be Campbell River Association for Community Living represented by Greg Hill.

G. Hill: Good morning. Thank you very much for the opportunity. As you know, my name is Greg Hill. I am the executive director of the Association for Community Living in Campbell River. I've been there for 27 years. The association has been in effect for 51 years, actually.

What I'm going to try to do here is attempt to explain to you a situation that is somewhat confusing. I'll try to be succinct and quick. To do that, before you, you have the same sheet that I do, with blue and orange highlight on it.

As you know, CLBC, Community Living B.C., has been cutting back their budget for quite some time. Now, in their deliberations to try to make a level playing field for all community living associations, which are non-profit associations in B.C., they came up with provincial templates. With the provincial template, they attached it to the collective agreement that was done in 2009.

What they did was fund everybody in the blue column at step 3. That was for approximately an age of seniority of eight years and under.

Now, an association like mine has employees that have been there, on average, 15, 17 or 20 years in the making. So my grid level that I should be funded at is step 4, or the orange-highlighted section.

As you can see, when you're funded differences of $17.36 and $18.27 — follow me down to the $54,000 on this sheet — you'll see that when you times that by the annual amount, you have a shortfall. When you times it by five FTEs — five full-time-equivalents, which there are five of seven staff in each home — at that should-be rate of funding, you come up with a $32,000 shortfall in your annual budget.

When you times that by the five group homes in my particular association, you're pretty close to a $150,000 shortfall on your annual budget, a pretty serious situation for an association that is non-profit, relying heavily on Community Living B.C. funding, operating a home — and I accentuate home — for four people that need 24-7 care.

You're already funded at a minimal level of staffing of full-time-equivalents at seven. If you had to cut back, that $32,000 is pretty much more than half a staff. If I have to cut back more staff, the 24-7 ratio and hours of support get slashed back, which you can't do when you need 24-7. We have a very dire problem, and that's only one part of the situation.

I open myself now to questions. I wanted to try to explain that to you as best I could. It's really hard to get your head around it. It took me awhile to get my head around it, too, as to what was really happening to the association and other associations across the province.

B. Ralston: Thanks very much. I suppose what the response of the government might be would be that after some heated exchanges in the Legislature, there was a commitment a couple of months ago — the time blurs — to increase funding to Community Living B.C. I'm wondering if any of those increases made their way to solving this problem. If not, have you raised this issue with the senior leadership at Community Living B.C., and if so, what has been their response?

G. Hill: Yes, we have. Even as a provincial unit we've raised this issue with Community Living B.C. Although they are saying that they will try to make amends to this, they have not addressed the situation completely yet.
[ Page 2330 ]

B. Ralston: The increased funding that was talked about publicly — are you aware where that went to, or did that affect your finances?

G. Hill: No, it didn't. That was addressed to wait-lists for Community Living, not existing situations.

D. Horne (Chair): I have a question. Is this a local collective agreement? Basically, the local collective agreement has agreed to pay more than what is allocated under the funding formula.

G. Hill: No, it's not. It's not a local collective agreement. It's a provincial collective agreement with BCGEU. Other associations in the province will also be experiencing this difficulty.

D. Horne (Chair): So basically, the collective agreement isn't consistent with the actual funding formula at this point. That's really what you're saying.

D. Horne (Chair): On your chart there, you talk about vacation entitlement as well. I look at the number of workdays. I ran a business for a long time. If I ever gave any of my employees anywhere close to that for that amount of service, I would have been out of business.

G. Hill: I touched lightly on that. That is another problem, because 41 percent of our employees are at that eight weeks' vacation, but Community Living B.C. only funds two weeks' vacation.

D. Horne (Chair): Two weeks may be a little bit short. Eight weeks is a little bit much.

P. Pimm: I'd like you to go back and explain the difference between your step 3 and step 4. I didn't get my head wrapped around that.

G. Hill: It's hard. What they attempted to do was create a level playing field for all community living associations in the province, because we're all so different. They decided, with a provincial template, that they would come up with: "Let's fund everybody at grid level 10, step 3." That's for full-time-equivalent employees who are under eight years of service.

Now, at least 41 percent of my employees in my association should be funded at grid level 10, step 4, which is the $18.27 an hour. Does that make any more sense?

G. Hill: Yeah. Most of my employees have been there for quite a considerable length of time.

G. Hill: They are being addressed, but we're incurring further deficits as we motor on with our delivery of service, which will result eventually in staffing cutbacks.

I'll call our next presenter, which is the Comox Valley Hospice Society, represented by Terri Odeneal.

Terri, welcome to the committee. As you've heard, I believe, you have ten minutes to present followed by five minutes of questions. Anytime you want to begin.

T. Odeneal: Well, thank you this morning. As you know, my name is Terri Odeneal, and I'm the executive director of the Comox Valley Hospice Society. We're a non-profit society coming up on our 30th anniversary here quite shortly. We have a very small team of dedicated health care professionals and a large group of volunteers who provide hospice palliative care and support services free of charge to people in the Comox Valley. We also service all the surrounding communities here — so a catchment area of about 65,000 to 75,000 people.

In collaboration with others dedicated to end-of-life care, we strive to meet the physical, psychological, social and spiritual needs of the dying and their families in ways that are sensitive to individual preferences, beliefs and cultures. Simply stated, our goal is to support people to live to the fullest until they die and to help their loved ones go on living afterwards, with their lives forever changed.

While it pains me not to talk about our programs and services more, in the interest of time I'm just going to share some of the key metrics that may be impactful in terms of the business case I'd like you to consider.

In fiscal year 2011-2012 we provided more than 22,000 volunteer hours, which when valued at a minimal $16.50 an hour translates into almost $380,000 in donated labour. We raised from this community and from grants over $230,000 to support programs and services that served almost 1,100 people.

That doesn't include all of the community education activities we've done. We also delivered 160 hours of community education and awareness programs in
[ Page 2331 ]
schools, care facilities and seniors venues for everything from promotion of advanced-care planning to dealing with the residual effects of unresolved grief to helping people navigate the complexities and the maze of end-of-life care services. We offered free weekly self-care clinics staffed by volunteers to help sustain professionals, volunteers and caregivers as they journey with those who are dying and bereaved.

We've developed community partnerships that have minimized duplication and inappropriate use of services, saving the traditional delivery system untold thousands in unnecessary acute hospital admissions and emergency room visits. Depression, addiction, poor grades at school, children acting out, faltering relationships and loss of productivity are all the outcomes and costs of unaddressed loss and grief.

If the health care system had to pay for the services that we provide here in this community alone, it would be almost $620,000 annually. The reality is that supporting community-based hospices means high-quality care that simply makes good business sense.

All of you know the statistics about the aging population and the silver tsunami, so I won't go into that. I've put a few statistics in the presentation that you have.

I guess I'd like to focus on the critical questions that need to be addressed: what care is there going to be for us in 15 to 25 years if no action is taken now? What care is available for those in need today? And specifically to our community, how do we ensure that the residents of the Comox Valley have access to basic end-of-life care services similar to residents in other like-sized communities?

In 2006 the British Columbia Ministry of Health issued the end-of-life care framework, and I'm sure most of you are familiar with that document. It basically described the kind of care that every resident of British Columbia deserves to receive during the end of their life.

Sadly, the implementation plan for that document, which was to be titled the end-of-life strategy and action plan, for which hundreds of staff and stakeholder hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars were invested, has yet to be released. This is — what? — six years later. We're still waiting on that. It's sitting on a shelf in the Ministry of Health.

In addition, in 2007 the Vancouver Island Health Authority issued an end-of-life strategic plan that indicated that residential hospice beds were required for the north Island by 2011. We're in 2012. That plan has been recalled for revisions, and it's yet to be released almost two years later.

Most of you on this committee live in communities that receive core funding for hospice palliative care programs and services. Most of you have access and choice about how and where you want to die.

That said, if you lived on Vancouver Island, north of Nanaimo, you would have no access to dedicated acute palliative services for pain and symptom management. You would have no access to residential hospice programs where you can choose to spend your last days being cared for in comfort by dedicated and well-trained professionals and volunteers who understand your needs and the needs of your loved ones. And you would all too often be destined to languish in four-bed, mixed-gender hospital wards or forced to remain at home with caregivers who are overwhelmed with little support.

As you all know, the goal is to provide the right kind of care in the right place at the right time from the right provider and, I would suggest, at the right cost.

I would like to share with you just two samples of some troubling cases that we came into contact with. When I've come to this group before, I've always tried to share what a good death looks like and those vignettes. But it's gotten to a point where I feel I need to share the realities on the ground.

We had a young father, early 50s, with brain metastases who was moved out of hospital over the family's objections. This was a family that wanted to keep him at home to care for him. They'd made every effort to do so, but the trajectory of his illness and the symptoms became so severe that they just couldn't cope any longer at home.

Over their objections, he was moved out of the hospital back to home. Within 24 hours of that discharge he died, having grand mal seizures that were not being treated, with two teenage sons looking on and him foaming at the mouth. Now, the residual impact on those kids and that family was horrific.

We had, not very long ago, an elderly woman who couldn't care for her husband anymore. She was 80. He was 85 and had end-stage renal disease. She was having an incredibly difficult time caring for him. He was falling. Her back was injured. She couldn't get him up. She was being told to put a blanket on him when he fell and wait until somebody could come out later in the day — not to call an ambulance. There was no other resource. Wait until someone could come out later in the day.

We work, as the hospice society, very hard to try and ameliorate these kinds of difficult situations. We do everything we can, but the lack of resources in this community simply makes it impossible to do so.

I guess, to add insult to having been treated so poorly in their end-of-life experiences, both of the patients described above are included as examples of success in the ministry's goal to have people die at home rather than in hospital. In this book that's been put out…. I'm sure you're all familiar with it, Families First Agenda for British Columbia. I see you nodding. On page 34 it references: "In 2003, 56 percent of the deaths in B.C. occurred in hospitals. In 2010, 46 percent of the deaths occurred in hospitals."

That's being referenced as an indicator of success. I can share with you that anyone going through this experience
[ Page 2332 ]
— and certainly the people doing the work in this province — find that measurement, that metric, absolutely appalling. To measure where we are dying rather than the quality of that death experience is simply unacceptable.

I would ask each of you to consider, if either of these above cases involved your wife or your father or mother, how you would feel if they were receiving this kind of care. Would you consider that a success? Would you consider it acceptable?

The fact is that neither an acute hospital bed nor a home setting was appropriate for these patients. But in this community those are simply the only options.

We know that whole families are impacted — mothers, fathers, children, teenagers, grandparents. We know that when families are impacted, communities are impacted. This is an important conversation, and it touches all of us. And it's going to touch all of us more frequently.

Over the past five years the Comox Valley Hospice Society has been working collaboratively with local care partners to develop a comprehensive palliative care program that will provide access to appropriate services and build delivery-system capacity. To that end, we envision the building of a ten-bed, end-of-life-care centre of excellence for the north Island. The facility would provide acute palliative pain and symptom management, residential hospice care, respite care and support to patients, families, caregivers and the bereaved.

How you can help. At any rate, we're prepared to raise the project capital. In a perfect world our health care system would be everything to everyone. We don't live in that world. What do we need from you? We need you to hold the health authorities accountable to implement the end-of-life-care framework.

Our credibility, certainly in this community, is waning with our donors because we've had no feedback for more than six years on where funding is, what the status is. It's simply time to stop planning and to start doing. It's time to make equitable access to basic end-of-life care a priority not simply in words but rather in budgets.

If it's truly your goal to put families first, I'd strongly urge each of you to address this issue now. Failure to do so leaves long-lasting wounds on family members and caregivers. As importantly — maybe more importantly — each of us deserves to be able to die free from pain, with dignity, regardless of where we live.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll start our questions with Mable.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation, Terri. Your proposal for the ten-bed facility — has the site been secured?

T. Odeneal: The site is actually…. The Vancouver Island Health Authority does not support freestanding hospices. We have worked very closely with them, looking towards a campus model. We have space to build out, actually, under a long-term-care facility on the St. Joseph's Hospital campus.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Just on the dollars side, how much money have you been able to fundraise, and what dollar amount are you requesting to build the facility?

T. Odeneal: I'm not asking for money to build the facility. This community is prepared to come to the table with the capital for the project. What we need is funding for the ongoing operations. For a ten-bed facility, that turns into about $1.2 million.

I can't say to you that that's going to be a cost savings. It certainly is a cost savings in terms of people who are not going into acute care at $1,000 a day. Rather, they're being treated in an appropriate care setting at about $350 a day.

But the bottom line is, obviously, access. If those beds in the hospital aren't filled with palliative patients, they'll be filled with someone else. What I can say is that we can promise that we can decrease that rapidly escalating trajectory of cost for health care delivery and give more appropriate care.

J. Slater: Just for some background, my mom died in a long-term-care facility. My son was in hospice when he died, and my dad died in ICU.

So what you're saying is that the long-term-care facilities could facilitate those people and still have family access, etc. So at ten beds for $1.2 million worth of operation, do you think that if we expanded our long-term-care facilities to provide some excess beds…? They have the staff. They have the food. They have the professionalism. They have all the rest of it. Why wouldn't that be a better model?

T. Odeneal: Well, I would suggest to you that palliative care, with the palliative approach which is what's being put forth both provincially and nationally, would provide palliative care in all settings — certainly, at home and in long-term-care facilities.

But part of that continuum, as is described in this book and, certainly, by professionals all over the world, is access to residential palliative care. I would suggest to you that for someone who's in long-term care, that's really
[ Page 2333 ]
their home. That's where palliative care should be provided for them, because that is their home, and that can certainly be done.

We're certainly encouraging everyone to die at home where it's possible, but you can't get into a long-term-care facility when you're at home. So where do those people go? There are people that have acute situations, acute pain and symptom management — serious issues — that go into acute care, and there's no place to discharge them to other than residential hospice.

If you're expanding access, I would say that residential hospices provide a broader array of services, a more comprehensive program and actually more specialized care at a very similar cost point to long-term-care facilities.

In addition, hospice societies and hospices deal with all of the issues around grief. Believe me, those are significant issues for a lot of families that have incredible repercussions in the delivery system, between substance abuse, kids in school acting out, employers, productivity — all of those things. I would suggest that if you truly want to provide an appropriate long-term-care continuum, you need to have all of those options available. Certainly long-term care is one of them.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. That brings us to the end of our time, so I'll call our next presenter.

Welcome. You have ten minutes to present, followed by five minutes for questions, and you can begin now.

J. Lindsay: Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to present to you. By way of a bit of background, I'm president and CEO of North Island College. This is a college that serves the north Island area from Comox-Courtenay north — an area that covers over 80,000 square kilometres.

We have campuses in Port Alberni, Comox Valley, Campbell River, and we also have one up in the Port Hardy–Mount Waddington area. We have a small centre in Ucluelet, and we used to have a number of centres on some of the islands but recently have had to withdraw or pull back our services a little bit in some of those areas.

What I really want to talk to you about today is the fact that I see that B.C., in many ways, is really at a crossroads. I understand very much some of the financial issues facing the province and the dilemmas that exist around that. Currently we're seeing reducing resources from natural resources declining in some areas such as forestry and natural gas, but at the same time we have growth occurring or projected to occur in some sectors such as mining, shipbuilding and other technologies. We're also seeing forestry and other types of natural resource industry starting to pick up.

This is all occurring at the same time that we are losing employees in all of these industries. We're losing them to the demographic change that is happening as baby boomers retire, but we're also losing them to other areas where they're being pulled to, where there is work. We have planes leaving the Comox Valley, Campbell River areas almost daily now to head to other locations, many in Alberta, where workers go to those other kinds of places.

Basically, as I see it, I think we're really very much at a crossroads in British Columbia. We're very much at a critical point in trying to define our future, the prosperity that we'll have in the future. If we don't respond quickly, if we fail to develop the skilled labour that we really require to extract the value of our natural resources, we'll be unable to increase provincial revenues and reduce our provincial debt.

I really think, very much, the time is now that we have to act. We need to invest in post-secondary education and build the workforce capability that's required for us to prosper. Certainly, as somebody who has had 35 years' experience in post-secondary education, I can tell you that it takes quite a period of time to develop and get programs on line that will serve some of these critical workforce shortage needs.

It's almost like building a building. We often say it takes two years to go from planning to the actual building. Basically, it's not quite that long but almost in building some of these programs, because of the different curriculum development, approvals and government approvals, and hiring of very skilled faculty to teach them.

It's not something that we can gear up the system overnight. It does take time. If you look at the situation that we're facing, the government's own statistics are showing that we do have an issue. It's something that I just don't feel we can ignore. The B.C. government has forecast that by 2016 to 2020, somewhere in that range, the demand for workers in B.C. will outpace demand.

Also, it's been predicted that by 2015 — and we're seeing this already — 78 percent of all job openings will require some form of post-secondary education. Currently only 60 percent of the workforce has attained this, and I'd have to say, if you look at the stats for the north Island area, that we are at about 45 percent in terms of high school graduation. This is an area that really is quite depressed in terms of some of the skill gaps that exist.

We've got anywhere from an 18 percent to a 30 percent gap, however you look at it, that we have to catch up if we're going to be successful as a province in moving forward with meeting the needs of the resource industries.

Luckily, I think we've got a very large infrastructure waiting and ready to serve the province. We have 11 colleges that put out approximately 200,000 graduates each year. If the government can increase the investment in post-secondary education, then we will be able to upscale the number of graduates that will serve the province.
[ Page 2334 ]

So $47 million annually needs to be invested in post-secondary education in order to produce 2,000 additional graduates. Those would be produced in areas where we've already identified that there are serious shortages — some of the areas such as health, engineering and the applied sciences. I've just recently met with the CEO of Catalyst and the mill manager in Port Alberni and heard of their desperate need for people as power engineers in some of those areas.

Although the province, as I said at the outset, is struggling to deal with reduced revenues, I think we can't afford to not act. More importantly, we have to act now because of the time lag it takes to gear up some of these things.

B.C. is also at a crossroads in needing to encourage and support balanced regional development and regional prosperity. Sometimes in a province such as ours you see a lot of the resources going into the urban areas where there is a greater population that exists. But I think with this dilemma, this particular issue that we're facing, this crossroads that we're at now, we really need to think about: how do you spread those resources out and get them out into the regional areas? That is where the natural resource sector is developing and will develop further.

As much as we would like to be able to think that workers are portable and that you just say, "Move out of the urban area, and go up to Fort McMurray," we all know that that really is not a simple thing for people to do that own homes and have families located in a particular area. So we must think about: how are we going to train in some of these areas?

B.C.'s colleges — we do have multiple campuses and centres located in close to 70 different communities throughout the province. I think the province has to think about that — the infrastructure that we have already existing. Are we making best use of that infrastructure?

Also, many of these sites support access to post-secondary education for aboriginal students. I'm sure you've heard about it many times over. It's the aboriginal population that is the youth population that exists now, and that is the population that in many ways will support further growth in the province.

Those folks are located in very remote areas, in Kingcome Inlet, in Bella Bella, Bella Coola — some of the different areas that we serve. We need to be able to get the training out to where they currently live. However, funding is required to support the expansion of on-line education and remote web-based lab training.

As an aside, I just would mention that this is a very high-end technology that North Island College has developed. We're now working with a consortium in the United States and have just received a portion of a $14 million grant that they received down there to look at health education training, fully on line. We are going to be working on the delivery of the lab portion of that training. We've just received a $580,000 grant in order to do that.

We've got some really exciting capabilities here that would allow us to train our aboriginal folks and others living in some of these remote areas, but we are really hampered by the lack of connectivity to get these kinds of courses out to these people.

While we're looking for the efficient ways to do this — we don't want to take people out into these remote areas — it's very difficult to do that if we just don't have that electronic infrastructure.

In order to do that, we have looked at some of the issues and feel that there is a financial investment that needs to happen. We've estimated that it's around $19 million that would be required to improve the Internet connectivity into remote and rural communities. This would be a very wise investment for the province in order to develop these communities and deliver the on-line vocational and career-based training that is required.

As I say, we have the capacity to do this with some of the things that we have developed, such as the remote web-based technology. We can have people sitting in Bella Bella or Ucluelet, or any remote area you want, and on their personal computer they can be remotely operating robots that will be working in a lab and changing the adjustments on a microscope — or, for that matter, a vocational lab where they're changing the HVAC system on some piece of equipment.

Also, a financial investment of approximately $10.5 million is required to upgrade trades, vocational and career-training equipment to the standard typically found in the workplace. I think this is something that really, again, I hope you can think about. It's a type of one-time-only investment that the province could make. To have our students working on equipment that is 20 and 30 years old is just not serving the needs of this province.

I have to say that I've had the opportunity to travel to China a number of times, working with other programs over there. I've toured around through facilities where you're seeing them training on the absolutely latest of technology, of vocational and technical equipment. It's obvious that we are not in a place to compete if we have students that are training on stuff that is 20 and 30 years old.

I guess in summary, investing in post-secondary education provides a very significant return on investment. Not only is it the necessary thing to do, the right thing to do, I think it is the smart thing to do.

If you look at some of the figures we have shown, that B.C. Colleges study has found there is a $3.80 return on every $1 invested in post-secondary education. These are true, hard facts that we have been able to determine.

Also, B.C. colleges and their graduates contribute $7.7 billion of income annually to the province and the economy. That's not even including the portion that's coming
[ Page 2335 ]
in, which is over and above that, through international education.

The cost of producing a college graduate is approximately half the cost of producing a university graduate.

In these times of declining resources, I think we have to get very smart about how we use our resources. I know this is something that was done in the United States, where they looked at colleges and the massive infrastructure of colleges and realized that if they allowed colleges to offer degrees, particularly in the applied areas, the opportunity to bring a lot of their folks up to the degree level was about half the cost, or even less, than what it would be if they tried to use the universities as the site of doing that — because they are so much more heavily involved in research, and some of the extra costs that are involved with that.

As I say, we've got an infrastructure here. I think it's ready, willing and able to do the job. What we need is an investment. I know it's all about moving resources around, but this is one investment that if we make this, this is one that will support the province to future prosperity.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much. We'll start our questions with John Slater.

J. Slater: Thank you, Jan. Great presentation, and I agree with you. I have two colleges in my constituency, Okanagan College and Selkirk College. We're doing an experiment right now, because what's happening is that the kids that are coming out of high school don't have that seed to try and be an engineer or a tradesperson.

I think what we need to do — you guys need to do — is create that demand, rather than saying: "75 percent or 78 percent of graduates out of high school are going to be required to have post-secondary." The kids that are coming out don't know that.

What we're doing in the Selkirk area in the Boundary-Kootenay area is sending Selkirk College reps into the schools and saying: "Here's the future. Here's what we need." Teachers were really reluctant to that at the beginning. They're going: "No, no, no. We don't want that, because we know what our kids need." But we're doing that right now, and I really, really suggest that if you're not doing it now, you do it so that the demand is there.

We're not going to go and spend a whole bunch of money for a class of ten people — right? We need 20 or 30 in those trade areas. That's what I'd recommend to you.

J. Lindsay: Definitely, we are doing that. We not only send people into the schools; we have people going out on reservations working with the aboriginal population. Also, we have implemented a very active open house where we brought 900 students last year on campus, where they not only were engaged and exposed to what's going on; they had hands-on opportunity to work in a science lab, to work in some of our trades areas. We are doing, I think, all that we can.

But what we are lacking is the ability to provide the very specialized training that industry needs and requires in order to move forward with some of these industries. We are providing a lot of training that is currently serving the province, so it's not that we can just pull that away to provide something else. These are very specialized areas, like I say — power engineers, 16 plant engineers. The cost of putting a program on like that is pretty significant. But right now you….

When I was talking to Catalyst, they said: "If you can get that program up and running, we would take every graduate you get and then some." In fact, they said they would be taking them across Canada.

B. Ralston: Thanks very much. I appreciate your point about the existing infrastructure of the college. It's quite extensive. My sense of colleges from having heard their submissions over the years is that they're very close to local labour markets and really understand what's going on in the regional economy.

My question is this, though…. I think you're a signatory to the same letter that all of the college and university presidents signed. In the budget last year there was a reduction over two years of what were called administrative costs in the system. The defence put forward by the then minister and the deputy minister was that this was focused on administration and that, of course, there was fat — the usual kinds of arguments about inefficiencies at the top.

What would your response be to that kind of an argument? It seems to me it's certainly a difficult one to make in practice, but it is the direction that the government has suggested these cuts are directed.

J. Lindsay: Very much I support the idea of shared services or amalgamated services — anywhere that we can save money for the province and get it redirected more to students and to the type of training that we need. I'm fully in support of that, and we already do that a lot in the IT area. We do it in the library area. There's a network of libraries across the province.

Right now, though…. The government did hire a company, Deloitte, to look at the possibility of doing this. They have not identified the savings potential to the level that is being indicated in relation to those cuts.

The more you get out from the major centres…. If you have Langara College and Douglas and VCC all in a close proximity, there are different opportunities there than you have with North Island College, which is serving Port Hardy, but we all get rolled up in the same bowl or mix. If you look, also, at big institutions such UBC versus the North Island College, our budget is most likely about an eighth or something like that, if even that. So trying
[ Page 2336 ]
to find those savings is just a different story altogether.

While I think it's a worthy idea…. I would say that there's not, most likely, a college or a university president that wouldn't be open to looking at where we can reasonably find savings, because we want to get the resources to where they're needed.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. That brings us to the end of our allotted time, unfortunately.

We'll have to move to our next presenter, being the Comox Valley Chamber of Commerce — Bob and Dianne.

Good morning. Welcome to the committee. You have ten minutes to present followed by five minutes of questions, and your time begins now.

B. Scales: Good morning. Firstly, thank you for allowing the chamber to make this presentation to you on behalf of the 30,000 provincial members — which represent every size and sector in the region of the province, including our 700 local chamber members — on the government's priorities for the next provincial budget.

The chamber believes that the starting point for the government is the need to ensure we have balanced budget forecast in 2013. Not only is it the correct approach for government to spend only as much as it earns, but requirement for a balanced budget holds government's feet to the fire and sends a clear signal to the international investors that B.C. is a safe haven in our troubled global economy.

For the chamber, fiscal responsibility requires a focus on several core areas, which we will address in more detail.

Firstly, taxation. B.C. has one of the lowest tax rates for both personal and business incomes in Canada. The government is to be commended for those actions, often taken in the face of significant criticism and opposition. Indeed, when we look at the business tax rates, B.C. currently has the joint lowest corporate tax rate and the fourth-lowest small business rates. In terms of personal tax rates, B.C. has the lowest rates for incomes below $120,000 and the second-lowest for those incomes above.

This positive picture has led many to begin calling for increases in the corporate tax rates, claiming that a one- or two-point increase will still place B.C. in a very competitive position. The chamber believes this is not an accurate position, as it fails to recognize a significant increase that many businesses will see as a result of moving back to the PST.

One of the key reasons for our members supporting the move to the HST was that it would greatly enhance our competitiveness and our ability to attract new investment. Federal Finance estimated B.C.'s marginal effective tax rate fell from 34 percent in 2006 to 16.8 percent in 2012. While there are several factors, including corporate tax cuts, which contributed to this drop, the core reason was the replacement of the PST with the HST.

With a return to the PST, we will see B.C.'s marginal effective tax rate increase to be the highest in Canada, placing B.C. at a significant competitive disadvantage and hampering our ability to attract new investment in the key sectors. In this context, the chamber does not believe that now is the time for any further tax increases on business. The marginal effective tax rate calculations do not capture the full impact of the PST on B.C. competitiveness.

While we respect the democratic process, it must be stated that the decision to scrap the HST was, in our opinion, the wrong choice for British Columbians. The bad decision has been compounded by the fact that not only are we scrapping the HST but, even worse, we are reverting, effectively, to the old PST system.

The chamber believes that the loss of the input tax credits to business will significantly hamper B.C.'s ability to compete against key jurisdictions. This will place B.C. companies at a significant Canadian competitive disadvantage, as we will be one of only three provinces which do not have a value-added tax system. The chamber therefore recommends that government undertake an open, transparent, public discussion on a made-in-B.C. value-added tax.

Beyond taxation, where urgent action is required continues to be property tax. The chamber agrees with local governments which say that they do not have the financial means to address the pressures they are facing, particularly in regard to infrastructure.

However, a call to simply provide new unconditional revenue streams is unacceptable without reform. The chamber believes the provincial government must step in to undertake a fundamental review of local governments' financial sustainability, with a view to establishing a funding system that is fair and equitable and that reflects costs of services for each taxpayer group. The chamber believes that moneys should be allocated to municipalities to complete local work, as they are familiar with what needs to be done locally in their community.

The chamber commends the provincial government for its focus on spending restraint as a key mechanism in ensuring that we return to the balanced budget. Over a period of the current fiscal plan, government expenditure will result in an average annual growth in spending of 2 percent, fulfilling a recommendation of the chamber to maintain spending at no more than the rate of growth of the economy.

However, limiting increases in the amount of public money put into programs does not address the question of whether a program is necessary and effective. In our ever-changing world we need to assure taxpayers that their dollars are being appropriately allocated to our province's most critical and current needs. The cham-
[ Page 2337 ]
ber believes that now is the time to take a close look at all areas of government spending to ensure they are delivering the priority programs and services to British Columbians as efficiently, effectively and affordably as possible.

Nowhere is this more important than in the area of health care, which now represents 42 percent of government spending. The chamber has consistently stated — in fact, this section was copied from previous presentations — that we must realize that simply pouring more money into the big black hole of health care spending is not the answer. No matter the size of the funding increase, it is never enough, and simply leads to an unsustainable cycle of increased funding, leading to increased expectations, leading to calls for more funding. Therefore the chamber recommends that any recommendations regarding health care spending must be tied to a clearly defined ability to measure improvements in outcomes and must be dependent on a clear blueprint for reform.

On the broader issue of government program spending, it has been ten years since government has released a comprehensive report that summarizes the performance of government ministries based on clear objectives and targets. While spending restraint as announced by the government recently is welcome, this simply looks at finding efficiencies within the current scope of government spending programs. It does not, as a more fundamental question, ask whether the program is warranted and whether there are measureable outcomes that show a return on investment to government and to taxpayers.

In 2001-2002 the B.C. government undertook a core service review that asked every government department to review their spending with a focus to eliminate, reduce, consolidate or transfer responsibility to the private sector. This core service review produced real savings to the provincial government. However, since that review was completed, there has been no recent comprehensive review of government program spending.

Therefore, the chamber recommends that provincial government initiate a new core service review across all ministries to identify potential savings and efficiencies and to develop measurable outcomes and criteria for ministry service plans. Further, the chamber recommends the government introduce sunset clauses for all new government spending programs.

If we look at B.C.'s debt picture, we can see that B.C. fares very well compared to other jurisdictions. It is perhaps worth looking at how the debt structure has changed from previous years. If we look at debt in 2007-2008, before the global recession, we see that B.C.'s debt has risen dramatically.

The chamber recognizes that B.C. debt levels are low by international standards, and it is a debt level that is manageable for the economy such as B.C. Further to this, we obviously recognize that this increase was driven by truly unique circumstances, as the global economy shifted and government had to react to protect services and the B.C. economy by spending far more than they were generating in revenue.

However, our members have been clear. When economic conditions permit, we must mitigate cost for future generations. Therefore the chamber is recommending that once balanced budgets are achieved, there should be a requirement that the provincial budget dedicate at least 50 percent of any surpluses directly to debt repayment.

We'd like to spend a moment on the issue of the carbon tax. While we recognize that the government is currently undergoing a public consultation process on the carbon tax, it is a critical element of the government's budget and warrants comment in this forum. At our recent B.C. chamber AGM in Penticton, the carbon tax was again a controversial topic of debate. We ran the full gamut of opinions, with delegates debating everything from reform to scrapping the tax.

While we are not dissimilar to the public, in that there was no consensus on this tax, several important points were clear. The first and most important point to note is that the carbon tax is having a negative impact on certain sectors of the economy. Of primary concern to the chamber is the exporters, who are facing competition from jurisdictions where such a tax is not imposed, and they are therefore faced with a significant competitive disadvantage, as they must pay the tax but are unable to pass those costs along.

In terms of the economy at large, the negative impact of the carbon tax is offset by the fact that the carbon tax represents a tax shift which has seen B.C.'s business community benefit through reductions on a range of tax fronts.

In addition to reductions in the general corporate and small business tax rates, the carbon tax is also responsible for an increase in the small business threshold and a number of tax credits that benefit business, including the school property taxes, digital media tax credit, training tax credit, SR-and-ED and a Film Incentive credit. The chamber recommends that any changes to reduce the carbon tax must be reduced under the auspices of revenue neutrality.

Under tourism, the chamber would like to see more plans to promote tourism and for these plans to be handled regionally and locally by tourism agencies only. These agencies need to be industry-specific, as their staff must be trained in the promotion and development of tourism for the province.

Carrying on from Dr. Lindsay a few minutes ago, the chamber recognizes the need for revisions to the apprenticeship training programs, which allow greater access to programs for younger students who are not interested in the traditional school system. We believe there are still
[ Page 2338 ]
too many young adults who are not challenged by the current schooling systems, and a return to a strong apprenticeship program that has been used for decades in countries such as England in the 1800s would be very beneficial.

In conclusion, we recommend that the 2013 budget focus on returning to a balanced budget, instill discipline in public spending, review fiscal sustainability of local government and introduce a plan for tackling the provincial debt load.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you, Bob, for the presentation. We'll start our questions with Pat.

P. Pimm: Thanks a lot for your presentation. I think it's a good one, but I have a couple of questions, actually, and I want to make a couple of comments. I've asked every group that talked about carbon taxes: did you make a presentation or a submission to the Finance Minister? I want to put on the record here today that I've heard that those submissions may not be possible, and I want to make sure, on the record, that I will do whatever I can to make sure that they are going to be put on the record and submitted to the Finance Minister.

Also, I want to just comment a little bit on your HST. I know a lot of your businesses are upset that we're going back to the PST system. You talked about a balanced budget, and you talked about how important the corporate tax and business tax is to you folks. I want to know what you're going to do to get that message out to all your members, rather than just come here and present to us.

B. Scales: We locally have a number of communications meetings with our members. We do have regular lunch meetings, and we allow presentations at those meetings. We encourage that. We have a weekly e-news report that goes out to all our members and to a lot of non-members, and we provide communications on that. And the same thing with the carbon tax. We are trying to communicate all this information to our members on a regular basis.

B. Ralston: Thanks very much. You probably remember from listening to the Finance Minister in the quarterly report in September that the province's finances have been dramatically affected by the decline in the price of natural gas. That was wrongly predicted in the budget to increase, whereas it's actually been flat and declining, which is creating further fiscal pressure on the province and its ability to balance.

The previous Finance Minister, Mr. Falcon, said on page 5 of the 2012 budget that if it were necessary to balance the budget, he would consider increasing the general corporate income tax rate from 10 percent to 11 percent. I take it from what you've said that you oppose that initiative of the Finance Minister, given your position that you've set out today.

B. Scales: Well, we understand that there has to be a balanced budget, and we recognize that there are only certain sources that these funds can come from, but we'd like to see other areas explored before that was to happen. We are still greatly concerned about the impact and even just the cost of converting back to the PST split, and we don't want to see all those costs come back to any of the small business in B.C.

B. Ralston: But given what the Finance Minister said, did you support that at the time, or do you support it now?

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): With respect to your recommendation to support increased marketing of tourism in the area, you mentioned that you were recommending that it be industry-led. Is that correct? Are you promoting the re-establishment of an independent, industry-led tourism marketing organization along the model of the previously disbanded Tourism B.C.?

B. Scales: That would be correct. We believe that it's a very specialized field, and it needs to have those specialists leading it. We don't think it's working as well as it could, and we'd like to go back to the old system.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much. That reaches the end of our allotted time. I'll now have to call our next presenter, but thank you for your presentation.

Drew, welcome to the committee. You have ten minutes to present followed by five minutes of questions, and your time begins now.

D. Cooper: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you this morning. For most of our 17 years of existence, PacificSport has been involved in the high-performance end of the sport and physical activity continuum, and working very closely with our partners at Canadian Sport Centre Pacific, we've been at the forefront of sport in this country. Despite having just 13 percent of the population of Canada, B.C. athletes made up 40 percent of the national team that went to the London Olympics, and B.C. athletes brought home 50 percent of the medals. So we're definitely punching above our weight there, and again, that's in tribute to our relationship with Canadian Sport Centre Pacific.

Because of the success in creating the networks and relationships that we have at that high-performance level,
[ Page 2339 ]
we've been approached by viaSport, which is the province's strategic leader for the advancement of sport and physical activity. We've been asked to deliver on a new mandate, and that's engaging the sectors of health, education, recreation and sport and seeing how we can increase the physical activity rates within the province. In order to do that, we've based our approach on the Canadian Sport for Life, which is the blueprint for sport and physical activity development in Canada.

The basis for this is physical literacy, which is really what I want to talk to you about today. Physical literacy is the foundation, as I said, and Canadian Sport for Life is a movement that seeks to get Canadians more active and therefore making us a healthier society. With just a 10 percent increase in the activity rates of Canadians, we can realize over $150 million annually in health care savings. The savings to B.C. would be between $15 million and $20 million annually. Just think of what we could do if we were to put those kinds of dollars into a preventative strategy to deal with health care issues.

Physical literacy is really those fundamental movement skills — running, jumping, throwing, agility, balance — that allow children and adults to fully participate in physical activities and have a healthy and active lifestyle. Why is this important? Well, introducing physical literacy at optimal times ensures that people have that opportunity, as I mentioned earlier, to fully realize their potential and enjoy physical movement throughout their lifetime.

Kids who are involved in sport and physical activity are less likely to be involved in antisocial behaviour. They're less likely to smoke and abuse alcohol. Women and girls who are physically active are less likely to have unwanted pregnancies and be involved in abusive relationships. Those are just four simple reasons why — some of the benefits of sport.

Schools are our best bet for the delivery of physical literacy, yet most teachers are unable to deliver it. PacificSport delivers fundamental movement skills training and certification that would allow every elementary school teacher in the province to deliver high-quality physical education. The biggest drawback that we have in our system is that the removal of phys ed specialists has severely diminished our ability to get kids physically literate.

Why is this important? Again, 65 percent of our country is overweight or obese. Why is this important? We have a runaway health care system that's chewing up better than 40 percent of our budget at the expense of things like social services and education and other areas that are also trying to move forward with some new initiatives. Why is this important? Well, maybe most critically, recently the World Bank, as a result of some research, determined that the children born in this country in the year 2009 are, for the first time ever, going to have a lower life expectancy than the kids born in previous years. Never before in human history has that ever occurred.

How did we get here? Well, we've got well-intentioned parents who look on phys ed and arts as being less important than getting maths and sciences so that their kids can get into top institutions and get ahead. We've got teaching institutions that devote a scant 18 hours of phys ed training to aspiring student teachers. Combined with that, it definitely delivers the impression that PE is not important. We have a culture of fear where parents are reluctant to let their kids go outside and explore physical activity on their own, without proper supervision.

Probably most critically, we've eliminated the simple activity of letting our kids walk or ride their bikes to school. A simple ten-minute walk to school every day burns up enough calories to the equivalent of about two to four pounds per year for a ten- to 12-year-old child. Extrapolate that over a ten-year period, where kids are walking to school from grade 3 to grade 12, and you can easily see how kids are now packing on an extra 15 to 30 pounds in this generation of child versus 20 or 25 years ago.

What are the opportunities that exist? Well, we've initiated some one-on-one partnerships within those sectors of health, education, recreation and sport. But really, we need to move to that next level where we've got some cross-sectoral engagements happening.

We're starting to crack the student teacher nut. We're working very closely with VIU. They've asked us, and we came in and trained and certified the PE faculty and some of the education faculty there. They have now woven the Canadian Sport for Life and physical literacy issues into their curriculum. We need to engage those other institutions to get their student teaching bodies up to speed on this.

We have an opportunity to identify who our champions are out there and celebrate some of their successes. I had a chance to meet with some folks from Saltspring Island, some teachers there who are doing some really innovative stuff that is leading edge. We're not hearing about it, and we need to get that information out more.

We've got folks in the recreation department at PoCo, in Port Coquitlam, who have woven Canadian Sport for Life into facility access and field access requests. These are folks who are doing some really innovative kinds of things that we can build upon.

Then we can look at what are the best practices out there. Places like Naperville secondary, out of the U.S., are seeing se really good success in terms of a novel PE program that's paying off in a higher academic standing. It's probably the top high school results in the U.S. The kids' obesity rates are the same as a generation ago — half of the national average in the U.S. And best of all, the disciplinary issues aren't in the toilet. There are virtually none.

In conclusion, we're at a tipping point to get some
[ Page 2340 ]
cross-sector engagement to significantly increase physical activity levels in B.C., and your continued support will make B.C. a model not just in Canada but throughout the western world.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll begin our questions with Mable.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation, Drew. I'm interested in terms of talking about the benefits of promoting physical literacy, particularly among girls, and decreasing early pregnancy and decreasing the probability that young women will find themselves in violent relationships. It's the first time I've heard that. Can you talk about that a little bit more, or maybe where some of that data…?

D. Cooper: I'd be happy to send you some links where you can get some more of that information. What sport is starting to get better at doing is compiling some data and statistics. We're doing a way better job now of tracking what our activities are and what the payoff is that we're getting.

So I don't have much more that I can contribute at this time, but Mable, I'd be happy to connect with you and….

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Sure. It's just a very interesting proposition and certainly a different angle in terms of those issues that we've heard for a number of years.

Also, I'm just curious: when were PE teachers…? When was that curriculum changed? Are you specifically recommending a return? I know you mentioned some gradual, graduated work, but do you have a specific recommendation in terms of reinstituting the role of PE teachers?

D. Cooper: I think, recognizing that there are definitely some financial constraints, limitations within the education sector, if we could, in a cost-effective way, reinstall phys ed specialists at the grade school level — because, of course, we still have them in high school — that would go a long way to helping out. But there are other ways of going about that.

A friend of mine is a grade school teacher, and he trades off a number of his other subjects with teachers in exchange for their PE. So he becomes that de facto PE specialist within his school. He'll teach a couple of classes with his regular class, but he does PE for a number of other classes, and that's how they get it done. It doesn't cost anything extra. He's doing what he loves to do, and it's an effective way of doing that. I think that should be celebrated and encouraged within the ministry.

J. Les: Thank you and good morning, Drew. Perhaps more of a comment than a question — certainly very much supportive of your goals and objectives. We need to really focus, I think, on physical fitness. We're seeing the lack of fitness and the results thereof.

One of the comments you made — and I've heard it several times before — was this notion that kids born in 2009 and later will probably face a shorter life expectancy than generations previous. I'd be very careful with that. First of all, I'm not sure that it adds much to the argument. Secondly, it reminds me of the Club of Rome back in the 1960s saying that by 2010 the world would have run out of natural resources. Hasn't happened.

That kind of almost fear-mongering three or four generations in advance doesn't help me at all in terms of credibility. I think that is a leap of imagination that isn't really founded on anything tangible at all.

I just thought I'd throw that comment out there. I think there's a lot of good, factual, basic evidence that supports your argument. That kind of conjecture, 80 and 90 years into the future, doesn't help.

G. Coons: Thank you, Drew. You really highlighted a few of the aspects of what's happening in elementary schools with the lack of specialists. I was trained in phys ed and mathematics and had the opportunity to get elementary phys ed jobs. Now there's no such creation.

I am interested in your fundamental movement skills and the training and certification. You talk about education budgets being frozen and basically reduced, because of inflation, 2 to 3 percent and a huge issue in the classrooms of elementary teachers not being able to give the services. Could you just expand on your fundamental movement skills training and how it's accepted around here?

D. Cooper: Maybe just a bit of a backgrounder. The issue is that — again, going back to the 18 hours of training that an elementary school student teacher gets — it's clearly not sufficient to run a quality program. So it ends up becoming luck of the draw. If you end up getting a sporty person who's already dialled into sport and physical activity, then that teacher and the kids being served by that teacher are going to get a quality experience. But if you've got somebody whose phys ed experience maybe wasn't so positive, they've probably been turned off by physical activity. Therefore, I think that ends up showing up in the classroom.

What we deliver is a very simplified…. We take that part of the competitive nature and all those things that seem to throw a lot of people off. We take that element out of it.
[ Page 2341 ]

We provide some very simple games-based kinds of activities that allow teachers, whether they're sporty or not, to go into a classroom and be comfortable to deliver a sound and fundamental PE experience that allows kids to go on and be physically active for the rest of their lives.

M. Dalton: Thank you very much, Drew, for the presentation, and I agree with the importance in school of encouraging exercise. I know that has been mandated on a daily basis by the government. The elementary schools and high schools — there is flexibility in elementary. You mentioned about having dedicated PE teachers, and I think that's really important, but the teachers do have the flexibility of how they want to use their prep time, those different blocks. I think it's very important for long-term health benefits.

Also, just a comment. You mentioned about the education costs being frozen at 26 percent. That 26 percent — actually, there is a growth. That's the overall economy and the budget, so there is a growth. To expect that to grow 2 to 3 percent and project, it doesn't work, because it would squeeze out other budgets. But there is growth anyway.

I'll now call our next presenter, the Campbell River Hospice Society represented by Iona Wharton and Julie Collis.

D. Horne (Chair): No problem. Whenever you're ready to get started, you have ten minutes.

I. Wharton: Good morning. My name is Iona Wharton, and I am the hospice community coordinator for Campbell River Hospice Society. Along with me today is my colleague Julie Collis, who will be here shortly. I want to thank the committee for allowing us this opportunity to speak today. We got into this time slot just a few a days ago because of a cancellation. I'm going to rely heavily on my notes, so I hope you don't feel like I'm reading to you too much, but I don't want to miss anything.

Our society was formed back in 1986 in Campbell River. We are currently members of the Vancouver Island Federation of Hospices, consisting of the ten hospices on the Island. Today we hope to enlighten you on our belief that the hospice palliative care approach is of utmost importance to every terminal individual and also to share our struggles on Vancouver Island around supporting end-of-life with dignity when there is so little financial support from our health authority for nine out of ten of those hospices.

First of all, I want to use a quote from Dr. Frank Ferris. If you're not familiar with him, he is American, but for our Canadian Hospice Palliative Care Association he authored A Model to Guide Hospice Palliative Care, which you can find on line.

His quote is: "Dying is not a medical event, but it is, however, a human experience." It's something I want you guys to keep in mind while I'm going through some of this. He also touts some interesting facts, such as that B.C. has the lowest death rate in Canada. In 2011 the population in B.C. was 4½ million. In 2036 it's estimated to increase to 6.1 million, and 25 percent of those people will be over 65 years of age.

On Vancouver Island we have, of course, the largest population of seniors, and it continues to grow in B.C. These are stats I'm sure you're all aware of, but a few more interesting stats that we got off the Canadian Cancer Statistics website is that right now in B.C. for every ten people, two will be dependent due to an illness. In 2036 that number is going to double to four in ten.

In 2005, 4,000 patients accessed hospice palliative care in B.C., and 75 percent of them had cancer. In 2011 it was estimated that 35,000 deaths would occur in B.C., all from a variety of causes, estimated that 60 percent would benefit from having hospice palliative care and estimated that 9,300 of those deaths will be from cancer alone, and 80 percent would benefit from hospice palliative care. I say really? Wouldn't they all have benefited if they had been given the opportunity?

Today approximately 25 percent die at home in B.C., and 75 percent die in institutional settings like the hospital or a nursing home.

The hospice palliative care approach uses a team of professionals — the palliative doctors and nurses, LPNs, care aides, clergy, social workers, hospice staff and their trained volunteers — to assist the dying and their families. It has been proven to help them die with dignity and quality of life by benefiting them with assistance so that they can stay out of the hospital for longer or completely and die at home or in an actual hospice house.

It aids in proper nutrition for them. It gives them good pain control so they can function and live better despite their prognosis. It minimizes stress for the patient and
[ Page 2342 ]
the families. They can live longer, despite their illness, and more positively.

In Campbell River we currently service a population area of over 38,000 people, which includes Gold River, Sayward, Tahsis and Zeballos, and yet we have no exclusive or designated palliative beds in our current hospital.

In our newly proposed 95-bed hospital, the hospital has no plans to include any palliative beds. However, they do say that they have a plan to fund 42 end-of-life beds across the Island, which we're very happy to hear, but those beds will be in designated extended care facilities according to VIHA. At this point they're not saying which communities are going to get those beds.

That's been a goal of ours — to somehow fund hospice beds on our own via either a freestanding hospice or through a facility. We had approached VIHA about that last spring. That's when they started to tell us that there would be extra beds coming, but they weren't promising them to us, necessarily.

VIHA has also indicated that, moving forward, they want to partner with all the Island hospices further around end-of-life care. However, they stated that there would be no additional funding to do that. Some of the specific requests by them would be that we grow our services further by providing more day respite care, more caregiver programs, etc., but they're not willing to give us any further money to do that, and we're already on a stretched budget. So we wonder how we would do that, frankly.

Our society has also been approached recently by Mount Waddington area to include them in our service area as well. Their request is for us to provide direction, support and volunteers to the towns of Alert Bay, Port Alice, Port Hardy and Port McNeill.

The Campbell River Hospice Society works diligently to assure the B.C. government, VIHA, our private donors, our stakeholders and our volunteers that the money and the time that they invest in our society is recognized and returned to our communities through the provision of necessary and excellent client services. In 2011 our society spent over $215,000 doing just that. Our volunteers spent over 4,000 hours last year supporting our vision and our clients. This equates out to $67,000 just in our area that was saved. Taxpayers didn't have to pay that.

We, along with other members of the federation, currently only receive 6 percent of our annual budget from VIHA, which equates out to 22 cents per capita, as opposed to the funding that Victoria Hospice receives, which is approximately $3½ million or equates out to $10.43 per capita. This is despite the fact that our nine hospices that are remaining service a population area that exceeds Victoria's.

Our hospice, personally, Campbell River, will be servicing the largest catchment area if we include Mount Waddington. We wonder how we're going to do this when we are already currently running a very tight budget due to underfunding.

As you can see from our pie chart…. You've got notes to follow along. We did make the pie charts and the maps bigger for you on one of the pages so you can see them better.

Campbell River Hospice currently fundraises 50 percent of our own annual budget — all on our own. So 6 percent comes from VIHA and 20 percent comes from grants like United Way and gaming. These grants from year to year are never a sure thing, including VIHA's. Every year it's a contract. It's one-time funding. That's how it comes out. Then another 24 percent of our annual budget comes from members and donations that we receive.

Then it is abundantly obvious how fundraising 50 percent and never knowing from one year to the next if we're going to have an increase to that — because some of the grants don't get realized — can be so stressful for a non-profit like ours. As our economy shifts, it becomes harder for us to raise money locally, so we need to turn back to our local health authority and to the B.C. government and ask them to further partner with us by providing significant long-term funding so that we can continue the work we are presently doing in support of VIHA's patients and their mandate, as well as grow the services like they've requested.

We appreciate that in last year's families-first agenda you stated that palliative care was of importance to you, so today we ask you to:

(1) Invest further in the importance of end-of-life care in B.C. It should be as integral and important a part of our health care as maternity, for instance, and public and political awareness around that is key. We understand that.

(2) Ensure that the health authorities continue to appropriately train their health care providers in end-of-life care so that they can better serve them.

(3) Review health authorities' funding to ensure equality of care across the regions with respect to end-of-life care, taking into consideration geography and statistics.

I'll close now so that we'll have time for questions. Again, thank you for allowing us the time to share our concerns and our needs with your committee.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll start our questions with Gary.

G. Coons: Thank you so much, Iona and Julie, for your presentation and for the work that you do. We've heard many presentations from hospice societies. Earlier we had one from the Comox Valley Hospice Society — nearly first thing this morning. I find it amazing the amount of volunteer hours that each society has with them and the amount of compassion that is put forward to the people in many of the communities in our province.

I am a bit interested in the disparity here with the
[ Page 2343 ]
Vancouver Island Health Authority, how they're distributing some of the money and finances. I'm wondering your thoughts on that. Can you expand on that and why you think that's happening?

Again, from other hospice societies we heard that there's a real disconnect or inequality, not only in this health authority, let's just say, but in all health authorities in the province. There has to be some sort of planning and program and equity there. So maybe just comment on the two, on all health authorities and just specifically this one and the disparity.

I think that Fraser Health and Interior Health seem to do this better than VIHA, for some reason. I'm not sure why that is. They seem to have more of a value on end-of-life care than ours does. That's one thing I personally feel and I notice. As to why that is, I don't know. Considering we do have the amount of seniors we have on Vancouver Island, you'd think that would be more and more important.

As to why VIHA gives Victoria Hospice the amount they give — I think that was your question — that again I couldn't speculate on other than…. When we've talked to VIHA before about hospices, their phrase is always: "Well, they can go to Victoria." People don't want to go to Victoria. When they live in Campbell River or Comox or Nanaimo or Gold River or Port Hardy, they're not going to go to Victoria to pass away. It's just not going to happen.

I. Wharton: Exactly. That seems to be what we hear when…. "That's the hospice for the Island, and everybody should have access to it." Yet they also have rules, guidelines that they have to go by, too, and they can only allow certain people in. You know, they're stuck too.

J. Collis: The criteria are higher, and they won't allow the northern residents to be in there a lot of times.

I. Wharton: Yeah. So I couldn't really speculate on that — just that it does seem unfair to assume that….

J. Collis: We also only receive $5,700 a year, and then they will top it up if there's extra money. This year they gave us an extra $5,000. So normally it's about 3 percent of our budget.

My question is very much in the same line. I heard you making your presentation and alluding to VIHA's plans of 42 additional — I'm not even sure if it was additional — palliative care beds across the Island and the just horrific disparity in funding between what you're getting and what Victoria is getting. Sort of an alarm went off in my head. I suspect that a lot of those beds are going to end up, perhaps, on the south Island.

I think the principle that needs to be kept in mind here, and I'll give you an opportunity to maybe underline this even more than you already have, is that hospice is about having the ability to die with dignity as close to home as possible. You've already said it. If you're in Campbell River, being offered a hospice bed in Victoria doesn't work. People need to get it. They need to understand that. The importance of close to home — could you maybe just elaborate on that a little bit?

I. Wharton: I can't speak to the other communities, but our community is not a well-off community. We've been a mill town, a mining town. Jobs are being lost all the time. Things are closing.

These are people that, if they run into health issues like that, can't afford to travel, first of all. They can't afford to put their families in long-term-care facilities and pay for them privately. They just can't. We need to work with what they can do, and that is trying to somehow make it possible for them to either stay in their home or in the community as close as they can so that they don't have those extra worries of financial burden on top of what they're already going through.

J. Collis: On the map that we provided you, you can see how large our territory is. We're 2½ hours north of Victoria. The people in Port Hardy are going to be six hours. They're going to be coming to us and not wanting to go all the way down-Island.

I. Wharton: They might not even want to come to us, you know. Again, that's travelling for them.

B. Ralston: I did have the same question about the disparity between the allocation for Victoria, and I think you've dealt with that question very thoroughly, so thank you for that answer.

M. Dalton: Do you have RNs and doctors that also visit the hospice and assist in any way?

I. Wharton: Right now we don't. This is what VIHA
[ Page 2344 ]
is hoping we'll do — grow a day program. In our current location we cannot do that. We would still need to do similar to what Nanaimo is doing. Nanaimo has ten hospice palliative care beds in the hospital, so they don't have to worry about beds.

What they're doing is fundraising right now for a home that is still going to be a home, but nobody will be there overnight. It's just so that they can grow their day programs and their respite programs, which is what VIHA is hoping we'll all be able to do. Well, in Campbell River we're in an office building. We need to do something like that as well, then. We'd need to expand our area. At current status quo, it's not going to work.

J. Collis: With the amount we're fundraising for, and what we receive, we're just able to keep our doors open, and that's it.

D. Horne (Chair): Last question for you. Do you work together with the Comox Valley Hospice Society and other hospice societies that are in the same situation that you are in, compared to what's happening in Victoria?

I. Wharton: Yes. All ten of us are in the Vancouver Island Federation of Hospices, but it seems that Victoria doesn't have as strong a presence, because the nine of us really need to band together. We do try to support each other that way with advocacy and anything around events like this. We were all talking about this and who could come and present. As many as possible is a good thing.

We do try to support each other that way. We do cross-referrals. We do have good working relationships with them.

D. Horne (Chair): I'll call our next presenter, being the Island Coastal Economic Trust, represented by Dallas Smith, Rob Hutchins and Line Robert.

Welcome to the committee. You have ten minutes to present, followed by five minutes for questions. Your time begins now.

L. Robert: Thank you very much for allowing us to present here today. We're very pleased to be here. Welcome to the Comox Valley. I hope you enjoy your time here.

Before we begin, we want to take the time to acknowledge and thank the government for the creation of the Island Coastal Economic Trust model. We feel it's a really interesting, innovative governance concept. It has enabled our communities to take a really active role in the shaping of our own collective regional future and given them the ability to realize their own economic development priority. Aside from the fact that we're very grateful for the funding, the model in itself has been a very, very useful tool for our communities.

Secondly, we are here today to encourage the government, in its budget deliberations, to consider a place at the table for regional economic development and rural economic development, especially in the current economic context.

We understand the financial pressures that government is facing right now, but we feel that there's not a more important time to be investing in our regions than now, to ensure that we can help fuel the economic recovery that we need and to ensure that there's a positive investment environment and all of the required infrastructure when the economy does recover.

To date we've committed more than $48 million to economic development initiatives in our region. That has resulted in leveraging of over a quarter of a billion dollars from federal, private and other funding sources. For most of those projects, we've been the tipping point. The projects would not have happened without us.

In the past year 87 percent of our funding has gone to the most challenged communities in our region. That's very important because the small communities on the Island have been very hard hit by the economic recession. We're still facing job losses. Up to date we've lost 15,000 jobs in the last year, so we are in a position where we still need to do a lot of work.

What we're going to be doing is…. We're working now with provincial staff, and we would like to come to government and make a very modest ask — we understand that there are no large pots of funding available right now — to allow us to bridge into the next planning cycle and allow us to keep up our momentum in the region at this most critical time.

As you know, the Island Coastal Economic Trust was developed by the province in 2006 by legislation. At the same time, two other trusts were created with essentially the same type of legislation. The Southern Interior Trust got $50 million, as did we, and the Northern Development Trust got $185 million at the time.

Our trust is governed by two regional advisory committees that include 65 elected government leaders and MLAs. Each of these committees elects four board members, and the province appoints another five board members. Our organization's staffing is very lean. We have three full-time staff, and we use consultants to fill specific needs.

What we do. We view our role in the big picture of provincial economic development as supporting and
[ Page 2345 ]
complementing government economic development policy. So we support the jobs plan, but we also are able to fill in the areas where the jobs plan doesn't reach — the smaller communities that may not be able to take advantage of those larger outside investment opportunities.

We're there on the ground, making sure that they're taken care of. We support their priorities and ensure that they're able to invest in their priorities and not just chase dollars based on available grant programs.

We also enable the implementation of a wide variety of approaches to economic development, and we foster regional collaboration, vision and cohesion.

The way we do this. Our core business is a grant program. It was decided at inception that our core investment strategy would be to invest the $50 million on the ground as soon as possible to ensure that there were foundational economic diversification pieces in place that would be creating jobs, generating economic benefits, generating community benefits and government taxation income. This would fuel the economy and also create the basic infrastructure that we need to keep moving forward with economic development on our island.

That's what our region determined were our priorities. We were missing too many of the major pieces to attract significant investment, and that's where we needed to go.

One of the highlights of our program is a unique and innovative approach to matching funding. We require matching funding, but we've developed, with the help of an economist, a matching-funding ratio which enables communities that are facing greater economic challenges to access a larger percentage of funding from us.

The more resource-dependent and remote communities can access one-to-one funding. That is, one dollar from ICET for every dollar they bring to the table. The medium communities that are doing fairly well and that are less resource dependent must bring $2 to the table for every dollar. That's a maximum, of course. They can bring more, and we highly encourage it.

Then the communities that are thriving and doing well must bring $3 to the table for every dollar that we invest in their projects.

We're able, as I mentioned earlier, to serve communities of all sizes. In larger communities we've provided support for some of the very large infrastructure projects that the Premier mentioned in her speech yesterday in Nanaimo — the Nanaimo Airport expansion.

We've also done some key strategic transportation infrastructure pieces at the Campbell River Airport. We've also invested heavily in one of our strengths here on the Island, which is the marine sector.

We've invested a great deal of money in harbour improvements up and down the Island, and these include some that are focused on tourism attraction, such as Ladysmith, Comox, Powell River. Others are primarily focused on supporting the shellfish and finfish aquaculture industry to increase their capacity. Those are Fanny Bay, Deep Bay, Heriot Bay. Some of the harbours we've supported are focused on both of those goals — Port McNeill, Port Hardy, Coal Harbour, Port Alberni.

We've also worked with some of the mid-sized and smaller communities to develop tourism infrastructure — and other projects too, but right now here I'll focus on some of the tourism infrastructure.

What we've been able to do is to help these communities leverage the capacity that already exists in their communities — the human capacity and the assets that they have. For example, a lot of the really nice tourism infrastructure projects that we've done have been initiated by organizations whose primary goal is not economic development. Their primary goal has been nature conservation and things of that nature.

We've been able to coach them and help them understand that they can also be economic generators for their community and to build their projects in such a way that they're generating investment in the community and they're supporting the community's economic goals.

Some examples of that are the North Coast Trail, the Wild Pacific Trail, Ucluelet Aquarium, the Port Hardy stewardship centre, the Cowichan Nature Centre. These were all organizations previously focused on conservation and nature. Some of these projects are already — or are on their way to becoming — international attractions.

In remote communities we encourage leveraging opportunities that complement community capacity, because that's a very big issue in these remote communities. For example, we've supported the development of tourism infrastructure at Bute Inlet, which has enabled the Homalco people to put together a bear-watching program that also promotes their culture.

What it does is it gives the region a tourism infrastructure piece that can benefit the wilderness lodges in the immediate area, can benefit the coastal communities with tourism products for their market and also provides jobs to First Nations, not to mention a world-class visitor experience.

I will give you a few quick measures, key performance measures: $48 million; 90 projects; 45 communities; 4.4 dollars leveraged from federal private local sources; 2,300 new jobs, which is 4.9 permanent jobs for $100,000 of ICET investment.

I'll ask my colleagues here to give you a little bit of insight into the non-financial impacts of the trust.

My name is Rob Hutchins. I'm mayor of the town of Ladysmith for 19 years. I've been a champion of local and regional economic development, and the initiatives that we've done in the town of Ladysmith and the Cowichan Valley regional district actually pale in comparison to this initiative that was undertaken by the province in 2006.
[ Page 2346 ]

I cannot overstate the value of this initiative. You created a wonderful foundation for our communities. You created opportunity for a collegial approach for eight mayors and five provincial appointees to work on not interregional competition but a greater regional look at developing our communities. It is truly a model that is second to none. It is absolutely exceptional. It has been a privilege to serve on that board for the last six years and build the communities north of the Malahat and on the Sunshine Coast. We have created a wonderful legacy.

I would suggest the only mistake made by the province in creating this foundation is not coming up with a sustainability plan, because we need to continue. There is no other model coming forward. We do have an exemplary model that was created in 2006, and I strongly urge you to allow us to continue our good work.

D. Smith: Sure. Thank you very much. I think the direction that the Island Coastal Economic Trust is heading in is a great direction for the whole island. I'm one of the First Nations representatives on the board. It has helped First Nations and local government really start to get their act together on what's needed for the region as opposed to what's needed for a particular reserve, a particular community. We've started to take a regional approach that includes provincial, local and First Nations governments.

One of our interests is trying to find a way to get the feds involved in how we can start to make this process more robust and to bring some of their chequebook, at least, to the table. Maybe not some of their bureaucracy, but some of their chequebook.

That is an interest in Ottawa — what we can do to help diversify First Nations economies. We want to work with the local municipalities and get the best bang that we can for our buck because we've found that a healthy region is a healthy economy for both the First Nations and the non–First Nations communities in it. This is something that has really caught on fire. It's a Vancouver Island–made solution to Vancouver Island problems. I think that's the best thing I can say about it.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll start our questions with John Slater.

J. Slater: Thanks, guys. I was a RAC member in the SIDIT board for three years after it got initiated. Now that I'm doing this, obviously I'm not mayor anymore.

You talk about sustainability. The Northern Development Trust, the Southern Interior Development Trust — we are sustainable. You know why? We have exactly how much money we started with in 2006 today because we invested the money. Some of the businesses we charge interest; then they pay it back. Our administration costs…. I mean, you guys have got three in administration, which eats up a fair amount. It's not sustainable, because you're going to be back to government in two, three, four years saying: "We need more money."

We only got $50 million, as well, on the SIDIT. But like I say, we have that back, and we help a lot of organizations. How does your RAC deal with something like that?

L. Robert: At inception, our region considered all the options and what was determined was needed for this region. We don't dispute that SIDIT is doing the right thing for the SIDIT region and Northern Trust is doing the right thing for the northern region. Northern Trust, in all fairness, has $185 million, and we would have a different structure if we'd had $185 million. There would no doubt be a sustainability component to it. That's a given.

But what was determined in our region was that…. SIDIT region has a high-tech cluster and a lot of businesses that are needing high-risk investment, and that wasn't being met by the organisms in the area. In our region we've done that analysis, and the businesses in our region, their needs are being met by the existing organizations. We don't have that same need.

On the contrary, we have needs for basic infrastructure, like reliable transportation, and bringing infrastructure that will support those foundation pieces for the economy. That needed to be done, and that was where we were at.

Maybe in ten years we will be where SIDIT is and needing that high-tech support for investment. That's what we see as part of our future as we evolve. But we were at a different place than the Okanagan and the SIDIT region. That's why, I would say, our priorities are different here.

We feel that for our region to have tried to put in a sustainable model with $50 million, we wouldn't have had an impact on the economy. We wouldn't have had the impact that we've had. It was very important.

We feel that the interest is happening. It's on the ground. It's in the communities. It's in the community coffers, and it's also in provincial government coffers. We are generating tax revenue with the investments that we've made.

We've put $48 million on the ground. It will, when all the projects are fully operational, generate 2,300 permanent jobs. These are not the construction jobs. These are permanent jobs — 2,300 jobs. That's where we feel our impact needed to be made.

At this point we're in the situation where this has been successful beyond our wildest dreams. We feel that we can't throw it away.

D. Horne (Chair): Sorry, we're already over time, but I wanted to allow Mable to ask a quick question here.
[ Page 2347 ]

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Hi. Thanks for your presentation — very impressive in terms of the scope of the projects that you've been successful in. Also, I think really a tribute to the regional model — a good model of working together at all levels and encouraging regional initiatives. Interesting, as well, in terms of your funding model with respect to recognizing the challenges of more rural communities, the more challenged communities — mid-size and in larger communities. That's interesting.

My question is: do you have a specific request in terms of budget going forward and in terms of a time frame?

L. Robert: We're working right now with provincial staff to bring that to the Finance Committee. We're working with our board, and we're developing something. We understand the fiscal restraints, and we're looking at a very modest bridging solution for a shorter period of time for right now. But we don't really have the exact number nailed down. We're still working on developing something that works for everyone.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation today. Unfortunately, we're at the end of our allotted time, and I must call our next presenter.

Our next presenter is the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of British Columbia, represented by John Leech, who I know everyone on the committee knows well.

John, welcome to the committee. You have ten minutes to present, followed by five minutes of questions. Your time begins now.

J. Leech: Thanks very much for the opportunity to be here today. Just as you're seeking advice from various groups within the community as you look at budgeting, likewise I sought a little advice. So I went to the fount of all wisdom, Dr. Seuss. I thought you might be interested in hearing a little bit of what Dr. Seuss had to say. He said:

And you are the guy" — or should I say person — "who'll decide where to go."

Helpful for today, also, was toward the end of the book on Oh, The Places You'll Go! Dr. Seuss says:

ASTTBC, as you well know, is a technology association of some 10,000 technologists, technicians and technical specialists in British Columbia. As a self-governing professional body, our job is to make sure that we have competent, qualified, registered and accountable technologists and technicians in B.C.

You'll be pleased to know that I'm not here to ask you for any money. But we are here to advocate on behalf of science and technology in the province of British Columbia.

ASTT, as you know, is one of the lead organizations in advancing a consistent and pressing message that technology education and the technology professionals who build careers throughout B.C. in engineering and applied science technologies are essential to economic development and prosperity and the sustainability of B.C.'s infrastructure and our environment.

Our technology professionals, either as part of a team or independently, design-construct, inspect, test, maintain and manage most of the world around us, including buildings, computers, electrical power, all manner of equipment, roads, the environment, water and wastewater systems. They are innovators and entrepreneurs. They create new tools, widgets and gadgets every day all over British Columbia.

Technology professionals work in private enterprise for consulting, engineering and technology companies and on all levels of government, and as private consultants.

They make sure our streets are safe with traffic signals that are in sync — at least we hope; our homes and our office buildings are properly designed, constructed and maintained; our water comes out of the tap fit to drink; our resources are extracted and transported in an environmentally responsible manner; septic systems operate and do not pollute our environment; fire protection systems work when there's a need of emergency; health care equipment at our hospitals support patients and other practitioners. They are highly qualified practitioners and are held accountable for the work they do.

ASTT salutes trades training as being important, as is a university education, notably where it leads to an occupation. Likewise, the middle ground of diplomas of technology or technicians' certificates produces job-ready graduates who enter rewarding, well-paid and recession-proof careers. Technologists and technicians in engineering and applied science enter the world of work from BCIT, Camosun College and a number of other institutions, including North Island College. They have an industrial automation technician program. I don't think I need to tell this committee the importance of technology skills in education.

Let me give you a couple of stats. Globally, ManpowerGroup, in its 2012 Talent Shortage Survey re-
[ Page 2348 ]
sults, found the top five occupations most difficult to fill are (1) skilled trades; (2) engineers; (3) sales representatives, many of whom are technical; (4) technicians, including technologists; and (5) IT staff, many of whom are technologists and technicians.

In the Americas the priorities were similar: (1) engineers, (2) technicians — being the top two. In Canada engineers and technicians and technologists ranked (2) and (5) respectively. The B.C. Technology Industry Association in the report they produced this year noted that the job title of the single most important position that companies are trying fill was a specialty technician or technologist.

ASTT knows of this demonstrable need but is concerned that B.C. has not adequately articulated a strategic focus and operational connectivity between education and the world of work in the science and technology fields.

Just to give you a reminder in terms of some of the very modest activities in which ASTT is involved. As I said earlier, we're not here to ask for funding for ASTT. In fact, we, in turn, are providing funding for other agencies. For example, in Kamloops the BIG Little Science Centre is doing a marvellous job of exciting youth about science and technology. Over four years ASTT donated $25,000, and next week I'll be in Kamloops indicating that we'll put another $10K over four years to the BIG Little Science Centre.

Our foundation has contributed over $600,000 over the last 15 years in bursaries and scholarships, etc., in support of technology education and careers. We created a long-term capital fund — modest by comparison to many of the funds — at $500,000, which is invested for the future.

We launched the First Nations Careers Council to support technology education and careers with First Nations communities across the province of British Columbia. Likewise, we're concerned that only 10 percent of our members are women, internationally trained professionals.

On November 3, if by chance you're able to make it to our awards gala, we will launch and highlight our second music video. Whereas last year we focused on technologists and technicians, this year we're focusing generally on science.

Whether you become a tradesperson, an engineer, a scientist, technician or technologist, we need to make sure that in the K-to-12 system we're focusing kids on math, science and technology.

We applaud the B.C. jobs plans as a vehicle to focus attention, decision-making, resources and funding in support of developing and sustaining the B.C. economy — not something that's new to you.

ASTT congratulates government on the work to capture labour market information and provide various other tools designed to help employers, industry, trade and professional associations and workers better understand employment conditions and opportunities.

ASTT was enthused about the Year of Science, led by Moira Stilwell, as a future-focused initiative that helped spark an interest in science in the minds of British Columbians all over this province. We were disappointed, however, that the innovative outreach approach came to a thud, a dead end, with nothing to take its place. We want to talk about that this morning.

ASTT marvels at the vigorous commitment made over the past decade by the provincial government to promote trades training. The recently announced $6 million campaign to encourage British Columbians to consider a career in the trades is needed. We congratulate you.

A similar effort, though, and funding is urgently required to enhance awareness of technology education and careers. We are concerned that there's not presently an apparent and universally accepted strategic focus for science awareness and technology education. We also observe less than ideal operational connectivity between technology education providers. We cite a lack of science and technology culture and strategies.

Interest levels in STEM — science, technology, engineering and math — in the K-to-12 student body is inadequate, and the trend line appears be in decline in many areas of the province. The K-to-12 system does not include technology education offerings — or, at best, very limited programming in this area. There is not a cohesive, collaborative approach to the delivery of tech ed and training and — returning to it — no apparent strategic strategy.

We need to connect the dots between the industry needs, the labour market information and the world of education. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives, in their report, Competing in the 21st Century Skills Race, posed these two questions. "What are the skills that will enable Canada to compete successfully in the 21st century, and what institutional arrangements will ensure that Canadians are equipped with those skills?"

They second went on to ask the question: "How will we meet the need for scientists, engineers, technologists and skilled tradespeople when our post-secondary system is largely driven by student choice and when insufficient numbers of students seem inclined to pursue such careers?"

They went on and talked a little bit more about the disconnect between Canadians' positive perceptions about the importance of science but, on the other hand, young people's desire to pursue a science-related career.

Number 1, build a science and technology culture in British Columbia. Formulate and support with funding — and this is where we do ask for some funding — an ongoing program such as the Year of Science that embraces
[ Page 2349 ]
every corner of British Columbia and engages all British Columbians and focuses on the significance of everyday science in our lives.

Second, designate and fund Science World as the lead organization advancing science and technology awareness and careers — again, not something new. We've been talking about this for a few years. We think it's time to step up to the plate and make sure that Science World has all that it needs to take this leadership position.

Third, create and fund a science and technology futures fund. We're proposing that government allocate $50 million to the fund and advise other stakeholders to partner in this initiative.

Four, fund technology education programs that focus on and specifically target labour market needs.

Number 5, approve and provide target or incentive funding as a matter of high priority for new engineering technologist and technician programs at colleges in the north and central province. For example, the College of New Caledonia has a proposal for civil engineering technology program. We know by experience that the programs at the University of Northern British Columbia in the north, for the north — whether it's in Fort St. John, out in the west with Mr. Coons…. If we can educate people in the north, they'll stay in the north. And there is a demonstrable need, as we well know, for qualified people in the north.

Number 6, approve and provide startup and operational funding for a technology education program in K-to-12, similar to the ACE IT program. We were pleased to hear Minister Terry Lake announce the government was going to proceed with the construction of the trades and technology high school in Kamloops, which is a step forward in advance of the Bert Edwards Science and Technology elementary school in Kamloops.

ASTT was a strong supporter of both of those initiatives, and we've had discussions now with BCIT and other school districts, Vancouver school board in particular, about launching technology education programming in the K-to-12 system.

D. Horne (Chair): John, you're actually over your ten minutes, but I'll let you finish up. But go quick on the last three.

Expand the B.C. training tax credit for employers for technology professionals to be eligible for tax credits for training. Number 8 — and this is a suggestion: repay student loans up to $5,000 for students who successfully complete an accredited engineering education program. Number 9: support further funding for aboriginal students pursuing technology education and careers. Number 10: appoint an industry-led group to guide science technology and engineering and math strategies and programming.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll start our questions with our Deputy Chair, Mable.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Hi, John. Thanks for your presentation. Well, you got our attention with the story from Dr. Seuss, I think, and communicated your message about the importance of technology professionals in our society, our economy and the larger role that they will play in a knowledge-based economy.

In terms of your recommendation No. 7, to expand the B.C. training tax credit program for employers for technology professionals, is that…? Do technologists who come out once they complete their training have an apprenticeship-type relationship with employers? Or is it basically for the transition of the training into the job?

J. Leech: No, they don't. Again, we applaud all initiatives to support trades training in the province of British Columbia. It's desperately needed. We get lost in the crowd. As each one of you knows, we've talked about this over the years — the middle ground of technicians and technologists.

I watched the debate last night. I'm reminded that the President of the United States, as well as nationally here in Canada, was talking about the middle ground, colleges and the role of graduates with a technology diploma.

We're working on arrangements with the professional engineers to draw greater attention to the role of technologists and technicians. In the absence of technologists and technicians, contracts, construction, mines and resources will come to a stop. We've got employers who are turning down work in northern British Columbia — in Fort St. John specifically, Pat — because they don't have available technicians in construction inspection. They're turning the work away.

I know this is a universal problem. We know there are a lot of asks, but if we don't have the wealth creators in our society — whether it's out in Rupert, Terrace or Kitimat — right across this province, we are not going to have the wealth that's needed in order to pay for the social services, education, etc. We need an investment.

The College of New Caledonia, to mention one, working in collaboration with Northern Lights and Northwest Community College, is looking for a civil technology program. It's been approved. They need the funding. Likewise, Okanagan College. We've talked to Selkirk College, North Island College — right across this province. I'm a BCIT grad. I support the institute and all the good work it does, but we have to have workers up in the northwest of this province and across the north and central.
[ Page 2350 ]

We need to invest in science and technology culture, No. 1. You've heard a lot from me around the Year of Science. We applauded the minister, and we applauded Moira Stilwell's work on this. Everybody got behind it. When it came to a stop, we were lamenting the fact that we were not able to continue to promote science and technology.

D. Horne (Chair): We're over our allotted time, but a really quick question from Marc.

M. Dalton: Your recommendation No. 8. I'm just wondering why you chose the engineering technology education program specifically for a rebate — repaying their loan up to $5,000. Do you think it really will make a difference to attract people to the field?

J. Leech: I think that we need to do as much as we can in order to draw attention to these careers. You know, I hear Minister Lake…. I'm going to pick on Terry for a moment. I sent him a note about this. He talked about trades in the announcement of the trades and technology high school. He sent me an e-mail back. He says, in my request to him, to include technology. It's not okay for elected leaders just to talk about trades. Bruce was in our office recently talking about this very topic.

We need to encourage this middle ground. We need more technologists and technicians across the province of British Columbia. So anything — everything — you can do in support of that is going to be a much-needed addition.

If I could add one other thing — and I know I'm treading terribly into somebody else's time, so they'll beat me up, I'm sure. I want to go back to the top level — science and technology culture in British Columbia. We're not asking this for ASTTBC.

I sat in a meeting all day with senior leaders at Science World, and we recognized collectively that we've got to come together as a group, as a province, and create a science and technology culture. If we don't, we're not going to have the scientists, engineers, highly qualified trades people and, yes, technicians and technologists.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll have to move on to our next presenter, but thanks for being with us today.

D. Horne (Chair): Our next presenter is a group of three groups — the Canadian Media Production Association, B.C. producers branch; the Magazine Association of British Columbia; and the Association of Book Publishers of British Columbia. I guess this is three for the price of one. Thank you all for being with us today.

You do have ten minutes followed by five minutes of questions. Given there are three of you, I'm not sure how you're going to break up the speaking time, but I will give you a warning when you have about a minute left. Go ahead.

M. Reynolds: Even though I'm a representative of the writing and publishing industry, I'm not going to begin my comments with a quote from Dr. Seuss, although I'm a big admirer.

Good morning, and thank you for allowing us to present to the standing committee. My constituency, as I said, is the writing and publishing community, so it's a pleasure to be on Vancouver Island, the home to so many internationally renowned writers and book publishers and magazine publishers from Victoria, Sidney, Duncan, Lantzville, Union Bay and, of course, Courtenay.

My name is Margaret Reynolds. I'm the executive director of the Association of Book Publishers of B.C. Joining me are two members of our coalition, Creative B.C. — Liz Shorten over there, who is the managing vice-president of Canadian Media Production Association, and Sylvia Skene from the Association of Magazine Publishers. Unfortunately, Bob D'Eith from Music B.C. could not be with us today, but he has written a submission to the standing committee, so I would put your attention to that.

We have a set of slides before you. We are going to follow them, but we're not going to reference them all the way through. On slide 2 you'll see that the collaboration we have here, which we're calling Creative B.C., is the first time the creative industries in British Columbia have come together with a common goal. The impetus is the digital environment in which we now find ourselves and which has led to synergies among the members of our organization. We're going to speak a little bit more about that later.

Collectively, we represent the creative industries operating in B.C. The creative industries we define on slide 2 as "those industries which have their origin in individual creativity, skill and talent and which have the potential for wealth and job creation through the generation and exploitation of intellectual property." It's a long sentence, but it's a very succinct and good description of what we do.

By creative industries we mean businesses that produce everything you read, the music you listen to, what you watch on TV and in the movie theatre and all manner of content that you see on your computers, your smart phones, your tablets and the video games that you play.

On slides 3 and 4 before you you'll find the stats and charts that demonstrate the economic impact of our sector. Collectively, we're a $4 billion industry in B.C. representing tens of thousands of talented people. And we are a growth industry.

Together, the creative industries are the fastest-growing
[ Page 2351 ]
sector in our provincial economy, exceeding most other industries. We represent a full 4 percent of the provincial workforce. Collectively, we provide more jobs than fishing, hunting and forestry combined. We are green. We are energetic. We are a 21st-century resource that will assist in diversifying B.C.'s economy, and we are ready to work with the government in a more strategic way.

L. Shorten: As you travel through the province, you'll undoubtedly see film and television crews on location. Superman and Twilight shot on Vancouver Island last summer, and CBC's Rick Mercer and Ron James also had shows here in the Comox Valley recently.

Music studios in Vancouver and other cities around the province record the works of some of the biggest musical names from British Columbia and from around the world, from veterans like Sarah McLachlan and Tom Cochrane to newcomers Carly Rae Jepsen and Dan Mangan to the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra and international acts like AC/DC and Van Halen.

B.C. is also home to some of the best periodicals in the country, many of which are read well beyond our borders. B.C.'s book publishers produce award-winning titles in all genres from our creative literary talent. These books engage and inform readers here at home and around the world and are available in print and digital formats.

Every sector is taking on the challenges presented by new technologies. We're not talking about the death of the book or the film or the magazine or the CD. We're actually talking about redefining what a book or a film is, and we're looking at new markets, new global markets, and at ways to work together as content providers. We've worked hard to earn the reputation that attracts great talent and investment in our industries, and we're embracing those new technologies and continuing to work to represent our stories both to British Columbians and to the world.

As you can see in slide 6 on page 6, we believe the time has now come, though, to see the creative sector as a whole, to break down the silos and develop a cross-sectoral strategy to capitalize on the common interests and business practices across the creative industries.

PwC, in their Outlook 2020, report says it well: "The creative sector represents an ecosystem in which storytellers feed filmmakers who inspire musicians who create events that find their way into writers' imaginations. And so the circle goes on." The report states: "To take full advantage of the creative sector, B.C. needs a framework of understanding, a strategy and a plan with a set of achievable goals and objectives that builds on the established strengths and ambitions of the province and its citizens."

We now find ourselves at a crossroads. Other jurisdictions in this country and around the world are ramping up to compete. They're making it easier to attract talent and investment dollars away from places like British Columbia, and we don't want this to happen. In our report that we've provided you today, we have some key recommendations to make sure we maintain and grow these industries.

S. Skene: These recommendations and this strategy begin with the establishment of an interministerial working group consisting of government and business representatives that will develop policies. We recommend the creation of a new economic development agency, Creative B.C., that would deliver programs that are developed out of these policies and will engage the industry in their implementation.

The entity we envision will act in a similar but not the same manner as the Ontario Media Development Corporation. It is a simple model that has worked in other jurisdictions around the world — you can read some of them in the report you have in front of you — and which we trust will work to take advantage of the opportunities available here in B.C.

We don't want to lose the momentum we currently have and the opportunities presented by the synergies between our industries. We need to begin work now to collectively grow our industries, create jobs and maximize the enormous potential in our province. As the title of our report suggests, the time is right to develop a comprehensive policy for the creative sector that will move our industries from the margins to the mainstream.

We need to build on our existing relationships with government that have led to the development of successful policies such as the book publishing tax credit and B.C. film and television tax credits. These kinds of measures are important, but we also believe that now is the time to develop a unique, made-in-B.C. solution that will create an overall environment that encourages business development and sustainability.

Our coalition of music, magazine, digital media, film and books has developed a three-year strategy that will build on our successes. In partnership with the provincial government, the creative sector will work to construct a business environment favourable to research and development and the expansion of entrepreneurial skills and local talent, and will encourage opportunities for innovation and the development of commercially viable, creative products.

Working together with the provincial government, we will maximize the cross-sectoral opportunities presented by the digital environment in which we're all immersed and retain the enormous talent and business acumen in our provincial sector.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll begin our questions with Bruce.

B. Ralston: Good to see you again. I want to congratu-
[ Page 2352 ]
late you for drawing all aspects of the industry together in this way and putting forward this thorough proposal.

I did want to just ask you a few questions about the section on financing. You say that "Creative B.C. could, where appropriate, be a central administrative agency for creative industry tax credits. This will allow for a more efficient administration of tax credits across all sectors." Obviously, the issue of tax credits can be very crucial and does enter the public debate from time to time, sometimes on a very urgent basis.

L. Shorten: Currently the book-publishing tax credit and the film and television tax credits — and there's also an interactive credit — are all administered in three different ways. What we're recommending is a harmonization under one agency so there would be some synergies in terms of administration and also the opportunity to be more proactive as technologies change in each of these sectors. Because they're all in one agency, those changes can be addressed quite rapidly. Right now the various administrative bodies don't talk to one another as they administer these different tax credits.

M. Reynolds: Could I just add to that? There are no tax credits in the music and magazine industries. Having one central body, we could all learn from administration issues and other issues that would benefit those sectors as well.

B. Ralston: Just if I might…. I believe you mentioned Ontario, and there's a model that's somewhat like what you're proposing there. Have there been any specific benefits that have flowed from the Ontario model in this particular area of financing?

M. Reynolds: I'll speak to my sector, because the OMDC has been enormously successful in encouraging book publishing. You can look at the book publishing industry there, which has grown hugely and is much more stable than the industry here. We're not on the edge, by any stretch. We're innovating, and we're creating and producing wonderful books. But we are constantly in competition with the Ontario publishers who have much more beneficial support mechanisms in terms of economic development and also in terms of marketing and export development.

It's a continual challenge for us to rise up and compete not just for business opportunities but for authors and for the people that we would like to keep in this province — our talent here. They're much more encouraged to go to Ontario when they can see that their publishers can do a better job for them there.

M. Dalton: Thank you very much for coming and sharing about this really important sector or sectors in British Columbia. I just wanted to know if you could share some more thoughts on Creative B.C., how you see the funding for something like this. Do you have any ideas as far as a budget, numbers and how they would go about with the whole…? We call it a ministry. What ministry do you see this under?

L. Shorten: We see it as an economic development agency, so I guess currently it would be under Jobs, Tourism and Innovation. Unfortunately, right now this is an example of the silos that currently exist. The responsibility for digital media rests within JTI, whereas the rest of the creative sector is under the Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development.

We're already not benefiting from being under one ministry. One of the things we want to do is engage in a dialogue to see what is the best mechanism. The OMDC, for example, is a Crown corporation in Ontario. There are other international agencies, Creative England and Creative Scotland, which have different models.

We would recommend that it be at arm's length from government and be closely aligned with consultation with industry. We see it as an economic development arm, certainly, with some of its focus being export development, business development and, as we say, the administration of some of the financing tools.

M. Elmore (Deputy Chair): Thanks for your presentation. Certainly a very good model coming forward, Creative B.C., in terms of addressing not only the coordination but also just the rapidly changing dynamics, I know, in each of your industries — very difficult and challenging.

It appears you've covered really a good cross-section in terms of the industries. Also, what's the scope in terms of the regional areas that you represent across B.C.?

S. Skene: We speak to all areas in B.C. I think one of the things with creative industries is that we're your next-door neighbours. We're in rural communities and in urban communities. Just after this meeting I'm going to be meeting with some of my members for lunch — we all are — and talking about the local creative industry in Comox and Courtenay.

That's one of our strengths as well. We're somewhat fairly portable industries. Certainly, a lot of our content creators are all over. That, I believe, is one of our strengths in supporting various communities.

M. Reynolds: My members are all over the province. My members are publishers. They're in Fernie. They're on the Sunshine Coast, in the north, Vancouver Island and Vancouver of course. Of course, there are writers in
[ Page 2353 ]
every jurisdiction — sometimes too many. There are a lot of writers in this province.

L. Shorten: Film, for the most part, is centralized on the Lower Mainland. Certainly, in terms of location shooting, it's all over the province. I actually asked Susan Croome, the film commissioner, to pull a report for me, before we came, on shooting in this area. It's actually three pages long — so in the last two years. It is certainly out and around the province.

Actually, I do have a question. Before I was elected, I ran a design and production studio. One of the things I found interesting with the group that you've put together…. In many of the world fair pavilions and other things that we did, we oftentimes incorporated dance and live theatre into what we were doing. I just found it interesting that you hadn't incorporated live theatre and dance into the group, from the creative side.

M. Reynolds: We've specifically focused on the content, on the intellectual property holders. We are industries, and we do hold that intellectual property. For the moment I think it's more manageable anyway as a creative industries group rather than all of the cultural sector. Does that make sense?

D. Horne (Chair): That makes sense. It does make sense. Perfect. Thank you so much for your time.

I'll now call our next presenter, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies or Rx&D.

Welcome. Good to see you, Peter, John, Kevin. Thank you for coming today. You have ten minutes to present followed by five minutes of questions. Whenever you're ready, please begin.

P. Simpson: Thanks very much, hon. Chair and committee members. We really appreciate the opportunity to be here.

I'm Peter Simpson. Along with me are John Willow and Kevin Harrington. We are members of the B.C. committee for Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, known as Rx&D. I work for GlaxoSmithKline. Kevin is employed by Abbot Laboratories, and John is Rx&D's regional director for British Columbia. John, Kevin and I are based in B.C., and we're part of a large community of individuals from our industry and the broader life sciences community who work and live in this province.

We appear before you today to affirm the value that innovative pharmaceuticals and vaccines contribute to improve health outcomes and reduce the overall burden of illness for British Columbians.

Specifically, we'd like to discuss four things: facts around the actual pharmaceutical spend in B.C.; recent improvements in B.C.'s drug review process; the role the innovative pharmaceutical industry can play in a strong and vibrant life sciences sector and in stimulating jobs in B.C.; and the importance of harmonizing our intellectual property regime with our major trading partners.

By way of background, Rx&D member companies are the leading funder and performer of therapeutic product research and are the largest single source of health R-and-D research in Canada. Across Canada, our 500 member companies account for 45,000 jobs, both direct and indirect. We invest over $1.3 billion annually in health research from coast to coast and contribute about $3 billion annually to the Canadian economy.

In B.C. we generate over 600 well-paying direct jobs and nearly 3,000 indirect jobs in B.C.'s knowledge-intensive life and health sciences sectors.

Our mission is to advocate for public policies that will bring the best innovative medicines and vaccines to Canadians in a timely manner. We want to help Canada to be a leader in pharmaceutical and biotechnology research and development and contribute to the expansion of B.C.'s knowledge economy. Over the past five years our members have invested well over $500 million to support research-and-development initiatives with B.C. partners such as the B.C. Cancer Agency, the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the B.C. Centre for Drug Research and Development, St. Paul's Hospital and numerous others.

While we're proud of this level of investment into the province, especially during a very challenging economic period, our future ability to contribute to the province's medical research and life sciences sector will be a function of B.C.'s willingness to embrace and foster life science innovations.

The current service plan for the Ministry of Health projects departmental spend in 2013-14 of $16.8 billion. Of that total budget, the service plan anticipates allocating over $1.2 billion to PharmaCare. This PharmaCare budget includes the costs of generic drugs as well as some over-the-counter medicines and supplies. It also includes pharmacists' dispensing fees, distribution costs and the cost of actually running the ministry's pharmaceutical services division, as well as reimbursement for innovative patented medicines.

While drugs are mistakenly cited as the fastest-growing expenditure in health care, it is important to acknowledge that the Canadian Institute for Health Information's 2011 Drug Expenditure in Canada report found that since 2005, drug spending has grown more slowly than hospital spending, physician spending and total health care spending. The report goes on to state that in 2011 overall annual growth of drug spending slowed to its lowest rate in 15 years.

As mentioned previously, our first takeaway message
[ Page 2354 ]
is that spending on all prescription drugs, innovative and generic, in B.C. is just over 6 percent of the province's total health care bill, with innovative prescription drugs comprising just 3.6 percent of public expenditures. Furthermore, over the past five years, prescription drug spending in B.C. has grown by only 3½ percent compared to 4.5 percent growth in the overall health care spend for the province.

This is an important point for legislators such as yourselves. Public commentary, often fuelled by misinformed critics, that prescription drug costs are skyrocketing is fiction. It's not factually based. This is verifiable in the province's own public accounts. Our tightly controlled drug budgets make a small proportion of health spending but provide tremendous value in improving the health of British Columbians.

To be clear, past provincial experiments in reference-based pricing and mandatory substitution across drug classes were introduced as a way to control costs. Unfortunately, as real-life experience has demonstrated time and again, these programs actually increase overall costs and make health care less effective. This is also why government needs to be cautious in its development of bulk purchasing strategies and consult openly with all stakeholders to avoid potential unintended consequences.

The new, innovative treatments and technologies developed over the past several years have led to less invasive surgery, increased use of diagnostic imaging, and more specific and tailored drug treatment plans. Simply stated, we want to continue to work with the government to ensure that the right patient gets the right medicines safely and in a timely manner.

Our second key point relates to the issue of governance and the current medication review process. We wish to commend the government's efforts to engage a wide array of B.C. stakeholders and patients, through the Pharmaceutical Task Force, to develop and implement a more transparent patient-inclusive and efficient drug reviews process with the Ministry of Health. We continue to work with Health officials to implement this important program.

Thirdly, B.C. is not alone in trying to find the right balance between managing its expenditures in health care while at the same time creating a health care environment that encourages a positive investment climate and a diversified economy. This is a challenge for state-financed and state-governed health care systems the world over. Rx&D member companies have solid experience with jurisdictions in addressing this balance.

To that end, we suggest that a multiministry, multi-stakeholder working group be put in place with representation from our industry, the ministries of Advanced Education, Innovation and Technology, Health and Finance, as well as life sciences communities and, of course, patient groups. This model provides a vehicle to tackle tough health care sustainability issues in a collaborative manner.

Finally, progressive 21st-century economic policy is rooted in innovation, not imitation. The reality in the pharmaceutical industry is that innovative medicines are the pipeline for generic medicines. With this in mind, we continue to encourage the government of British Columbia to support the government of Canada's efforts to negotiate a comprehensive economic and trade agreement with the European Union and, more specifically, to support incremental improvements in IP to ensure harmonization of Canadian standards of intellectual property protection — including effective right of appeal, patent term restoration and data exclusivity — with those of Europe and other important trading partners.

Incremental improvements in IP in Canada up to EU levels will help to create a better environment for investments in innovative research and development in Canada. It will spur innovation, drive the creation of high-paying jobs and result in better health care outcomes for Canadians through clinical-trial participation.

Rx&D has a strong desire to work with the government of British Columbia. We're committed to the health and wellness and economic prosperity of this province.

To summarize, innovative medicines account for 3.6 percent of B.C.'s total health care costs. We believe that public investment in pharmaceutical medicines is well worth it, given the advancements being made in keeping our population living longer and healthier and spending less time in hospitals. The current government process to review and approve drugs for PharmaCare coverage is more timely, more inclusive, more transparent and more accountable than it was just five years ago.

Thirdly, a strong environment international pharmaceutical research climate is good for B.C.'s growing life sciences sector. We believe that B.C. has the business and scientific foundations for increased medical research investment and biotechnology commercialization.

Finally, Canada is at a crossroads in terms of global economic policy discussions and international trade agreement negotiations. When it comes to tackling the tough issues in health care sustainability, we want to be at the table, not just because we see ourselves as concerned stakeholders in B.C.'s future, but also because we feel we can bring knowledge, experience and solutions to the challenges that we face.

Thank you very much for your attention, and we look forward to any questions you might have.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation. We'll begin our questions with John Slater.

J. Slater: Thanks, Peter. Your graph on growth in public health expenditures. Have you guys got a graph on the total drugs you used over that same period? I know that
[ Page 2355 ]
generic drugs are an issue with R and D and all the rest of it. So have you got the data for the total drugs administered by the pharmacists in B.C.?

P. Simpson: We certainly do. It's actually produced by the pharmaceutical services division in their PharmaCare Trends reports. Our statistics around trending — we mentioned that the growth in pharmaceutical spending is actually slower than the growth in overall health care spending — comes from that data.

J. Slater: But what I'm talking about is total consumption by the consumers, not the cost of it. We know that the generic drugs are a big percentage less than the new drugs that you guys are developing. It'd be nice to have that data — that's all.

K. Harrington: Overall, in 2012 the estimates we have are that anywhere from 45 to 50 percent of every prescription dispensed is for a generic drug.

J. Slater: Right, but that's my point. You know, the cost of non-generic drugs is higher, so the 50 percent is probably the reason that it's only up those few percent.

K. Harrington: Absolutely. Over the past five years we've seen an incremental number of products that are going off patent. Those products are typically priced at 25 percent of the brand medicines, so there are some great savings there.

P. Simpson: We've certainly recognized the sort of life cycle of pharmaceuticals. Once patents are completed, there's a role for generic medicines, and they certainly have played the role.

I just would like to comment on data around pricing of innovative pharmaceuticals. Again, price increases over the last number of years have been well below CPI. So growth in this area is not generally regarded as an issue around how pharmaceuticals on the innovative side have been priced, particularly over the last number of years.

B. Ralston: Two questions. One, you referred to bulk purchasing, and you issued a caution about unintended consequences. I'd be interested in what you meant by that.

Secondly, on the negotiations of the trade deal with the EU, I understand your argument to be that there are long-term benefits by standardizing intellectual property regimes that may ultimately lead to some cost savings. I think the immediate concern of provincial governments across the country is the immediate impact on budgets.

I think the estimate from the federal report, which was released through freedom of information, was about $2.3 billion across the country. A portion of that comes to British Columbia — about $250 million, which would be an immediate increase. I'm wondering if you could comment on that as well.

K. Harrington: Thank you, Bruce. With regard to bulk purchasing and unintended consequences, typically, if there are delays in access to medicine, that's one unintended consequence.

Secondly, in ensuring that there are multiple suppliers of medicines — whether you're looking at bulk purchasing for multisource products which are typically generic products or you're looking at them for innovative products — I think British Columbia is well positioned. You have the most advanced PharmaCare program in terms of its comprehensiveness of reviews not only of medicines but in negotiation with manufacturers for getting the best price for medicines. That's well documented.

When you engage in a multiprovince bulk-purchasing agreement, it's very important to ensure not only that you are getting the best price but that you have supply agreements in place that would suggest you don't have drug shortages — we've experienced over the last few years that there were drug shortages — and ensuring that the correct therapeutic drugs are getting to the individuals when they need them.

P. Simpson: As far as CETA goes, there is a lot of debate and lots of numbers have been put forth — and the numbers that you referred to specifically. I think a couple of key things really need to be mentioned.

First of all, even if there were changes made tomorrow in an agreement between Canada and the EU, it only would affect new medicines. When you made the comment about the immediacy of budget impact…. I just wanted to clarify that point — that it's actually only on medicines that would be discovered from that time forward. Any kind of budget impact would not be felt for eight to ten years in terms of actual budget impact.

There has been so much back-and-forth and controversy around what that number is and how big it is and those sorts of things. It's just fraught with so many assumptions that it's very difficult to quantify what that number will be, especially when you project it out so far in advance.

The bottom line is that intellectual property protection is not a question of cost containment. It's not a lever for containing costs in any meaningful way. It actually sets an environment and a tone for investment in a country or a province like British Columbia.

Especially in British Columbia, as Kevin mentioned, there is a massive resource available through the phar-
[ Page 2356 ]
maceutical services division in terms of being able to contain costs now or in the future. So IP and cost containment really, I think, should be dealt with separately if possible.

D. Horne (Chair): Thank you so much for your presentation, and thank you for being with us today.

D. Horne (Chair): That brings us to the end of our agenda for today. I'll look for a motion to adjourn.

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.

1) Wachiay Friendship Centre Society	Michael Colclough
	Roger Kishi
2) Comox Valley Child Development Association	Lorraine Aitken
3) Campbell River and District Association for Community Living	Greg Hill
4) Comox Valley Hospice Society	Terri Odeneal
5) North Island College	Dr. Jan Lindsay
6) Comox Valley Chamber of Commerce	Bob Scales
	Dianne Hawkins
7) PacificSport Vancouver Island	Drew Cooper
8) Campbell River Hospice Society	Iona Wharton
	Julie Collis

Chair:	* Douglas Horne (Coquitlam–Burke Mountain BC Liberal)
Deputy Chair:	* Mable Elmore (Vancouver-Kensington NDP)
Members:	* Gary Coons (North Coast NDP)
	* Marc Dalton (Maple Ridge–Mission BC Liberal)
	Dave S. Hayer (Surrey-Tynehead BC Liberal)
	* John Les (Chilliwack BC Liberal)
	* Pat Pimm (Peace River North BC Liberal)
	* Bruce Ralston (Surrey-Whalley NDP)
	Bill Routley (Cowichan Valley NDP)
	* John Slater (Boundary-Similkameen BC Liberal)
	* denotes member present
Clerk:	Susan Sourial
Committee Staff	Stephanie Raymond (Administrative Assistant)

Witnesses:	Lorraine Aitken (Executive Director, Comox Valley Child Development Association)
	Michael Colclough (Executive Director, Wachiay Friendship Centre)
	Julie Collis (Campbell River Hospice Society)
	Drew Cooper (PacificSport Vancouver Island)
	Kevin Harrington (Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, Rx&D, B.C. Committee)
	Dianne Hawkins (President and CEO, Comox Valley Chamber of Commerce)
	Greg Hill (Executive Director, Campbell River and District Association for Community Living)
	Rob Hutchins (Island Coastal Economic Trust; Mayor, Town of Ladysmith)
	Roger Kishi (Wachiay Friendship Centre)
	John Leech (Executive Director, Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C.)
	Dr. Jan Lindsay (President and CEO, North Island College)
	Terri Odeneal (Executive Director, Comox Valley Hospice Society)
	Margaret Reynolds (Executive Director, Association of Book Publishers of B.C.; Creative B.C. Coalition)
	Line Robert (Acting CEO, Island Coastal Economic Trust)
	Bob Scales (Chair, Board of Dirctors, Comox Valley Chamber of Commerce)
	Liz Shorten (Canadian Media Production Association, B.C. Producers Branch; Creative B.C. Coalition)
	Peter Simpson (Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, Rx&D, B.C. Committee)
	Sylvia Skene (Executive Director, Magazine Association of B.C.; Creative B.C. Coalition)
	Dallas Smith (Island Coastal Economic Trust)
	Iona Wharton (Campbell River Hospice Society)
	John Willow (Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies, Rx&D, B.C. Committee)

9) Island Coastal Economic Trust	Line Robert
	Dallas Smith
	Rob Hutchins
10) Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of BC	John Leech
11) Creative BC coalition	Margaret Reynolds
	Liz Shorten
	Sylvia Skene
12) Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D), BC Committee	Peter Simpson
	John Willow
	Kevin Harrington

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS (Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS
(Hansard)

SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE ON
FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES